S. HRG. 113–228 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 

BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2014 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

February 12, 2013–The Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2013– 

2023 

April 16, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget and Revenue 

Proposal 

April 23, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Proposal and 

Veterans’ Program Proposal 

June 12, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget 

June 18, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Education Budget 

Request 

( 
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2014 
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

85–718pdf 2013

S. HRG. 113–228 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE 

BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2014 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

February 12, 2013–The Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2013– 

2023 

April 16, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget and Revenue 

Proposal 

April 23, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Proposal and 

Veterans’ Program Proposal 

June 12, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget 

June 18, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Education Budget 

Request 

( 
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

PATTY MURRAY, WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN 

RON WYDEN, OREGON 

BILL NELSON, FLORIDA 

DEBBIE STABENOW, MICHIGAN 

BERNARD SANDERS, VERMONT 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RHODE ISLAND 

MARK R. WARNER, VIRGINIA 

JEFF MERKLEY, OREGON 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, DELAWARE 

TAMMY BALDWIN, WISCONSIN 

TIM KAINE, VIRGINIA 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., MAINE 

JEFF SESSIONS, ALABAMA 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, WYOMING 

MIKE CRAPO, IDAHO 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, SOUTH CAROLINA 

ROB PORTMAN, OHIO 

PAT TOOMEY, PENNSYLVANIA 

RON JOHNSON, WISCONSIN 

KELLY AYOTTE, NEW HAMPSHIRE 

ROGER F. WICKER, MISSISSIPPI 

EVAN T. SCHATZ, Staff Director 

ERIC UELAND, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

HEARINGS 

Page 

February 12, 2013–The Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2013– 

2023 ....................................................................................................................... 1 

April 11, 2013 –The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Proposal ...................

April 16, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget and Revenue Proposal ...................................................................................................................... 145

April 23, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Proposal and Veterans’ Program Proposal ...................................................................................... 221 

June 12, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget ...................... 289 

June 18, 2013–The President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Education Budget Request .... 403 

STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Chairman Murray ..................................................................... 1, 61, 145, 221, 289, 403 

Senator Session.................................................................................. 6, 64, 148, 224, 295 

Senator Johnson ...................................................................................................... 407 

WITNESSES 

General Martin E. Dempsey, USA, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff............... 317, 319 

Hon. Arne Duncan, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education ........................ 409, 414 

Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office ............................. 9, 12 

Chuck Hagel, Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense...................................... 298, 302 

Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Secretary , U.S. Department of the Treasury...................................................................................................................... 150, 153 

Honorable Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.................................................................................................................... 226, 228 

Honorable Jeffery Zients, Acting Director and Deputy Director for Management, Office of Management and Budget........................................................... 67, 70 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Questions and Answers......................................................... 40, 108, 207, 278, 348, 461 

(1) 

THE BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: 

FISCAL YEARS 2013–23 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:24 a.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Murray, Nelson, Sanders, Whitehouse, Warner, Merkley, Coons, Baldwin, Sessions, Grassley, Enzi, Crapo, 

Portman, Toomey, Johnson, Ayotte, and Wicker. 

Staff Present: Evan T. Schatz, Majority Staff Director; and 

Marcus Peacock, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MURRAY 

Chairman MURRAY. This hearing is coming to order, and I want 

to apologize to members. We are starting a few minutes early because we have a number of votes coming up on the Senate floor. 

In the beginning, I want to start by just welcoming everybody to 

this first Senate Budget Committee hearing of the 113th Congress. 

We have a number of new members. We welcome all of them. Senator Baldwin is here; Senator Kaine, Senator King, and Senator 

Wicker are joining us as well. Good to have you all on the Committee. I want to thank our witness, Dr. Doug Elmendorf, for being 

here, as well as my Ranking Member, Senator Sessions, and all of 

our colleagues who are joining us today. 

As we begin the budget process here in the Senate, I am hopeful 

that this Committee can be a place where we can come together to 

tackle our fiscal and economic challenges in a balanced way that 

works for the families and communities that we all represent. 

Budget issues have received a lot of attention over the past few 

years, but the conversation is too often focused on abstract numbers and the partisan back-and-forth. Budgets, however, are about 

a lot more than this. They are reflections of our values and our priorities and our vision for what our Government and our country 

and our economy should look like now and into the future. 

Budgets are not about us here on this Budget Committee. They 

are not about our colleagues across Congress or in the administration. They are about the families across America whose lives will 

be impacted by the decisions that we make. They are about their 

jobs and their children and their future, and we owe it to them to 

make sure they have a voice in this process and that their values 

and perspectives are heard. 
2 

So I see today’s hearing as the first part of a two-part opening 

examination of our Nation’s fiscal and economic challenges. Today 

we will hear from Dr. Elmendorf about the budget and economic 

outlook for fiscal years 2013–23. Tomorrow we will hear from members of the public and experts to learn more about the impact of 

budget decisions on families and communities. 

Over the coming weeks and months, as we put together a progrowth, pro-middle-class budget resolution, I am going to continue 

making sure the voices of the American people are heard loud and 

clear throughout this process and that their values and priorities 

are being represented. 

As we start this hearing on the budget and economic outlook, I 

think it would be helpful to do a quick review of how we got to 

where we are today, because a look ahead is only valuable in the 

context of where we have come. 

I have served on this Committee now for 20 years, and in the 

time since I arrived our country went from having a serious deficit 

and debt problem to running surpluses and being on track to pay 

down the debt, to 8 years later being in an even worse position 

than we were before, to today when we are starting to turn the corner but still have a very long way to go. 

All of us remember the early 1990s. In 1992, the year before 

President Clinton came into office, the same year I was making my 

first run for the U.S. Senate, the Federal Government was taking 

in revenue equaling 17.5 percent of GDP while spending 22.1 percent of GDP. That was a deficit of 4.7 percent. When he was sworn 

in, President Clinton promised to tackle the deficit while continuing to invest in jobs and the middle class. 

I bought into that vision, and I was proud to help make it a reality. When his bill to raise the tax rate on the highest-earning 

Americans passed the Senate and House without a single Republican vote, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee at 

the time said it would ‘‘devastate the economy.’’ Others predicted 

calamity along similar lines. 

But as we all know now, it did not work out that way. The unemployment rate went from 7.3 percent at the beginning of 1993 to 

3.9 percent at the end of 2000. Over the course of those 8 years, 

22 million jobs were created, and the economy grew at an average 

rate of 4 percent. And the deficit? Well, revenue increased from 

17.5 percent of GDP to 20.6 percent, and responsible spending cuts 

brought Federal spending down from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.2 

percent. So a 4.7-percent deficit was turned into a 2.4-percent surplus in 8 years, and our Nation was on track to completely eliminate the Federal debt by 2010. 

Now, I do not think the revenue increase under President Clinton was the sole cause of economic growth, but I do think our responsible fiscal and economic stewardship played a role in keeping 

interest rates low and giving markets and small businesses the 

confidence they needed to expand and create jobs. 

Our work in the 1990s proved that calling on the wealthy to pay 

their fair share is not incompatible with strong economic growth. 

In fact, it is strongly associated with the kind of broad-based 

growth that helps the middle class prosper and expand. 
3 

In 2001, many of us Democrats saw the surplus as an opportunity for our country to free ourselves from debt and invest in national priorities. But President Bush and his administration had 

other ideas. They saw it as a blank check to cut taxes and increase 

spending. President Bush and Republicans in Congress immediately worked to pass two sets of tax cuts that were heavily 

skewed towards the rich. When his first Treasury Secretary, Paul 

O’Neill, tried to warn that the second round of tax cuts would blast 

a hole in the deficit, Vice President Cheney informed him that, 

‘‘Deficits don’t matter.’’ Not too long after, O’Neill was fired. 

When Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified in 

front of this very Committee in support of the 2001 tax cuts, my 

colleague Senator Sarbanes predicted these tax cuts would ‘‘put us 

on the glide path to dissipate this hard-earned fiscal restraint.’’ He, 

like many of us at the time, was ignored. 

President Bush took us into two wars without paying for them. 

He enacted Medicare Part D, a program that is estimated to cost 

taxpayers $60 billion this year alone without paying for that either. 

While he was President, more Americans lost jobs than got new 

ones. Inequality grew as the wealthiest Americans benefitted from 

the tax cuts while the middle class stagnated. By 2008, Federal 

revenues had plummeted back down to 17.6 percent of GDP. 

Spending had shot up to 20.8 percent. We were back to a deficit 

of 3.2 percent. And all those projections about the national debt 

being eliminated were tossed out the window. 

When President Obama came into office, our country was losing 

over 700,000 jobs a month. He was desperately working to staunch 

the bleeding from the Wall Street collapse that threatened to push 

our country into a depression. Federal revenue plummeted even 

further. Middle-class families and the most vulnerable Americans 

were losing their homes, struggling to put food on the table, and 

worrying about what the future would be like for their children. 

But at the very time when we needed to be investing in our families and in our economy and focusing on growth, many of my colleagues went back to their file cabinets and dug out those talking 

points that they used back in the early 1990s. All of a sudden, they 

were telling us deficits were the most important issue to address 

and cutting spending was once again a new priority—not jobs, not 

the middle class, not economic growth, but deficits—forgetting 

what we did in the 1990s to get our country back on track, ignoring 

what happened during the Bush administration, and acting like 

the world was created on the day President Obama was sworn in. 

This narrow and short-sighted approach was wrong back in the 

early 1990s. It is just as wrong today, and it is not just Democrats 

who say so. 

Right now, the economy is still struggling. Millions of workers 

are looking for too few jobs. Aggregate demand is still far below its 

potential, and at the moment, the Federal Government is borrowing at historically low rates. Experts and economists across the 

political spectrum agree it makes sense to invest in job creation in 

the short term, while putting ourselves on a strong path to responsible and sustainable deficit and debt reduction over the medium 

and long term. And poll after poll shows that is what the American 

people support as well. 
4 

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke put this idea well in 

a speech he gave in August of 2011 when he said, ‘‘Although the 

issue of fiscal sustainability must urgently be addressed, fiscal policymakers should not as a consequence disregard the fragility of 

the current economic recovery.’’ And he said, ‘‘Fortunately, the two 

goals of achieving fiscal sustainability, which is the result of responsible policies set in place for the longer term and avoiding the 

creation of fiscal headwinds for the current recovery, are not incompatible. Acting now to put in place a credible plan for reducing future deficits over the longer term while being attentive to the implications of fiscal choices for the recovery in the near term can 

help serve both objectives.’’ 

I think that is exactly right. I will work with anyone to tackle 

our debt and deficit responsibly. But as I have told my Ranking 

Member, Senator Sessions, and others, I feel very strongly that it 

does not make sense to replace our budget deficits with deficits in 

education and infrastructure and research and development. If we 

cut our budget deficit by giving up on the investments we need to 

compete globally in the 21st century economy, then we will not 

have done right by our economy today and certainly not for generations to come. 

So we absolutely need to tackle our debt and deficit in a responsible and sustainable way, but our top priority needs to be jobs and 

economic growth. And as we saw in the 1990s, those two go hand 

in hand. 

Which brings me to our witness today, and I am pleased to welcome back to the Committee the Director of the Congressional 

Budget Office, Dr. Douglas Elmendorf. The members of this Committee know Dr. Elmendorf well. He has appeared before us on numerous occasions and, of course, I want to thank you and your staff 

on behalf of this Committee for all the hard work and professionalism you provide to us and to Congress. I think it is fair to 

say the report you delivered to us last week on the state of the 

budget and economy over the next 10 years is a mixed bag, as it 

contains some hopeful signs but also highlights some real challenges for our Nation. 

In terms of the economy, on the one hand, we are starting to see 

the effects of the housing and financial crisis fade following the 

work we did in Congress to support the recovery. We are clearly 

not out of the woods, and far too many workers are still struggling 

to get back on the job. But housing prices and the stock market are 

rising, and that is certainly some welcome news. 

On the other hand, your report makes clear the economy still 

faces significant headwinds in the short term, particularly from the 

tightening of Federal fiscal policy. The sequester that is set to 

occur on March 1st is not the only policy action that is contributing 

to this fiscal drag, but it is a major factor. And in total, the impact 

of the fiscal tightening, including the March 1st sequester, is to depress economic growth by about 1–1/2 percentage points. That 

translates into about 2 million jobs by the end of this fiscal year. 

Leaving the sequester in place would lead to massive, self-inflicted 

damage that would hurt middle-class families, those already struggling in this economy, as well as our national security and future 

global competitiveness. But replacing it the way House Republicans 
5 

have proposed with even more cuts to programs families and seniors depend on and without calling on the wealthy to pay even a 

penny more would be more damaging in the long run. That is why 

I believe very strongly that we should replace the sequester with 

a balanced package of responsible spending cuts and revenue from 

the wealthiest Americans. That approach makes sense for the Federal budget, and it makes sense for American families, particularly 

when we are talking about so many jobs and an unemployment 

rate that remains stubbornly high at near 8 percent. 

In terms of the budget outlook, we see some slight improvement. 

The deficit is expected to total $845 billion this year, the first time 

it will be below $1 trillion in 5 years. To put that number in perspective, relative to the total size of the economy, it is expected to 

equal 5.3 percent in 2013. Now, that remains too high, but it is 

progress. And, in fact, in 2009 the deficit was almost twice as large 

at just over 10 percent of the economy. Unfortunately, CBO expects 

this downward trend in the deficit as a share of the economy to 

continue over the next few years, falling and remaining below 3 

percent through 2018, and this is even with the end-of-the-year 

budget deal. 

We also got what I believe is some good news in the area of 

health spending. As I was reading through the report, one section 

really got my attention, which was the discussion of the change in 

health spending in recent years. In fact, I stopped and underlined 

one statistic because I found it so surprising. The statistic is that 

CBO has lowered its estimate of Federal spending for Medicare and 

Medicaid to such a degree that spending for 2020, one year, just 

one year, is now $200 billion lower than CBO thought back in 

2010. That is an improvement of 15 percent. And let us be clear. 

That improvement has occurred since the enactment of the Affordable Health Care Act. 

Dr. Elmendorf, I know you have heard a lot from Senator 

Whitehouse and other Senators regarding their belief that current 

budget conventions and estimates miss the mark in the area of innovation and delivery reforms, and I will be interested in hearing 

your thoughts on what has led to this downward trend in health 

care spending. 

Of course, as with the economy, the news on the budget is by no 

means all good. As I mentioned earlier, we got hit at the end of 

the last administration with the confluence of a financial crisis, 

housing crisis, and deep recession. Largely as a result of those conditions, the debt skyrocketed in a very short period of time. The 

debt was equal to roughly 36 percent of the economy in 2007. It 

will soon be at about 76 percent. And if we do not tackle that responsibly, it will begin rising again by the end of this decade, particularly with the retirement of the baby-boom generation and increasing health care costs. 

So even with some good news, we have our work cut out for us 

as a Committee and as a Congress. This is a tough Committee with 

a tough mandate, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to meet the challenge and address 

the budget in a way that is fair, works for the middle class and 

most vulnerable families, and invests in long-term and broad-based 
6 

economic growth. We did it in the 1990s. I am confident we can do 

it again. 

And, with that, let me turn it over to Senator Sessions for his 

opening comments, and then we will hear from Dr. Elmendorf. Senator Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SESSIONS 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. 

Elmendorf, for appearing before the Committee today. We value 

what you do. It is important to us to help us have honest numbers 

that we can work with, and honesty in our financial situation is absolutely critical at this point in history. 

I would also like to welcome the new members to the Committee, 

and I look forward to a productive year. We absolutely face some 

very serious challenges. And, of course, the reason Chairman Murray indicated that deficits have become the topic of the day is because we have never had such systemic deficits as we have today. 

They exceed anything the Nation has ever had, and we are on a 

systemic course that continues those deficits. And as the report 

that was given to us shows, they get worse in the out-years. We 

cannot continue on this course. Bowles and Simpson told us in this 

very room that this Nation has never faced a more predictable financial crisis. 

So that is why we have to talk about this, and we have to ask 

some fundamental questions. The Chair has set forth the President’s, the Democratic majority’s narrative. We reject that narrative. We have serious differences with that narrative. We will not 

go quietly on that because we believe some of the real problems 

that are being caused today are because of this kind of incorrect 

economic thinking. 

So it has been now 4 years since the Democratic-led Senate produced a budget. As the law requires, the Senate not only has a 

legal but a moral duty to present the taxpayers with a plan on how 

they will spend the Nation’s money. So it is a tragedy that under 

Senator Reid’s leadership we have not engaged in that kind of open 

public financial discussion that the American people deserve. Majority Leader Reid even said it would be foolish to have a budget. 

By contrast, the GOP House, in accordance with law, has laid out 

a budget plan each year. That plan will change the debt course of 

America. We may not all like everything that is in it, but it would 

put us on a positive path. And they will do another budget this 

year. 

So I am glad that we have had a relenting and are going to have 

a budget this year, else I wonder what our Committee might find 

itself having to do without a budget and whether we even need the 

Committee. 

So we look forward to meeting the Committee deadline of April 

1st to publicly produce a resolution and then April 15th on the Senate floor, including the statutorily mandated 50 hours of debate 

and a guaranteed vote. 

Madam Chairman, I stand ready to work with you and the staff 

to produce a budget that we can talk with the American people 

about. I believe that budget should balance. We should balance it 

at least within 10 years. It is something that we can do, and I 
7 

think the report Mr. Elmendorf has given us shows us some of the 

ways that we can get there, and it is not a hopeless situation, but 

it is a very dire situation. 

The picture CBO paints of the next 10 years is immensely dis- turbing. Our gross Federal debt after rising $6 trillion in the last 

4 years will rise another $9 trillion by 2023. CBO’s report also suggests that then things only get worse outside that 10-year window, 

remain continuing up on an unsustainable financial path. And if it 

is unsustainable, that means we have to change it. Now this, despite the fact that CBO is projecting revenues to be well above the 

average of the last 40 years. Revenue will be up, according to 

CBO’s numbers. 

The top economists agree, including a recent study from the 

International Monetary Fund, that total debt over 90 percent of 

GDP weakens economic growth. Federal Government debt is now— 

gross debt—is 103 percent. In other words, our job-crushing debt 

not only threatens to collapse the economy through a financial crisis, as Simpson-Bowles predicted, but it is already destroying jobs 

and growth today. We are not receiving the growth today we 

should have as a result of the drag of this debt. 

CBO also projects that we are entering a future in which our 

debt is so great that our fastest-growing item in the budget will be 

interest payments. According to CBO, annual interest costs will 

quadruple, totaling $5.4 trillion over the next 10 years—$5.4 trillion. By 2020, just 7 years from now, interest costs are expected to 

exceed the cost of national defense. And I just left the Defense 

Committee hearing talking about the sequester and how damaging 

that will be to the Defense Department because half of the cuts fall 

on one-sixth of the budget, the Defense Department. And that is 

too severe for them. It needs to be spread out across the entire 

spending panoply. 

Interest payments, which help no one, build nothing, will crowd 

spending on the rest of the budget, and I think it will damage our 

economy in the meantime right now. 

And while we talk of cuts and frugality, total spending is expected to go up 67 percent over the next 10 years. No one is proposing a real cut in the actual amount of money spent. It is the 

growth in spending that we have to confront. 

Primarily alarming is the finding in an additional CBO report 

prepared at my request. Spending on just the ten largest welfare 

programs, means-tested and poverty programs, will increase even 

more—76 percent over 10 years. There are roughly 80 welfare programs that overall comprise the single largest item in the Federal 

budget, larger than Medicare, Social Security, or defense. Improving these things would do a lot more than just saving money. Like 

1996 that helped put us on a path to a balanced budget, smart reforms of welfare will help more Americans rise out of poverty—that 

is what I want to see; I want to see more people out of poverty— 

and will strengthen the institutions of family, charity, and community. We must talk honestly and with compassion about these 

issues. 

In that vein, I would also like to take a moment to address some 

comments, Senator Murray, that you made recently, that Republicans are committed to ‘‘protecting the rich above all else’’ and are 
8 

only interested in ‘‘starving programs’’—I am quoting now—‘‘that 

help middle-class families and the most vulnerable Americans.’’ So 

that hurts my feelings. That is not what I believe in. I believe we 

have to have an economy that is growing, creating prosperity, that 

we need to help poor people get jobs and move forward in their 

lives, not be dependent, ever dependent on more and more Government checks, handouts, and programs. That would be the way to 

save this country, in my opinion. That is the way to help poor people, and I resent the fact that people suggest that those of us who 

have a different view of how to help poor people somehow do not 

care about them. Compassion and help for the poor and struggling 

amounts to more than just borrowing money and sending out more 

money in the form of checks. 

So my goal is to help working Americans from the social and economic harm that is caused by policies, I think, of this President 

and the Senate majority. These programs have not worked. In 

places like Baltimore, a great city, they are producing poverty, dependency, crime, and joblessness. That is what those programs are 

producing. One in three residents in Baltimore are on food stamps. 

One in three youth in Baltimore are living in poverty. There are 

solutions to these problems, and we can do better. We have to do 

better. We cannot continue on this course. 

So compassion demands change. Our goal must be to help more 

Americans find gainful employment and the opportunity to financially support themselves and their family and to prosper. 

Before closing my remarks, I would like to address the serious 

challenge we will be facing in the coming days. We are going to 

have to consider the immigration question. Studies show that the 

proposals for amnesty and legalization could add another $2.5 trillion to the national debt, or more, and we have to watch carefully 

that program. 

So I look forward to addressing these and other issues during today’s hearing. We have no higher obligation as lawmakers than to 

protect the financial security of the Republic. And with regard to 

our present posture and state of the economy, the last big systemic 

challenge I think maybe our Nation faced was when Volcker and 

Reagan dealt with a continually surging inflation rate. They broke 

that rise and put us on a path to 20 years of growth. We are now 

on a systemically dangerous path of debt. It threatens our future. 

We are going to have to confront that with the same clarity and 

courage that they did at that time. 

And I came in 16 years ago, and I remember that Bush did spend 

more money than he should, and I was a critic of that. But I have 

to say that hardly a bill that came up that President Bush maybe 

proposed more spending that our Democratic colleagues did not 

complain because he did not spend enough, and I had to cast vote 

after vote after vote to try to contain the growth of spending, and 

it was usually every single Democratic colleague was voting to 

spend more and Republicans were taking the lonely position of trying to be responsible. 

So those are the issues that we face. Our debt course is one that 

we have to confront. But looking at it, Madam Chair, I do think 

based on the numbers in this report, which include the Budget 

Control Act control and the $650 billion tax increase that just 
9 

passed, if we do some other things in a responsible, effective way, 

we can put this Nation on a sound course. We can remove the debt 

cloud, the drag that this debt has over us, and put us on the path 

to prosperity. That is what we have to do. We have no choice. 

I thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

With that, I will turn it over to Dr. Elmendorf for his opening 

statement, and for the Committee members, we are going to have 

a series of votes called. We will work our way through 5 minutes 

each, and hopefully people can come back and forth between votes 

as much as we can so that we can allow everybody who would like 

to ask questions to be able to do that. 

Dr. Elmendorf, thank you. 

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Thank you, Senator Murray and Senator Sessions. To all the members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today and to discuss CBO’s look for the budget and the economy over the next 10 years. 

Our analysis shows that the country continues to face very large 

economic and budget challenges. Let me discuss the economy first, 

and then I will turn to the budget. 

We anticipate that economic growth will remain slow this year 

because the gradual improvement that we see in underlying economic factors will be offset by a tightening of Federal fiscal policy 

scheduled under current law. 

The good news is that the effects of the housing and financial crisis appear to be finally gradually fading. We expect that an upswing in housing construction, rising real estate and stock prices, 

and increasing availability of credit will help to spur a virtuous 

cycle of faster growth in employment, income, consumer spending, 

and business investment during the next few years. 

However, several policies that will help to bring down the budget 

deficit will represent a drag on economic activity this year. The expiration of the 2-percentage- point cut in the Social Security payroll 

tax, the increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds, 

and the cuts in Federal spending scheduled to take effect next 

month will mean reduced spending by both households and the 

Government. We project that inflation-adjusted GDP will increase 

about 1–1/2 percent this year, but that it would increase roughly 

1–1/2 percentage points faster were it not for the fiscal tightening. 

Under current law, then, we expect the unemployment rate will 

stay above 7–1/2 percent through next year. That would make 2014 

the sixth consecutive year with unemployment so high, the longest 

such period in 70 years. 

We expect that growth in real GDP will pick up after this year 

to about 3–1/2 percent in 2014 and the following few years. But the 

gap between the Nation’s GDP and what it is capable of producing 

on a sustainable basis, what we call ‘‘potential GDP,’’ still will not 

close quickly. Under current law, we expect output to remain below 

its potential level until 2017, almost a decade after the recession 

started in December 2007. 
10 

The Nation has paid and will continue to pay a very high price 

for the recession and slow recovery. We estimate that the total loss 

of output relative to the economy’s potential between 2007 and 

2017 will be equivalent to nearly half of the output produced in the 

country last year. 

Let me turn now to the budget. Under current laws, the Federal 

budget deficit will shrink in 2013 for the fourth year in a row. At 

an estimated $845 billion, the deficit would be the first in 5 years 

below $1 trillion, and at 5-1/4 percent of GDP, it would be only 

about half as large, relative to the size of the economy, as the deficit was in 2009. 

Our projections based on current laws show deficits continuing to 

fall over the next few years before turning up again by the end of 

the decade and totaling nearly $7 trillion for the decade as a whole. 

Federal revenues are projected to reach 19 percent of GDP in 

2015 and beyond because of both the expanding economy and 

scheduled changes in tax rules. That 19-percent figure compares to 

an average of about 18 percent over the past 40 years. 

At the same time, Federal spending will fall relative to the size 

of the economy over the next several years and then rise again. 

The decline can be traced to the caps on discretionary funding and 

the drop-off in spending that goes up when the economy is weak, 

such as unemployment benefits. 

But later in the decade, the return of interest rates to more normal levels will push up interest payments to nearly their highest 

share of GDP in 50 years. And throughout the decade, the aging 

of the population, a significant expansion of Federal health care 

programs, and rising health care costs per person will push up 

spending on the largest Federal programs. By 2023, spending 

reaches about 23 percent of GDP in our projection compared with 

a 40-year average of 21 percent. 

What does this mean for Federal debt? We project that debt held 

by the public will reach 76 percent of GDP this year, the largest 

percentage since 1950. And under current laws, we project that 

debt in 2023 will be 77 percent of GDP, far higher than the 39-percent average seen over the past 40 years; and it will be on an upward path. Such high and rising debt relative to the size of the 

economy is a significant concern for several reasons. 

First, high debt means that the crowding out of capital investment will be greater; that lawmakers will have less flexibility to 

use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges 

like a recession or a war; and that there will be a heightened risk 

of a fiscal crisis in which the Government would be unable to borrow at affordable interest rates. 

Second, debt would be even larger if current laws were modified 

to delay or undo certain scheduled changes in policies. For example, if lawmakers eliminated the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in March but left in place the original caps, prevented the sharp reduction in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians scheduled for next January, and extended the tax provisions 

that are scheduled to expire, without making any other offsetting 

changes in budget policy, then budget deficits would be substantially larger than in our baseline projections. And debt held by the 
11 

public would rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2023 rather than the 77 

percent under current law. 

Third, debt might also be larger than in our projections because 

even the original caps on discretionary funding in the Budget Control Act would reduce such spending to just 5.8 percent of GDP in 

2023, a smaller share than for any year in at least the past 50. Because the allocation of discretionary funding is determined, as you 

know, by annual appropriation acts, lawmakers have not yet decided which specific Government services and benefits will be constrained or cut to satisfy those caps, and doing so might be quite 

difficult. 

Fourth, projections for the 10-year period covered in this report 

do not fully reflect long-term budget pressures. Because of the 

aging of the people and rising health care costs, a wide gap exists 

between the future costs of the benefits and services that people 

are accustomed to receiving from the Federal Government, especially in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people have been sending to the Government. It is possible to keep tax revenues at their historical average share of GDP, 

but only by making substantial cuts relative to current policies in 

the large benefit programs that benefit a broad group of Americans 

at some point in their lives. 

Alternatively, it is possible to keep the policies for those large 

benefit programs unchanged, but only by raising taxes substantially for a broad segment of the population. Deciding now what 

combination of policy changes to make to resolve the budget imbalance would allow for gradual implementation, which would give 

households and businesses time to adjust their behavior. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Douglas Elmendorf follows:] 
12 

Testimony 

The Budget and Economic Outlook: 

Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023 

Douglas W. Elmendorf 

Director 

Before the 

Committee on the Budget 

United States Senate 

February 12, 2013 
13 

Chainnan Murray, Senator Se.ssions, ilnd Memhers of the 

Committee, thank you for inviting me to testifY o!1the 

Congressional Budget Omce's (CBO's) most recent analysis of the outlook for the hudget and ,he economy. My 

statement summarizes CBO's new economic torcC-.:.'lst and 

baseline budget projections, which cover f'lscaJ yeats 2013 

to 2023, Those estimates were released last week in the 

repon ritled The Budget and Economic Outlook, Fi,cal 

fe,,,, 20 j 3 to 2023. 

Economic gW\oVTh will remain slow this year, CBO anticipates, as gradual improvement in many of the forces that 

drive the economy is offset by ,hedIects of budgetary 

changes that are scheduled to occur under currenr law. 

After this year, economic growth will speed up, CBO 

projects~ causing the unemployment rare to decline and 

inflation and interest rates to eventually rise from [heir 

current low levels. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate 

is expected to remain above 7Y2 percent througb next 

year; if that happens, 2014 wHl be (he sixth consecutive 

year wirh unemployment exceeding 7Vl percent of the 

lahor force-·--the longest such period in the past 70 years. 

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending 

do not change, the budget deficit wiH shrink this year to 

$845 billion, or 5.3 percem of gross domestic product 

(GDP), its smallest size since 2008_ In CBOs baseline 

projections. deficits continue to shrink over the next few 

years, falling to 2.4 percent of GOP by 2015. Deficits are 

projected to increase later in the coming decade, howevet, 

because of the ptessures of an agjng population, rising 

health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for 

healrh insurance. and growing interest payments on federal debt. As a result, te-deral debt held by the public is 

pro,ie<Ted to remain f.istoricaUy high relative to the size of 

the economy for the next decade. By 2023, if current laws 

remain in place, debt will <quall? percent ofGDP and 

be on an upward path, CBO projecTS (see Figure 1). 

Such high and rising debt would have serious negative 

consequence.s: "When imerest rates ro:-.C" [0 more normal 

levels) federal spending on intetest payments would 

increase substantially, Moreover, because federal borrowing reduces national saving, rhe capital stock would be 

smaller and tOtal wages would be lower than they would 

be if the debt was reduced. In addition, lawmakers would 

have less flexibility than they migbt ordinarily to use 

tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected 

challenges. Fioally. 50eh a large debt would increase rhe 

risk of a fisca.l crisis, during which investors would lose so 

much confidence in the government's ahmty to manage 

its budget that the government would be unable to 

borrow at affordable rates. 

Under Current Law, Federal Debt 

Will Stay at HistOrically High Levels 

Relative to GDP The federal budget deficit, which shrank as a percentage 

ofGDP for rhe third year in a row in 2012, will fall again 

in 2013) if currem laws remain the same. At an estimated 

$845 billion, the 2013 imbalance would be the first deficit in five years below $1 trillion; and at 5.3 percent of 

CDr, it would be only about half as large, relarive to the 

size ofrhe economy, a~ the deficit was in 2009, Neyer~ 

rheless, if the l~ws that govern taxes and spending do not 

change, federal debt held by the pLlblic will reach 76 pncent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year, the largest 

percentage since 1950. 

Wirh revenues expected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next few years under current law, the ddkit is 

projected to dip as low as 2.4 percent ofGDP by 20]5 

(see Table O. In later years, howe~ver, projected deficits 

rise sreadily, reaching almost 4 petcent of COP in 2023. 

For the 2014-2023 period, deficits in CBO's baseline 

projections total $7.0 trillion. With such deficits, federal 

debt would remain above 73 percent ofGDP-far higher 

than the 39 percent average seen over the past four 

decades. (As recently as rhe end of 2007, federal debt 

equaled JUSt 36 percent of G Df'.) Moreover, debt would 

be increasing relative to rhe size of the economy in the 

second half of the decade. 

Those projectio!15 are not CSO's predictions offmure 

outColnes. As specified in law, eBOs baseline projections 

are constructed under the assumption that current laws 

generaHy remain unchanged, so that they can serve as a 

benchmark against which potential changes in law can 

be measured. 

Revenues 

Federal revenues will increase by roughly 25 percenr 

between 2013 and 2015 under current law, CBO pro-

,iects, That ihcrease is expected to result from a rise in 

income because of the growing economy, from policy 

changes that are scheduled to take effect durillg that 
14 

2 THE BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: FlSfAL YEARS 2QI3 10 2023 TESHMONY 

(Percentage of gross domestic product) 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

Source; 

period) and from policy changes that have already Laken 

effe<:t but whose full impact on teVt,',tlues wiH nO[ be felt 

until after this year (such as the rec;cnr increase in tax rates 

on income above cerrain thresholds). 

As a result of those factors, revenues are projected to grow 

from 15.8 percent ofGDP in 2012 to 19.1 perccnrof 

GDP in 2015~compared with an average of17.9 percent of GOP over the past 40 year:.. Under current Jaw, 

revenues will remain at roughly 19 percent ofGDP from 

2015 through 2023, CBO estimates. 

Outlays 

In CBO's baseline projections, federal spending rises over 

the next few years in dollar terms but falls relative to the 

size of the economy. During chose years, rhe gro\vrh of 

spending wilt be restrained both by the Hrengthening 

economy (as spending for programs stich as unemployment compensation drops) and provisions of tht: 

Budget Control Act of20 Ii 112-25). 

Althougb outlays are projected to decline from 22.8 percent o{GDP in 2012 to 21.5 petC<nt by 2017, they will 

still exceed theit 40~y~ar average of21 ,0 percent. (OU(-

peaked at 25.2 petcent of CDr in 2009 but have 

rdative to GDP in the past few years,) 

After 2017) if current laws remain in place, outlays will 

start growing again as a percentagt of GDP. The aging 

of the population, increasing health care C{lS[S, and a significant expansion of eligibility for feder,:d subsidies for 

health insurance will substantially boost spending for 

Socia! Securiry and for major health care programs relative to the size of the economy. At the same time, rising 

interest rates wiU significantly increase the government's 

debt-service costs. [n CBO's haseline. outlays reach about 

23 percent of GOP in 2023 and are on an upward 

trajectory, 

Changes from CBO's Previous Projections 

The deficits projected in CBO's current baseline are 

significantly larger than the ones in CBO's baseline of 

August 2011. Ar that time, CSO projected ddtcirs totaling $2,3 trillion for the 2013-2022 period; in the current 

baseline, the total deficit for that period has risen by 

$4.6 trinion. That increase stems chk·fly from the enact~ 

mem of the American Ta.xpayer Relief Act of 20 12 

(P.L 111-240), which made change-oS to ta." and spending 

laws that will boos:r deftcits by a total of $4.0 trillion 

(excluding debt-service costs) bet\veen 2013 and 2022, 

according to estimates by esa and the staff of the Joint 

Committee on Taxation, CBO's updated basdine also 

takes inro account other legislative actions since August, 

as well as a new economjc forec..'l5t and somt;': technical 

revisions to irs protections. 
15 

T.EST1MOIW THE BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FISCAl. YEARS 201] TO 2023 

Table 1. 

e80's Baseline 

Total 

Actual, 2014· 2014~ 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2018 2023 

In Billions of Dollars 

Revenues 2,449 2,708 3,003 3,313 3,591 3,765 3,937 4,101 4,279 4,496 4,734 4,961 17,&59 40,241 

Outlays ~ 3,553 ~~~ 4,300 4,542 4,811 5,078 5,350 ~ 5,939 20,330 47,199 ---- Oeficit (w) or Surplus -1,089 -845 '616 ,430 ,476 -535 ,605 ,710 ,798 '854 -957 -978 '2,661 '6,958 

On-budget ·1,151 ·872 ·630 ·4)3 ·476 ·533 ·598 ·693 ·763 ·799 ·878 ·812 ·2,670 '6,675 

Off-budger 62 27 14 3 ·2 ·6 ·17 '35 ·55 ·79 ·106 ·21l3 

Debt Hc;'!ld by the Public 

at the End of the Year n,280 12,229 12,937 13,462 14,025 14,642 15,3J6 16,092 1~957 17,876 18,902 J9,944 ,ta, n.a. 

As a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product 

Revenues 15.B 16.9 18.0 19.1 19.1 18.9 18.8 18.7 18.7 18.9 19.0 19.1 18.S 18.9 

Outlays 22.8 22.2 21.7 21.6 21.6 21.5 21./ 22.0 22.2 224 22.9 22.9 21.6 22.1 

DefiCit '7.0 '5.3 -3.7 '2,4 -2,5 -2.7 -2.9 -3.2 -3,5 "3,6 -3,8 -3.8 -2.8 '3.3 

Debt Held by the Public 

at the End of the Year 72.5 76.3 77.7 76.3 74.6 13.4 73.1 73.5 74.2. 75.0 76.0 77.0 ,loa, rUL 

Source: Congressional Budget Office. 

Note: 'I<:=: betweefl-$SOO million and zero; n,<I, :::; not applicable. 

a. Off~budget surpluses or deficits comprise surpluses or def1cit~ in the Social S€currty trust funds and the net cash flow of the 

Postal Service. 

Looming Policy Decisions May 

Have a Substantial Effect on the 

Budget Outlook Current law leaves many key budget issues unresolved} 

and this year, lawmakers will face three ~ignifkant 

budgetary deadlines: 

II Automati, reductions in spending are sc:hedul!;O"d to be 

implemented at the beginning of March; when that 

happens, funding for many governmerlt acrivities will 

be reduLed by 5 percent or more. 

II The continuing resolution that currenrly provides 

operational funding for much of the government will 

expire in late March. If no additional appropriations 

are provided by then, nonessential functions of the 

government will have to cease operations. 

II A statutOry limir on federal debt, which was tt.'rnporari1y removed, wilt take effect again in mid-May. The 

Treasury will beable to continue borrowing for a shon 

time after that by using what are known as extraordi·· 

nary measures. But to avoid a default on the governmem's obligations, the d.:bt limit wi!! need to be 

adjusted before those measures are exhausted later in 

the year. 

Budgetary outcomes will also be alTected by decisions 

about wh~rher to continue certain policies that have been 

in effect in (ec('nt years. Such policies could be continued, for ex-ample, by extending some tax provisions that 

are scheduled to expire (and that have routinely been 

extended in the past) or by preventing the 25 percent cut 

in Medicare's payment rates for physicians that is due to 

O(.'CU[ in 2014. If. for instance, lawmakers eliminated the 

automatic spending curs scheduled to take effe(:t in 

March (bur left in place tht:< original caps on discretionary 

funding set by the Budget Control Act), prevented the 

sharp reduction in Medicare's payment rates for physi~ 

dans, and extended the tax provisions that are scheduled 

to expire at the end of calendar year 2013 (or, in some 

3 
16 

4 THE BliDGET Ai'lcU ECONOMIC ounOOK: fISCAL YFARS 20 13 TO 2023 

2. 

GDP and Potential GDP 

(Trillions of 2005 doilars) 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 

Sources: Congressional Budget Office; Department of Commerce, 

Bureilu of Economic Analysis. 

Notes: Potentia! gross domestic product (GOP) is CSO's estimate of 

the maximum sustainable !evel of output of the economy. 

D<3ta are quarterly, Actual data are plotted through the third 

quarter of 2012. Projections are plotted through the fourth 

cases, in later years), budget deficits would be substantially larger over the coming decade than in CBO's 

baseline projections. \'Vith those changes, and no offset·· 

ring r~ductions in ddlcirs, debt held by the public would 

rise to 87 percent ofGDP by the end of2023 r;uher than 

w 77 percent. 

In addition to those decisions, lawmakers will continue to 

face the IQnger··t~rm budgetary issues posed by (he substantial federal debt and by the implications of rising 

health care costs and the aging of the population, 

Economic Growth Is Likely to 

Be Slow in 2013 and Pick Up in 

Later Years 

The U5. economy expanded modestly in calendar year 

2012, continuing the slow recovery seen since [he recession ended in mid-2009. Although economic growth is 

expected to remain slow again tbis year, CBO anticipates 

that underlying facrofs in [he economy will spur a more 

rapid expansion beginning next year. 

TE;11MONY 

Even SQ, under the fiscal policies embodied in curre-nt 

law, output is expected ro remain below its potential 

(or maximum sustainable) level umil2017. By CBO's 

estimates, in the fourth quarter of20 12, real (inflationadjusted) GDP v.ras about 5\~ percent below its potential 

leveL That gap was only modestly smaller than the gap 

between actual and potentia! GOP that existed at the end 

of the recession (see Figure 2) because the growth of 0111-

put since then has been only slightly greater than the 

growth of potential output. Witb such a hl.rge gap 

between actual and potclltiaJ GDP persisting for so long, 

CBO projects that the rorallos$ of output, rdative to the 

economy's potential, benveen 2007 and 2017 wiU be 

equivalent to nearly half of the Output that [he United 

States produced last year. 

The Economic Outlook for 2013 

eso expects that economic activity will expand slowly 

this year, with real CDP growing by just 1.4 percent 

(see Table 2), That slow growrh reflects a combination 

of ongoing improvement in underlying economic factors 

and fiscal tightening that has already begun or is 

scheduled to occur~induding the expiration of a 2 percenrage-point CUt in the Social Security payrol! tax, ;U\ 

lncrease in [aX rares on income above certain thresholds, 

and scheduled a.utDD:tatic reductions in federal spending. 

That subdued economic gromh will limit businesses' 

need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the 

unemployment rate to stay near 8 percent Ihis year, 

CBO projects. The rate of inflation and interest rates 

are projected (0 remain low. 

The Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2018 

After the economy adjusts this year to the fiscal righrening inherent in current law, underlying economic factors 

wiH lead to more rapid growth, eBa projects~3A percent in 2014 and an average of 3.6 percent a year from 

2015 through 2018. Tn particular, CBO expect.<; rhat the 

dfects of the housing and financial crisis will contitlUe 

to fade and that an upswing in housing construction 

(though from a very low level), rising real estate and srock 

prices, and increasing availability of credit will help to 

spur a virtuous cycle of h'ister growth in employment, 

income, consumer spending, and business investment 

over [he next few years. 

Nevertheless, under current law, CBO expects the 

unemployment rate to remain high-above 7~/l percent 

thrQugh 20 I 4-before falling to 5Y2 percent at the end of 

2017. The rate ofinflarion is projected to rise slowly af1:er 
17 

TFSnMONY THE BLVGEf AND ECONOMIC omLOaK, ASCIL YEARS 2013 TO lOlJ 

Table 2. 

CHO's Economic Calendar Years 2012 to 2023 

Estimated, Forecast Projected Annual Avera~e 

2012 2013 2014 2015-2018 2019-2023 

Fourth Quarter to Fourth QUarter (Percentage change) 

Rea! Gross Domestic Product 1.9 1.4 3.4 3.6 2.2 

Inflation 

peE price index 1.5 13 1.8 1.9 2.0 

Core peE price in.dexa 1.5 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 

Consumer price !ndextr 1.9 c 1.5 2.0 2.2 2.3 

Core consumer price indexi> 1,9 " 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 

Fourth Quarter level (Percent) 

Unemployment Rate 7.8 ' 8.0 7.6 5.5 d 5.2 ' 

Calendar Year Average (Percent) 

Interest Rates 

Three-month Treasury bms 0.1 ~ 0.1 0.2 2.2 4.0 

Ten-year TreaSiHY notes 1.'8 c 2.1 V 4.5 5.2 

SOurce: Congressional Budget Office. (Actual values tor 2012 are from Department of Labor, Bureau of labor Statistics; FederaJ Reserve.) 

Notes: The numbers shown here do not reflect the values for GDP and related series released by the Commerce Departmentls Bureau of 

Economic Analysis on Janu<lry 3D. 

peE = person<ll consumption expenditures. 

a. E)(cJudes prices for food and energy. 

b. The -consumer price indeK for all urban consumers. 

c. Actual value for 2012. 

d. Value for 2018. 

e. Value tor 2023. 

this year: CBO estimates that the annual increase in the 

price index for personal consumption expenditures will 

reach about 2 percent in 2015. The interest rate on 

3-month Treasury bills-which has hovered near zero for 

the past several years-is expected to climb to 4 percent 

by the end 0[2017, and the rate on 1 O-year Treasury 

nOtes is projected to rise from 2.1 percent in 2013 to 

5.2 percent in 2017. 

The Economic Outlook for 2019 to 2023 

For [he second half of the coming decade, CBO does not 

attempt to predict the cyclical ups and downs of (he 

economy; rather, CBO assumes that CDP will stay at irs 

maximum sustainable level. On that basis, CBO projects 

that both actual and porential real GDP will grow at an 

average rate of214 percent a year between 2019 and 

2023, That pace is much slower than the average growth 

rate of potential GDP since 1950. The main reason is 

thar (he growth of the labor force will slow down because 

of the rerirement of the baby boomers and an end to the 

long-sctanding increase in women!s participation in the 

labor force. eBa also projects that the unemploymem 

rate will fall to 5.2 percent by 2023 and that inflation 

and inte-rest rates will.stay at about rheir 2018 levels 

throughout the 2019-2023 period, 

5 
18 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

We will now do rounds of questions, and I am going to do my 

best to keep everybody at 5 minutes here so somebody has a 

chance. 

Mr. Elmendorf, I really want to begin with the question of sequester. I believe our focus should be on jobs and the economy, not 

on arbitrarily creating pain for American families. In your report 

and in comments you have made since, two things got my attention. The first is that, even with Congress having eliminated some 

of the so-called fiscal cliff, we still have in place enough fiscal tightening that growth this year will only be about half of what it 

should be. And the second is that the loss in economic growth 

translates into about 2 million jobs. 

Now, to be clear, the fiscal tightening is more than just the sequester, as we all know, but the sequester is a major part of it, and 

it is a piece that both sides I think agree is harmful to our economy, to our families, and our national security. 

It seems obvious to me that the answer is to replace the sequester with a phased-in approach that includes an equal amount or 

more of smart and sustainable spending cuts and additional revenue. 

So my question for you this morning is: Given that CBO notes 

that it expects a substantial slowdown in economic growth this 

year because of fiscal tightening, would it not be preferable to replace the sequester with a package of savings that is better targeted, that is programmatic rather than across the board, and that 

is phased in so it occurs when the economy is on a stronger footing? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. If the sequester were replaced 

with a comparable amount of deficit reduction that was phased in 

more gradually, that would be better for the economy in the near 

term. 

The matter of what the composition of that fiscal tightening is 

I think can affect the economy, as we have done analyses over the 

past few years of different ways of spurring economic growth and 

jobs. We talked about the different sorts of effects the different 

components of taxes and spending policies can have on the economy. But, of course, the composition also bears very importantly on 

what you and your colleagues think the Government should and 

should not be doing and where our public resources should and 

should not be devoted. So as you know, there are important issues 

in the budgetary choices in addition to the economic effects. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. And, for the record, it is my recollection that you, like many people, have advised Congress that there 

are better and smarter ways to deficit reduction than through arbitrary, across-the-board cuts that are going to occur under sequester, correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, Senator, we do not make recommendations about policy. I think we have noted, as others have, that an 

across-the-board cut does not give you and your colleagues the 

chance to choose where you think the Government should be 

spending money on behalf of your constituents. I think that is a 

matter of—that is not a matter of economic analysis. It is a matter 

of allowing you and your colleagues to set the course of the Federal 

budget. 
19 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. In my opening comments, I talked 

about the improvement in health spending in CBO’s projections, 

and I noted that since March 2010, lower health spending has resulted in revisions that lowered estimates of Federal spending for 

Medicare and Medicaid by $200 billion, about 15 percent, in 2020. 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have reached somewhat similar conclusions showing national health care expenditure 

growth rates at recent historic lows below 4 percent, levels well 

below those seen prior to 2009. Those are really encouraging signs, 

and we are hearing from providers and even your predecessor, Dr. 

Orszag, that significant innovation is already underway. 

I alluded in my opening statement I would give you a chance to 

comment on this improvement, and I was wondering if you could 

explain what led CBO to make those revisions. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. There has been a marked slowdown in the rate of growth of health care spending across the 

health care system. We see this in private insurance costs. We see 

this in Medicaid; we see this in Medicare. And within Medicare, we 

see it in Part A, which basically pays for hospital services, and Part 

B, which basically pays for doctors’ services, and in Part D, which 

pays for prescription drugs. 

So it is a very broad-based slowdown. It has been underway now 

for several years. We are working intensively, as are many other 

people, to try to understand better the sources of that slowdown, 

the causes of that slowdown. 

Our current assessment is that a part of that comes from the financial crisis and recession, which reduced the income and wealth 

that people have to spend on health care. But we think that a significant part is more structural in nature and involves underlying 

changes in the way that health care is practiced and delivered. 

The challenge for us and for others is to understand how much 

of those structural factors represent a transient phenomenon and 

how many represent a more enduring phenomenon, and we really 

do not know at this point. So what we have seen is that the spending in Medicare and in Medicaid in 2012 was about 5 percent below 

what we thought it would be in early 2010. We have extrapolated 

some of those slower growth rates over the coming years so that 

we have, as you noted, Senator, marked down Medicare and Medicaid spending by about 15 percent in 2020 because of these reasons. Of course, there are other factors, legislative factors and economic changes, that matter for our projections as well. But because 

of what we see happening in the health care sector, we have 

marked down growth—marked down the level of spending by about 

15 percent. We have also over the past 2 years— 

Chairman MURRAY. I am going to have to cut you off because I 

am going to have to limit everybody to 5 minutes. So I appreciate 

that response very much, and I will turn it over to Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Thank you for your insightful report and comments. They are 

very important to us. I know CBO has worked hard in projecting 

growth rates. That is a big part of how you try to evaluate the impact of a budget and what we will be able to do financially over 

the next several years. We accept that as a reasonable way to do 
20 

business, not perfect but reasonable, and I guess it is fair to say 

that you worked very hard to create an accurate picture. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. My colleagues and I do, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. We just had a $616 billion tax increase, aver- aging about $60 billion a year extra income, and we are having recovery from the recession, the slowest in a decade but some recovery, and that results in a lower deficit, as you have reported to us. 

By 2015, the deficit is projected to be $430 billion, the lowest you 

project over 10 years. That is slightly below the highest deficit 

President Bush ever had in his 8 years. And you have GDP growth 

projected at 3.9 percent. Last year, we were at 2.2 percent, I believe. So that gives us some perspective. 

But after 2015, 3 years from now, the deficit starts a relentless 

rise again, increasing every single year almost 10 percent a year 

and would more than double over the following 8 years to $978 billion—is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator, that is right. 

Senator SESSIONS. And you do not see, unless something 

changes, any improvement in the out-years, but your report would 

indicate that the upward trajectory, as you said, we would still be 

on that upward trajectory? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator, that is right. 

Senator SESSIONS. And would you say that is an unsustainable 

path? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. As we and many others have said, 

the debt cannot rise indefinitely as a share of GDP, and our projections under current law show debt rising relative to GDP in the 

back half of this coming decade. 

Senator SESSIONS. And it also increases the risk, as Erskine 

Bowles and Alan Simpson told us, of a fiscal crisis that might 

occur. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. They said it was inevitable if we do not 

change this unsustainable path. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, in the longer-term projections that we 

have done, in the past years, we have shown debt rising relative 

to GDP under what had been current policies. We have not updated those projections, but, yes, if one extrapolates what we show 

at the end of the decade, then debt would continue to rise as a 

share of GDP. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, under your analysis, you conclude that 

the revenues are growing each year. You show solid increases. And 

your growth rate of revenues for the Government basically runs in 

harmony with the GDP increase. As the economy increases, people 

pay more taxes and revenue increases. If it declines, revenue would 

decline. Is that fundamentally correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. So even if tax increases were enacted—let me 

just ask this. I think this is important for us to understand. If tax 

increases were enacted that were large enough to balance the 

budget by 2015, not just leave us with a $430 billion deficit, is it 

not a fact that under your analysis and assumptions, a deficit 

would begin to return that year or the next year, and it would increase each year over that 10-year budget? 
21 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think it depends, Senator, on the trajectory of 

the tax increase that you have in mind. So if the tax increase is 

a fixed number of billions of dollars per year, then, yes, the other 

factors will continue to push up— 

Senator SESSIONS. Right, well, fundamentally, is it not true that 

the deficits continue to rise and rise steadily because they are increasing faster than economic growth? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. In our projections, spending is 

above— 

Senator SESSIONS. Excuse me. Spending is increasing at a rate 

higher than you project the economy to increase. Spending would 

be increasing around 6 or so percent; whereas, growth—and I will 

use your average, about 2 or so. And it is substantially less. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. So we show spending continuing 

to rise—after the middle of this coming decade, we show spending 

continuing to rise as a share of GDP. Although we have not updated the longer-term projections, there is no reason to expect that 

to turn around because the fundamental drivers are the rising 

number of Americans collecting through these large benefit programs and the rising costs of health care per beneficiary. 

Senator SESSIONS. So, to my colleagues, this is the reason I think 

it is accurate to say we have fundamentally a spending problem 

rather than a tax problem, because if your revenue is not going to 

keep up with the spending because we are on an automatic course 

through entitlements and other programs and all our desires to 

spend more, then you are not going to get the country on a sound 

path. 

Mr. Elmendorf, debt, I believe, can slow the economy. Back in 

2009, you wrote Senator Gregg stating that $850 billion stimulus 

would have an economic boost in the short term, this pushing out 

of stimulus money, but the cost of borrowing that money would inevitably become a drag on the economy, you told us. In fact, you 

said that by even next year—2014 I believe is what you projected 

back then—the benefits of the stimulus spending would be completely gone and there would be left a drag permanently on the 

economy. And so since there is no prospect of paying down that 

debt, we will have some drag—how much, we could dispute— permanently as a result simply of that debt. Is that not correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. If cuts in taxes or boosts in 

spending that stimulate the economy in the short run are not offset 

by some later tightening of fiscal policy, then the extra debt that 

is accumulated will be a drag in the long run. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have gone over 

my time limit. And the other debt we are adding also becomes a 

permanent drag on our growth, threatening the future of employment for millions of Americans. 

Chairman MURRAY. I would like to inform the Committee members that the way we are going to work in this Committee on recognizing Senators is, as in past traditions, by seniority before the 

gavel is hammered and order of arrival after the gavel, so we will 

begin with Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thanks very much, Madam Chair, and, Mr. 

Elmendorf, Dr. Elmendorf, thanks very much for being with us. 
22 

Just a few questions, and if you can give me some brief answers. 

Is it fair to say that one of the reasons we have the deficit today 

has to do with two wars that were not paid for; huge tax breaks, 

much of which went to the wealthiest people in this country; the 

Medicare Part D program that was not paid for; and a Wall Streetcaused recession which resulted in significant declines of revenue? 

Would you say that that is one of the reasons we went from a surplus at the end of Clinton’s administration to where we are today? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. The second question is: In terms of 

unemployment, the number roughly 7.8 percent is often thrown 

out, but would you agree that if you looked at real unemployment, 

people who have given up looking for work, people who are working 

part-time when they want to work full-time, that we are really 

looking at maybe 14 percent? Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator SANDERS. All right, the point being that we are in the 

midst of a major, major recession. 

Now, the debate that is taking place in the Congress right now 

is many of my Republican friends believe that the answer to the 

deficit problem, which all of us agree is a serious problem, is to cut 

Social Security, is to cut Medicare, is to cut Medicaid, is to cut programs for children. And that is true. That is one way you can go 

forward. But some of us believe that we have to take a look at revenue and the fact that at 15.8 percent of GDP, revenue today is the 

lowest point that it has been almost in 60 years. 

Some of us also believe that we have to take a hard look at huge 

corporate loopholes, that before you cut a woman in Vermont who 

is living on $15,000 a year Social Security, you may want to end 

some of the loopholes that enabled the Bank of America to stash 

their money in the Cayman Islands and not pay any taxes at all. 

And that is kind of what the debate is about. 

So let me ask you this, just confirm if my information is right. 

In 1952, 32 percent of all revenue generated in this country came 

from large corporations. Today that number is 9 percent. Does that 

sound accurate? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am sorry, Senator. I just do not know that 

fact. 

Senator SANDERS. Okay. In 2011, corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP was just 1.2 percent. Madam Chair, you remember 

many of our corporate friends coming here and how they were overtaxes. 1.2 percent of GDP happens to be, as I understand it, lower 

than any other major country in the OECD. So when people come 

in and say, ‘‘Oh, we are paying 35 percent,’’ everybody here knows 

there is no corporation that pays 35 percent. If they do, they have 

to get rid of their accountants, that, in fact, the number on profits 

is 12 percent. Is that true? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, Senator, certainly right that the statutory 

tax rate in the corporate tax code and the average share of profits 

paid in tax by companies are quite different, but I do not know the 

numbers, and I do not know the— 

Senator SANDERS. Okay. Let me see if you know this one. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. —OECD countries. 
23 

Senator SANDERS. In 2011, my understanding is that corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest since 

1972. How is that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think that sounds about right, Senator. 

Senator SANDERS. So, again, the choice that we face, do you really in the middle of a recession want to cut Social Security benefits 

and Medicare benefits when corporations today are paying 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest since 1972? Or do we think 

it might make more sense to ask our friends in the corporate world 

to pay a little bit more? 

Another question. My understanding is that one out of four 

major corporations, profitable corporations in this country, in 2005, 

the last statistics I have seen—I am sorry I do not have closer 

ones—paid zero in taxes. Does that sound right to you? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I am sorry, Senator. I just do not know offhand. 

We can look these things up, but I do not carry them around in 

my head. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. My understanding is that we are losing—and we have introduced legislation to remedy this—about 

$100 billion a year in revenue, a year, by companies’ offshoring 

their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and paying zero in 

taxes. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Again, Senator, I do not— 

Senator SANDERS. All right. I know that, but do you think it is 

a legitimate area to pursue, the fact that we have companies like 

Bank of America and virtually every major corporation stashing 

their money in the Cayman Islands, paying zero in Federal taxes? 

Is that something that you think would be a worthwhile pursuit? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, I think that it is certainly a legitimate 

issue for the Congress, and we released a report last month that 

reviewed the pros and cons of alternative ways of changing the tax 

system applying to multinational corporations. 

Senator SANDERS. Okay. Madam Chair, I would just conclude by 

saying we have a great philosophical difference in this room, and 

some of us think that when the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well, when corporate profits are at an all-time high, we 

might want to ask those folks for more revenue rather than cutting 

back on the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in this 

country. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator ENZI. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I want to thank you for this great book. As an accountant, it has 

a lot of numbers in it; I love that. It does lead to a lot of technical 

questions, though, and I would rather submit those than ask them 

here. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. We are happy to respond that 

way. 

Senator ENZI. I still have a few questions, though, and Senator 

Sanders brings up one. Are we paying out more in Medicare than 

we are taking in at the moment? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, as you know, Senator, the dedicated taxes 

for Medicare cover the Part A, or are designed to cover Part A, the 
24 

hospital spending, and the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is, in 

fact, losing money every year. The other parts of Medicare have no 

dedicated financing. They are funded by beneficiary premiums and 

by general revenue transfers. 

Senator ENZI. How are we doing on the difference between what 

is paid in for Social Security and what is going out monthly or annually? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So the dedicated taxes collected for Social Security are less than the benefits that are being paid out for Social Security. 

Senator ENZI. Is there anything in sight where that is going to 

change? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. No, Senator. That will continue under current 

law. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. 

Now, in the CBO report, you indicate that revenues are projected 

to increase by roughly 25 percent between 2013 and 2015, and, in 

addition, growth of the economy is expected to be just one and fourtenths percent in 2013 but accelerate to three and four-tenths percent in 2014. I want to ensure that we all do not leave this hearing 

thinking that there is a direct link between increased revenues 

through tax hikes and increased economic growth. 

In that regard, to what extent do the increased taxes that were 

recently enacted and that pull money out of the hands of both employers and employees have a negative impact on your economic 

growth projections? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, Senator, we think the increases in taxes is 

part of the fiscal tightening that is slowing the economy this year, 

just as the planned reductions in spending are slowing the economy 

this year. That and other sorts of deficit reduction are good for the 

economy in the medium run and long run, and that is one of the 

difficult trade-offs that you and your colleagues face. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you. 

The CBO report also indicates that after the economy adjusts 

this year to the fiscal tightening inherent in current law, underlying economic factors will lead to more rapid growth— you project 

three and four-tenths percent in 2014 and an average of three and 

six-tenths percent a year from 2015 through 2018. Can you walk 

us through your analysis leading to the conclusion that the economy will adjust this year and not over a longer period of time due 

specifically to the tax increases that were enacted earlier this year? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. So there are two factors here. 

There is a growth of the underlying potential of the economy, and 

then there is some catch-up from the current level of output, which 

is below that potential, which amounts to putting unemployed 

workers back to work making better use of the factors and offices 

that we have. And both those factors are at work in the growth we 

see over the next half-dozen years. 

We think that the underlying forces driving the economy are finally—after long, lingering effects of the financial crisis and the 

housing bubble, we think those underlying forces are strengthening. We think those are going to help to pull the economy back 

up toward its potential output to put people back to work, but only 

gradually over the next 4 or 5 years. 
25 

The tightening of fiscal policy is reducing deficits, and the lowered debt that will result will be good for the economy later on. It 

is also true that the higher tax rates that will be in place because 

of the expiration of tax cuts on higher-income people, those higher 

tax rates will represent some drag on the economy, and we incorporate those factors in our baseline projections and in our analysis 

of the effects of alternative policies. We look at the effects of both 

debt on the economy and the effects of tax rates in distorting incentives to work and to save. 

Senator ENZI. Well, I will have a few more follow-ups on that 

one, but, slightly different, the President recently said that in the 

absence of a larger budget deal, Congress should pass a smaller 

package of spending cuts and tax reforms that would delay for a 

few months the sequester slated to go into effect. It is anticipated 

those tax reforms mean closing what the President perceives as 

loopholes. And it would have the effect of simply raising taxes. 

To what extent would raising taxes to offset a portion of the sequester have a negative impact on economic growth? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So I think the biggest issue to think about in 

terms of the effects of this fiscal policy on the economy in the near 

term is how quickly deficit reduction occurs, how much tightening 

occurs this year. But it is also true that the composition of the fiscal tightening, how much comes through certain sorts of spending 

cuts or certain sorts of tax increases can matter for economic outcomes, but the effect depends a lot on the specifics. When we have 

looked at different ways to boost the economy, we have found very 

different effects of different sorts of spending increases and very 

different effects of different sorts of tax cuts. 

So I do not want to make any very general statements because 

it really depends on what provisions of the Tax Code would be 

changed. 

Senator ENZI. I will follow up on that. 

Senator ENZI. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome back, Dr. Elmendorf. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Two quick things. The first is that—I 

think it is relevant to the topic you were just discussing. Europe 

has gone on an experiment in austerity as a solution to the recession, and it does not seem to be working very well. Spain’s economy 

shrank 1.4 percent in 2012 and is projected to contract another 1.4 

percent in 2013. Greece’s economy shrank 6 percent in 2012 and 

is projected to contract another 4.2 percent in 2013. Italy’s economy 

shrank 2.3 percent in 2012 and is projected to contract another 0.3 

percent in 2013. Portugal’s economy shrank 2.3 percent in 2012 

and is projected to contract another 0.3 percent in 2013. Unemployment is in double digits in all of those countries. So although we 

are not recovering well, we are certainly recovering, and we see 

GDP growth. And if you look at some of the people who are close 

to this and looking at it, the conservative Daily Telegraph, Jeremy 

Warner, who supported this austerity program, has recently written about Britain that they are in a ‘‘truly desperate state of affairs 
26 

that demands swift and decisive action. We seem to have the worst 

of all possible worlds, with nil growth, some very obvious cuts in 

the quantity and quality of public services, but pretty much zero 

progress in getting on top of the country’s debts.’’ 

The IMF, which had argued for austerity, now has corrected 

itself and says—the chief economist Olivier Blanchard said, ‘‘We 

find that forecasters significantly underestimated the increase in 

unemployment and the decline in domestic demand associated with 

austerity.’’ 

The Wall Street Journal, recently discussing Spain and its austerity program, said that it ‘‘threatens to create a vicious cycle as 

mass layoffs to meet budget targets spark a deeper contraction, reducing tax revenue and increasing welfare costs, as well as damping consumption.’’ 

Now, Robert Frank, who is a well-regarded American economist 

at Cornell, has said, ‘‘The cuts that are scheduled in the sequester 

are not a way to run a rational government. Cuts of any kind at 

this time are not a good idea. It is recessionary. It would slow 

growth for sure and put people out of work.’’ 

In that regard, the more conservative American Enterprise Institute, John Makin and Daniel Hanson said, ‘‘An abrupt spending sequester scheduled to begin March 1st could cause a U.S. recession.’’ 

Do you recommend an austerity path at this point? What should 

we be doing that is different than the European austerity experiment that appears to have ended so badly for them? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, Senator, we have not studied each of those 

European countries carefully, and as you know, there are many factors that affect their economic performance. But I think that the 

recessions and economic contractions that have occurred in countries that have pushed for very rapid contractions of fiscal policy 

are entirely consistent with the analysis that we have been offering 

to the Congress for many years now that raising taxes and cutting 

spending at a time when the economy is already weak and the Federal Reserve is limited in its further options to support the economy will tend to reduce output and reduce jobs relative to what 

would occur if fiscal policy were not tightened in those ways. And— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you are predicting a more than 1-percent difference in GDP as a result of that if we do not manage the 

sequester properly, correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So we say that without any of the fiscal tightening that is occurring this year, GDP growth would be 1–1/2 percentage points faster. The sequester itself we think represents 

about six-tenths of one percent of GDP growth this year and would 

mean a difference of roughly 750,000 jobs by the fourth quarter of 

this year. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. And one last point, a different 

point. I make it virtually every time we have a hearing, and so I 

now will give the abbreviated version here, and the Chairman was 

kind enough to mention my interest in this. But when we have a 

health care system that is spending 50 percent more than our least 

efficient international competitor, when everybody from the President’s Council of Economic Advisers to the Institutes of Medicine 

say that there is over $700 billion every year to be saved in the 

American health care system, when companies like, in Senator 
27 

Johnson’s home State, Gundersen Lutheran, in Senator Toomey’s 

home State, Geisinger, are actually showing the ways to reduce 

costs by providing better health care, I look forward to being able 

to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to focus 

on that. I think when we look at Medicare benefits as the solution 

to our health care cost problem, we are fundamentally 

misdiagnosing the problem. When we misdiagnose a problem, we 

put the wrong cure on it. It will do harm, not good. And we really, 

I think, as a Congress can focus in bipartisan fashion on trying to 

make the American health care system at least as efficient as our 

least efficient international competitor rather than paying a 50-percent inefficiency penalty on that compared to the rest of the world. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Director Elmendorf. Let me first agree with Senator Sessions. I actually think 

we all share the same goal here. We all want a prosperous America. We want every American to be able to have the opportunity to 

build a good life for themselves and their family. It is a matter of, 

you know, how do we go about doing it, and it is really through 

economic growth. 

Director Elmendorf, in general, don’t tax increases harm economic growth? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think it depends what the alternative is, Senator. I am not trying to— 

Senator JOHNSON. I am just talking about— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. —be difficult here. 

Senator JOHNSON. I am just talking about— 

Mr. ELMENDORF. If the alternative is to run large deficits indefinitely, if the only available policy lever were a change in tax rates 

or some other change in the Tax Code, I am not sure what the answer to that question is. 

Senator JOHNSON. Let me point out a couple facts about economic growth. Even with the meager growth we have had since 

2009, Federal revenue has increased by $388 billion per year since 

that time period, correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I will take your word for that, yes, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. If we would just return to a normal economy, 

which we had in 2007, when revenue generation was 18.5 percent 

of our economy, that would add an additional $435 billion per year. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Again, we certainly think that when the economy is—the growth we have in the economy is an important factor 

pulling up tax receipts. 

Senator JOHNSON. Now, the tax increase, the punishing of success in the fiscal cliff piece of legislation, that in 

2014, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, would raise, 

I believe, $41 billion in 2014. Is that about right? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That sounds plausible, Senator, yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. So increasing taxes on the rich is a tenth as 

effective if we would actually just return our economy to a normal 

economy. Is that about correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. That particular policy, yes, Senator. 

Senator JOHNSON. Now, in your projections, you are taking us— 

and you pointed out that the 40-year average is 18 percent of rev-
28 

enue compared to GDP, and your projections now are saying you 

are going to somehow get 19 percent out of the economy. I would 

like to point out over the last 62 years, we have only had 13 instances where revenue actually hit 19 percent. Three of those, it 

actually peaked 20 percent. But I would like to just quickly show 

a chart here. We have had a wide variety of top marginal tax rates, 

I mean the attempt to punish success, which I think is the wrong 

way to go, of as high as 91 percent, 70 percent, 50 percent, 28 percent under Ronald Reagan, I would like to point out. For a brief 

moment in time, we were actually 72 percent free, then 35, 39.6 

percent, we are pushing that top marginal tax rate up to 40 percent. But it is amazing how incredibly tight the average around 

that, in my case, 18.1 percent over 50 year averages, what makes 

you think that we can actually extract over the next 10 years about 

19 percent of revenue when we have not been able to do it regardless of how we have tried to punish success? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, Senator, as you know, there are a lot of 

other features of the Tax Code besides the top marginal rate, and 

one could draw pictures like that that showed the rates that applied to people at other points on the income distribution. There 

are a set of changes that have been made to what sort of income 

is taxed, what deductions and credits are available. So our projection is that under current tax law revenue will reach roughly 19 

percent of GDP. That is not really hard for us to imagine given the 

way current tax law works. 

One factor, of course, is—another factor you know is that at 

points where tax receipts have moved up to be a higher share of 

GDP, Congress has often stepped in and made some change in the 

tax law to bring them back down. And you may do that again, but 

that is not what our baseline projections are— 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Let me quick answer Senator Enzi’s 

question about how much more we are going to be paying out in 

benefits, and these are according to your schedules here. Between 

2014 and 2023, we will pay out $5 trillion more in benefits to Social Security recipients and Medicare than we are taking in in 

terms of tax revenue and premiums on Medicare. Now, that $5 trillion compares to $9 trillion of total additional debt, it is almost 60 

percent. If you are going to actually try and address the debt and 

deficit issue, wouldn’t you actually have to try and propose a plan 

to save those programs for future generations? Wouldn’t that be 

one of the first places you would look? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think it is very difficult, Senator, if you look 

at our projections, to see how one can put the budget ultimately on 

a sustainable path without making significant changes in either of 

those large benefit programs or in the taxes paid by a broad crosssection of Americans. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Well, let me also ask just about interest 

payments, because we will be paying about $5.4 trillion in interest 

expense, and by the end of the period, we are about 5.2 percent of 

a 10-year Treasury note. I just want to put another chart up here. 

Over 30 years from 1970 to 1999, the average interest rate the 

Federal Government paid on its debt was 5.3 percent. We have 

been keeping that artificially low, 1.5 percent, to accommodate all 

this deficit spending. If we just reverted to that mean, that would 
29 

be more than $600 billion per year for increasing our interest rates 

by 3.8. Isn’t that largely correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So as you noticed, Senator, our own projection 

has the 10-year Treasury note rate going to 5.2 percent in the second half of the coming decade, and that is the reason why we show 

such a large increase in Federal interest payments. 

Senator JOHNSON. That is something we really need to be concerned about. What makes you think that we will not hit that 5.2 

percent a little bit quicker? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Because the weakness of the economy has kept 

down the private demand for credit and has led the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low. In addition, there are serious economic and financial problems in Europe that have led people to put 

money in this country, and I think in general an aversion to taking 

financial risk given the events of the last half dozen years. We 

think those factors will persist for a while and then wane. 

Senator JOHNSON. Aren’t seniors on fixed incomes the biggest 

victims of these artificially low held interest rate? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I do not know, Senator. We have not analyzed 

that. It is true that the people who are dependent on receiving interest payments are receiving lower payments because interest 

rates are low. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Baldwin. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I have 

to tell you, it is a delight to have my first budget meeting. I am 

delighted to have Director Elmendorf here. And since you only get 

your first hearing once, I wanted to say a couple of things. 

I appreciated your opening remarks, Chairman Murray, about 

the fact that budgets truly are a statement of our values and our 

priorities as Americans. And for me, that means developing a budget that strengthens the essential pillars of our economy and economic security, especially for the middle class. Quality education, 

affordable health care, a good-paying job, retirement security are 

things that we really on to have a strong middle class. So I want 

to see us develop a budget that truly holds true to the belief that 

in America everybody gets a fair shot and everyone does their fair 

share. 

I believe—and many have echoed this sentiment—that our country faces twin challenges: the challenges of getting our economy or 

economic recovery, seeing it through, job creation, and particularly 

in the private sector, and confronting our debt and deficit. And I 

believe that we have to face both of these challenges head on and 

address them in a bold yet balanced way. 

In the past 2 years, we have made significant strides in achieving a $2.5 trillion bipartisan deficit reduction, but we obviously 

need to do more. But that is the trick, that is the challenge, that 

is the hardest task, is how do we forward a set of policies that 

helps us achieve both of those twin challenges without frustrating 

the other. 

So, Mr. Elmendorf, I would like to begin by asking you how we 

approach these twin challenges, these parallel challenges of job 

growth and deficit reduction. You highlighted in your testimony 

that there is a large gap between potential GDP and actual GDP, 
30 

and that gap is almost as large as it was during the worst of our 

recession. This means that there is a shortfall in consumption, in 

Government spending and/or investment. Additionally, we have 

record low financing costs right now and unemployment levels of 

above 16 percent in the construction sector. 

In terms of economic multipliers, isn’t it true that one of the best 

ways to increase growth in the future is to invest in infrastructure 

today? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. Investments in infrastructure, if 

done in an intelligent manner, can provide a real boost to economic 

activity, not just today when the investment is occurring but over 

time as the investment yields returns. 

Senator BALDWIN. And along those lines, what do you view as 

the other best economic multipliers strategies at this point? What 

gives us the most leverage? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Well, Senator, the most effective way that we 

know for the Congress to boost economic growth this year is to 

defer some of the fiscal tightening that is scheduled in current law. 

But I want to be clear that if that deferral occurs without some offsetting tightening of fiscal policy later, then that will make economic outcomes worse in the medium term and long term. 

Senator BALDWIN. The dual twin challenges. You want to attack 

one without frustrating progress on the other. 

You stated in your testimony that this fiscal tightening that we 

are talking about would restrict GDP growth by 1.5 percent and 

cost us 2 million jobs. In your testimony, you also stated that our 

unemployment rate would remain above 7.5 percent for the foreseeable future through 2014. I have a chicken-versus-egg question for 

you. I know they are challenging. But in your view, to what extent 

is high unemployment a cause of weak economic growth as opposed 

to the effect of weak economic growth? And if high unemployment 

is, in fact, a cause of slower growth, what effect would direct Government action to lower our unemployment rate have on our overall fiscal situation? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, Senator, we think that the high unemployment rate is primarily the effect of businesses not hiring, which is 

primarily an effect of their not seeing the demand for their products, and that policies that would boost the demand for business 

services would encourage businesses to hire more, and that would 

tend to bring down the unemployment rate. 

There are also policies that could be directed specifically at unemployed workers. We wrote a report last year on ways of responding to persistently high unemployment, and we talked in that report about some of the broad macroeconomic policies, but also 

about more targeted policies to help train workers, help connect 

workers to available jobs. Our view in that report was that those 

policies could be very helpful for certain people in certain circumstances but would be very difficult to implement on a national 

scale quickly enough to change, significantly change the trajectory 

of the overall unemployment rate over the next few years. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator WICKER. 
31 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. 

Budget Director. 

The President a few days ago proposed a balanced approach to 

pay for sequestration in another way involving revenue increases 

and a different approach to making the budget savings. What 

would be the score of the President’s proposal in this regard? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, Senator, we have not seen a specific proposal, so I do not know what it— 

Senator WICKER. You know, I have not seen a specific proposal 

either, so it is hard to score that speech that the President made, 

isn’t it? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. 

Senator WICKER. Now, on the other hand, the House last year actually proposed legislation and passed legislation to deal with the 

sequestration. Is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator, that is right. 

Senator WICKER. Okay. Did you have an opportunity to score 

that? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. We did, Senator, but I do not remember the estimate that we provided. But we provided the cost estimate. 

Senator WICKER. All right. And the Chair suggested earlier in 

this hearing that we avoid sequestration by restructuring the cuts 

to let them take effect a little more gradually that involve revenue 

there. Have you had an opportunity to score that proposal by the 

Democrats on this Committee? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. No, Senator. We have not received a specific 

proposal of the sort that you are describing, and if we received— 

if such a proposal were made public and we were to do an estimate 

of it, then you and all of your colleagues would see it. 

Senator WICKER. Okay. Well, I think that would be very helpful 

because it is frustrating to me because, on the one hand, our brothers and sisters at the other end of the building, at least if they 

have taken the hit, proposed specific solutions to sequestration. 

They have been scored. They have been passed. They sat over here 

in the U.S. Senate all last year with no action, and yet we have 

suggestions by the President, suggestions by our friends on the 

other side of the aisle, but they cannot be scored, and we cannot 

have any idea what CBO would think about those. 

Let me just say this: There is a lot of revisionist history when 

it comes to this period that I participated in as a Member of the 

House of Representatives where we actually had budget surpluses 

at the Federal level. You would think from the Chair’s opening 

statement that President Clinton came into office in 1993, proposed 

balanced budgets, got those balanced budgets, and we had 8 years 

of relative fiscal sense here in the Federal Government. The fact 

is, is it not, that President Clinton in 1993, in 1994, and in 1995 

proposed in all of those years deficit spending as far as the eye can 

see? Is that correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think that is right, Senator, but my recollection of the specifics of those budgets is not perfect. 

Senator WICKER. That is my recollection, too. As a matter of fact, 

in the 1995 budget proposed by President Clinton, who takes credit 

for the surpluses later on, it proposed over $200 billion in budget 

deficits as far as the eye could see. And then what happened is in 
32 

the 1994 election the people of the United States elected a Republican majority in the House and a Republican majority in the Senate. And I know you do not get involved in politics, but let me just 

observe that Chairman Kasich was directed by the Speaker of the 

House to come up with a very tough budget bill, and, in fact, the 

Republican majorities in the House and in the Senate got the 

President of the United States to buy into reconciliation, to buy 

into welfare reform, and on a bipartisan basis after Republicans 

took control of the House and Senate majorities, that is when we 

had budget surpluses. That is when the budget surpluses began. 

They were never proposed before then by President Clinton. 

Now, also, I do not recall President Bush getting us into a war 

in 2001. I recall Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda getting us into a 

war in 2001. And as I recall, it was 

passed unanimously in the United States Senate that we would 

retaliate in Afghanistan and go into war. It was not a Bush war. 

It was something that we all did and all Americans supported it— 

one dissenting vote in the House of Representatives. So I think it 

is disingenuous to have revisionist history when, in fact, we did 

have this war. We were in an economic recession in 2001. What 

would a tax increase have done to us in 2001 to pay for that war 

in Afghanistan? It would have been a huge drag on an already tenuous economy, would it not have? 

Chairman MURRAY. Dr. Elmendorf, I am going to ask you to sum 

that up really quickly, or there are several of us who are going to 

miss a vote. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. An increase in 2001 would have had that effect, 

yes, Senator. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

Chairman MURRAY. I am going to recess and go over and vote at 

the end of this vote and the top of the next one and come back. 

If any members want to come back and ask questions of Dr. Elmendorf, I will do it between the third and fourth vote, and I will 

be here. 

We will take a quick break. 

[Recess.] 

Senator MERKLEY. [Presiding.] The Committee will come back to 

order, please. And as soon as my colleagues return, we will return 

to the regular order of questioning, but for now I am the only one 

here, so I will take advantage of that moment. 

Thank you. Good to have you here. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Thank you. 

Senator MERKLEY. And I appreciate so much the third-party, bipartisan analysis the CBO brings to our discussions. It helps if we 

have a common set of analyses to base our discussion and analysis 

on here in the Committee, and thank you for providing that. 

I wanted to start by asking you a question that may not be reflected in the numbers and maybe it cannot be, but that is for you 

to respond to, and that is, we have had a series of fiscal cliffs, if 

you will, not only the fiscal cliff December 31st, but we have the 

upcoming concern over the debt ceiling, the continuing resolution, 

and so forth. 

It seems like we have been lurching from budget crisis to budget 

crisis. Is there any way of measuring that or do you make an at-
33 

tempt to measure the impact on decisions made within the economy and perhaps within your models regarding investments and so 

forth that might drive economic outcomes? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Senator, we do think that the ongoing uncertainty about Federal budget policy represents a drag on spending 

and, thus, on incomes and jobs. But we do not know how to quantify that effect. There is economic research—we have had some of 

this presented at our meetings of our panel of Economic Advisers— 

that tries to, is starting to build some evidence about the effects 

of policy uncertainty on the economy. But that is, I would say, still 

in a preliminary stage, and we do not know how important those 

effects are. 

We think the primary source of uncertainty that is holding back 

household spending and business investment and hiring is uncertainty about the income that households will have and the demand 

for the products that firms will face. But policy uncertainty is probably also playing some additional negative role. 

Senator MERKLEY. It was interesting to see a series of reports in 

December and on into January regarding retail sales, everything 

from clothing to other consumer goods, that seemed to show a significant change, and one possible explanation was related to the 

fiscal cliff and the recognition of what is going to happen in March. 

Another was that the payroll tax got changed, and folks had 2 percent less money in their paychecks. Do you have any sense of how 

that—was that expected, that turndown? If not, what is the best 

explanation or culmination of explanations? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So it is difficult to read too much into the very 

preliminary data we have for the beginning of this year. Our expectation had been and remains that the expiration of the payroll tax 

cut represents an important piece of fiscal tightening that is good 

for the deficit over time but is a negative factor for consumer 

spending in the first part of this year. But that is a judgment based 

on decades of evidence of other changes in income and how it affects spending, not really derived from what we have seen over the 

past month, but we just do not know enough of what is going on. 

Senator MERKLEY. So we are looking at another set of decisions, 

and right now we are on a course to have a significant drop in defense and non-defense discretionary programs. And one idea that 

has been put out there is, well, instead of reducing spending, let 

us reduce the spending on appropriated programs, if you will, let 

us reduce spending on tax loopholes. And for some, that is reducing 

spending; for others, increasing revenue. But largely, if you spend 

money on a tax loophole, it has a corollary in the real world, so it 

is fair to frame it that way. 

Have you all looked at the different impact of whether, say, shutting loopholes that give special payouts to oil companies versus cutting food stamps, just an imaginary comparison, has in terms of 

how it reverberates in the economy and affects working people? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, Senator, we have not looked at particular— 

we have not formally analyzed the macroeconomic effects of closing 

particular tax loopholes. But we have said many times that the 

sorts of spending or tax changes that matter most for the economy 

in the short run are those that directly affect the spending by the 

Government or by households or by businesses. 
34 

So food stamps are received by people who, as you know, have 

very little other income. They will tend to spend a very large share 

of any change, spend more if their food stamps go up or spend less 

if the food stamps go down. So changes in that way will tend to 

be passed through to changes in spending on a nearly one-for-one 

basis; whereas, most of the tax revenue is collected from people 

who are not living so close to the economic edge and thus will tend 

to respond less sharply in their spending for every dollar change 

in their after-tax income. 

So, in general, changes in food stamps will tend to have larger 

effects on the economy in the short term than changes in other 

spending programs or tax provisions, but we have not looked at the 

specific example you raised. 

Senator MERKLEY. Now that we are back in the world in which 

Social Security premiums are being paid for directly out of paychecks completely, the argument is often made that Social Security, 

the premiums go into the trust fund, the trust fund lends money 

out to earn a modest return, comes back, and they proceed to disburse it when folks become eligible. And in that sense, is it fair to 

say that Social Security does not contribute to the national debt? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think that is not right, Senator, actually. The 

payroll tax receipts, as you know, that are going into Social Security are less than the benefits that are being paid out. And the interest payments that Social Security receives are a receipt to that 

part of the Government and a payment from some other part of the 

Government. 

In the work that we do, we tend to look at the Government as 

a whole, and on that basis, the dedicated Social Security taxes are 

less than Social Security benefits. So on that basis, the program is 

actually a drain on the budget today. But even if one includes the 

interest payments and looks at the overall Social Security balance, 

that is positive today, so the tax receipts and interest payments together are larger than benefit payments. But that will actually 

turn around within the coming decade, by about 5 or 6 years from 

now, I think. In our projections, the Social Security Trust Fund, 

even counting interest payments, will be running a year-to-year 

deficit, that is, it will be starting to draw down on the accumulated 

balances in the trust fund. 

Senator MERKLEY. It really does depend on how you view that 

trust fund, because if you view it as the equivalent of a semi-private entity which is truly separate, it would be no more than my 

saving money and my spending money out of that account in the 

future, and it would be separate from the overall debt analysis. But 

I understand that ongoing, eternal question of how you frame that. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Again, sir, I would say that even taking the interest on board, we think that in 2017 the combined OASI and DI 

trust funds will be running a deficit, even including the interest 

payments that they are receiving. So it is not very far off before 

even on that basis the program will be in deficit. 

Senator MERKLEY. About roughly 20 years before the trust fund 

itself is depleted. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. More than that, Senator, yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Let me turn a little bit to the impact of health 

care. I believe your summary said that if you look at the current 
35 

deficits, which have dropped significantly over the past couple 

years, but they are going to double over the next roughly 10 years, 

from $400-plus billion to $800-plus billion, and that health care 

costs are the biggest driver as a result of the pressures of an aging 

population, one of the things that is common in the Medicare system is fee-for-service. 

Now, fee-for-service basically says the more services you provide, 

the more profit you make. So whether you are building a piece of 

military equipment or running health care, it is an incentive to 

spend a lot, not necessarily to spend wisely. 

Has CBO done an analysis of the impact of fee-for-service on the 

cost of health care and the savings that might result from changing 

that structure? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. So, Senator, I think there is a widespread view 

among analysts that moving away from fee-for-service to paying 

providers for handling an overall medical condition rather than for 

each individual service they provide, by paying them for providing 

that overall bundle of care in a high-quality way, that sort of movement would be a great boon to our efficient use of health care dollars. 

In the work that we have done, I think the crucial question is 

what the movement is to, is what alternative method is put in 

place. So as you know, in the Affordable Care Act there were a lot 

of changes made in the fee-for-service part of Medicare, including 

a number of changes in how providers are paid, that represent 

moves away from a traditional fee-for-service approach. And we estimated that some of those changes would indeed save the Federal 

Government significant amounts of money. But I think the challenge now that you and your colleagues face is what other specific 

changes in Medicare you might make. And as we work with the 

staff of this Committee and others on potential changes in Medicare, we and your staffs are looking at different ways of changing 

the fee-for-service system. But just what the Federal changes 

should be to induce the sort of changes in the delivery of health 

care that people have in mind is not so straightforward, and I 

think that is a real—that is a fundamental challenge. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. I think that given your 

analysis and that of everyone else, these are going to be the big 

drivers. I am sure members will be looking to the details that you 

all produce to try to understand the policy options. 

With that, our Chair has returned, so I will return the Committee to Chairman Murray. 

Chairman MURRAY. [Presiding.] Well, thank you very much, Senator Merkley. And we apologize to everybody. There are votes ongoing. Some members I believe are coming back. We are trying to get 

an assessment as quickly as possible on which ones are returning, 

so if you would not mind being flexible. 

I believe that Senator Portman will be arriving shortly. We are 

checking right now, and I will turn it over to him the minute he 

gets here. I believe Senator Warner also was going to return. If 

there are any offices that know whether their Senator is returning, 

it would be really helpful to us so that we can conclude this fairly 

quickly. Again, we do have votes ongoing. 
36 

While none of my members are here, I will take this opportunity 

to ask you several questions, but, again, I will relinquish the 

minute someone walks in. 

Dr. Elmendorf, a lot of my colleagues attempt to claim that after the fiscal cliff deal, which raised about $600 billion from the 

wealthiest taxpayers, the tax discussion is somehow finished, and 

some point to CBO’s new budget outlook, noting that projected revenues will rise above the 40-year historical average of 18 percent 

of GDP. 

But this argument really ignores some really important facts. It 

is true CBO expects revenues to average 18.9 percent of GDP over 

the next decade. It is also true that the last five times we have balanced the budget, revenues have been much higher, between 19.5 

and 20.6 percent of GDP. Correct? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator, I think that is right. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. And their argument also actually fails 

to take into account for the reality that the baby-boom generation 

is entering its retirement years, and I want to paraphrase you, but 

you have noted that the past combination of policies regarding Federal spending and revenue cannot be repeated when it comes to the 

Federal budget going forward, which I take to mean that we are 

entering a new phase with respect to our fiscal pressures. That reality was recognized by bipartisan budget groups— SimpsonBowles and the Senate Gang of Six both did—and they proposed 

substantially more in revenue than will be generated by the 2012 

fiscal cliff. 

So my question to you is this: If we were to hold revenues at an 

average of 18.9 percent of GDP, as you estimate, not to ask for a 

penny more of contribution from either the wealthiest of Americans 

or from some of the most egregiously wasteful loopholes in the Tax 

Code, if you could, lay out for this Committee some of the policy 

choices that Congress will have to face within a relatively short period of time. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Yes, Senator. If tax revenues are maintained at 

their historical average share of GDP, or even at the roughly 19 

percent that we project for the end of this coming decade, then putting the Federal debt on a sustainable long-run path would require 

substantial cutbacks in the benefits and services that people receive from the Government relative to what would happen under 

current law or current policies. The numbers for the increase in 

beneficiaries of Social Security and Medicare are just striking. We 

estimate that by 2023 there will be about 40 percent more people 

receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits than received them 

last year. With a 40-percent increase in the number of people receiving benefits, the total costs will be much higher or the benefits 

per person will have to be much lower. 

When we look out even over the next 25 years, as we did in our 

long-term budget outlook last year, we were clear that the biggest 

factor pushing up spending was the aging of the population and the 

growing number of people who would be eligible for these benefits 

under current law. The rise in health care costs per person in excess of GDP growth per person is a smaller factor, not an insignificant one but a smaller factor, actually, than the aging of the population. 
37 

So over the past 40 or so years, leaving aside the developments 

of the past few because of the recession and financial crisis, but 

over the 40 years leading up to that, this country had an expansion 

of Social Security and health care programs that was essentially financed by a reduction in military spending as a share of GDP. 

There was no direct flow of money, but if you looked at the overall 

Government budget, the decline in defense spending as a share of 

GDP turned out to be essentially the mirror image of the increase 

in Federal spending on Social Security and the big health care programs between about 1970, say, and 2007. 

But that is the pattern that cannot be repeated, and it cannot 

be repeated because we now have a much sharper increase in the 

number of people who are beneficiaries of these programs, so the 

underlying forces pushing them up are stronger. We have also reduced defense spending to a much smaller share of the economy 

than it had been before. So that method essentially of dealing with 

the rising costs of these programs is not available at that order of 

magnitude. And this is not to say that changes cannot be made, of 

course, in defense spending or other things. But something different will have to happen going forward. And under current law, 

all Federal spending apart from that for Social Security and the big 

health care programs and interest payments, but everything else 

the Government does is already on track to become a much smaller 

share of the economy than it has been in the past. So even as 

things stand in these projections, the role of the Federal Government over the next decade relative to the past decade is sharply 

different, much more spending on these benefit programs, particularly for older Americans, and relative to the size of the economy 

on a track to have less spending on defense but also non-defense 

discretionary spending and the mandatory programs apart from Social Security and the big health care programs. 

So the share of GDP that we represented by in particular nondefense discretionary spending, and defense discretionary spending 

at the end of the coming decade, will be lower than they have been 

at any point in my lifetime, which is the period for which the Government has been collecting data on that basis. 

So there is a really profound shift underway, even under the current law, which is not enough to put the debt ultimately on a sustainable path. So if you and your colleagues want to put the debt 

on a sustainable path, and also if you want to undo some of the 

things that are in current law like the sequester, then you will 

need to make substantial changes either in those large benefit programs or in the share of GDP taken up by tax revenue. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. Let me check with our staff. Do we 

know if any members are returning? 

[Pause.] 

Chairman MURRAY. All right. I will ask one more question, and 

I would just like to notify all Senators, you have about 3 minutes 

to let me know if you are returning, or your staffs. Otherwise, I am 

going to ask one more question and adjourn. 

Dr. Elmendorf, I did want to ask about the issue of sustainability 

as well as the second report you released last week on macroeconomic effects of alternative budgetary paths. I want to make 

sure that this Committee aggressively addresses the fiscal chal-
38 

lenges we face, but to do it in a way that protects the recovery, 

puts in place sensible deficit reduction, and ensures the middle 

class get a fair deal. 

The groups like Simpson-Bowles and the Senate Gang of Six 

prioritized protecting the economic recovery. They proposed to put 

our debt on a stable downward path without making immediate 

drastic cuts, and that approach would really allow us to make 

smart cuts, smart investments, and ask that everybody pay their 

fair share. 

Your report suggests that in the near term large spending cuts 

would have a negative impact on growth, an effect that would be 

concerning given the relatively weak state of our economy today. 

How might we avoid that negative impact while still achieving 

the benefit to the economy of deficit reduction? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. I think, Senator, to provide more support for 

the economy in the near term without damping long-term economic 

prospects, you and your colleagues could pursue a path of less fiscal tightening this year and next, accompanied by greater tightening later in the coming decade. And there are many different 

combinations of policies that could be used to achieve that, but I 

think that sort of path that had less fiscal tightening now and 

more later could be good for the economy in the short term and 

also could strengthen the economy in the medium term and long 

term. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. Well, CBO’s analysis of alternative budgetary paths suggests that budget savings of about $4 trillion 

over the next decade on top of the sequester and the savings already achieved in the last Congress would be necessary to come 

close to eliminating the deficit by 2023. What would be the consequences of implementing an additional $4 trillion in deficit reduction, particularly if certain parts of the budget were to be excluded 

by defense or revenue? 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Achieving that amount of deficit reduction 

would involve fundamental changes in some significant pieces of 

the budget, and the more pieces that were taken off the table, the 

more significant the changes would need to be in the remaining 

pieces. But the precise consequences, of course, on the benefits and 

services provided around the economy would depend on the nature 

of those cutbacks. 

Chairman MURRAY. All right. Let me check with my staff to see 

if there are any Senators returning. 

Okay. I think the votes contracted everybody’s schedule this 

morning, and, Dr. Elmendorf, I know that you will answer any 

questions that are given to you in writing. 

I do want to thank all of our Committee members for participating today, and thank you, Dr. Elmendorf, for being here, as well 

as all the staff of the Congressional Budget Office. I know the hard 

work you put into preparing the budget outlook and helping our 

Committee. 

For all of our Committee members, I want to remind all of you 

that we do have our next meeting tomorrow at 10:30 to hear from 

members of the public and experts to learn more about the impact 

of budget decisions on families and communities, and as I said earlier, I am committed to making sure that families and communities 
39 

have a voice in this process and that their values and perspectives 

are heard. 

Finally, for the information of all my colleagues, additional statements and/or questions to Dr. Elmendorf for this hearing record 

are due by 6:00 p.m. today to be submitted to the chief clerk in 

Room 624. 

With that, again, Dr. Elmendorf, thank you very much, and I will 

adjourn this hearing. 

Mr. ELMENDORF. Thank you, Senator. 

[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
40 

CBO's Responses to Questions for the Record, 

Senate Budget Committee Hearing, 

February 12,2013 

Senator Grassley 

Question 1: The CBO baseline shows that federal revenues, under current law, will rise to 

about 19 percent ofGDP and stay there for most of the next ten years-higher than the 

historical average of about 18 to 18.5 percent. The baseline also shows that spending will 

average above 22 percent of GDP over the next ten years-higher than the historic average 

of 21 percent. This disparity leads to deficits totaling $7 trillion over the ten years. 

Is it correct to state, that based on historical trends of revenue and spending, the primary 

driver of deficits over the next ten years is historically high spending? 

Answer: Under current law, deficits during the 2014---2023 projection period will average 

3.3 percent ofODP, CBO projects, similar to the 40-year average of3.1 percent. In those 

projections, the deficit initially declines from 5.3 percent this year to a low of 2.4 percent in 2015 

and follows an upward trend thereafter, reaching 3.8 percent by the end of the projection period. 

CBO projects that revenues wiJl average about 19 percent of GDP during the coming decade 

under current law, above their 18 percent average of the past 40 years. CBO also projects that 

outlays will average 22 percent of GDP over the next 10 years under current law, above their 

21 percent average of the past 40 years. Thus, both outlays and revenues are projected to be 

higher than their historical average shares of the economy's total output. 

CBO expects that, under current law, outlays will be above their historical average primarily 

because the aging of the population, rising health care costs, and a significant expansion in 

eligibility for federal subsidies for health insurance will push up spending for Social Security and 

the major federal health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid, and the subsidies to be provided 

through insurance exchanges). Such spending is projected to equal 10.9 percent of GDP during 

the coming decade, compared with a 40-year average of 7.2 percent. In addition, with federal 

debt held by the public much larger relative to GDP than it has been in the past, net interest 

payments are projected to equal 2.5 percent of ODP, compared with a 40-year average of 

2.2 percent. 

Other broad categories of spending are expected to represent smaller shares of GDP than they 

have been in the past: Mandatory spending other than for Social Security and the major health 

care programs is projected to average 2.6 percent ofODP, compared with a 40-year average of 

3.0 percent; defense spending is projected to average 3.0 percent ofODP, compared with a40-

year average of 4.7 percent; and nondefense discretionary spending is projected to average 

3.0 percent ofGDP, compared with a 40-year average of 4.0 percent. 
41 

Question 2: Some have argued that to close the deficit over the next decade, we should 

simply hring revenue up to about 21 % of GDP, from the present level of around 18.5%. An 

increase in effective tax "ates to collect revenues at 21 % of GDP would result in a tax 

increase over the next ten years of about $3-4 trillion. And, that's on top of the $600 billion 

tax increase enacted as part of the fiscal cliff deal. 

Do you think raising taxes by $3-4 trillion is the right approach to reduce deficits and 

balance the budget over the next ten years? What would a tax increase of that size do to 

economic growth? Finally, what's hetter fo!' our fiscal stability long-term - a $4 trillion tax 

increase or increased revenue as a result of economic growth? 

Answer: Choices about public policy inevitably involve certain sorts of value judgments that 

CBO does not and should not make. To ensure that COO's analysis is objective, impartial, and 

nonpartisan, the agency does not make recommendations about what policies the Congress 

should enact. 

The economic effects of a tax increase would depend on how taxes were raised-including, in 

particular, the extent to which statutory tax rates were raised versus the extent to which the tax 

base was broadened. In the short run, a tax increase is likely to reduce ec.onomic output below 

what it would be otherwise by reducing after-tax income and therefore demand for goods and 

services. In the longer run, a tax increase would have competing effects on the economy: The 

policies that raise tax revenues might decrease people's incentives to work and save, but the 

smaller budget defic.its and lower federal debt would boost national saving, investment, and 

income. The net effect on output would depend on the details of the policies underlying the tax 

increase. 

Question 3: Following the enactment ofiegislation to cut spending and increase taxes, some 

of our colleagues and outside commentators, including Paul Krugman, have argued that 

we're essentially on the cusp of victory regarding our debt problem. He stated in a column 

recently that the budget deficit isn't our biggest problem, and it's a problem that is 

already, to a large degree, solved. He argues that an economic recovery will stabilize 

deficits. 

Do you agree with this assessment, or is it important to put the dehHo-GDP ratio 011 a 

downward path? Is simply stabilizing it at the historically high level of 77 percent of GDP 

enough'! What are the economic consequences of such high and !"iSing debt? 

Answer: By 2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal 77 percent of GDP and be on 

an upward path, CBO projects. Such high and rising debt will eventually have serious negative 

consequences: 

• When interest rates rise to more-normal levels, federal spending on interest payments will 

increase substantially (as shown in CBO's baseline projections). 
42 

Because federal borrowing reduces national saving, the capital stock will be smaller and 

income will be lower than they would be if the debt was smaller. 

• La\\.'I1lakers will have less flexibility than they would otherwise to use tax and spending 

policies to respond to unexpected challenges. 

• Such a large debt will increase the risk of a fiscal crisis, during which investors would 

lose so much confidence in the government's ability to manage its budget that the 

govenunent would be unable to borrow at affordable rates. It is impossible to predict with 

any confidence whether or when a fiscal crisis might occur in the United States; in 

particular, there is no identifiable level of deb! relative to GOP that indicates that a crisis 

is likely or imminent. At any given time, the risk of such a crisis depends not only on the 

debt levels and economic conditions in the United States and other countries at the time 

but also on expectations about budgetary and economic developments in the future. All 

else being equal, however, the greater the amount offederal debt, the greater the risk of a 

fiscal crisis. 

Question 4: Your report indicates that interest rates will be higher in the second half of the 

decade due to the high debt-to-GDP ratio. I presume there is a negative consequence to 

economic growth of higher in terest rates and lower private investment. 

Will higher interest rates, caused by high debt levels, reduce long-term economic output? 

Can you characterize the impact of higher interest payments and federal borrowing on 

national saving and wage growth? 

And, what does this mean for America's poor and most vulnerable? 

Answer: CBO forecasts that interest rates will average 4.0 percent on 3-month Treasury bills 

and 5.2 percent an 10-year Treasury notes over the period trom 2018 to 2023. Those rates are 

consistent with the historical relationships among interest rates, inflation, federal bon'owing, and 

the factors that underlie the gro\vth of potential GD? In particular, the rate on I O-year Treasury 

notes, adjusted for inflation, is projected to egual about 3 percent [rom 2019 to 2023-higher 

than its long-run historical average, primarily because CBO forecasts a higher-than-average ratio 

of federal debt to GDP during that period. With increases in federal debt and interest rates over 

the next decade, the federal govemment's net interest costs are projected to increase from 

1.4 percent of GOP in 2013 to 3.3 percent of GOP in 2023, contributing to the increase in federal 

debt. The rise in debt is projected to crowd out investment, reducing the nation's output and 

wages for Americans in all income categories. 
43 

Question 5: It is my understanding f1'om the work of the Congressional Budget Office that 

health care will become the single largest spending provision of the federal government, 

exceeding Social Security, as of2015. I further understand from your work that over the 

next 25 years health care entitlements will nearly double as a share of GDP growing to 10% 

ofGDP. 

Given those two facts, if we are serious about spending, we have to be talking about bealth 

care. Ifwe are going to reduce spending in health care, we have very few options. We can 

either increase the amount beneficiaries payor reduce wbat we pay providers. Ifwe want 

our health care system to be more efficient, we are going to have to make structural, 

delivery system reforms to our health care system. 

Do you disagree with any of this statement? 

Answer: Under current law, the aging of the population, rising health care costs, and a 

significant expansion in eligibility for federal subsidies for health insurance will substantially 

boost federal spending on Social Security and the government's major health care programs, 

relative to GDP, for the next 10 years and in decades thereafter, In particular, in CBO's baseline, 

outlays for the federal government's major health care programs-Medicare (net of receipts from 

premiums), Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and subsidies offered through 

new health insurance exchanges and related spending----are projected to rise from 4,7 percent of 

GDP in 2012 to 6,2 percent in 2023. Spending for Social Security will also be rising as a share of 

GDP, In total, outlays for the major health care programs will exceed spending for Social 

Security by 2015 and will be 13 percent greater by 2023, CBO projects. 

Unless the laws governing Socia! Security and the major health care programs are changed-or 

the increased spending is accompanied by corresponding reductions in other spending, 

sufficiently higher tax revenues, or a combination of the two-4iebt will rise sharply relative to 

GDP after 2023. 

Major changes to current tax or spending policies will be necessary to put the budget on a more 

sustainable path, but such changes will require significant trade-offs between deficit reduction 

and other policy goals. If lawmakers want to reduce federal spending for health care relative to 

what it would be under cUITen! law, then increasing the share of health care costs borne by 

beneficiaries and reducing payments to providers are among the key alternative approaches. 

Some versions of those approaches-as well as other possible changes in federal programsmight also lead to changes in the delivery of health care that would increase the efficiency of the 

health care system, Policy changes that align the interests of patients, providers, and payers may 

have the greatest potential to control costs, although they may be complex to design and can 

have uncertain effects. 
44 

Senator Warner 

Question 1: Starting with the Simpson-Bowles report, over the last couple yeal's expert 

groups on solving long-term deficits have told us that in order to get our debt to GDP ratio 

to a sustainable level we need about $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years to get our 

debt-to-GDP ratio to a sustainable level. How much deficit reduction would we need over 

10 years to have the same effect that a $4 trillion package (constructed line in SimpsonBowles) would han' had in 21n!'? 

Answer: The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Refl11m (often called the 

Simpson-Bowles Commission) estimated that, under its plan (released in December 2010 and 

covering the years between 2012 and 2020), debt held by the public at the end of that period 

would stand at about 65 percent ofGDP and be on a slightly downward trajectory. By contrast, 

under CBO's most recent baseline (which covers the years between 2013 and 2023), debt held by 

the public would equal 77 percent of GOP at the end of the period and be on a slightly upward 

trajectory. Under an illustrative path developed by CBO in which baseline deficits would be 

reduced by a total of $2.4 trillion (including the effects on debt service and on the economy), 

debt would decline to 67 percent of GOP in 2023, in the vicinity of the debt that the Commission 

projected for 2020 under its plan (although its plan did not take potential economic effects into 

account). A second illustrative path developed by eBO in which deficits would be reduced by a 

total of$4.8 trillion over 10 years (relative to eBO's current baseline) would put debt held by the 

public on a steeper downward trajectory and bring it to 59 percent of GDP in 2023. 

The amount of debt considered "sustainable" is unclear. Achieving relative stability in the debt 

-as would occur in CBO's projections under current law-would be a welcome development 

after the sharp upward surge in debt during the past several years, but such debt would still equal 

a greater percentage of GOP than in any year between 1952 and 2010. Even stabilizing debt 

closer to 60 percent of GDP would still be a higher level than in nearly all years during thllt 

period. Debt that was high by historical standards would have significant consequences, 

including higher net interest costs and lower national saving, leading to less domestic investment 

and income relative to what they would be otherwise. In addition, policymakers' ability to use 

tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges could be constrained, and the 

likelihood of a fiscal crisis would be higher. 

Question 2: Are tbere benchmarks ill terms of unemployment and GOP growth where 

allowing deficit reduction to take place will have a less dramatic effect on unemployment 

and GDP? 

Answer: Deficit reduction would tend to have a smaller negative impact on GDP in the short run 

when the economy was stronger and monetary policy was less constrained in its ability to 

confront economic headwinds. Ordinarily, the Federal Reserve can seek to offset a tightening of 

fiscal policy by lowering short-tenn interest rates. But in the current economic environment, with 

output so far below its potential (maximum sustainable) level, the Federal Reserve has kept 

short-tClm interest rates near zero. As a result, the Federal Reserve would be unable to further 

reduce short-te!m interest rates to offset the negative short-mn effects on GDP ofta" increases or 

spending cuts. eBO currently projects that after output moves closer to its potential, the Federal 
45 

Reserve will begin to raise short-term interest rates above zero in 20] 6. As we near that time, 

CBO expects that fiscal tightening would have a smaller effect on unemployment and GDP than 

it would have this year or next year. 

Question 3: Today, looking at what we have done in terms of new revenue for the next ten 

years and making an apples to apples comparison with baselines--how much revenue has 

the Congress l'3ised compared to what Simpson-Bowles, which had bipartisan support, 

proposed that Congress raise in order to address our fiscal challenges? 

Answer: The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform proposed that federal 

revenues total 19.3 percent ofGDP in 2015, 20.0 percent in 2017, and 20.6 percent in 2020. 

Under the assumption that the laws governing taxes do not change, CBO projects that federal 

revenues will equal 19 J percent of GDP in 2015, 18.9 percent in 2017, and 18.7 percent in 2020. 

Thus, under cunent law, federal revenues would be below the commission's proposed amounts 

by about 1 percent of GDP in 2017 and about 2 percent of GDP in 2020. 

Question 4: Sequester is scheduled to hit in just 17 days. These cuts were made to he so 

stupid that nobody would want them to happell. But, as the days go by, and we do 

nothing, it is seems more lil,ely it will go into effect. What is immensely frustrating is that 

it seems like under the guise of trying to save money through sequester, we al'e going to 

end up paying more on many contracts due to termination fees and other associated 

costs. For example, with many pentagon multi-year contracts, we get cost savings by 

"buying in bulk". The problem is, iflvc miss a payment due to sequester, the contract 

will be cancelled and the taxpayer will be hit with huge charges for termination costs, 

and then end up paying more at the single quantity price. One tangible example is the 

LSS Abraham Lincoln was scheduled to begin a 44 month overhaul on this month, but 

the Navy doesn't have funding for that project due to the CR, so it's tied the Lincoln up 

to a pier and ii's going to cost the taxpayers $1 OM/month to sit there (with a 1,000 

person ovel'bau) crew ready to go-but no funding), not to mention derailing the NIIVY'S 

tightly coordinated carrier overbaul schedule. 

Is CHO accounting for these types of potential cost increase, and how are you measuring 

them? 

Answer: When departments and agencies cannot plan and execute their budgets because of sharp 

changes in funding or uncertainties about funding, their operations will often be less efficient 

For example, uncertain budgets have led some federal agencies to lease buildings rather than 

purchase them outright, which may have resulted in higher tolal costs over the long lenn. 

Uncertain budgets have also led federal agencies to postpone updating computer and 

communications systems, wbich may have reduced the productivity of their employees. 

However, the efficiency of the operations of federal departments and agencies does not affect 

CBO's baseline (current-law) projections for discretionary spending. With caps on discretionary 

spending in place, CBO's projections of overall defense and nondefense discretionary funding 

are equal to the cap amounts. Hence, the inefficiencies that may result from sharp changes in 
46 

funding or unce!1ainties about funding do not affect the amount of discretionary spending that 

CBO projects. Rather, such inefficiencies reduce the quantity or value of the goods and services 

that the govenunent can acquire and produce with that spending, and they may make it more 

difficult to constrain spending in the future. 
47 

Senator King 

Question 1: Federal tax expenditures have grown substantially over the last decade, almost 

doubling from $508 billion in 1988 to $1.025 trillion (in 2010 dollars). In a 2012 report from 

the Joint Committee on Taxation, the committee lists tax expenditures at over $1 trillion 

dollars, constituting a larger part of the budget than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, 

or National Defense. Given this Congress' responsibility to address our fiscal challenges in 

a balanced way, reforming tax expenditures in order to achieve credible deficit reduction 

should be prioritized before cutting federal discretionary spending, 

Could you pl'ovide insight on the sustainability of the growth of federal tax expenditures as 

a share of the federal budget? 

Answer: Under cun'ent law, tax expenditures will continue to grow in coming years. For 

example, the staff of the Joint Committee of Taxation recently estimated that, under current taw, 

total tax expenditures in the individual income tax will increase from about $1.0 trillion in 2012 

to about $IA trillion in 2017, a rise ofabou! 40 percent. I Some tax expenditures (such as ones 

reJated to health care) will grow at a faster pace, and some (such as the tax expenditure for the 

child tax credit) will grow more slowly. By way of comparison, CBO projects that, under current 

law, receipts from individual and corporate income taxes combined will increase by about 70 

percent between 2012 and 2017. 

Question 2: A series of bipartisan deals enacted in 2011 will cut federal disCI'etionary 

spending by approximately $1.5 trillion for Fiscal Years 2013-2022. In the Budget and 

Economic Outlook: FY 2012·2023 report, the Congressional Budget Office projects that 

with the original caps on discretionary budget authority from just one of the deals the 

Budget Control Act discretionary spending will equal 5.8% of GDP in 2023. This would 

be the lowest level for discretionary spending as a share of the economy in more than fifty 

years, sinking discretionary spending to a new historic low. 

Could you provide insight on the following: How have cuts in federal discretionary 

spending enacted under the 2011 series of Continuing Resolutions nnd the 2011 Budget 

Control Act affected the economy; and, as this Committee seeks to address upcoming fiscal 

challenges, such as the sequester, the budget, and the debt limit, how would further cuts in 

federal discretionary spending affect the U.S. economy? 

Answer: CBO has not separately analyzed the economic effects of the limits on discretionary 

spending imposed by the Budget Control Act of201l and the various continuing resolutions 

enacted by lawmakers in recent years. In general, reductions in federal spending tend to lead to 

lower output and income in the short run because they subtract from the economy's demand for 

goods and services; but they tend to lead to greater output and income in the longer run because 

the resulting smaller budget deficits and lower federal debt boost national saving and investment. 

That positive long-run effect on output would be offset to some extent if the reductions in federal 

I Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimates c/Federnl Tax Expenditures/or Fiscal Years 2012-2017, lCS-I-13 

(February 1, 2013), www.jct.govlpublications.htm!. 
48 

spending came from cuts in spending on productive government investment, such as carefully 

chosen infrastructure projects. 

Question 3: It is undeniable that America's infrastructure is in decay. The American 

Society of Civil Engineers estimated in 2011 that we must invest $1. 7 trillion between nfrW 

and 2020 to rebuild roads, bridges, water lines, sewage systems, and dams that are reaching 

the ends of their planned life cycles. In Maine, the Federal Highway Administration 

estimates that 342 Maine bridges are structurally deficient (14.24 percent of the 2402 total) 

and in need of repair. We need to reinvest in and rebuild Amel'ica's infrastructure system. 

Could YOII provide insight on the following: How do targeted infrastructure investments 

effect economic growth? Are there investments Congress could make that would have 

greater economic impact than rebuilding ollr nation's publie infrastructure? 

Answer: In the current economic environment, with significant unused capacity, additional 

federal spending on infrastructure could increase employment and output. In addition, evidence 

suggests that spending on carefully selected infrastmcture projects can contribute to long-term 

economic growth by increasing the nation's capital stock and raising productivity. lfthat 

spending on infrastmclure resulted in greater federal debt, the negative effects on private 

investment and output from that higher debt would be offset to some extent by the positive 

contributions of the additional infrastructure itself. CBO has discussed infrastructure investments 

in a number of reports and testimonies, including Spending and Funding/or Highways (January 

2011), w>vw.cbo.gov/publication/22003; Public Spending on Transportation and Water 

Infrastructure (November 2010), www.cbo.gov/publicationJ21902; and Issues and Options in 

In/rastruclure Investment (May 2008), \vww.cbo.govipublicationJI9633. 

Other government investments that could enhance productivity in the long nm include increases 

in the quality and quantity of public education and increases in research and development. 

However, the effectiveness of investments in those areas is very difficult to project, and 

outcomes would depend critically on the specifics of the policies. 
49 

Senator Enzi 

Question 1: The CllO report indicates that revenues are projected to increase hy roughly 

25 percent between 2013 and 2015. In addition, growth of the economy is expected to be 

just 1.4 percent in 2013 but accelerate to 3.4 percent in 2014. 

To what extent do increased taxes that were recently enacted and that pull money out of 

the hands of both employers and employees have II negative effect on your economic 

growth projections? Would you please quantity the amount? 

Answer: CBO estimates that economic growth in 2013 would be roughly 1 Y2 percentage points 

faster than the agency now projects if not for the fiscal tightening projected for this year. About 

1 Y4 percentage points of that effect come from automatic reductions in federal spending 

established by the Budget Control Act of2011, the expiration of the cut in payroll tax rates, and 

the increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds; the spending changes and the 

combined tax changes account for about equal portions of that amount. (The remaining Y. 

percentage point comes from other, smaller changes in spending and taxes.) 

Question 2: The CBO report indicates that "after the economy adjusts this year to the 

fiscal tightening inherent in current law, underlying economic factors will lead to more 

rapid growth, CBO projects-3.4 percent in 2014 and an average of 3.6 percent a year 

from 2015 through 20IS." 

Would you walk us through your analysis leading to the conclusion that the economy will 

"adjust" this year, and not over a longer period of time, due specifically to the tax increases 

enacted earlier this year. 

Answer: CBO's analysis indicates that the economy gained momentum in 2012, and ,vill 

continue to do so in2013, but thaI GDP growth will be constrained this year by the tightening of 

fiscal policy that is now under way. Were it not for that tightening. CBO's forecast for real GDP 

growth in 2013 would be about 3 percent, or about I Y2 percentage points faster than OUI forecast 

under current law. 

CBO expects that the effect of the fiscal tightening on the rate of growth of output will occur 

primarily in 2013 because the tax increases and spending cuts will reduce private and 

government purchases of goods and services fairly quickly. After that occurs, the underlying 

momentum of the economy appears to be strong enough to return grov.'th to more than 3 percent 

in 2014. Nevertheless, output will remain lower than it otherwise would have been for several 

years, CBO estimates. In the longer run, the impact of the fiscal tightening on output will reflect 

the balance between two forces: People's incentives to work and save will be reduced because of 

higher marginal tax rates, but smaller budget deficits and lower federal debt will boost national 

saving and investment 

Question 3: In each of the past four years, the CBO has projected that a rapid recovery was 

only two years away, but that has not yet occurred. Your report indicated that the effects of 
50 

the housing and financial crisis will continue to fade and that an upswing in housing 

construction, rising real estate and stock prices, and increasing availability of credit will 

help spur economic growth. 

Would you explain to us why these past projections were incorrect and how the estimations 

of economic growth in this year's report took those previous inaccuracies into account'? 

Answer: CBO regularly evaluates the quality of its economic forecasts by comparing them with 

the economy's actual performance and with forecasts by the Administration and the Blue Chip 

consensus-an average of about 50 private-sector forecasts. The most recent comparison, 

CHO's Economic Forecasting Record: 2013 Update, www.cbo.gov/publicationl43846, was 

published in January 2013. 

The economy has been weaker for a longer period of time than we and most other forecasters 

had anticipated. CBO recently published a report on the factors behind the slow recovery---What 

Accounts/or the Slow Growth 0/ the Econon~)! After the Recession? (November 20 12), 

~WF.cbo.gov/publication/43707-which includes a discussion of the performance of diiferent 

sectors of the economy. Compared with past recoveries, this recovery has seen especially slow 

growth in four components of demand for goods and services: purchases of goods and services 

by state and local governments, purchases of goods and services by the federal government, 

residential investment, and consumer spending. 

In 2009 and 2010, we marked down our forecast as we reassessed the effect that the financial 

crisis and recession were having on the economy. More recently, our forecast has been affected 

by such factors as weakness in Europe's economies and financial markets, and uncertainty about 

and anticipation of changes in fiscal policy. CBO's cnrrent forecast for the economy over the 

next few years reflects strengthening momentum as welJ as restraint from significant fiscal 

tightening that is projected to hold dov,.'l1 grmvth this year. If not for that fiscal tightening, CBO's 

forecast for GDP growth in 2013 would be considerably stronger. 

Question 4: Compared to the report issued last August by the CRO, the report issued last 

week shows that current law no longer puts our debt on a downward path. Would taking 

action sooner rathe.· than later to reduce our $16 trillion (and growing) debt impose less 

pain, both financially and economically, on the nation and the taxpayers? For example, if 

we were to enact legislation like the Penny Plan (8,1316, the One Percent Spending 

Reduction Act of 2011, introduced in the 112tll Congress) that cuts spending by one percent 

across the board each year for several years to achieve a balanced budget, could the longterm benefits (in terms of economic growth and fiscal sustainability) of such a plan 

outweigh any potential short-term consequences? 

Answer: Reductions in federal spending tend to lead to lower output in the short run because 

they subtract from aggregate demand for goods and services, and they tend to lead to higher 

output in the longer run because smaller budget deficits and lower federal debt boost national 

saving and investment. 
51 

How much the del1cit is cut in the next few years will have a number of consequences. The 

longer that significant deficit reduction is defened, the larger the government's accwnulated debt 

will be (with its associated costs 1U1d risks), the greater people's doubts might be about whether 

long-tenn deficit reduction will actually take place, and the greater the policy changes will need 

to be when deficit reduction begins. Conversely, the sooner that the deficit is cut, the less time 

that households, businesses, and state and local governments will have to plan and adjust their 

behavior. In addition, the timing ofthe steps taken to put fiscal policy on a sustainable course 

will affect different generations differently and will have a substantial impact on the economy. 

CBO analyzed the economic effects of waiting to implement policies that would stabilize the 

ratio offedera! debt to output in Economic Impacts of Waiting to Resolve the Long-Term Budget 

Imbalance (December 2010), ·w1Nw.cbo.govlpublicationl21959. 

Lawmakers could enact a wide range of policy changes with a wide range of timing for 

implementing those changes. Households, businesses, state and local goverrunents, and 

participants in the financial markets would be more likely to believe that the deficit reduction 

would t:uly take effect in the future if the future policy changes were specific and widely 

supported. 

Question 5: Would you please explain why the number of individuals projected to lose their 

employer-based or non-group insurance coverage has increased by more than 4 million 

since your previous estimate in August? Would you please explain what tbe effects of this 

increased loss of private insurance coverage will be on the federal government spending? 

Answer: Appendix A ofCBO's report The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 

2023 (Feb:uary 2013), www.cbo.gov/publicationI43907, includes a section explaining the 

changes related to projected insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As the 

report notes, reduced marginal tax rates are one of the main factors that explain the increase of 

4 million people shifting out of employment-based coverage. The American Taxpayer Relief Act 

lowered marginal tax rates (compared with the rates that were scheduled to be in effect under 

prior law), thus reducing the subsidy for health insurance provided by the tax exclusion for 

employment-based coverage. (The value of that subsidy is equal to the amount that a firm pays 

for health insurance premiums multipJied by the marginal tax rate of the employee.) cno 

anticipates that with a smaller govcrru11ent subsidy tor employer-based coverage, less oftha! 

coverage will be provided and more people will enroll in the new insurance exchanges than CBO 

and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) had previously estimated. That effect 

accounts for 2 million to 3 million additional people shifting out of employment-based coverage 

in the Feb:uary 2013 baseline compared with prior estimates. 

CBO also made a technical improvement to its models regarding how people's income is 

projected. As CBO stated in a March 2012 report on employment-ba~ed health insurance 

coverage under the ACA--CBO and JCT's Estimates of the Effects of the Affordable Care Act 

on the Number of People Obtaining Employment-Based Health Insurance, 

www.cbo.govlpublicationl43082-employers' decisions about whether to offer health insurance 

will depend in part on how many of their workers are eligible for Medicaid or exchange 

subsidies. In the Febmary 2013 baseline, as a result of modeling improvements, slightly more 

people are now projected to have income that will make them eligible for Medicaid or significant 
52 

subsidies in the insurance exchanges. That increases the likelihood that some of those workers or 

their employers may make decisions that move those workers out of employment-based 

coverage. 

Another technical change incorporated in the February 2013 baseline is an improvement in 

CllO's projections ofinsurance coverage in the absence of the ACA (shown as "prior law" 

coverage in CllO's tables). That change has made employment-ba.'ied health insurance coverage 

slightly more sensitive to the amount of unemployment and slightly less sensitive to growth in 

health insurance premiums. As a result, CBO now estimates that there would have been 

166 million people enrolled in employment-based coverage in 2020 in the absence of the ACA, 

compared with 161 million in the August 2012 baseline. With more people estimated to have had 

such coverage in the absence of the ACA, there will be a slightly greater reduction in 

employment-based coverage due to the ACA. Nevertheless, because of that higher starting point, 

CBO and JCT now project that, after the reduction stemming from the ACA, about 158 million 

people will obtain coverage through their employers in 2020, compared with the estimate of 

157 million in the August 2012 baseline. 

Question 6: eBO has projected that 7 million people will lose their employer-sponsored 

health insurance coverage over the ne:tt ten years. However, other actuarial estimates have 

placed the number at twice that amount or higher. Would you please e:tplain bow eRO 

arrived at this estimate, and what sources you consulted in estimating the number of 

employees who will lose their employer-sponsored health insurance? 

Answer: In March 2012, CllO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) published 

a lengthy report titled CEO and JCT's Estimates of The Effects of the Affordable Care Act on the 

Number of People Obtaining Employment-Based Health Insurance, 

www.cbo.gov/publicarionl43082.111at report explained in detail how CllO and JCT estimate 

changes in employment-based coverage stemming from the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As the 

report notes: 

Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a 

much larger reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based 

health insurance in light of the expanded availability of subsidized health 

insurance coverage that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCT's estimates take 

account of that expansion, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in 

place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for finns 

to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their 

employers. CBO and JCT have estimated that many workers and their families 

will not be eligible for Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program .. , , or 

substantial subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through the exchanges 

and that most employers will continue to have an economic incentive to offer 

health insurance to their employees .... Other analysts who have carefully 

modeled the nation's existing health insurance system and the changes in 

incentives for employers to offer insurance coverage created by the ACA have 

reached conclusions similar to those of CBO and JeT or have predicted smaller 

declines (or even gains) in employment-based coverage owing to the law. Surveys 
53 

of employers regarding their plans for offering health insurance coverage in the 

future have uncertain value and offer conflicting findings. One piece of evidence 

that may be relevant is the experience in Massachusetts, where employment-based 

health insurance coverage appeared to increase after that state's reforms, which 

are similar but not identical to those in the ACA, were implemented. (pp. 1-2) 

CBO and JCT's current estimates reflect our assessment of employers' and employees' 

responses to the set of opportunities and incentives under the ACA. In particular, the estimates 

reflect the view that workers generally want to obtain health insurance coverage at the lowest 

possible cost, taking into account both the price charged and any changes in tax payments or 

government subsidies that apply. CBO and JCT continue to expect that the ACA will lead to a 

small reduction in employment-based health insurance. That projection arises from the agencies' 

modeling of the many changes in opportunities and incentives facing employers and employees 

under the ACA and is consistent with the findings of other analysts who have carefully modeled 

the nation's health insurance system. 
54 

Senator Johnson 

Question: In the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 20B to 2023, CBO projects 

slower growth in health care spending than has historically heen the case. Please provide 

detailed information about the assumptions used by CBO in the adjustment of its current 

projections for Medicaid and Medicare, inclnding the details on actual spending for 20U. 

Please provide specifics about what the Affordable Care Act's policy changes do to either 

achieve savings or increase costs, as well as the technical changes made to the eBO's 

assumptions pertaining to Medicaid expenditnres. 

Answer: In recent years, health care spending has grown much more slowly, both nationally 

and for federal programs, than historical rates would have indicated. For fiscal year 2012, 

federal spending for Medicaid "vas $251 billion, and federal spending for Medicare (net of 

beneficiaries' premiums and other offsetting receipts related to the program) was $466 billion. 

Those amounts are about 5 percent below the amounts that CBO had projected in March 20 I O. 

In response to that slowdown, over the past several years CBO has made a series of dO\vnward 

technical adjustments to its projections of spending for Medicaid and Medicare. For example, 

from the March 2010 baseline to the current baseline, technical revisions (mostly retlecting the 

slower growth in the programs' spending in recent years) have lowered CBO's estimates of 

federal spending for the two programs in 2020 by a total about $200 billion-by $126 billion 

for Medicare and by $78 billion for Medicaid, or by roughly 15 percent for each progranl. 

For the 2013-2022 period, CBO's latest projection of Medicaid spending is nearly $240 billion 

(or about 5Yz percent) lower than its estimate in August 2012. That revision reflects both lower 

anticipated enrollment in Medicaid and lower expected costs per person. 

CBO now estimates that enrollment in 2022, for eXlilllple, will be about 84 million, compared 

with the 85 million it projected last August. Although CBO has increased its estimate of the 

number of people who will enrol! in Medicaid for the first time because of the Affordable Care 

Act's expansion of the program, the agency's projection of the number of people who would 

have been covered by Medicaid in the absence of that law has declined by a greater amount. 

Lower estimated Medicaid enrollment among those other groups is, in part, the result of 

improvements in CBO's methods for forecasting the number of people with insurance. More 

people are now expected to obtain insurance through other sources (primarily employers), 

resulting in lower projected enrollment in Medicaid. In addition, fewer people are now 

expected to enroll in the Supplemental Security Income program, and because people who are 

enrolled in that program automatically qualify for Medicaid, that change in turn reduces the 

projected number of Medicaid enrollees. 

CBO's current baseline also shows lower spending per person in the Medicaid program than 

was shown in August, primarily because of adjustments to account for the slowed growth in 

Medicaid spending. The agency also expects that per-person costs will be lower than it 

anticipated in August because a larger share of the people who will be covered under the 

Medicaid program will be children and healthier adults, whose medical costs tend to be lower 

than those of less healthy adults. Because of those and other factors, CBO now estimates that 
55 

Medicaid spending per person in 2020 will be about 6 percent lower than it projected in 

August. 

For the 2013-2022 period, CBO has reduced its 1 O-year projections of outlays for Medicare by 

about$140 billion (or about 2 percent) mostly for technical reasons-in particular, because of 

data on actual spending for 2012, the third consecutive year in which spending was 

significantly lower than CBO had projected. In past baselines, eBO had begun to reflect the 

slowing growth in spending for Medicare's Part A (Hospital Insurance) and Part B (Medical 

Insurance); the largest downward revision in the current baseline is for spending for 

Medicare's Part D (prescription dmgs). 

You also asked for specifics about what the Affordable Care Act's policy changes do to either 

achieve savings or increase costs. For the most recent estimate we have completed for the 

budgetary effects of the changes made by the Affordable Care Act, see Congressional Budget 

Office, letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal 

ofObamacare Act (July 24, 2012), v,ww.cbo.gov/publication/43471. 
56 

Senator Whitehouse 

Question: In CBO's review ofthe causes of slowing growth in health care spending, what 

types of evidence will you consider? How will you determine whether changes in health 

care spending are temporary or structural? 

Answer: eRO continually reviews patterns of gro\\th in health care spending to inform our 

projections. Whenever changes in those patterns are observed, we try to determine----through our 

own analysis and through discussions with olltside analysts and practitioners-the extent to 

which the changes result from govemment policies, economic circwnstances, demographic 

shifts, or changes in the nature of health care and the delivery of thai care. 

Wc are currently analyzing data on Medicare spending, Medicare beneficiaries, economic 

conditions, and other factors to determine what portion of the slowdown in Medicare spending 

can be attributed to changes in the prices paid for health care services under current law and 

changes in the composition and health of the Medicare population. In addition, we are examining 

which types of medical care experienced sharper slowdov.'l1s in gro\\th than other types. 

To help assess the extent to which changes in Medicare spending might be the temporary 

consequence of the weak: economy, we are also exploring whether the use of health care services 

by beneficiaries who were affected the most by the financial crisis and recession grew at a slower 

rate than the use of services by beneficiaries who were less affected. 
57 

Senator Crapo 

Question 1: It is my understanding that the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) 

program is currently projected to be insolvent by 2016, that the Medicare program is 

projected to be insolvent by 2024 (just one year beyond the current to-year budget 

window), and the Social Security program is projected to be insolvent by 2033. Is this all 

correct? 

Answer: cno projects that the Social Security Disability Insurance Tnlst Fund will exhaust its 

balances sometime in fiscal year 2016. Based on current law in 2012, CBO estimated that the 

Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund would be exhausted in 2038 and that the combined 

balances of those two trust funds would be exhausted in 2034. (The trust funds are legally 

separate but are often combined for estimating convenience.) cno has not yet updated its longterm baseline to reflect changes in law since 2012. For Medicare, cno projects that the tmst 

fund for Part A (the Hospital Insunmce Trust Fund) will exhaust its balances sometime in fiscal 

year 2023. 

Question 2: 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 lire some modest Medicare slivings 

currently projected to be a part of the sequester. Outside of those modest savings, wbich 

have yet to actually take effect, is it not correct tbat, regardless of the significance that one 

may apply to the overall deficit-reduction effects of tbose pieces of legislation, those 

measures have not had any measurable effect on improving the solvency of any of these 

impOl'tant programs? 

Answer: The Budget Control Act provided adjustments to the discretionary spending caps for 

increased activities related to program integrity in the Disability Insurance program. Even if the 

Congress had provided the maximum amount allowed under the adjustment (it provided less than 

the maximum in 2012), CBO does not expect that the decrease in benefit outlays resulting from 

those activities-less than $2 billion cumulatively through 2016-would have a significant effect 

on the balances in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund, which will have a shortfall of about 

$ J 5 billion in 2016. 

None of that recent legislation significantly affected the solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust 

Fund. 

Question 3: I have spent mucb of the last 3 years focusing on ways to contain our everexpanding deficit and entitlement problem. Sitting on the President's Fiscal Commission, 

the Gang of 6 and Gang of 8, my colleagues and I continued to go back to the same old 

reform ideas because we couldn't get any new ideas to save money. While we have heard 

about many different ideas from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reform our 

nation's Medicare program, CBO hasn't always been able to put a dollar amount to how 

much money these ideas would save. 
58 

Donald Berwick, a Center of American Progress senior fellow and former administrator of 

CMS recently stated that CRO's scoring rules are "much too much embed in the status 

quo. They require levels of certainty about the costs and benefits that defy many forms of 

innovation. They don't invite the kind of ambitious thinking that the country really needs 

right now, and unfortunately it does increase the risk of cuts." 

We all know that eBO has previously acknowledged certain policies in Medicare reform 

that get away from the status quo are difficult to score-this includes those that will impact 

consumer or business behavior, prevention and care coordination. 

Does CBO plan to make any changes to its current scoring rules to account for the 

innovation that is needed to reform the antiquated Medicare program to sustain it in the 

long run? And to sustain it without making blanketed cuts that will do nothing to bend the 

cost cun'c or address solvency? 

Answer: The procedures that CBO follows in producing baseline projections and cost estimates 

for legislative proposals are procedures that the budget committees and others in the Congress 

have found most useful over time. CBO aims to provide estimates of the budgetary impact of 

proposals that reflect its best judgment, based on available data and information, about what 

would occur ifthosc proposals were implemented. Because the budgetary effects of proposed 

policies are almost always uncertain, however, those estimates should be viewed as CBO's 

assessment of the middle ofa distribution of possible outcomes. 

Such estimates are particularly challenging fOf proposals that are more innovative, which tend to 

have effects--{)n the federal budget, on beneficiaries of federal programs, and on providers of 

services-that are more uncertain. For innovative health care proposals, the distribution of 

possible outcomes often includes both a possibility of large savings and a possibility of small 

savings Of even costs. Indeed, assessments of numerous demonstration projects in Medicarewhich CBO reviewed in Lessons from Medicare's Demonstration Projects on Disease 

Management, Care Coordination, and Value-Based Payment (January 2012), 

www.cbo.gov/pubJication/42859 -show that certain changes in Medicare have led to a wide 

range of budgetary and other effects for different providers of care who have participated in 

those projects. 

A key issue in many proposals that we have analyzed is not whether efficiencies can be achieved 

in principle, but the extent to which a particular legislative proposal will result in efficiencies in 

practice. For example, in many cases, our estimate of the budgetary effects of a proposal depends 

on how well the proposal targets a specific population or behavior. In the case of prevention 

activities, the costs of a new screening program for a specific disease that is made broadly 

available to Medicare beneficiaries often outweigh the savings generated from detecting that 

disease at an early stage in a small share of those benefi. ',.ries. If the screening policy could 

effectively target the narrower popUlation, the budgetary costs would be smaller relative to the 

budgetary benefits. The fact that a policy might lead to improved health outcomes does not 

necessarily mean that it would save the government money. Of course, even if such screening 

cost the government money, on balance, it might well represent an appropriate use of 

government funds, but that is not CBO's judgment to make. 
59 

To estimate the effects oflegislative proposals generally, CBO reviews studies by outside 

analysts, examines historical data for federal programs and any relevant data available from 

states, and conducts its own research using administrative records and survey data, The agency 

also consults with people in research organizations; relevant federal, state, and local goverrunent 

agencies; and businesses and national associations representing various groups, In the case of 

innovative strategies in health care, we are continually and very actively engaged in assessing 

new information as it becomes available, We are also engaged in several in-depth analytic efforts 

to improve our ability to model significant structural changes in Medicare, such as a premiumsupport approach, 

Question 4: Along those lines, the Bowles-Simpson Commission recognized that, while it 

would not be appropriate to seek savings from Social Security to reduce the overall 

national debt, it is a fact that Social Security will be insolvent within a generation lfwe do 

not act. Therefore, we felt it appropriate to include policies that would meet the goal of 

ensuring that Social Security remains solvent for the next 75 years, and beyond, And we 

were told by experts that various policy proposals can be measnred on how they improve 

the solvency of Social Security, and that the goal of overall solvency is measurable. 

However, when it comes to Medicare, we are told by experts that it is not as clear cut to be 

able to determine the precise type or magnitUde of policies that would need to be enacted to 

pull the program from the brink and ensure the program remains solvent for at least the 

next 75 years, We know that the entitlement programs are by far the major drivel' of our 

long-term budget pressures. As such, rather than trying to focus on policies that would 

achieve a certain targeted amount of overall deficit reduction, if policymakers instead 

focused on enacting policies that would achieve 7S-year sustainable solvency for Social 

Security, Medicare and Medicaid (with the secondary effect being a dramatic improvement 

in the long-term budget outlook), do we currently bave the scoring! estimating 

measurements available ill your office and elsewhere that would allow us to make the 

necessary decisions to h'Y to achieve those long-term solvency goals? 

Answer: Federal trust funds, such as those for Social Security and Medicare's Hospital 

Insurance, are essentially accotmting mechanisms within the government's overall financial 

flows, They have important legal meaning but little economic or budgetary meaning, The dates 

on which the balances of those trust funds are projected to be exhausted do not provide useful 

information about the resources that will be needed in future years from taxes, other government 

income, or goveflU11ent bon"owing to pay for benefits to be provided in that year. 

The Social Security and Medicare tmst funds are part of the federal government, so transactions 

between them and the Treasury are intragovermnental and have no net impact on the unified 

budget or on federal borrowing from the pUblic, For each year, the sum of a Imst fund's receipts 

and the interest that is credited on the trust fund balance, minus spending for benefits, represents 

the surplus (or deficit, if benefit spending is greater) in the trust fund for that year. Any cash 

generated when receipts exceed spending is not retained by the trust fund; rather, it is turned over 

to the Treasury, which provides government bonds to the trust fund in exchange and uses the 

cash to finance the government's ongoing activities, Thus, from a unified-budget perspective, 

any increase in revenues or decrease in outlays for the tmst funds represents cash that can be 
60 

used to finance other government activities without requiring new government borrowing from 

the public. Similarly, any increase in outlays or decrease in revenues for the trust funds in some 

future year represents a draw on the government's cash in that year. Thus, the resources to 

redeem government bonds in the trust funds and thereby pay for benefits in some future year will 

have to be generated from taxes, other government income, or government borrowing in that 

year. 

The financial pressures that will be generated by Social Security and Medicare in future years 

can best be assessed not by the projected exhaustion date of the trust funds but by the difference 

between projected spending for those progranls and other activities and projected federal 

revenues. Such projections (as well as projections of balances in the trust funds) are particularly 

difficult to make for health care programs over very long time periods because a wide range of 

changes could occur in people's health, in the sources and extent of their insurance coverage, and 

in the delivery of medical care-and those changes could have a significant impact on federal 

health care spending. Those potential changes make long-run estimates of the effects of 

proposals to alter federal health care programs much more uncertain than estimates of tlle effects 

of proposals to alter the Social Security program, which is affected primarily by demographic 

changes that are somewhat less difficult to predict. 

Although thc trust funds have little budgetary meaning, maintaining the solvency of such funds 

can be a goal that contributes to accomplishing the overall deficit reduction necessary to put the 

nation on a sustainable fiscal course. However, the solvency concept is more applicable to Social 

Security, which has a dedicated revenue source, than to Mcdicare, only part of which (Hospital 

Insurance) ha~ a dedicated revenue source, or to Medicaid, which does not have a dedicated 

revenue source. As illustrated by our report Social Security Policy Options (July 20 I 0), 

www.cbo.gov/publicationI21547, CBO has the capacity to analyze many different types of 

changes in Social Security's program rules that affect benefits or taxes. The report shows not 

only effects on Social Security's solvency over the 75-year horizon for 30 different options but 

also likely effects on different types of people over time. 

The Medicare tnlst ftmds are different. In the case of the Part B and Part D accounts in the 

Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, the amounts credited to the trust fund~and 

therefore, the amounts that come from taxes, other govenunent income, or govemment 

borrowing~are automaticaily adjusted to cover the expenditures of the Part B and Part D 

components of the Medicare program, For those trust fund accounts, solvency is automatic. 
(61) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET 

PROPOSAL 

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Murray, Sanders, Whitehouse, Warner, 

Merkley, Coons, King, Sessions, Portman, Johnson, and Wicker. 

Staff Present: Evan T. Schatz, Majority Staff Director; and 

Marcus Peacock, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MURRAY 

Chairman MURRAY. This hearing will now come to order, and I 

want to thank again my Ranking Member, Senator Sessions, and 

all of our colleagues for joining us here today, as well as members 

of the public who are here in person or watching online. 

Today’s hearing is on the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposal. Our witness is Acting Director of OMB Jeff Zients, who is 

here to talk about the proposal and answer our questions. 

Jeff, I just want to start by thanking you once again for being 

here today and for all of your hard work at OMB during some really tough times. Your skilled leadership has really been instrumental in helping our Nation work through a number of budget crises, any of which could been devastating to our fragile economic recovery had we been unable to work our way through them. 

And we especially appreciate your willingness to serve as Acting 

Director the past 15 months, including your work on the past two 

budgets. I know that you and your family have sacrificed a lot in 

order to provide continuity to this agency and the dedicated employees who work there. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. It is sometimes pretty thankless work, but 

you have done a great job, and I want the record to reflect the 

thanks from me and from all of our Budget Committee. So thank 

you very much. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. I imagine we are going to hear some questions about the timing of this budget today, but everyone really 

should keep in mind why our budget process has been operating so 

far outside of regular order. 
62 

The uncertainty surrounding the fiscal cliff had major ripple effects on budget writing in Congress, as well as, I am sure, at OMB. 

The policy changes coming out of the year-end deal added to the 

challenges, and then sequestration, which we all hoped would be 

replaced, went into effect and shuffled that dynamic even further. 

So I am hopeful we can return to regular order in the budget 

process, but we should be clear. There has been nothing regular 

about the lurching from crisis to crisis over the past year. 

As I am sure Jeff will talk a bit more about, the fact that the 

President’s budget timing has shifted, along with other considerations, has changed the way they have now approached their proposal. 

Normally, during times when we are not dealing with fiscal cliff 

uncertainty and devastating automatic cuts, the President lays out 

his budget proposal, the House and Senate hold their hearings on 

it, and it influences our work as we write our respective budgets 

in Congress. 

This year, of course, is different. The House has already passed 

their budget, the Senate has passed our budget, and now we are 

trying to move forward towards the next step in the process and 

find a way to get to a balanced and bipartisan deal. 

So President Obama has made it very clear that the proposal we 

are discussing today does not reflect his thoughts on the ideal policy, and it certainly does not represent any kind of new starting 

point for negotiations. 

It is not the budget I would write on my own, and it includes several policies that I do not think are the best ways to tackle the deficit and debt. 

While I was glad to hear some Republicans in the past few days 

express interest in finally putting an end to governing by crisis, I 

was disappointed to see members of leadership come out and seemingly reject any compromise at all. I hope Republicans are now prepared to tell us their ideas for a bipartisan path forward. And I 

know that the American people are expecting us to work together 

now to come to a deal. I know I am ready to do that, and I think 

the onus is on Republicans to now show us that they are as well. 

While this proposal reflects President Obama’s compromise offer, 

I was very glad to see the President maintained his commitment 

to putting jobs and broad-based economic growth first. I know 

Democrats here in the Senate feel very strongly that protecting our 

fragile economic recovery is paramount. The budget we passed reflects that, and any deal we come to would have to work for middle-class families and the economy as well. 

One of the most important ways that both the Senate budget and 

the President’s proposal puts the economy first is by replacing sequestration in a fair and responsible way. 

I know that when I went home to Washington state over the recess, my constituents were telling me about the negative impact 

that sequestration was already having on their families and communities. I am sure my colleagues heard similar stories back in 

their home States. And the problem is it is only going to get worse. 

We all know sequestration was never intended to take effect. It 

was supposed to motivate both sides to reach a compromise. That 
63 

is why the Senate budget replaces those automatic cuts with an 

equal mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue. 

And while the House budget refused to include any compromise 

in this area and replaces only the defense cuts while making even 

deeper cuts to programs families and seniors depend on, I am hopeful that we can work together on a fair and responsible replacement. 

In addition to replacing sequestration, the President’s proposal, 

like the Senate budget, also prioritizes creating jobs and laying 

down a strong foundation for long-term economic growth through 

investments in early childhood education, college affordability, 

transportation infrastructure, and other key programs that we include in the Senate budget as well. 

I was also very glad to see that the President’s proposal maintains the key principle in the Senate budget that is supported by 

bipartisan groups and the vast majority of the American people, 

that deficit reduction needs to be done in a balanced way, and includes a responsible mix of spending cuts and new revenue from 

those who can afford it the most. 

Since the Simpson-Bowles report was released in 2010, which recommended $4 trillion in deficit reduction, Congress and the administration have worked together to reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion, with $1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts and $600 billion 

from allowing tax rates to rise on the wealthiest Americans. 

The Senate budget as well as the President’s proposal builds on that work to exceed the bipartisan goal of $4 trillion in a way that 

reduces the deficit to below 3 percent of GDP and that pushes our 

debt as a percentage of the economy down and moving in the right 

direction. 

If the Senate budget was enacted, the total deficit reduction since 

the Simpson-Bowles report would consist of 64 percent from spending cuts, 14 percent from tax rates on the rich, and 22 percent from 

new revenue from closing loopholes and cutting wasteful spending 

in the Tax Code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest 

corporations. 

The ratios under the President’s compromise proposal would be 

slightly different, but the fact that it includes a mix of spending 

cuts and new revenue reflects the values and principles of balance 

and fairness that the vast majority of Americans have clearly stated they support. 

In addition to responsible spending cuts, a critical component of 

a balanced approach is ensuring that the burden of deficit reduction is not borne solely by the middle class, seniors, and most vulnerable families. And that means making sure that the wealthiest 

Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share. 

Although our budget leaves the specifics to the Finance Committee and the President’s proposal lays out a particular path, both 

put revenue on the table and specifically cite the need to close loopholes and wasteful deductions that benefit the rich. 

This should not be controversial. 

In 2012, on average, the top 1 percent of income earners saw 

their after-tax income increase by nearly $250,000 as a result of 

special tax provisions; the middle class only received an average of 

about $3,500. Those heavily skewed tax breaks do little for our 
64 

economy; they just make it harder for middle-class Americans to 

get ahead. Especially at a time when we are looking everywhere for 

savings, we just cannot afford them. 

Even many Republicans agree there is waste to be found in the Tax Code. Speaker Boehner proposed raising $800 billion for deficit 

reduction by closing what he called ‘‘special interest loopholes and 

deductions.’’ Chairman Ryan has noted that, ‘‘The Tax Code is patently unfair.’’ And he has said that many of the deductions and 

preferences in our Tax Code are, and I quote, ‘‘mainly used by a 

relatively small group of mostly higher income individuals.’’ 

In fact, to keep the House Republican budget’s tax reforms revenue neutral, as they have committed to doing, they would have to 

identify $5.7 trillion in savings from the Tax Code to pay for the 

tax rate cuts they want to give to the rich. That is almost six times 

what the Senate budget proposes. 

So House Republicans clearly know there are savings to be found 

in the Tax Code. The difference is that Democrats believe that instead of that savings going toward more tax cuts for the rich, we 

should use it to reduce the deficit and invest in our middle class. 

I was very glad to see that although some of the details differed, 

the President’s budget reflects that critical idea as well. So I am 

looking forward to hearing more about the proposal today and asking some questions. 

The Senate budget that we passed last month reflects where I 

think our country needs to be, as well as the pro-growth, pro-middle-class values and priorities of Senate Democrats and the vast 

majority of the American people as we now move into negotiations 

with the House. I am hopeful that Republicans will come to the 

table and show they are willing to compromise to get to a deal. 

I have been talking to Chairman Ryan about my desire to move 

to the next step in this process under regular order and do everything possible in a conference committee to bring the House and 

Senate budgets together. I know it will be difficult, but it is what 

the American people expect, and I think we owe it to them to make 

it work. 

So with that, before we ask our witness to deliver his testimony 

and move to questions, I will turn to my Ranking Member, Senator 

Sessions, for his opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SESSIONS 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Director Zients. We thank you for 

your work and for your appearing before the Committee today to 

present the President’s 2014 10-year budget. You have been placed 

in a difficult, unenviable position of defending a policy in terms of 

budgets that is indefensible. The administration has not indicated 

willingness to compromise, but as they have released with this 

budget, they slam the door on compromise, in effect, saying that 

this is not a compromise position. And Gene Sperling made that 

clear in other statements he has made. So this was not well received by those who thought that there may be some possibility of 

progress. 

Now, the Chair is correct that things can break, and we would 

hope that there is a possibility we will have some improvement. 

But the President’s statement was very strong. 
65 

His budget message in this document he submits uses the word 

‘‘balance’’ seven times, and, of course, it does not produce a balanced budget. Our colleagues in the Senate used that word ‘‘balance’’ 230 times in the 15, 18 hours that they used to debate. This 

budget, like the Senate budget, is not a balanced budget, nowhere 

close to being a balanced budget, does not intend to be a balanced 

budget. Spending never equals revenues. Spending always goes up, 

and substantially so. 

Now, our colleagues in the House understand what balance 

means to the American people. You do not spend more money than 

you take in. That is what it means. The budget plan passed by the 

House achieves an actual balance of revenue and expenditures. 

Yours does not. 

The administration says this simple understanding of balance is 

not a correct one. They say in their arrogance that the more sophisticated and erudite and correct understanding of the word ‘‘balance’’ is that tax increases equals spending cuts and, therefore, you 

have a balanced plan. 

Tax increases equals spending cuts, and you have a balanced 

plan. 

But this budget does not achieve even that twisted definition of 

‘‘balance.’’ In comparison with current law, the law we are operating under since August of 2011, the law the President signed, the 

budget increases spending and increases taxes. 

Commentators hoping for real progress have taken your numbers 

at face value and taken them as a cause for some optimism. A careful examination of the budget numbers, however, reveals little 

basis for optimism. In fact, this budget fails in every important category needed to put the Nation on a sound financial path. 

Using OMB’s own numbers, your numbers, this budget will increase spending by one thousand twenty-five billion dollars relative 

to current law. Increases spending. That includes $61 billion in 

spending proposed in this budget for this fiscal year, which ends 

less than 6 months from now. Taxes are increased by one thousand 

eighty-three billion. The deficit is largely unchanged, a meager $59 

billion reduction in the deficit path we are on today. 

Total debt will continue to climb, increasing by $8.3 trillion and 

reaching $25.4 trillion over 10 years. Stunningly, interest payments on that debt reach $763 billion in the last year of your budget, larger than the spending we have for national defense. 

So this plan is not balanced, even under the sophisticated understanding of balance propounded by the President, and that you 

have used, I believe. Mr. Lew certainly did. What this budget provides is the old-time Democratic religion of tax and spend. Under 

this budget, spending by the Federal Government will reach $4,200 

per household in 2023. 

Democrats say the Government needs more money to finance the 

continued expansion of the State. They say the American people 

are at fault, they have not sent enough money here, we need to extract more from them and not reduce spending that we now have. 

So this President has already cajoled Congress into giving him 

some $1.6 trillion in tax increases—$600 billion in January of this 

year and $1 trillion as part of the health care law. 
66 

The President is now asking for an additional $1 trillion in tax 

increases, and he wants more spending increases. Many Americans 

will pay for these tax increases, not just the mythical rich. We 

know that. These tax increases will weaken the economy, coming 

on the heels of tax increases that just took effect on January 1st 

of this year: higher income tax rates on income and capital gains, 

a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income, and a 0.9 percent 

Medicare tax surcharge. 

This budget amazingly creates new Federal entitlement programs. For example, rather than confronting abuses in existing 

public welfare programs, which are expected to grow by 83 percent 

over the next decade, the budget creates a new educational entitlement for universal preschool financed by tax increases. It provides 

mandatory spending for neighborhood revitalization and subsidizes 

taxable bonds issued by State and local government. 

The tendency of this Government is to use tax increases to pay 

for new spending, and it has caught the attention of the fiscal 

watchdogs. ‘‘The President’s many new expensive spending initiatives, paid for in large part with additional tax increases, could detract attention from the need to come up with a bipartisan solution 

to the Nation’s significant fiscal challenges.’’ That is Maya 

MacGuineas at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a 

very respected commentator on the fiscal scene. 

So this budget has no real proposal for reforming ineffective and 

outmoded welfare programs that comprise in total the largest 

spending in the budget. And, sadly, there are no serious reforms 

for saving our endangered Social Security and Medicare programs—reforms that are essential. 

Will this budget get us out of a high-debt, slow-growth economy 

we currently find ourselves in? Again, the budget fails in that. 

After spinning the numbers in unjustified ways, the President 

claims that the debt-to-GDP ratio goes down starting in 2016 as 

the President will be prepared to leave office. And so the Republic 

is saved. There is no need to worry about entitlements or the specter of higher interest rates. Nothing really could be further from 

the truth. 

By your own numbers, this budget leaves us above the 90 percent total of debt-to-GDP ratio that academic studies have shown 

tends to slow economic growth. 

In the last year of your budget, the gross debt is 97 percent of 

GDP, leaving each American household with $189,000 in debt. And 

in the out-years the entitlement avalanche is even more pronounced. You do nothing to help the United States avoid what 

Simpson and Bowles called ‘‘the most predictable economic crisis in 

our history.’’ 

It is possible that the 2.9 percent real economic growth projected 

in this budget will prove optimistic given the high levels of debt 

and Federal taxation that are called for in the budget, and this is 

without any expectation, no projection that we might have a recession or a real spike in interest rates. 

So the world is a fragile place. The world economy is fragile. The 

budget leaves us vulnerable. There is no room for error. It chooses 

to grow the Government at the expense of the economy, and this 

is the wrong course. 
67 

So I look forward to discussing some of these issues, and I would 

note, Madam Chairman, that, yes, the sequestration was hoped to 

be avoided, but the cuts in that sequestration were not to be avoided. They were in law and all agreed to by the President. So proposals to alter where the cuts fall rather than so disproportionately 

on the Defense Department are legitimate discussions, but not to 

alter that. 

And with regard to the Tax Code, the Democratic witness a few 

weeks ago told us that the deduction closings and loophole closings 

in the corporate tax rate should be used to reduce that corporate 

rate and not to spend on new programs. That is certainly what the 

Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, believes. 

So we have a lot of disagreement. I am disappointed in this 

budget. I look forward to discussing it with you and I will reflect 

that we are disappointed also that it was so late in coming. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Director Zients, thank you very much again 

for being here. We will turn to you for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JEFFREY ZIENTS, ACTING 

DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, and members of the Committee. 

I want to begin by thanking the Committee for holding the hearing yesterday for Sylvia to be the next OMB Director. If confirmed, 

we all believe she will do a great job, and we would encourage the 

Committee and the full Senate to move as fast as possible on her 

confirmation. 

I am pleased to be here today to present the President’s fiscal 

year 2014 budget. The main message—and I am going to use a couple of slides—of the President’s budget is that we can make critical 

investments to strengthen the middle class, create jobs, and grow 

the economy while continuing to reduce the deficit in a balanced 

way. We can do both balanced deficit reduction and jobs investments. 

On the left-hand side, in terms of balanced deficit reduction, the 

budget builds off the deficit reduction achieved to date. It includes 

the President’s fiscal cliff compromise offer to Speaker Boehner 

from December. Importantly, the budget turns off the sequester by 

replacing the sequester cuts with balanced deficit reduction. 

At the same time, the budget proposes important jobs investments to enhance economic growth through skills and competitiveness with investments in education, R&D, and infrastructure. Each 

of these new investments are fully offset. They are fully paid for, 

and they do not add to the deficit. 

On deficit reduction, as the Chairman said, over the past couple 

years Democrats and Republicans have worked together to cut the 

deficit by more than $2.5 trillion. Here is a rack-up of the deficit 

reduction to date. The BCA capped discretionary spending, saving 

over $1 trillion; another $370 billion in savings to the 2011 appropriations; the end of last year’s fiscal cliff agreement reduced the 

deficit by more than $600 billion. Together, the deficit reduction 
68 

lowered interest payments, saving an additional $480 billion. In 

total, more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction has been achieved. 

The President is committed to achieving a total of $4 trillion in 

deficit reduction. As the Chairman cited, $4 trillion is the benchmark set by Bowles-Simpson and other independent economists 

that puts us on a sustainable fiscal path. The good news is we are 

more than halfway there, more than halfway there on the $4 trillion target. 

The President’s budget finishes the job with an additional $1.8 

trillion of deficit reduction. The $1.8 trillion is from the compromise 

offer the President made to Speaker Boehner during fiscal cliff negotiations in December. By including this offer in the budget, the 

President is showing his willingness to compromise and make 

tough choices and his commitment to putting the country on a sustainable fiscal path. 

Here are the components of the deficit reduction, the $1.8 trillion. Let us start on the left side with the $2.5 trillion we have already achieved. The first bar, $400 billion in health savings that 

strengthen Medicare by squeezing out waste and incentivizing delivery of high-quality and efficient health care. 

Next, $200 billion in savings from other mandatory programs, including reductions to farm subsidies, reforms to Federal retirement, and selling unneeded Federal real estate. 

Next, $230 billion by indexing annual inflation adjustments to 

the chained CPI. 

Another $200 billion in discretionary savings beyond the $1 trillion that I mentioned earlier from the BCA caps. 

Next, $580 billion in revenues from tax reform, not by raising 

rates but by closing loopholes and reducing tax benefits for families 

with more than $250,000 in income. 

As a result of this, we have $190 billion in savings from reduced 

interest payments on the debt. At the same time, we invest $50 billion immediately in infrastructure to repair our roads and bridges 

and create jobs. In total, this achieves $1.8 trillion in additional 

deficit reduction over the next 10 years, bringing our total deficit 

reduction to $4.3 trillion, with more than $2 in spending cuts for 

every $1 in revenue. 

To be clear, this offer includes difficult cuts that the President 

would not propose on their own, including CPI, which the President 

is only willing to do with protections for the vulnerable and as part 

of this whole balanced plan. However, by including the compromise 

offer in the budget, the President is showing his willingness to 

make tough choices and his commitment to reducing deficits and 

putting the country on a sustainable fiscal path. 

Here are the annual deficits from 2012 through 2023. As you can 

see on the left-hand side, in 2012 the deficit was 7 percent as a 

percent of the economy. The budget phases in deficit reduction to 

support the ongoing recovery, and by 2016, the deficit is below 3 

percent. By 2023, it is below 2 percent, at 1.7 percent. 

As a result of this deficit reduction, debt as a percent of our economy is also on a declining path. With declining deficits and declining debt, the President’s budget achieves important milestones of 

fiscal sustainability. 
69 

This budget reaches those milestones of fiscal sustainability 

while investing in the drivers of economic growth. In doing so, it 

demonstrates that we do not have to choose between deficit reduction and economic growth. It shows that we can, and indeed we 

must, do both. The country will not prosper if we have 

unsustainable deficits. But it also will not prosper if our infrastructure is crumbling and our workers lack the skills to compete. 

Through paid-for initiatives like Pre-K for All, job training, and 

accelerated infrastructure investments, this budget will enhance 

our Nation’s competitiveness. And through balanced deficit reduction, this budget will enhance confidence and lay the foundation for 

more durable economic growth. It is the right strategy for our economy, for creating jobs, and for building prosperity. 

I am happy to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zients follows:] 
70 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

www.IVhitehouse.gov/omb 

TESTIMONY OF JEFF ZIENTS 

ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

BEFORE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

April 11, 2013 

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, members of the Committee, thank you for 

welcoming me here today, and giving me the opportunity to present the President's 2014 Budget. It 

is good to be with you again. 

I want to begin by thanking the Committee for holding a hearing yesterday on the President's 

nomination of Sylvia Mathews Burwell to be the next OMB Director. If confirmed, we beJieve Ms. 

Burwell will be an outstanding OMB Director and hope the Committee and full Senate will move to 

a vote on her confirmation as soon as possible. 

I also want to congratulate the Chairman and Committee for passing the Senate Budget Resolution. 

The Resolution is a concrete plan that will grow our economy and shrink our deficits in a balanced 

way. It also makes investments critical to our middle-class security. 

The President's 2014 Budget demonstrates that we can make critical investments to strengthen the 

middle class, create jobs, and grow the economy while reducing the deficit in a balanced way. The 

Budget addresses three core questions the President raised in his State of the Union address: How 

do we attract more jobs to our shores? How do we equip our people with the skills needed to do the 

jobs ofthc 21st Century? How do we make sure hard work leads to adecent living? The Budget 

addresses these questions as part of a comprehensive plan that reduces the deficit and puts the 

Nation on a sound fiscal course. 

Every new initiative in this plan is fully paid for, so they do not add a single dime to the deficit. At 

the same time, the Budget includes the President's ofter made as a part of the 'fiscal cliff' 

negotiations to build on the more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction already enacted with another 

$1.8 trillion, comprised of additional entitlement refonns, ~'Pending cuts, and tax reform that 

promotes growth, while reducing tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans. The Budget would 

result in: 

• $4.3 trillion in total deficit reduction, with over $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in 

increased revenue. 

Debt as a share of GDP on II downward trajectory by 2016, reducing it from 78.2 % of 

GDP in 20]4 to 73.0% by 2023. 

• Deficit under 2% of GDP in the IO-year window, and below 3% ofGDP by 2016. 
71 

This strategy will build on our country's economic recovery. It is the right budget and economic 

plan for this period in our economy. 

Since I was last with you, we have continued to make significant progress in the recovery from the 

worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The economy is now on the mend. We have seen 

positive economic groMh for 14 consecutive quarters, and 37 months of private sector job groMh. 

Our businesses have created nearly 6.5 millionjobs. The housing market is recovering. America's 

aulo industry is once again resurgent. And we have successfully ended the war in Iraq and are 

bringing our troops home from Afghanistan. 

But as the President has indicated, our work is not done. The economy is adding jobs, but too many 

Americans are still unemployed. Businesses are hiring again, but too many are still struggling to 

compete and find workers with the right skills to meet their needs. Home prices are rising at the 

fastest pace in six years and construction is expanding, but too many families with solid credit are 

still finding it difficult to buy a home or refinance. 

At the same time, we face signii1cant near- and long-term fiscal challenges. In the near-term, 

deficits are coming down, but they remain too high- primarily as a legacy of the recession, and 

unpaid for policies enacted over the decade before this President took office. Over the long-teml, 

although the Affordable Care Act reduced the deficit and is helping to slow the growth in health 

care costs, along with an aging popUlation, rising health costs continue to be one of the largest 

threats to our long term fiscal sustainability. 

The right prescription to address these challengcs is to combine smart, targeted investments in areas 

critical for economic growth and competitiveness, with deficit reduction that will boost confidence 

and certainty by putting the nation on a sound long-tenn fiscal trajectory. The Budget does just that 

offering a plan for deficit reduction that is phased in to avoid harming the economic recovery, and 

includes protections for the most vulnerable. At the same time, it preserves high priority 

investments that will enhance economic growth and private sector job creation. 

Let me briefly give an overview of how this Budget invests for growth, and then how it reduces the 

deficit in a balanced way. 

INVESTING FOR GROWTH AND STRENGTHENING THE MIDDLE CLASS 

Making America a Magnet/or Jobs 

Over the last four years, we have begun the hard work ofrebuUding our Nation's infrastructure, but 

to compete in the 21 st Century economy and become a magnet for jobs, we must do more. The 

Budget includes $50 billion for up-front infrastructure investments, including a "Fix-It-First" 

program that makes an immediate investment to put people to work as soon as possible on our most 

urgent repairs. And to make sure taxpayers do not shoulder the whole burden, the Budget creates a 

Rebuild America Partnership to attract private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: 

modem ports to move our goods, modern pipelines to withstand a storm, and modem schools 

worthy of our children. 
72 

/fwe want to make the best products, we must also invest in the best ideas. That is why the Budget 

maintains a world-class commitment to science and research, increasing non-defense research and 

development (R&D) investment by 9 percent over 20 12 levels. Furthermore, we are targeting 

resources to those areas most likely (0 directly contribute to the creation of transformational 

technologies that can create the businesses and jobs of the future--like Advanced 

Manufacturing R&D, where the Budget proposes to increase R&D investments by over 80%. 

No area holds morc promise than our investments in American energy. The Budget continues to 

advance the President's "all-of-the-above" strategy on energy, investing in clean energy research 

and development; promoting energy efficiency in our cars, homes, and businesses; encouraging 

responsible domestic energy production; and launching new efforts to combat the threat of climate 

change. . 

A top priority is making America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing. After shedding jobs for 

more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added more than 500,000 jobs over the past three years. 

To accelerate this trend, the Budget builds on the success ofthe manufacturing innovation institute 

we created in Youngstown, Ohio last year, and calls for the creation of a network of up to 15 of 

these institutes across the Nation. Each manufacturing innovation institute will bring together 

companies, universities and community colleges, and government to invest in cutting-edge 

manufacturing technologies and tum regions around our country into globaJ centers of high-tech 

jobs. 

The Budget also supports efiorts the President announced earlier this year to modernize and 

improve the efficiency of the Federal permitting process, cutting through the red tape that has been 

holding back even some of the most carefully planned infrastructure projects. These efforts will 

help cut timelines in half for infrastructure projects, while creating new incentives for better 

outcomes for communities and the environment. 

Educatillg a Skilled Workforce 

All of these initiatives in manufacturing, energy, and infrastructure will help set the stage for 

entrepreneurs and small business owners to expand and create new jobs. But these investments 

won't matter unless we also equip our workforce with the education, skills, and training to fill those 

jobs. 

And that has to start at the earliest possible age. The Budget includes a proposal that invests in 

America's future by ensuring that four-year-olds across the country have access to high-quality 

preschool ed\lcation through a landmark new initiative in partnership with the States. Research 

confirms that investments in quality pre-school are among the highest return in improving 

educational outcomes and better preparing our workforce for the demands of the global economy. 

This investment in preschool is fully paid for in this Budget by increasing the tax on tobacco 

products, which is also an effective measure to improve health outeomes for our communities. 

But it's not just preschool that we need to invest in. We also need to ensure access to higher 

education for our country's young people. Skyrocketing college costs are still pricing too many 

young people out of a higher education, or saddling them with unsustainable debt. To encourage 

colleges to do their part to keep costs down, the Budget includes reforms that will ensure 
73 

affordability and value are considered in detennining which colleges receive certain types of 

Federal aid. 

To further ensure our educational system is preparing students for careers in the 21 st Century 

economy, the Budget includes additional measures to improve and promote science, technology, 

engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. This includes a comprehensive reorganization and 

consolidation of STEM education programs to make better use of resources and improve outcomes, 

and a new STEM Master Teacher Corps, to leverage the expertise of some of America's best and 

brightest teachers in science and mathematics, and to elevate the teaching ofthese subjects 

nationwide, 

Makillg Sure Hartl Work Leads to a Deemt Living 

The Budget also builds on the progress made over the last four years to expand opportunity for 

every American and every community willing to do the work to lift themselves up. The Budget 

creates new ladders of opportunity to ensure that hard work leads to a decent living, 

The Budget proposes partnerships with communities to identifY Promise Zones that will help them 

thrive and rebuild from the recession. The Promise Zones initiative will revitalize high-poverty 

communities across the country by attracting private investment, improving affordable housing, 

expanding educational opportunities, reducing crime, and providing tax incentives tor hiring 

workers and investing in the Zones. 

The Budget makes it easier for the iong-tenn unemployed and youth who have been hardest hit by 

the downturn to remain connected to the workforce and gain new skills with a Pathways Back to 

Work fund. This initiative will support summer and year round jobs for low-income youth, 

subsidized employment opportunities for unemployed and low income adults, and other promising 

strategies designed to lead to employment. 

The Budget sUpp,orts the President's call to reward hard work by raising the Federal minimum wage 

to $9.00 an hour. Raising the minimum wage would directly boost wages for 15 million workers 

and would help our growing economy, Furthennore, the Budget pennanently extends expansions of 

the Child Tax Credit, the American OpportUnity Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax. Credit 

Economic growth is best sustained from the middle class out Everyone who works hard and plays 

by the rules should have a fair shake at opportunity, including going to college and getting a wel!-

paying job to support their family. As the President said in the State of the Union, "America is not a 

place where the chance of birth or circumstance should decide our destiny, And that's why we need 

to build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are willing to climb them." 

Keeping America Safe 

Finally, we know that economic growth can only be achieved and sustained if America is safe and 

secure, both at home and abroad. At home, the Budget supports the President's initiative to help 

protect our children, reduce gun violence, and expand access to mental health services. To contront 

threats outside Ollr borders, the Budget ensures our military remains the finest and best-equipped 

military furce the world has ever known, even as we wind down more than a decade of war. 
74 

Importantly, the Budget upholds our solemn obligation to take care of our service members and 

veterans, and to protect OUT diplomats and civilians in the field. It keeps faith with our veterans, 

investing in world-class care, including mental health care for our wounded warriors; supporting 

our military families; and giving OUT veterans the benefits, education, and job opportunities that they 

haveeamed. 

REDUCING THE DEFICIT IN A BALA."l"CED WAY 

The Budget does all of these things as part ofa comprehensive plan that reduces the deficit. All of 

these initiatives and ideas are fully paid for, to ensure they do not increase the deficit by a single 

dime. As a result, we do not have to choose between investing in our economy and reducing the 

deficit-we have to do both. 

We have already made important progress in reducing the deficit. Over the past lew years, President 

Obama has worked with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to cut the deficit by more than 

$2.5 trillion through a mix of spending cuts and new revenue from raising income tax rates on the 

highest income Americans. This deficit reduction puts us more than halfWay toward the goal of$4 

trillion in deficit reduction that independent economists say is needed to put us on a fiscally 

sustainable path. 

Now we need to finish the job. That is why the President stands by the compromise offer he made 

during "fiscal cliff' negotiations this past December. That offer is still on the table. And this Budget 

includes the proposals in that offer. These proposals would achieve $1.8 trillion in additional 

balanced deficit reduction over the next 10 years, bringing total deficit reduction to $4.3 trillion, 

with more than $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue. The Budget brings deficits to below 3 

percent by 2016, to below 2 percent ofGDP by the end of the budget window, and puts debt on a 

declining path. 

This represents more than enough deficit reduction to replace the damaging cuts required by the 

Joint Committee sequestration. We should reduce the deficit in a balanced. targeted and thoughtful 

way, not by making harsh and arbitrary cuts that jeopardize our military readiness, devastate 

priorities like education and energy, and cost jobs. As the President has said, sequestration is not 

smart policy--it can and should be replaced. 

By including this compromise offer in the Budget, the President is demonstrating his willingness to 

make tough choices to find common ground to further reduce the deficit. This offer includes some 

difficult culs that the President would not propose on their own. But both sides are going to have to 

be willing to compromise if we hope to move the country forward. 

Deficit reduction is not an end in and of itself. But reducing the deficit in a way that protects our 

core priorities is a critical step toward ensuring that we have a solid foundation on which to build a 

strong economy and a thriving middle class for years to come. 

The key elements ofthe President's compromise offer include: 

• Tax Reform: $580 billion in additional revenue from tax reform that closes tax loopholes and 

reduces tax benefits for those who need them least. 
75 

Health Savings: $400 billion in health sav.ings that build on the health refonn law and 

strengthen Medicare. 

Other Mandatory Savings: $200 billion in savings from other mandatory programs, such as 

reductions to farm subsidies and refonns to Federal retirement contributions. 

Discretionary Savings: $200 billion in additional discretionary savings, with equal amounts 

from defense and non-defense programs - that is $200 billion below the Budget Control Act 

spending caps that were lowered even further by the American Taxpayer Relief Act. 

Inflation Indexing: $230 billion in savings from switching to the use of chained-CPI. 

Reduced Interest Payments: Almost $200 billion in savings from reduced interest payments 

on the debt and other adjustments. 

Reforming tire Tax Code 

First, the Budget proposes pro-growth tax refonn that closes loopholes and addresses deductions 

and exclusions that allow the wealthy to pay less in taxes than many middle-class families. The 

President believes that today's tax code has become increasingly complicated and unfair. There is 

no better time to pursue tax refonn that reduces the deficit, maintains progressivity, simplifies the 

tax system, and supports job creation and economic growth. 

As a first step towards comprehensive tax rcfonn, the Budget proposes two measures that would 

mise $580 billion by broadening the tax base and reducing tax benefits. First, by limiting the tax 

rate at which high-income taxpayers can reduce their tax liability to a maximum of28 percent, the 

President's Budget will reduce the tax benefits for the top two percent of families to levels closer to 

what middle·class families get. Second, by requiring those individuals with incomes over $1 million 

to pay no less than 30 percent oflheir income after charitable giving in taxes - the so-called Buffet 

rule - the President's Budget will further reduce wasteful and inefficient tax expenditures. 

The Budget also supports the President's plan for corporate tax refonn. Now more than ever, we 

cannot afford a tax code burdened with costly special-interest tax breaks. In an increasingly 

competitive global economy, we need to ensure that our tax code contributes to making the United 

States an attractive location for entrepreneurship and business growth. For this reason, the President 

is calling on the Congress to immediately begin work on corporate tax refonn that will close 

loopholes, lower the corporate tax rate, encourage investment here at home, and not add a dime to 

the deficit. 

Health Savings 

Along with an aging population, rising health costs continue to be one of the largest contributors to 

the deficit, and any sustainabJe fiscal path forward must include further refonns to our country's 

health care systems. 

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a significant step toward contrOlling health care spending. The 

law reduced the deficit by over $100 billion in the first 10 years and $1 trillion in the 10 years after 

that, and it includes some of the best ideas on how to make our health system more efficient and 

change payment systems to incentivize higher quality and lower cost care. One of the most 

important steps we can take right now for long-tenn deficit reduction is to implement the ACA fully 

and efficiently. Still, more needs to be done. 
76 

The President is proposing to build on the achievements of the Affordable Care Act by offering 

additional health savings that will reduce the deficit by another $400 billion over the next 10 years. 

These savings will be primarily achieved through smart reforms that address long term cost growth, 

reduce wastefhi spending, improve efficiency, and ask beneficiaries who are able to contribute a 

little more. 

Specifically, the Budget includes several reforms, encouraging delivery ofhigh-quaJity and efficient 

services by skilled nursing facilities, long-term cafe hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities and 

home health agencies. We are squeezing out waste by making sure we get the same rebates for 

drugs, regardless of whether people are participating in Medicare or Medicaid. Finally, the Budget 

calls for the wealthiest Medicare beneficiaries to cover more of the costs. We can reform Medicare 

without breaking the fundamental compact we have with our nation's seniors. Together, these 

reforms illustrate that we can achieve significant savings to improve the long-term fiscal outlook of 

our healthcare programs without sacrificing quality care. 

Other Mandatory Savings 

Third, the Budget includes $200 billion in other mandatory savings, coming from smart reforms and 

tough choices in programs outside of mandatory health care programs. This includes reforms to 

agriculture subsidies, Federal employee retirement programs, and disposing of excess Federal 

property. 

Combined with the economy's continued recovery, over time these savings will reduce mandatory 

spending as a share of the economy outside of the major entitlement programs by 15 percent. 

Discretionary Savings 

Fourth, the President's plan proposes additional cuts to discretionary spending without jeopardizing 

our need to maintain the investments in education, research and development, clean energy and 

infrastructure that are necessary to continue to rebuild our economy in the short-term and build a 

foundation fur long-teml growth. Total discretionary spending has already been cut by over $1 

trillion since January 2011, and is currently on a path to its lowest level as a share ofthe economY' 

since the Eisenhower Administration. 

In the interest of reaching bipartisan agreement on a balanced deficit reduction package, the Budget 

proposes to lower the discretionary caps even further, reducing discretionary spending by an 

additional $200 billion over the next decade. The proposed cuts are evenly distributed between 

defense and non-defense spending, and are timed to take effect beginning in 2017, after the 

economy is projected to have fully recovered. 

It is important to note that discretionary spending only represents about a third of the budget this 

year and is projected to drop to less than a quarter of the budget by 2023. While we can work to 

eliminate inefficiencies, we cannot put the country on a sustainable path forward with cuts to 

discretionary spending alone. 
77 

Inflatirm Indexing 

Fifth, in the interest of achieving a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement, the President is also 

standing by his compromise offer to use the chained Consumer Price Index (Cpr) to compute costof-living adjustments in major federal programs and the tax code. This is not the President's 

preferred approach, but it is an idea that both House Speaker Boehner and Senate Minority Leader 

McConnell have pushed for and that the President is willing to accept. However, he is only willing 

to do so in the context of a major fiscal agreement that is balanced, includes revenue contributing to 

deficit reduction, and protects vulnerable populations, as the Budget does. 

The switch to chained CPI, like the additional domestic discretionary spending cuts in the Budget, is 

a clear example of the President's willingness to make tough choices in order to reach a bipartisan 

agreement. The President has made it clear that he is willing to make these compromises as part of a 

deal that calls for shared sacrifice, and will put the country on a sustainable long-term fiscal path. 

Rooting Out Waste and Inefficiency 

In addition to making tough trade-offs to reduce the deficit in a balanced way, the Budget continues 

the President's efforts to ensure we are getting the biggest bang for our buck when it comes to 

spending taxpayer dollars. It includes a series of new proposals to root out waste as well as reform 

and streamline government for the 21st Century. 

In total, the Budget includes 215 cuts, consolidations, and savings proposals, which are projected to 

save more than $25 billion in 2014. These measures include closing a loophole in current law that 

allows people to collect full disability benefits and unemployment benefits that cover the same 

period of time; major food aid reforms that would assist up to two million additional people, while 

reducing mandatory spending by $500 million over the next decade; and ensuring that the 

goverrunent pays the lowest price for drugs, regardless of the program that makes the purchase, 

saving $123 billion over J 0 years. 

TIle Budget also builds on the Administration's successful efforts to root out wasteful improper 

payments, which have prevented over $47 billion in payment errors over the past three years. The 

Budget dedicates a dependable source of funding to root out fraud and abuse, producing deficit 

savings of roughly $40 billion over 11 years. 

CONCLUSION 

Building on the economic recovery we have seen over the past couple years, the Budget is the right 

plan for this moment in our country's economy. This is the plan it will take to make sure America 

remains strong in the years ahead and that we leave behind something better for future generations. 

I look forward to working with both houses of Congress in the coming months as we work to make 

the tough decisions needed to both grow our economy and put our country on a sustainable fiscal 

course. 
78 

CHAINED CPI: A BENEFIT CUT FOR SENIORS 

The chain-weighted consumer price index "chained CPl" - would erode seniors' Social Security 

benetlts by reducing annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs). With lower COLAs, seniors will see 

their limited incomes cover less and less of their everyday expenses, putting them at higher risk of 

poverty. 

IMPACT ON SENIORS 

While effects of chained cpr would be small each year, they would become significant over time. 

For seniors retiring over the next few years, this means that chained CPI would cut benefits by 

about 

o 3.7% at age 75; 

o 6.5% at age 85; and 

o 9.2% at age 95. [Social Security Chief Actuary, 6/2 III I J. 

• These percentages translate to significant annual benefit cuts of: 

o $658 at age 75; 

o $],147 at age 85; and 

o $1,622 at age 95. [SSAj. 

Nearly one in six seniors currently lives in poverty. [AARP, 12/2012]. 

One third (33.9%) of all benet1ciaries are 80 years old or older - a group that relies on Social 

Security for nearly all of its income (90% or more), and which would suffer more from chained CPt 

[AARP, 10/2012]. 

• The existing CPl formula - based all a basket of goods not geared to the needs of the elderlyshortchanges seniors, and chained CPl would make it worse, In 2010 and 2011, seniors did not 

receive a COLA. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, however, seniors saw prices on the 

following necessities increase substantially during those two years: 

• The President has proposed a complex and inadequate "benefit enhancement" to compensate the 

very elderly for the damage of chained CPl. Only those 85 and over (fewer than 15% of seniors) 

would get the full 5% enhancement, and that amount would not fully compensate them. Even 

seniors retiring in the near future would see a 6.5% Cllt from chained CPT by age 85, Since the 

effects of chained cpr compound over time, future generations would be hurt even more. A 35-

year-old today would see a 15% cut when she turns 85. 

SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE 41l11l3 
79 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Director. 

For the information of all of our Senators here, in deference to 

those Senators who have to wait a long time, I am going to be, to 

Senators on my left and on my right, very strict on time limits on 

the 5-minute time, so know that as you are going to into it, I am 

going to make sure that everybody gets a chance to ask their questions in a timely fashion. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, 5 minutes is a pretty short time, Madam 

Chairman, I got to tell you. I know you want to get this through, 

and I know Mr. Zients does not want to be questioned hard about 

some of these numbers— 

Chairman MURRAY. I would object— 

Senator SESSIONS. —his numbers that are incorrect and his 

statement that is disappointingly incorrect. But— 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator— 

Senator SESSIONS. —you are the Chairman, we will try to cooperate. But I just want to be on record as saying I am disappointed 

that we are constricted. And presumably we will not have a second 

round either? 

Chairman MURRAY. I am willing to sit here as long as we need 

to. I am just trying to—I was trying to make a ruling to allow the 

Senators who are at the end of our aisle— 

Senator SESSIONS. If we could have a second round— 

Chairman MURRAY. If anybody wants to come back for a second— 

Senator SESSIONS. You are very— 

Chairman MURRAY. I will be happy to do it— 

Senator SESSIONS. That is good. That would be fair. 

Chairman MURRAY. —take an extra 5 minutes. I am not trying 

to be unfair to anybody’s questions, and I assure you Director 

Zients has not asked me for relief. I am simply, in deference to a 

number of our Senators who have told me they need to leave early 

this afternoon, I want to have everybody gets a chance to ask. That 

is all. 

Senator SESSIONS. Fair enough. 

Chairman MURRAY. And I will restrict myself too. 

Director, since enactment of the fiscal cliff deal, which made 

most of the Bush tax cuts permanent but will raise about $600 billion from the highest-income Americans, some of my Republican 

colleagues have said that the tax discussion is finished and claim 

that because revenues as a share of the economy are now projected 

to rise slightly above their 40-year average of 18 percent of GDP, 

any additional revenue, even if generated by closing tax loopholes, 

is off the table. 

The last five times we have had a balanced budget, revenues 

were considerably higher than we are projected to experience going 

forward, even after the fiscal cliff. And now, unlike in past years, 

we also have to consider the retirement of the baby boomers and 

the critical need to invest in our people and our infrastructure to 

make sure we can compete on an international basis. 

The revenue policy in the budget that this Committee wrote and 

the Senate passed a few weeks ago was shaped by those unavoidable realities, and I believe that is what every bipartisan group 

that has examined our budget situation—Simpson-Bowles, Gang of 
80 

Six—has also recommended several times more revenue than the 

year-end deal will generate. 

So I wanted to ask you today whether or not you agree that raising additional revenue, if we are going to reduce deficits, has to be 

a part of it in a fair and balanced and sustainable manner. And, 

additionally, can you comment on the extent to which structural 

factors like demographics led the administration to propose additional revenue? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Absolutely. You are right in that we do believe that we need to have additional revenues. In the $1.8 trillion compromise offer, there is $580 billion of revenue, all through tax reform so not raising rates. 

I think it is important to note that in December Speaker Boehner said that there was potentially $800 billion or more available 

through tax reform. So I think we all believe we can make our Tax 

Code simpler, fairer, and get rid of wasteful spending in the Tax 

Code. 

You are right also on demographics. Thirty million people are 

part of the baby boomers joining retirement, starting back a decade 

or so ago, going forward to the next decade. We have 30 million 

new folks who will be recipients of Social Security and on Medicare. Those demographics are undeniable. So in the context of 

those demographics, and when you study historically, the proportion that is revenue, GDP, you are right that we absolutely need 

additional revenue. The President is proposing $580 billion, all 

through tax reform, not through raising rates. And, again, Speaker 

Boehner as recently as December said that $800 billion or more 

would be available through tax reform. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. President Obama made it very clear 

that his proposal is not the budget he would write on his own. It 

is not the budget I would write on my own. And there are some 

policies in there that I personally do not think are the best way to 

tackle the deficit and debt. But the President did say he wanted 

to lay out a path to a bipartisan deal that included some key Republican demands in return for significant revenue being put on 

the table. 

So I wanted to ask you, Mr. Zients, this budget includes the offer 

that the President made to Speaker Boehner in December. Some of 

the choices I believe are really quite stark. However, I do understand the President’s determination to reach a bipartisan accord. 

Can you tell us why the President chose to submit a budget that 

represents last year’s compromise offer rather than pursuing a 

fresh one? 

Mr. ZIENTS. The President is very committed to getting the country on a sustainable fiscal course, and his commitment to that is 

reflected in his willingness to put forward what is a compromise 

offer. You know, whether it is in budget negotiations or my time 

in the private sector, if you are in the middle of a negotiation, then 

everybody retreats to their extremes, very little gets done. The 

President is very committed to getting something done, getting 

these manufactured crises behind us so businesses can grow and 

invest and hire. This is not his ideal way of doing deficit reduction. 

The chained CPI is in interest rate because Leader McConnell and 

Speaker Boehner asked for it. They also asked for age 67, which 
81 

is not good policy, which the President is not willing to do. But as 

part of a balanced plan that does the $1.8 trillion, the President 

is willing to do CPI as part of that plan, while having one other 

condition on it—that it has provisions to protect the most vulnerable and older recipients of Social Security. 

Chairman MURRAY. In my last 15 seconds, what do you see as 

the path forward? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I think you hit the nail on the head up front: regular 

order. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sessions? Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. You indicate that new spending is paid for, 

but that is exactly what this budget does. It increases spending almost $1 trillion and increases taxes a similar amount. It does not 

reduce the deficit in any significant way, almost a minuscule 

amount. 

You indicate in your statement and the President has said that 

the compromise includes $580 billion in additional revenue from 

taxes. Looking at your own table on page— Table S.4, page 187 of 

your budget, it indicates that over the next 10 years, in the absence 

of adopting the President’s policies, revenue would be $40.089 trillion. Then you go to the next page, Table S.5 on page 189, it shows 

the revenue after adopting the President’s policies, and it is 

$41.231 trillion, equaling an increase in projected revenue of $1.14 

trillion. 

Isn’t your compromise hiding over a half trillion dollars in tax increases over the current baseline? 

Mr. ZIENTS. No. And I think this is a very important point to 

make because my guess is the structure is going to be important 

for our conversation throughout. If you remember the first slide, it 

has two sides. It had a compromise offer for $1.8 trillion of deficit 

reduction. The President stands by that— 

Senator SESSIONS. Are you saying this budget has $1.8 trillion in 

deficit reduction over the current baseline, over the current law? 

Mr. ZIENTS. The structure is important. On the other side are investments, each of which is paid for. Pre-K is an example. There 

is a tobacco tax. 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, it is paid for. With what? 

Mr. ZIENTS. With a tobacco tax. 

Senator SESSIONS. Is that included in the $580 billion— 

Mr. ZIENTS. Senator— 

Senator SESSIONS. —in new taxes you say is there? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Let me— 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes or no. Is it in the 580— 

Mr. ZIENTS. The President—this will answer your question. The 

President is willing to do that deal on the left-hand side. He is willing to— 

Senator SESSIONS. I am looking at— 

Mr. ZIENTS. He believes it should be— 

Senator SESSIONS. —not a chart, Mr. Zients. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Let me be clear. The President stands by the $1.8 

trillion compromise offer. The President also believes that we 

should be investing in Pre-K and other areas that will help grow 
82 

the economy, help our competitiveness, but that offer, that $1.8 

trillion offer— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, let me just conclude. I appreciate that. I will conclude that you did not count the $70 billion in tax increases to pay for the children, so that is up over $580 billion, another 70-some-odd billion. And there is a series of those in there 

that total up $1.142 trillion in new taxes. Is it not? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Let us—I think you are on the same page— 

Senator SESSIONS. Is it not— 

Mr. ZIENTS. —that we are willing to do, the President is willing to do the $1.8 trillion deficit reduction package, which includes 

$580 billion through tax reform. He believes that additional investments should be made to improve our competitiveness— 

Senator SESSIONS. Did you count increasing the unemployment 

surcharge by $15 billion as new taxes? 

Mr. ZIENTS. There is no increase in the unemployment insurance 

during the next few years across time. 

Senator SESSIONS. What about the Superfund tax increase of $20 billion? Was that scored in your $580 billion— 

Mr. ZIENTS. The $580 billion is all through tax reform, and the 

President has two specific policies to back that up: a 28-percent 

maximum on deductions and the Buffett Rule. But I want to be 

clear that that offer stands. We believe, the President believes that 

are worthy investments that should be made to improve our competitiveness, put people back to work, each of which is offset. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Zients, all I am going to tell you is I read your budget, it increases taxes in plain numbers by over $1 trillion, 

and it increases spending by almost that same amount, virtually 

having no deficit reduction. So your statement, repeated statement 

that your budget raises taxes and reduces spending is utterly inaccurate. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Senator— 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, it is. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Senator, it is time that we come together, get something done, get these manufactured crises behind us. In that spirit, 

the President has put forward $1.8 trillion. The investments are 

sound investments that should be made, each of which is offset. 

But the President will do the compromise deal. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Ms. Maya MacGuineas feels that the increase in spending jeopardizes the progress that could be made, 

and I totally agree. This is not a compromise plan. It is a tax-andspend plan that does not alter the debt course of America, and that 

debt course, as Mr. Bowles told us, is unsustainable at this point. 

Mr. ZIENTS. So two things. One, I think it is very important that 

one understand that the primary driver of spending increase is 

that the President’s plan turns off the sequester with balanced deficit reduction. Maya MacGuineas—you have mentioned her a couple of times now— 

Senator SESSIONS. If you turn off the sequester— 

Mr. ZIENTS. —she does not have— 

Senator SESSIONS. —have you not increased spending by about $1.1 trillion? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Maya MacGuineas, the person you have quoted several times, does not have the sequester in her baseline. We re-
83 

placed the sequester with balanced deficit reduction. And at the 

end of the day, when you are in business, you look at a bottom line. 

It is your profits. It is your sales growth. The bottom line here is 

that we have deficits on a declining path below 2 percent in 2023 

at 1.7 percent, and debt as a percent of the economy is on a declining path. So we can spend lots of time looking at big numbers and 

different baselines. Let us make sure we focus on the bottom line. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, your budget increases the deficit by $8.2 

trillion over 10 years? Yes or no. 

Mr. ZIENTS. The deficit—the deficit— 

Senator SESSIONS. In your own number— 

Mr. ZIENTS. The deficit as a percent of the economy is at— 

Senator SESSIONS. No. I asked you the dollars. 

Mr. ZIENTS. —1.7 percent. 

Senator SESSIONS. Did it increase the deficit by $8.2 trillion? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I need to check— 

Senator SESSIONS. You do not know what is in your numbers, 

how much you increase the deficit? 

Mr. ZIENTS. There are a lot of numbers there. What I can tell you 

is what we should focus on, and this is exactly what Bowles-Simpson does, and other groups. What is debt as a percent of our—what 

is the deficit— 

Chairman MURRAY. I am sorry. 

Mr. ZIENTS. —as a percent of our economy? We are less than 2 

percent at the end of the window at 1.7 percent. 

Senator SESSIONS. Chairman Murray increases the deficit $7.3 

trillion, considerably better than yours. 

Senator WICKER. Hear, hear. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Very nice of you, Senator Sessions, to compliment Senator Murray. 

Chairman MURRAY. I will take it. 

Senator SANDERS. it is unusual. 

Mr. Zients, thanks very much for being with us. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me begin. I am Chairman of the Budget 

Committee, and I have the misfortune of trying to follow in the 

footsteps of Patty Murray, who did a wonderful job. 

Chairman MURRAY. Veterans Committee. 

Senator SANDERS. Veterans Committee. I am sorry. I am not trying—Veterans Committee. And I want to ask you a question about 

veterans’ benefits. Right now in our country, as I think you know, 

we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time since 

the 1920s. In fact, between 2009 and 2011, as you well know, all 

of the new income created in America went to the top 1 percent. 

In the midst of that growing inequality where the wealthy are 

doing phenomenally well while the middle class in many ways disappears, we are looking in the President’s budget at very significant cuts to the benefits of disabled veterans. In fact, the chained 

CPI would impact the benefits of 3.2 million veterans with war-related disabilities. The largest cuts in benefits would impact young, 

permanently disabled vets who were seriously wounded in combat, 

and these are really significant cuts. 
84 

Our veterans who started receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits reduced by $1,425 a year at age 45, 

$2,300 at age 55, and $3,231 at age 65. Spouses, widows of soldiers 

who were killed in action, would also see cuts. 

In the midst of enormous income and wealth inequality, Mr. 

Zients, do you really think we should move toward deficit reduction 

on the backs of men and women who have lost arms and legs defending this country. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Clearly veterans, Wounded Warriors, are a top, top, 

top priority for this President and this First Lady and for this 

country. All means-tested veterans programs would be exempt from 

CPI, as would be the case with means-tested programs— 

Senator SANDERS. I am familiar with the so-called superlative 

CPI. But you will not disagree with me that the overwhelming majority of disabled vets would suffer cuts? 

Mr. ZIENTS. The annual increase that they would have, their inflation increase, would be indexed to chained CPI. 

Senator SANDERS. Right. And do you disagree with the numbers 

that I said. I believe they are accurate. 

Mr. ZIENTS. I have no basis for— 

Senator SANDERS. Okay. So I am just asking you, when you one 

out of four corporations in America that pay zero in taxes, when 

the effective corporate tax rate today is 12 percent, the lowest that 

it has been since 1972, do you not think that there are ways to 

move toward deficit reduction in a way that is fairer than on the 

backs of disabled veterans? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, clearly we share passion for taking care of our 

veterans. As we move forward in deficit reduction, we should work 

together to make sure that what we— 

Senator SANDERS. But we are not doing that, Mr. Zients. We are 

talking about significant cuts on people who have given, you know, 

more than— 

Mr. ZIENTS. I want to be clear that the benefit would be calculated the same way. The annual increase would be index— 

Senator SANDERS. And the figures that I— 

Mr. ZIENTS. The most vulnerable veterans— 

Senator SANDERS. All right. But those are a small—I understand. 

That is a good talking point. But the vast majority of disabled vets 

would see significant cuts as opposed to the current chained CPI. 

Let me ask you another question, and that is the issue of revenue. In 2012, as I recall, revenue was about 15.8 percent of GDP, 

the lowest in about 60 years. And it is going to go up a bit. My 

understanding is that the President’s proposal for corporate tax reform is to try to do away with loopholes without bringing in—in a 

deficit-neutral way, without bringing in any new revenue. 

When you have major corporation after major corporation paying zero in taxes, when we are losing about $100 billion a year through 

offshore tax havens, why are we not talking about bringing in substantial sums of new revenue rather than cutting Social Security 

or benefits for disabled vets? 

Mr. ZIENTS. The President’s position on corporation tax reform 

has remained the same, which is, first of all, it has to pay for the 

$40 billion or so of so-called annual extenders, so that is $400 billion across a 10-year period of time. Those have to—either those 
85 

annual extenders have to go away or they have to be paid for as 

part of corporate tax reform. 

What is corporate tax reform all about. It is about growing the 

economy and creating jobs. So companies that get tax breaks for 

moving jobs overseas, those will go away. R&D— 

Senator SANDERS. But isn’t it also—we are here to—I apologize 

for interrupting. I do not mean to be rude, but we do not have a 

lot of time. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Please. Please. 

Senator SANDERS. But here we are struggling to deal with deficit 

reduction. Do you not see, when the corporate tax rate today is at 

12 percent, the lowest that it has been since 1972, do you not see 

the opportunity to bring in substantial sums of revenue through 

tax reform? 

Mr. ZIENTS. We see the opportunity, as I mentioned before, to get 

rid of those annual extenders which cost $40 billion a year. We see 

the opportunity to reward companies through things like the R&E 

tax credit, which only applies to R&E done here in America, extending that permanently while getting rid of tax havens and other 

loopholes to grow the economy and create jobs. If— 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Sanders— 

Mr. ZIENTS. I will just finish my statement. If there is not going 

to be a corporate tax reform process that does what we just talked 

about, then those closing of loopholes and getting rid of wasteful 

tax expenditures should go to deficit reduction, I agree. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Johnson? 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Director Zients, welcome back. 

Mr. ZIENTS. How are you? 

Senator JOHNSON. You are going to miss this, right? 

My assumption was the reason that you were 2 months late in 

presenting your budget really was the CBO score, CBO baseline 

under the fiscal cliff deal, trying to get that all in order. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes, it was the fiscal cliff deal, which, you know, impacted—ended up impacting obviously the revenue side and discretionary side, November and December, as Senator Portman—sorry, 

November and December as Senator Portman knows are the prime 

budget times. We really had to put things on pause during that period of time. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. So, again, we are comparing all of your 

numbers really against the CBO baseline. Getting back to Senator 

Sessions’ question on revenue, your budget now is going to raise 

revenue by 42.1—let me see here. It is always difficult to follow 

this stuff—$41.2 billion over 10 years, $41.2, and the CBO baseline 

is $40.2, so that is $1 trillion, correct? So revenue is up a trillion, 

but you are saying you are going to increase taxes $580 billion. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes. 

Senator JOHNSON. So what is the other revenue? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, as I said before, there are paid-for investments, 

also like the tobacco tax for Pre-K. Those are investments that the 

President believes we should make. But the $1.8 trillion of deficit 
86 

reduction, that package, that compromise deal, is not conditioned— 

is not conditioned on making those other investments. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay, but you are increasing revenue by $1 

trillion. How likely do you think it is that we are actually going to 

achieve deficit reduction outside your administration’s time frame 

here? What I am looking at is, again, comparing the CBO baseline, 

it is claiming about $1.7 trillion of deficit reduction. But the fact 

is you actually increase the deficit over the first 4 years, the 4 

years of your administration, by $540 billion. So the deficit actually 

increases over the CBO baseline by $450 billion, and then the last 

6 years of the budget window, when you are out of office, then you 

reduce the deficit by about $2 trillion. How likely is it that you will actually increase the deficit by $450 

billion during your administration but then will actually realize 

that $1 trillion of deficit reduction in the last 6 years— 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, I think we see with the BCA that when we 

sign something into law, we live by the caps. 

Senator JOHNSON. Aren’t you getting out of—aren’t you canceling 

half the BCA, the sequester part? 

Mr. ZIENTS. No. We are— 

Senator JOHNSON. You are canceling that. You are— 

Mr. ZIENTS. We are placing the sequester—the sequester was 

never intended to be implemented. The sequester was meant to be 

such bad policy that it would force balanced deficit reduction. It 

was never intended to be implemented. I think we can all agree to 

that. 

Senator JOHNSON. It was intended to reduce spending by another $1.2 trillion, which now you are canceling. 

Mr. ZIENTS. No. It was intended— 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes. 

Mr. ZIENTS. —to create $1.2 trillion of balanced deficit reduction. 

Senator JOHNSON. Listen. No, in your budget you have canceled 

the $1.2 trillion— 

Mr. ZIENTS. And replaced it with balanced deficit reduction. 

Senator JOHNSON. —with $1 trillion of increased revenue, taxes. 

Mr. ZIENTS. No, with $1.8 trillion of deficit reduction where there 

is $580 billion of revenue. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, again— 

Mr. ZIENTS. That was always the intention— 

Senator JOHNSON. The point being is the serious part of your 

budget is the first couple years, and you are actually increasing the 

deficit by about $250 billion in the first 2 years. That is really the 

direction of your budget. 

Mr. ZIENTS. This might be— 

Senator JOHNSON. You are increasing deficits. 

Mr. ZIENTS. This might be a fundamental difference between us. 

We believe that deficit reduction is important, putting the country 

on a sustainable— 

Senator JOHNSON. But something kind of like Wimpy, though: ‘‘I 

will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.’’ 

Mr. ZIENTS. But in and of itself, not an economic policy. We have 

to get people back to work. We have to create jobs. We have to 

grow this economy. We have to compete globally. The deficit reduction alone is not— 
87 

Senator JOHNSON. Anyway, so you are increasing—you are in- creasing the deficit in the first 4 years by $450 billion, are you not? 

Mr. ZIENTS. We have— 

Senator JOHNSON. Compared to the CBO, that is a correct figure, 

is— 

Mr. ZIENTS. We have deficit on a declining path— 

Senator JOHNSON. You are increasing the deficit over the CBO baseline in the first 4 years by $450 billion, are you not? That is— 

Mr. ZIENTS. I think the important thing to do is by 2016— 

Senator JOHNSON. Can you say yes or not? That is correct, isn’t 

it? 

Mr. ZIENTS. —you are below— 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Let us move over to what I was talking 

to Sylvia Burwell about yesterday. Just in terms of agreeing on 

numbers, you can never solve a problem unless you can start 

agreeing on numbers. According to OMB’s analysis, the trust fund 

has no value to the Federal Government. Would you agree with 

that? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Which trust fund? 

Senator JOHNSON. The Social Security Trust Fund has no valued 

because you have the trust fund holding about $2.6 trillion worth 

of assets in Social Security and then you have a $2.6 trillion liability to the Treasury. When you consolidate that, that has no value 

in terms of making payments on Social Security. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. ZIENTS. No. The trust fund has value. 

Senator JOHNSON. To who? 

Mr. ZIENTS. The trust fund has value to Social Security. 

Senator JOHNSON. So where is the liability? Do you disavow the fact that Treasury has the liability of $2.6 trillion that offsets in 

a consolidated statement— 

Mr. ZIENTS. I think what you are talking about is the difference 

between gross debt and debt held by the public. If you— 

Senator JOHNSON. I am talking about having some—I am talking about having some value to actually make payments on the $1.3 

trillion of deficit spending of Social Security over the next 10 years. 

Mr. ZIENTS. That has the full faith— 

Senator JOHNSON. There is no value— 

Mr. ZIENTS. That has the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. 

Senator JOHNSON. Your OMB says that nets to zero. Isn’t that 

correct? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Social Security is not the driver of our near-term fiscal issues. 

Senator JOHNSON. I was just asking— 

Mr. ZIENTS. Social Security—Social Security— 

Senator JOHNSON. I was not asking that question— 

Mr. ZIENTS. —is solvent to 2033. 

Senator JOHNSON. Does the Social Security Trust Fund have any 

value to pay off those benefits? 

Mr. ZIENTS. The Social Security Trust Fund is solvent through 

2033. Those assets are backed by the full faith and credit of the 

U.S. Government. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 
88 

Senator Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And 

welcome, Mr. Zients. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am afraid this is your last time before 

us, which is probably a mixed blessing from your point of view. But 

thank you for your service. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Two topics and then a question. 

The first is on health care delivery system reform. Bipartisan, 

nonpartisan, very expert groups have said that there are savings 

available in the health care system between $700 billion and $1 

trillion a year. And the administration in many ways has deployed 

quite a lot of resources to try to implement delivery system reform, 

and we gave you 45 different provisions in the Affordable Care Act 

to try to help you do it. 

What frustrates me is that, to date, the administration has yet 

to put a savings target on this effort. The talk is still about bending 

the health care cost curve. I would urge OMB to urge the administration to be accountable and set a target, because an organization 

as big as the United States Government is not going to respond as 

effectively to a meaningless and unaccountable standard like bend 

the health care cost curve as it will to this much dollar savings by 

this date from these mechanisms. 

Now, you have built some health care cost savings into this. 

Some of it requires political changes that are going to be difficult. 

But there has yet to be a hard number that is the administration’s 

target on what it is going to do for delivery system reform. So I 

would urge you to please reconsider that. We are left completely at 

sea when the administration that has the implementation power 

for this will not even set a target for itself. 

The second thing is on chained CPI. I would like to put into the 

record a summary sheet that we have done, if I may do so, without 

objection. 

Chairman MURRAY. Without objection. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It shows, I think, that it is just as wrong 

as it can be to have made that choice. I do not care where it came 

from. I do not care if it was Speaker Boehner’s idea. It is wrong. 

Social Security, as you just said, has not contributed to the deficit 

problem. And seniors, at least the ones that I deliver Meals on 

Wheels to in senior high-rises, are not living so high off the hog 

that they are great people to go after. And the protection of vulnerable seniors, as I read your plan, is actually less than the hit to 

them. They end up still negative, even at 85 years old, because by 

the time they get the 5-percent hit—5-percent benefit, they are getting a 6.5-percent hit. 

So I just want to let you know, anything I can do to be a foe of that, I intend to do. The $15 billion that comes back to seniors 

through the benefit against the $230 billion overall cut to me is a 

fig leaf. 

Mr. ZIENTS. A couple of comments? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. 

Mr. ZIENTS. First— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Leave me time 
89 

Mr. ZIENTS. I will go fast. Let me just go to bottom-line results 

on health care. Total health care spending grew by 3.9 percent in 

2011— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I know. I know all that. I know all that. 

Mr. ZIENTS. That is the third year in a row— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me go to my— 

Mr. ZIENTS. Let me go to Medicare spending, though. Medicare 

spending per beneficiary grew only 0.4 per beneficiary— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I know all that. 

Mr. ZIENTS. —in fiscal year 2012. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I know all that. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Okay. On CPI— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do not tell me things I have not asked you 

about that I already know. 

Mr. ZIENTS. The protection for the older beneficiaries— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. 

Mr. ZIENTS. —for the most vulnerable, i.e., the lowest income, 

they will actually not at age 85, as you suggested, be behind. They 

will actually be ahead, because it is a 5-percent adjustment based 

on the median. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We will take a look at that because that 

is not what we are looking at. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Okay. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you know what a fiscal multiplier is? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Sure. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Okay. There is an ideology around here 

that all cuts help grow the economy—all cuts help grow the economy—and that all Federal spending is a burden on the economy, 

and that here endeth the lesson. That is all there is to it. It is that 

simple. That is ideology. 

There is also economics. Economics says that the impact of cutting and spending by the Federal Government on the economy varies depending on the condition of the economy. And right now we 

have a whole raft of reports coming out showing that the fiscal 

multiplier is actually above 1, which means that every dollar cut 

out of the economy in terms of Federal spending does more damage 

to the economy than it saves. You have Oxford Economics saying 

that the fiscal multiplier is 1.4; Goldman Sachs, that famous leftwing institution, 1.5; IMF, 1.7; UC Berkley, 2.5; and a group out 

of Northwestern University shows it actually at 3.7. If it is 3.7, 

that means that every dollar you cut in spending, you reduce GDP 

by $3.7. You are creating actual damage in the economy by cutting 

spending. 

Is that something that we should be considering in the Budget 

Committee as we hear this repeated ideology that all cuts help and 

all spending is bad? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I think we have an immediate task, which is the sequester. So the sequester is $85 billion taken out of the economy, 

hundreds of thousands of jobs. Goldman, CBO, and others say it is 

a half to 1 percent of GDP. We need to immediately turn off the 

sequester, which was never intended to be implemented, and replace it with balance deficit reduction that phases in as the economy improves. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 
90 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Portman? 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Director 

Zients, welcome back for your last visit, which is probably a happy 

thing for you. But thanks for your service. 

I must tell you, I feel like I am living in a separate universe 

when I hear the discussion about the budget and what we just 

heard about ideology. We are in a deep fiscal hole. We have never 

experienced this as a country, so very few economists can tell us 

exactly what is going to happen. But the best economists out there 

all agree that we are in danger, and Rogoff and Reinhart, of course, 

have told us that when you hit 90 percent of GDP, you end up having an impact of 1 or 2 percent to the Nation’s growth, which 

means about a million jobs this year alone. So the notion that we 

can continue careening down this path of record debt, now over $17 

trillion, gross debt over 100 percent of our economy, and an annual 

deficit again this year of $1 trillion—we have never had a deficit 

of $1 trillion until 3 years ago. Now we have had—we will have 

had 4 years of it. This is dangerous. And we have already had one 

downgrade. We are on a negative watch for the others. And what 

happened in Southern Europe could happen to us. 

And so I know you probably do not disagree with anything I just 

said, but you might disagree with whether your budget proposal is 

adequate to it. But this notion that we should just go ahead and 

spend and do not worry about it, that the chickens will not come 

home to roost, is really dangerous. I mean, who gets hurt the 

worst? The folks who are on the first or second rung of the ladder 

trying to get on the third or fourth rung. 

And so I applaud some things in this budget. One is the fact that 

you are willing to take one small step and talk about the entitlement programs. As you know, CBO has told us in this Committee 

that these incredibly important programs that are a safety net, 

that must be preserved, are going to increase 95 percent in spending over the next 10 years, almost 100-percent growth, almost doubling spending. And 100-percent growth in those programs and you 

all do propose something, would is to have an accurate measure of 

inflation for CPI. It is not a cut. The question is how much the inflation adjuster ought to be, and you use what you think most 

economists agree with, and so that is a measure that I think is fair. 

It also affects taxes, of course, so it raises revenue as well, because 

taxes are indexed, and the brackets being indexed are affected by 

what the measure of inflation is. So it is about $100 billion in 

taxes, too. So I think that is good. 

I think on the corporate reform side, I will say I read the corporate reform part a little differently than some of my colleagues 

on my side and the other side. I do think that this is all about 

growth and all about jobs and all about revenue, ultimately. And 

we have the most competitive—a non-competitive, antiquated corporate tax system in the world, the highest rate, of course, among 

all developed countries. Even when you include the effective rate, 

it is still way above the average of these other countries. And so 

I am glad you said in your budget for the first time that you ought 

to not use these preference reductions or loophole closures for the 

budget deficit generally but for revenue-neutral tax reform. So I 
91 

want to give you credit for that, and it is consistent, as you said, 

and which the President has said, over the years, in fact, and what 

most people believe has to be done if we are going to become competitive. 

By the way, CBO has told us 70 percent of that benefit of the 

lower rate goes to who? Workers. And this is about those workers, 

again, middle-class Americans who are trying to keep their job or 

get a job and have decent pay when their pay has gone down almost 4,500 bucks over the past several years on average. So I 

thank you for that. 

What I am concerned about is this just does not seem to be nearly up to the task that we identified, and let me ask you a couple 

questions, if I could. One, what is the debt-to-GDP in the tenth 

year in terms of the gross debt? We have your chart as to the public debt. What is your gross debt number? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I can get that for you while I also would say that 

CBO and others all agree that gross debt is not a terribly meaningful metric. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, you just said the trust fund is an asset. 

If you believe that, you must think gross debt is important. 

Mr. ZIENTS. And so, you know, when you— 

Senator PORTMAN. You cannot have it both ways. 

Mr. ZIENTS. I think the right way to look at it is debt held by 

the public, and debt held by the public is 73 percent— 

Senator PORTMAN. Because you do not think that the trust fund 

should be made whole in Social Security? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I am saying when you are benchmarking, you are 

using the R&R study and benchmarking and worried about our 

economic growth— 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, and R&R talks about— 

Mr. ZIENTS. —versus other countries. If I can— 

Senator PORTMAN. I do not have a whole lot of time left, but let 

us just stipulate that you do not have a gross debt in your figure, 

but it is about 100 percent of the economy. It is between 95 and 

100 percent— 

Mr. ZIENTS. And, again, I do not—we join CBO in not thinking 

that is the right way to look at it. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, it is the right way to look at it if you 

consider the trust fund to be something that we ought to replenish 

and it ought to be made whole. In terms of Social Security, again, 

telling you you are doing the right thing, a small step admittedly 

because it does not solve the problem, but with regard to Social Security, what is the shortfall this year in Social Security, payroll 

taxes being paid versus benefits being paid out. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Social Security is working how it was intended to 

work. 

Senator PORTMAN. What is the shortfall—— 

Mr. ZIENTS. It is solvent through— 

Senator PORTMAN. What is the shortfall this year? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I do not have that number handy. 

Senator PORTMAN. $77 billion. A $77 billion shortfall this year. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Again, while Social Security is not a driver of our 

immediate fiscal situation, we should talk about reforming Social 

Security across time. 
92 

Senator PORTMAN. We should, of course. 

Mr. ZIENTS. And the President— 

Senator PORTMAN. And where does that $77 billion come from? 

It comes from general revenue. So here is my bigger point. When 

you look apples-to-apples comparison to what you all have in the 

CBO baseline—and baseline, by the way, for those listening who 

might not understand all this jargon, it just means if we do not do 

anything, just like, you know, what is the autopilot? If we do not 

have this budget, given the crisis that we face, your debt to GDP— 

public debt, not gross debt; and let us use your numbers, public 

debt—is actually higher than CBO’s because they use different economic assumptions than you do. You have higher GDP. Yours is actually above the Blue Chips as well, and that is fine. But I am just 

saying we are not getting at the problem if it actually is an increase in the deficit over the next few years— 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, we all know that we could spend the next 2 

weeks discussing baselines and— 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, no. That is fine. Let us just— 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator, I hate to— 

Mr. ZIENTS. —bottom line. The bottom line— 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Portman, if I can interrupt— 

Mr. ZIENTS. —is the President’s budget— 

Senator PORTMAN. The bottom line is if we do not do anything, 

the situation would be better than— 

Mr. ZIENTS. If I could just say one more sentence, the bottom line 

is the President’s budget has deficits below 2 percent in 2023, and 

debt as a percent of the economy on a declining— 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Portman, I hate interrupting, but I 

have Senators at the end of the line here who are— 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman MURRAY. —pressing me to allow them a chance. 

Senator Warner? 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And, Mr. 

Zients. great to see you. I think you are seeing one of the reasons 

why it is hard to get a grand bargain. But, candidly, the fact that 

you are getting as much grief from both sides of the aisle shows 

me that you are probably in the zone where things are going to get 

talked about, because if there is not some angst on both sides, we 

are not going to get things done. 

I would point out to all my colleagues that actually the President’s budget is the only one of the three budgets between the Senate budget or the House budget that at least starts to take on the 

challenges around Social Security. The Senate chose not to; the 

House chose not to. And chained CPI, which examples that were 

used earlier, your COLA increase might go from $36 a month to 

$33 a month based on historic norms, I think quite honestly, which 

solves about 22 percent of the Social Security problem, does not 

solve it all but it takes about a fifth of it out of the way. I actually 

think the overwhelming majority of Americans would believe, if 

rather than looking at the dramatic fall off the cliff that Social Security is going to hit—and I actually believe earlier than 2033—you 

know, I commend you for taking an appropriate stand. 
93 

I also would agree that, as some of my colleagues have said, you 

know, we cannot, no matter how—we cannot cut our way or we 

cannot tax our way simply to prosperity. We also have to have a 

growth agenda. And I would point out that there was a lot of talk 

made here of Simpson-Bowles. I think I would argue—I have spent 

as much time with that report as most on this Committee. Simpson-Bowles, Domenici-Rivlin, all laid out in their agendas, one, that 

our problem on debt and deficit—and I am particularly on this side 

of the aisle was probably one of the more obsessed members about 

that issue—that this is not as much an immediate problem, but an 

intermediate problem and needs to have phase-ins. And both Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin said as part of a growth agenda on 

items like infrastructure, which your budget has included and paid 

for, those are things that will actually help grow the economy, 

which will at the end of the day generate additional revenue— 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes. 

Senator WARNER. —as well and be part of a longer-term solution. 

And as we have continued to see the markets— actually, I have 

been a little bit surprised—continuing to buy our debt at interest 

rates of record lows, and as Chairman Bernanke and others at the 

Fed have said, this is an intermediate problem, not one that needs 

to be solved tomorrow but does need to be acted upon, I do believe 

an investment component in a budget is a responsible and reasonable thing, and as well as something that both Simpson-Bowles and 

Domenici-Rivlin did. 

I would also point out on Maya MacGuineas, again, somebody 

who I have spent an enormous amount of time on and worked 

closely with her organization, in her statement she does point out 

that public debt would fall from 77 percent in 2013 to 73 percent 

by 2023. I think the goal was closer to 70. I would rather it get 

lower than that, but it is in the right direction. 

Her quote as well is, ‘‘pleased to see the President’s continued 

support of deficit reduction,’’ and ‘‘he is still serious about fiscal reform.’’ 

So while, again, this may not be the budget any of us would have 

individually written, it is a budget that I think starts us down towards structural reform of our entitlements, which I would say to 

some folks on my side of the aisle, the math is pretty persuasive. 

On average, the person pays in about $115,000 in Medicare taxes 

and takes out about $320,000 in Medicare taxes. That is not sustainable. 

When I was a younger, 16 people were working for every 1 person on Social Security. Now it is three. In 15 years it will be two. 

It is the most successful program ever put in place, but the math 

is not sustainable. And nothing is self-correcting about this unless 

we act, and I commend you and the President for making some of 

the—starting down some of the hard choices that need to be made. 

On the revenue item, I tell you, I would just simply say, you 

know, I think with the demographic bulge and with even no matter 

what kind of structural reform of entitlements we would have, the 

idea that we are ever going to go back to a sustainable fiscal circumstance with anything around the 18.6 or even 19 percent is just 

not in the realm of reality, that if we are not between 20 and 21 
94 

percent of revenue on an ongoing basis, we will just—we are never 

going to get close. 

Now, that does not mean as well that we do not need to drive 

down our costs, and I want to in my last 17 seconds commend you 

on one other item, finally, on GPRA, a little important bill that nobody has ever heard of that actually Senator Sessions helped get 

through, and I appreciate that. You have finally identified some of 

the underperforming programs, and of the 215-odd programs you 

have identified for either substantial cutback or elimination, 56 of 

those are programs that were in the process of being eliminated because of GPRA. And I have done over my time, but I would look 

forward to working with you and your successor, Sylvia Burwell, on 

making sure that on some of these programs we actually end up 

making the hard choice of finally eliminating them. We are going 

to be under tight fiscal constraints for as far as the eye can see, 

and we just do not have room for inefficient programs in this Federal Government. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you, Senator Warner. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Wicker? 

Senator WARNER. There was no question there. 

Chairman MURRAY. But you filled your time. 

Senator Wicker? 

Senator WICKER. Madam Chair, first a matter of housekeeping. 

Mr. Zients said the path forward is regular order. The Senate has 

passed a budget. The House has passed a budget. Has a conference 

committee been appointed and have conference meetings been 

scheduled? 

Chairman MURRAY. No, we have not done that yet, and the Senate is—I have had a chance to talk to my counterpart in the House, 

and we are looking to move forward on that. I believe that we need 

to get to a conference committee and am working to get to that. 

Senator WICKER. Well, I certainly support regular order there. 

Mr. Zients, this budget does not balance at any point within 10 

years, does it? 

Mr. ZIENTS. No. The President— 

Senator WICKER. Okay. That is fine. You do not need to explain. 

Is there a glide path for it to balance later on in the century after 

the 10-year period? 

Mr. ZIENTS. This budget makes significant progress. As Senator 

Warner said, it brings the deficit to below 2 percent, debt as a percent of the economy down significantly. It is a big step forward, but 

the important thing— 

Senator WICKER. Okay. Well— 

Mr. ZIENTS. The important thing, I want to make this point, if 

you would give me one minute, is that we need to get this economy 

ramped further up. We have added 6.5 million jobs across the last 

37 months, 14 straight quarters of GDP growth— 

Senator WICKER. You know, I do not mean to be rude, Mr. 

Zients. I just asked if it gave us a glide path to balance at any 

point, and you are free to explain on someone else’s time. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Significant progress consistent with Bowles-Simpson. 

Most importantly, we need to focus on jobs and growing this economy. 
95 

Senator WICKER. I think I understand the answer to that is no. 

Let me ask you about the estate tax. You know, the President 

signed only 4 months ago the bipartisan vote, passed the Senate 

by 89–8, to permanently set the estate tax rate at a top rate of 40 

percent with an exemption of $5.12 million indexed for inflation. 

He just signed that 4 months ago. Now, for some reason the President proposes to return that back to the old rate 4 months later. 

Surely you do not—well, let me ask you this: How much theoretically does this raise in revenue? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, he is not suggesting that we do this 4 months 

later. He is suggesting that in his budget he is proposing in 2018— 

Senator WICKER. Okay. Four months later, he proposes to— 

Mr. ZIENTS. In 2018, and that is to return to the 2009 parameters. 

Senator WICKER. Right. 

Mr. ZIENTS. The 45 percent rather than 40 percent. Still a $3.5 

million exemption per individual. I think the figure is three out of 

1,000 estates would be impacted by this. I think that in the context 

of the fiscal situation that we have all talked about, the need to 

put the country on a sustainable fiscal path, the President believes 

that that is fair and good policy. 

Senator WICKER. Okay. And yet he signed a bill on a permanent 

basis to put it at 40 percent and 5.12 inflation adjusted. I would 

have to say this, Madam Chair. I think the President cannot realistically believe that this has a prayer of passing. And so the $79 

billion—I never got my answer there, but the book says it is supposed to raise $79 billion—is just totally false. 

But let me move on to my last question. I appreciate what Senator Warner said about the Consumer Price Index. You know, the 

President told a group of us last night that chained CPI has a bad 

connotation. Maybe we need to give it another name. I have come 

up with one, Madam Chair. Let us call it ‘‘TRICOLA’’—truth in 

cost of living adjustments. 

Now, isn’t it a fact that the President’s proposal is a more accurate measure of the inflation adjuster than the current CPI we 

have? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, I think that—I am not an economist, and, 

again, the President would not do chained CPI or superlative CPI 

on his own as part of balanced deficit reduction. 

Senator WICKER. Is he suggesting a more or less accurate inflation adjuster? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I think he uses it as a technical rationale for chained 

CPI. 

Senator WICKER. Is that it is more accurate? 

Mr. ZIENTS. As a technical rationale for using chained CPI. At 

the same time, it is very important to protect the most vulnerable 

and to have a bump for older Social Security recipients. 

Senator WICKER. Well, let me just say this: Mr. Warner has left 

the room, but I think he put it correctly. You are talking about $3 

a month, and with protections in there for the bottom tier of benefit recipients. If we cannot do that to save the system and to save 

a successful program, then we are pretty well not going to be able 

to save Medicare and Social Security in the future. 
96 

Would you agree also that it is a balanced approach— and we 

have heard this ad nauseam—in that chained CPI or the new 

TRICOLA not only saves us in the spending side of it, but also it 

does amount to a significant revenue raiser? 

Mr. ZIENTS. It does have a component of changing how the annual increase in tax brackets are calculated. It does result in more 

revenue. 

Senator WICKER. It results in a substantial amount of new revenue. So in that sense, Madam Chair, we have the answer to our 

President’s request for a balanced approach. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

your testimony, Mr. Zients. I applaud the President’s attention to 

manufacturing in this budget. I applaud his investment in education, early education and STEM, his understanding of the importance of investing in infrastructure, and of the goal of laying out 

a plan that lowers the debt as a ratio to GDP. All these are good 

things. 

I am going to expand on the conversation we have been having 

about CPI, and I noticed you were careful not to say it was not 

more accurate, as my colleague asked you to say. And, of course, 

there is a good reason for that. I think you are aware that the CPI 

index as applied to Social Security is not based on a basket of 

goods faced by our senior citizens. You are aware of that? Just yes 

or no is fine. 

Mr. ZIENTS. It is based on a certain measure of cost of living and 

the chained CPI. 

Senator MERKLEY. Please tell me you know that it is not based 

upon a basket of goods seniors face. This is the most fundamental 

fact in CPI. 

Mr. ZIENTS. It is an annual inflation adjustment— 

Senator MERKLEY. It is based on a basket of goods that all Americans face, not that seniors face. Am I right or wrong? 

Mr. ZIENTS. It sounds like that is the case, yes. It is used 

across— 

Senator MERKLEY. Please, simple answers are fine in this room. 

We do not— 

Mr. ZIENTS. It is used across many Government programs, and 

as we talked about— 

Senator MERKLEY. Great. 

Mr. ZIENTS. —it is also used across the Tax Code. 

Senator MERKLEY. Because it does not track what seniors face, 

there is a separate CPI for what seniors face. It is called ‘‘CPI–E.’’ 

I assume you are familiar with that. 

Mr. ZIENTS. What I know about CPI–E is that it is very early 

stage index that is not terribly well developed at this stage. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. It is developed to track what seniors face. It goes the opposite direction of what you are proposing 

in a chained CPI, which is less accurate about what seniors face 

in their basket of goods. And I think that is very important because 

at the heart of this is an issue of fairness. 

Now, there are many ideas that have been put forward about 

how to make sure that we have a trust fund that is not only sol-
97 

vent for 20 years but solvent for 75 years. Those include, for example, a sliding-scale means testing the 25 percent most affluent retired Americans. So they get a little bit less. They still get Social 

Security, but they get a little bit less. Has the President and his 

team carefully looked at such measures and tried to evaluate them 

in terms of fairness to our seniors? 

Mr. ZIENTS. So let me just comment a little more on CPI–E. My 

understanding is that it is not proven. It is only experimental. I 

want to emphasize the chained CPI would apply across all Government programs, excluding means-tested Government programs. I 

also want to emphasize that we have talked about that there will 

be a bump-up for older Social Security beneficiaries. 

As to Social Security overall, the President has put forward principles for Social Security reform and would engage in a Social Security reform process. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I do not think you answered my 

question. Should I repeat it for you? Has the President’s team 

looked at other strategies for reducing the costs of Social Security 

that might be fairer such as means testing the 25 percent richest 

seniors in a sliding scale, a modest reduction in their benefits? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Social Security is not the driver on near-term fiscal 

issues. Social Security is a reform process that the President has 

laid out principles for. The reason that chained CPI is in the compromise offer is that Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell asked 

for it to be in. They also asked for us to consider moving the age 

for Medicare eligibility to 67. We are not willing to do that. We are 

willing to do chained CPI under two conditions: one, it is part of 

balanced deficit reduction— 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I am going to cut you off because 

you have chosen not to answer the question I asked you, if you had 

looked at other strategies affecting Social Security. I will take that 

your avoidance of answering is simply no. I would like to encourage 

the administration, as I have on multiple occasions, to look at 

many other strategies that have been suggested that are fundamentally fairer, that protect the solvency of Social Security for 

75 years, go much further in that sense than this 20 percent improvement we have before us, but do not reduce Social Security for 

hard-working, middle-income Americans. 

I want to close by noting that under the charts that Senator Sessions referred to, I see under the outlay section a 0.3 reduction, a 

$0.3 trillion reduction, and I see under receipts a 1.1 increase. That 

totals 1.4. I am not seeing where—and this is compared to the 

baseline that you have on the previous chart. 

Mr. ZIENTS. What page or table are you referring to? 

Senator MERKLEY. Yes, 186 is the baseline. That is the adjusted 

baseline, S.4 on 187. And on 189 is the proposed budget, and if you 

compare the outlays and the baseline, those are 46.8 versus 46.5 

in the President’s budget. That is a 0.3 reduction in outlays. And 

if you compare receipts, there is a 1.1 increase. So 0.3 and 1.1 is 

1.4. Where is the other $400 billion? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, I think actually the easiest way to see the deficit reduction is to use Table S.3. As I explained before, we have 

in the baseline sequester— because, unfortunately, that has been 

implemented. We replace sequester with balanced deficit reduction, 
98 

which I think most people believe is a much better path for this 

country. And in doing so you have that discrepancy. 

If you look at Table S.3, you will see— 

Senator MERKLEY. Okay. But if we simply compare the baseline 

to the President’s budget, it would be 1.4. 

Mr. ZIENTS. So the President’s—the baseline has the sequester in 

as all spending cuts, which was never the intended policy. We are 

replacing that with balanced deficit reduction— 

Senator MERKLEY. I understand 

Mr. ZIENTS. —which is laid out on S.3. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you for that clarification. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Coons. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Murray. 

Thank you, Acting Director Zients, for your testimony and for 

coming here today. As I am sure has been said before, a budget is 

a statement of priorities and values, and in my view, the President’s budget is an important contribution to our ongoing conversation. It does the right thing by prioritized job growth and investing 

in our economy in the short run. There are a number of things in 

here that I am very interested in, find appealing, as others of my 

colleagues have commented, focus on STEM education, on manufacturing, on investing in R&D and infrastructure. But there are other 

things that are part of any rough-hewn compromise that are objectionable to some, as you have heard today. 

Last month, when we passed the Senate budget resolution, I 

think we also struck a balanced compromise that was a mix of 

tough spending cuts with revenue increases. This budget, as I have 

understood it so far, builds on the very real progress we have 

made, the $2.4 trillion in progress towards the broadly agreed 

roughly $4 trillion objective. It does about another $1.8 trillion. 

I wanted at the outset to say I was thankful to see there was 

some continued investment in a project near and dear to my region, 

the Delaware River dredging, as well as a variety of programs that 

I have long championed and believe in, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership and a broad range of other manufacturing-related 

initiatives I would like to ask about. 

But the President also included difficult choices on entitlement 

reform, and I would like to drill down a little bit further if I could 

to follow on some questions you haveten from the previous two 

Senators. In my view, when it comes to any conversation about entitlement reform, we have to be clear about maintaining a circle of 

protection around our most vulnerable that is both rooted in our 

most fundamental values and in what I hear from the people of 

Delaware. I have consistently voted against proposals that would 

dismantle Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, turn them into 

voucher or block grant programs. These are vital programs seniors 

have worked for their entire lives and I think need and deserve 

protection. 

So in the conversations you have been having today, there has 

been some dialogue, some discussion about what is chained CPI 

and what are the provisions. If I understand correctly, the budget 

as proposed, as you have just recently said, includes some protections for the most vulnerable. Would you explain those in a little 

bit more detail for me? 
99 

Mr. ZIENTS. Any Government program that is means-tested 

would not be subject to the chained CPI. 

Senator COONS. So what would the principal exclusion— what 

would that mean for veterans’ benefits or SSI or— 

Mr. ZIENTS. The means-tested veterans’ programs—we had a discussion on veterans before you came in—would be excluded. SSI is 

excluded. Pell is excluded. Social Security, as we have talked about, 

chained CPI applies. Chained CPI applies to Federal retirement 

programs. We could get you a more complete list, but that is a representative sample. 

Senator COONS. And a reference to an additional payment for 

those who have been on Social Security for a long time— 

Mr. ZIENTS. That is right. At 76 there is a bump-up, which is 

based off of the average benefit, 5 percent of the average benefit, 

and that phases in across the following 10 years. 

Senator COONS. And the rationale for— 

Mr. ZIENTS. As I said, anyone who is on SSI, that is means-tested. That is not—that would not be subject to chained CPI. 

Senator COONS. You had an exchange, a conversation with Senator Merkley about the different versions of CPI: CPI–U, CPI–W, 

CPI–E, chained CPI. And you were asked previously about whether 

chained CPI was more accurate. My understanding is for a long 

time it has been viewed by economists as being a more accurate 

predictor broadly, not for the specific population of seniors or the 

most vulnerable. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes. 

Senator COONS. Help me understand— 

Mr. ZIENTS. That is my understanding. Again, I am not an economist, but my understanding is it has to do with the substitution 

effect, that when something is priced higher, if there is an opportunity to buy a like good or a similar good that is less expensive, 

you know, chicken versus another type of meat, that you need to 

take into account the substitute effect. But, again, in terms of real 

technical expertise, I do not pretend to have that, and we can certainly follow up and give you more— 

Senator COONS. My sense was the name ‘‘chained’’ comes from 

chaining the effects from quarter to quarter or month to month. 

The substitution effect you are talking about is if the price of apples goes up very quickly, folks will substitute oranges for apples. 

Mr. ZIENTS. That is right. 

Senator COONS. If the price of beef goes up, they will buy chicken. But I think the specific question Senator Merkley was trying 

to drill down on was for those of us who share a concern about its 

potential impact on seniors and the most vulnerable, is it an accurate predictor of the basket of costs, whether housing or medical or 

food, that would be relevant? Or is there a more accurate predictor? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, again, for the most vulnerable, the chained 

CPI will not apply. There will be the increases we talked about for 

the older beneficiaries. My understanding is there is a technical rationale for chained CPI being a better indicator or tracker, if you 

will, of annual inflation. 

Senator COONS. You said earlier that the President rejected a request and asked for consideration of raising the age of Medicare, 

but was willing to move forward with chained CPI, and one of its 
100 

benefits was it raised revenue as well as reducing costs. Could you 

talk about that a little further? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, I think, importantly, on the age 67, that is just 

cost shifting. 

Senator COONS. Right. 

Mr. ZIENTS. It is cost shifting to the private sector. It is cost 

shifting to our seniors. It could leave people uninsured. That is not 

good policy. The President is not willing to do it. Chained CPI the 

President has been clear he will not do on its own. It has to be part 

of balanced deficit reduction that includes revenue. The $1.8 trillion package has $580 billion of revenue in it, and he will only do 

chained CPI with the protections that we just talked about, protections for the most vulnerable and protections for older recipients of 

Social Security. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. I will— 

Senator COONS. I see I am out of time. I apologize. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Zients, on Table S.13, Federal Government financing and debt, the gross debt of the United States in 

2013 is $17.2 trillion, and in 2023, it is $25.4 trillion, a net increase 

of $8.2 trillion in the gross debt of the United States, according to 

your own numbers in your budget that you have submitted to the 

Senate and the Congress of the United States. Is that not correct? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, let me just catch up to you. I think that you 

are citing gross debt, and we have spent some time talking through 

how gross debt is not the right metric. I think the right— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, but if you are wrong about that question—let us talk about the gross debt. So you agree that it is an 

$8.2 trillion increase in the gross debt. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes, that— 

Senator SESSIONS. By your own numbers. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Right. I do not think the gross debt is the right metric here— 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, you say you are not an economist, but 

you say the gross debt is not the right metric. 

Mr. ZIENTS. I will join CBO— 

Senator SESSIONS. Let me put up a chart— 

Mr. ZIENTS. —in saying that gross debt is not the right metric. 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. You join with CBO, but I think 

there has been a serious misunderstanding about that. The RogoffReinhart study and their work that considered the debt crises in 

countries all over the world for over 100 years, they say in this 

paper, public debt refers to the gross central government debt. And 

they say that is the number that they had when they calculated 

that debt over 90 percent of GDP slows growth. 

So I would ask you, if you are wrong in that estimation, that the 

important figure is the gross debt, would that not mean the United 

States is at risk for slow growth right now, a fact that you said is 

most important for— 

Mr. ZIENTS. First, let us go someplace that we both agree on. We 

need to reduce our deficits, and we— 

Senator SESSIONS. I know, but this is really important. 
101 

Mr. ZIENTS. —need to reduce that as a percent—okay. In terms 

of— 

Senator SESSIONS. This is really important. 

Mr. ZIENTS. In terms of that study, it is benchmarking versus 

other countries, and other countries have different financing systems. If the U.S. measured the same way as other countries, our 

debt would be well below that 90 percent. It would be much closer 

to the debt held by the public, which is in the mid-seventies. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, let me point out that three other studies 

in recent years have been done in Europe. The European Central 

Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Bank for International Settlements, they have all done independent analysis. 

They showed that high government debt weakens the economy, 

slows growth, and our growth is well below what CBO was predicting just a few years ago. 

Last year, they predicted—2 years ago, they predicted 2012 

would be 4.4 percent growth. It came in at 2.2 percent growth, well 

below what CBO was projecting. 

Mr. ZIENTS. One thing I would agree on— 

Senator SESSIONS. I would say, just to follow up—and this is a 

serious matter. We need to address it. Those three studies—European Central Bank, IMF, and the Bank for International Settlements—also used gross debt, and each one of those analyses that 

they have produced, the United States is at a level where our 

growth is being slowed by the existing level of debt. And to me that 

gives us a great imperative to get off this track and begin to place 

our country back into a debt level that is sustainable. 

Mr. ZIENTS. So I am sure you spend a lot of time with 

businesspeople around the country. I do the same. I think that we 

also agree that we need to decrease our debt as a percent of our 

economy. 

I will tell you something that is holding back growth right now. 

It is the manufactured crisis after manufactured crisis coming out 

of Washington. We need to turn off the sequester. We need to do 

balanced deficit reduction and let our job creators create jobs without worrying about what Washington is going to— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we certainly need to avoid crises everywhere we can. However, the August 2011 debt ceiling increase resulted in the only real reduction in the growth of spending, $2.1 

trillion, and it was a firm commitment and law to reduce spending 

by $2.1 trillion. And that was not— 

Mr. ZIENTS. That crisis also led to a severe drop in consumer confidence, a rating decrease, and tremendous reaction across the 

economy. 

Senator SESSIONS. So it was— 

Mr. ZIENTS. We cannot repeat that. We owe it to this country, to 

our job creators, to people who are seeking jobs, to avoid that type 

of crisis. The President— 

Senator SESSIONS. We need to avoid that crisis and we need 

more help from this administration to get our debt level down. And 

you are raising taxes substantially in this budget that you produced. You raise taxes. But, Mr. Zients, unlike what Senator Warner suggested, we are not using those taxes to reduce the debt. 

They are being used to fund new spending above the spending level 
102 

we are on. The CBO baseline, the law that we passed in August 

of 2011 increases spending about 5 percent plus a year. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Senator— 

Senator SESSIONS. So this would not reduce spending. It would 

just reduce the growth of spending— 

Mr. ZIENTS. The President’s budget— 

Senator SESSIONS. —under current law, and you increase that. 

You increase spending over the steadily increasing CBO baseline. 

That is what you do. 

Mr. ZIENTS. The President’s budget puts this country on a sustainable fiscal path, invests in jobs and competitiveness, and gets 

this economy growing again. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. 

Senator SESSIONS. And makes it worse than the current situation. 

Chairman MURRAY. Director Zients, I just have a couple more 

questions. I was really pleased to see the President’s budget included a strong focus on early childhood education. As you know, 

that is an area of particular interest to me. I have long believed 

that early childhood education is one of the best investments the 

Federal Government can make. We know the research that shows 

that a child’s early years are a critical development stage, and 

early childhood education really is a great benefit to that child, 

their family, their community, and our country. 

So I wanted you to speak to that issue for a minute. Your budget 

proposes expansions in several areas of childhood education. Can 

you speak to how many children currently have access to pre-kindergarten and other early childhood education programs and how 

the proposals that you are presenting would expand those? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes, I do not have those exact statistics with me, but 

my team will definitely follow up. I share your passion around 

early childhood and the importance of it for our competitiveness, 

the return on investment that we will get from that. The tobacco 

tax will fund the Pre-K initiative. It also at the same time will reduce smoking. It will discourage teenagers from smoking, and it 

will hopefully encourage folks to quit. So it has great public health 

benefit, and at the same time I share your passion about the PreK initiative. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. I appreciate that, and I really would 

like to see those numbers. 

Mr. ZIENTS. We will get those to you. 

Chairman MURRAY. I also wanted to ask you about an area really 

important to me at home, and that is the Pacific salmon issue. 

There are many species of Pacific salmon and steelhead. They are 

really central to the cultural identity of my home State and really 

the west coast, and they support commercial fisheries, recreation, 

tourism, and economic activities, and they are very sacred to many 

of our Native American tribes, and, really, we have an obligation 

on treaty requirements that we have to meet. 

So I was really dismayed to once again see how drastically underfunded the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund is. Even in 

today’s austere times, which we all recognize, and with sequestration, the cuts that are called for in this program are much greater 
103 

as a percentage of total funding than for a lot of the other programs in the discretionary funding. 

I just want to remind the administration this program leverages 

State, local, and private dollars to recover these species that are 

vital to so many areas of our economy and to our treaty obligations 

in the Pacific Northwest. So I am disappointed again in the funding, and I will work with your replacement, as well as this administration, because this is something critical to all of us at home. 

Mr. ZIENTS. I will take that feedback. Obviously, it is difficult 

times, particularly on the discretionary side with the caps. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

We have two more questioners for you, and then we are going to 

call the hearing to a close. Senator Johnson and then Senator 

Whitehouse. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you again, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Zients, let us go at the Social Security Trust Fund another 

way here. Let us just go through the transactions. what happens 

when the Social Security Trust Fund basically starts paying for 

benefits using U.S. Government bonds? What happens? 

Mr. ZIENTS. It will sell those bonds. 

Senator JOHNSON. To who? 

Mr. ZIENTS. To the public, and it will be reflected in our public 

debt, the metric that I keep turning to. 

Senator JOHNSON. So we are going to have to, again, float those 

bonds, and somebody is going to have to give us money for that 

again. 

Mr. ZIENTS. That is all reflected in the President’s budget. 

Senator JOHNSON. Which is just very similar to when the U.S. 

Treasury floats a bond to finance the deficit. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes. At the end of the day, the Social Security Trust 

Fund is working the way it was intended to work, which is that 

it is— 

Senator JOHNSON. But, again, it is going to have to— 

Mr. ZIENTS. And it is solvent through 2033. At that point, if we 

do nothing—which I do not think would be any of our strategies— 

the benefit would go down to 75 percent. Clearly, we need to reform Social Security. It is not an immediate driver of our issues, 

but it is an issue we need to tackle. 

Senator JOHNSON. But it is doing the exact same thing as U.S. 

Treasury has to print a bond and then sell that to the public. And 

as we continue to grow our debt, it is going to more and more difficult to sell those— 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, I think we are— 

Senator JOHNSON. —U.S. Government-backed bonds. Correct? 

Mr. ZIENTS. —all in passionate agreement that we need to get 

our fiscal house in order, and we need to bring down our deficits. 

We need to bring down our debt as a percent of GDP. The metric 

that I keep coming back to is debt held by the public. That is reflective of the dynamic you just described. 

Senator JOHNSON. But, again, there is no difference whether it 

is the Social Security Trust Fund selling a bond to the creditors or 

the U.S. Treasury selling a bond. 

Mr. ZIENTS. And that ends up—when they do that— 

Senator JOHNSON. It is the exact— 
104 

Mr. ZIENTS. —that is reflected in debt held by the public. 

Senator JOHNSON. It is the exact same— 

Mr. ZIENTS. But they are not— 

Senator JOHNSON. —thing. 

Mr. ZIENTS. That bond is not being sold today. it is being reflected across time, and when you have debt on a declining path, 

it includes the dynamic that you just described. 

Senator JOHNSON. So, again, in your— 

Mr. ZIENTS. So we are driving down— 

Senator JOHNSON. In OMB’s own publication—and I do not have 

the graphic up here, but it basically is talking about that, you 

know, when you consider the asset of the Social Security Trust 

Fund offset against a liability of the U.S. Treasury, it nets to zero. 

In terms of the value to the Federal Government, the Social Security Trust Fund has zero value. Do you agree with your own agency’s publication? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I agree with the conversation we are having here. I 

cannot take a quote out of context and not understand the whole 

thing. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. 

Mr. ZIENTS. So what I said is that when Social Security sells 

those bonds to the public, that is reflected in the debt path that 

we have been talking about, which is on a declining path starting 

in 2016. And that is why the debt held by the public I believe is 

the right metric for us all to be using. 

Senator JOHNSON. The reason I am making such a big point of 

this is I do not see any way we start solving these problems until 

we are honest with the American people in terms of the depth of 

the problem. And for anybody to say that Social Security is solvent 

to the year 2035 is just—I just think that is a false statement, because you have a cash deficit— 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, that is the Social— 

Senator JOHNSON. You have a cash deficit of $5.1 trillion that we 

are going to incur between now and 2032, quite honestly. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well— 

Senator JOHNSON. And, we have—again, all we are going to have 

to do is we are going to float those bonds. 

Mr. ZIENTS. But this is the Social Security Actuary. It is 2033, 

not 2035, I think you just said. And I think we all agree that we 

do need to tackle our Social Security set of issues across time. It 

is not an immediate driver, but it is something that we should 

move on. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Within the next 10 years, the cash deficit in Social Security will be about $1.3 trillion. That is according 

to the Social Security Administration. The chained CPI that the 

President has included in his budget reduces benefits by a more accurate inflation calculation, by about $130 billion. Correct? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Well, I think across time that compounds quite a bit, 

so— 

Senator JOHNSON. In the first 10 years, that is— 

Mr. ZIENTS. Right, but be careful about the compounding effect 

of it. So it is more significant across time because of the 

compounding effect. 

Senator JOHNSON. What would it be in the second decade? 
105 

Mr. ZIENTS. I do not know that exact number. We can follow up. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. 

Mr. ZIENTS. But a multiple of that. 

Senator JOHNSON. But it is fair to say that in terms of solving— 

Mr. ZIENTS. And I think you heard Senator Warner— 

Senator JOHNSON. Unfortunately, I was at a different hearing. 

Sorry. 

But in terms of just the magnitude of the problem, what the 

President is proposing here with the chained CPI would solve 

about 10 percent of the 10-year deficit in Social Security benefits 

exceeding the revenue generated. Correct? 

Mr. ZIENTS. I think that is about right. Again, I think we are in 

passionate agreement that we should be tackling Social Security 

reform in a way that is balanced, that protects the most vulnerable, and it is not a crisis but it is something that we should do. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank 

you, Director Zients. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Whitehouse, last 5 minutes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Director Zients, I was a little bit out of time last time, so I want 

to go back to my fiscal multipliers again, and we had described how 

the fiscal multiplier is basically the measurement of the effect of 

Government spending or Government cuts on gross domestic product on the economy. And if the number is over 1, we pointed out 

that actually you are doing more damage to the economy by cutting. And I used the example that hypothetically the Northwestern 

University and National Bureau of Economic Research recent number suggests that the fiscal multiplier might be 3.7, and that that 

means that if you cut $1 in Federal spending, if that number is accurate, you are causing $3.7 in reduced economic activity. 

And what I want to add to that is that the reverse is true as 

well, that if, in fact, the fiscal multiplier is at 3.7, as the National 

Bureau of Economic Research suggests, $1 of additional Federal 

spending will create $3.7 in additional activity. So the $3.7, as I 

understand it, applies both to the magnifying effect of a cut, also 

the magnifying effect of Federal spending, while the fiscal multiplier is in that position. Is that your understanding as well? 

Mr. ZIENTS. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So the other thing I wanted to touch base 

and ask—I was running out of time, and I did not want to hear 

a speech from you about health care, about stuff that I already 

knew. But I do want to give you the chance to answer that question now that we do have the time. There was a point that you 

were trying to make, and I wanted to get to the fiscal multiplier, 

so why don’t we spool back to where we were when I was explaining my concern that the Obama administration has not set a specific target with a dollar target amount and a date for its delivery 

system reform efforts and my view that that is an impediment to 

the successful accomplishment of those efforts. The example I use 

is I do not think we would have put a man on the moon when we 

did if President Kennedy’s goal had been to bend the curve of space 

exploration. It was because we had a hard target, accountability 
106 

metric that the agencies of the Federal Government and the private sector all came together around that. 

So that was my point, and you wanted to respond. Go for it. 

Mr. ZIENTS. No, I think as someone who spent 29 years in the 

private sector, I could not agree more in terms of having a handful 

of metrics to drive performance. You know, right now, standing up 

ACA is a very high priority. Implementing the—hopefully passing 

the budget and implementing these reforms to Medicare is important. But I think a conversation with Secretary Sebelius and getting advice from you on the metrics and how her metrics compare 

to what you are thinking would be a healthy conversation. We definitely need—in order to manage health care costs toward highquality care delivered at a lower cost—that is a hard thing to do. 

There is a lot of variation, as you know, in care across the country, 

and there is not a good correlation between how much people spend 

and the quality of that care. Figuring out those best practices and 

how we implement them across the system and what metrics we 

use to drive toward high-quality, lower-cost care is central. And I 

would encourage that conversation, and I will absolutely let Secretary Sebelius know that you have specific thoughts on it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And I think the other point that you are 

making is that the growth rate in our health care cost has come 

down significantly since the passage of the Affordable Care Act— 

Mr. ZIENTS. You have had 3 years in a row now where— this is 

not Federal costs. This is health care costs for our country. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. For the country. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Which, you know, in my old life trying to run a business, a significant part of your cost structure is your health care 

cost. So this is important for our competitiveness. We have had 3 

years of below 4 percent. That is the first time that has happened 

in 50 years. 

So there is more work to be done, but we are making progress. 

CBO actually cites ACA as one of the drivers of that progress. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The two main drivers that are cited, as I 

understand it, are that the economic troubles we are having have 

probably reduced it somewhat, and the Affordable Care Act have— 

Mr. ZIENTS. Absolutely, which is doing a better job of aligning incentives and getting providers to work together and finding those 

best practices and implementing those and incenting those. 

And then the other figure I cited was Medicare on a per capita 

basis cost growth has come in quite a bit. Now, we do have the demographic challenge that we talked about, that we will have many 

more participants in the Medicare program. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So last point. To the extent that our colleagues want to reduce the cost of so-called entitlements like Medicare, we are actually already doing it, and it is built into the projections going forward because those numbers have come down. 

Correct. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Absolutely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. I really want to thank 

the participation and cooperation of all of our colleagues today. 

And, Mr. Zients, I especially want to thank you for coming to testify and, again, for serving as Acting Director of OMB. 
107 

As a reminder to all of our colleagues, statements and/or questions for the record for today’s hearing are due in by 12:00 p.m. tomorrow, and we are meeting against next Tuesday, April 16th, to 

consider the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget proposal, and Secretary of Treasury Jacob Lew will be here to testify on behalf of 

the administration. 

Again, Mr. Zients, thank you very much. 

Mr. ZIENTS. Thank you for having me. 

Chairman MURRAY. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
108 

FY 2014 Budget Q.FRs 
109 

Table of Contents 

Sen. Crapo .......................................................................................................................... 2 

FHA capital reserve nmd shortfall ..... " ..................... " ................... " ............... 2 

Sen. Johnson ....................................................................................................................... 3 

Redemption of SSTF #1...................... .. .......................................... " .............................. 3 

Redemption of SSTF #2 ...... " ........ " ................................................................. " ............................... .4 

Sale of SSTF bonds to the public..... ............................ ...... .................. .. ..... 5 

Nature of trust nmd balances.......................................... .. ..................................................... 6 

Distinction between SSTF debt and debt b~ld by the public. ..................... .. ..... 7 

Sen. Sessions ....................................................................................................................... 8 

Risks of rising debt to GDP ratio ....................................................................................................... 8 

Spending growth of mandatory programs ........................................................................................ 9 

Source of revenue increase in the budget......................... .. .......................................................... .1 0 

Defense cap reductions and national secutity strategy ....................................................................... 12 

Transportation immediate investments ............................................................................................. 13 

Surface transportation initiatives ............................................................. , .......................................... 14 

Pre-K initiative and tobacco tax payfor.. ............................... ,................. .. .................................... 16 

Safety net programs and financial independence ............................................................................... 17 

Payable Social Security benefits tmder chained CPI... .............................. , ........................................ 19 

OCO spending path...... . ..................... ,..................................... .. ................ 20 

Chained CPI impact on middle class taxpayers..... ............................. .. .......................... .21 

Programs affected by chained CpL. ................................................................................................. 22 

Risks of growing interest on debt.. ..... ................... .................... ....... .. ............................ 23 

Legislation in response to Medicare funding waming ........................................................................ 24 

Oil and gas royalty reform proposal............................................................. .. ...... 25 

Energy Security Tmst... .. ................... .................. .. ...................................... 26 

Olmsted Locks and Dam project and inland waterways...................... .. ..................... 27 

Congressional input into TVA strategic review...... .. ................................................. 28 

Crop insurance reductions .................................................................................................... , ......... 29 

DOE budget and timeline for carbon capture technology.... ...30 

EPA appropriations and coaVGHG rule ....................... , ................................................................... .31 

Relevance of gross debt versus debt held by the public........................................ .. ........... .32 

Sen. Warner ...................................................................................................................... 34 

GPRA Modernization Act program inventory .................. , ................................................................ 34 

Quality of performance.gov website ................................ , ............................................. , .................... 35 
110 

Sen. Crapo 

Acting Director Zients, in the President's FY14 budget, it is projected that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) will require $943 million from the U.S. Treasury 

this year to meet its obligations. Understanding that at this point we are only discussing a projection, please walk the Committee through the process by which thi.s would 

occur, ifit does, and how the public would be notified oCthe action. 

The actual need for a mandatory appropriation from tbe general nmd to FHA's Mutual 

Mortgage Insurance (MMI) fund wilt not be determined until September 2013, and will 

be based on FHA's realized revenues through the end of the fiscal year. In the event that 

FHA's capital reserve does not have sufficient balances at the end of the year to satisfy 

the $22.4 billion net reestimate obligation, FHA will receive a mandatory appropriation 

using the permanent indefinite authority for reestimates provided under the Federal 

Credit Reform Act of I 990---standing authority available to all Federal loan programs. 

If a mandatory appropriation is required, it will be presented in detail in FHA's financial 

statement for fiscal year 2013. The financial statement is typically published in early 

November. 
111 

Sen. Jobnson 

When you were asked to describe what happens when the Social Security trust funds 

(the combined OASI and DI trust funds need to cash in Treasury bonds they hold 

to pay for current benefits, you seemed to say bonds would be sold to the public. 

Which entity would sell bonds to the public? 

When trust fund holdings are redeemed to fund the payment of benefits, the Department 

ofthe Treasury finances those benefits out of current revenues, or by borrowing from the 

public. 
112 

Sen. Johnson 

Describe the transaction that takes place when the Social Security trust funds redeem 

Treasury bonds: Which entity pays and which receives payment? If it is a government 

entity that must pay, describe where the funding comes from. 

When the Social Security trust funds redeem trust fund securities from the Department 

of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury credits the Social Security trust funds 

with cash baJances. The redemption of the securities is an intragovernmental transaction. 
113 

Sen. Johnson 

You seemed to refer several times to the Social Security trust funds selling bonds to 

tbe public. Do you believe that tbe Social Security trust funds sell bonds? 

The Social Security trust funds invest revenue in excess of benefit payments in Treasury 

bonds. When the Social Security trust funds need to redeem those securities in order to 

pay benefits, they redeem the securities from the Department ofthe Treasury. The Department of the Treasury finances the redemption of securities to pay benefits out of current 

revenues or by borrowing from the public. 
114 

Sen. Johnson 

In the Analytical Perspectives section of President Obama's Fiscal Year 2010 budget, 

the OMB described the Social Security trust funds in this way: "These balances are 

available for future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures, but only 

in a bookkeeping sense. The holdings of the trust funds are not assets of the Government as a whole that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they 

are claims on the Treasury." It went on to write, "The existence of large trust fund 

balances, therefore, does not, by itself, increase the Government's abil1ty to pay benefits. Put differently, these trust fund balances are assets of the program agencies 

and corresponding liabilities of the Treasury, netting to zero for the Government as 

a whole. II Do you agree with OMB's assessment? Do you believe these statements 

are true? 

Tmst fund balances represent the value of past surpluses ofthe trust ftmds that are reserved 

for future payments from the funds. For Social Security, for example, the tmst fund balances represent the value afpast payroll taxes and other income in excess of past benefits. 

These balances are committed toward the payment offuture benefits for existing and future 

beneficiaries. 

The quoted statements accurately describe the nature of tmst fund balances from the 

perspective of Treasury's cash management. When a trust fund redeems its balances to 

pay benefits, the Treasury Department must finance those benefit payments in the same 

way that it finances other Government payments-from current revenues or from borrowing. 
115 

Sen. Johnson 

The above description by the OMS in President Obama's 2010 budget indicate that 

the assets of the Social Security trust funds are liabilities of the Treasury, which is 

to say debt that must be paid by American taxpayers. This would seem to differ in 

no substantial way from any federal debt held by the public, which also must be paid 

by the American taxpayers. What is your basis for distinguishing the two kinds of 

debt in saying that one is important for Budget Committee members to consider and 

the other is not? 

There is an important distinction between debt held by the public and debt held by the 

trust funds in economic terms, because debt held by the public requires borrowing on the 

capital markets, absorbing funds that could otherwise be invested in the private sector. 

While the balances of the trust funds provide the program with authority to draw upon 

the U.S. Treasury in later years to make future payments to the public, issuing debt to the 

trust funds does not have any of the credit market effects of borrowing from the public. 

The issuance of debt to the trust funds is an internal transaction of the Government, is not 

financed by private saving, and does not compete with the private sector for available 

funds in the credit market. The assets provided to the trust fund are fully offset by the increased liability of the Treasury to pay the claims, which will ultimately be covered by 

the collection of revenues or by borrowing from the public. 

The current interest earned by the trust funds on their Treasury securities does not need 

to be financed by other resources. In contrast, interest on dcbt held by the public contributes 

to the unified budget deficit and must be finaneed through revenues or borrowing from 

the pUblic. 

Some observers point to the debt held by trust funds as a measure ofthe future payments 

to be made by these programs and therefore of future demands on the capital markets. 

However, it is important to note that debt held by trust funds does not accurately represent 

the actuarial present value of projected payments to beneficiaries. Those future payments 

are better captured by the projections in the annual trustees' reports. 
116 

Sen. Sessions 

Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff produced a seminal book, This Time Is Different, 

showing that when gross debt approaches and exceeds 90% of GOP, growth is reduced 

by 1 percentage point or more. On February 17, 2011, tben Treasury Secretary 

Geithner said the following: "It's an excellent study. And you could say in some ways 

what you summarize from it, understates the risks, because it's not just that governments or countries that live with very high debt-to-GDP ratios are consigned to 

weaker growth. They're consigned to the damage that comes from periodic financial 

crises as well." Do you agree with this assessment? 

I do agree that Reinhart and Rogoff's research is valuable. They updated the research in 

This Time is Different, most recently in a 2012 article, and other authors have published 

related research. One needs to be careful not to exaggerate or distort the findings of this 

research when we draw lessons from it, and recognize that no one study is definitive or 

infallible. Researchers in this field are quick to point out that a statistical association 

between higher debt and lower growth is in itself not evidence that higher debt causes 

lower growth. Nevertheless, this area of research suggests that we must not be complacent 

about the high debt-to-GDP levels that resulted from the economic and financial crisis of 

2008, and argues for a fiscal policy that reduces debt as share of the economy. The President's FY 2014 Budget proposal accomplishes that goal. 

Reinhart and Rogoff made clear that their research does not support austerity. Their 2012 

paper said that their research "should not be interpreted as a manifesto for rapid public 

debt deleveraging exclusively via fiscal austerity in an environment of high unemployment." The President's Budget addresses the risks pointed about by economists such as 

Reinhart and Rogoff, but without unnecessary austerity measures that would cost the 

economy jobs and sacrifice critical investments in areas such as education and infrastmcture. 
117 

Sen. Sessions 

The President's Budget proposes a 56 percent total spending increase over the next 

10 years. Mandatory spending alone will grow by 5.2 percent per year. Over the 

same period, OMB estimates that inflation will be about 2.2 percent per year. Do 

you believe that 5.2 percent annual spending growth in mandatory programs is 

sustainable? 

The 2014 Budget includes reforms that strengthen Social SecUlity and Medicare and 

preserve our fundamental compact with America's seniors. Despite these cost saving reforms, demographics will continue to drive mandatory spending as the baby boom generation retires. Over the next two decades, over 30 million new people will participate in 

Social Security and Medicare. Over the next 10 years, mandatory spending for programs 

other than Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will £'111 as a share of GDP. 

The most relevant metric for assessing fiscal sustainability is the path of the deficit and 

the debt as a share of GDP. By proposing $1.8 trillion in additional deficit reduction, 

bringing cumulative deficit reduction since January 2011 to more than $4 trillion, the 

President's Budget reduces the deficit below two percent ofGDP by the end of the budget 

window and brings down debt as a share of the economy. 
118 

Sen. Sessions 

Total receipts under the President's "adjusted baseline" in Table 8-4 total $40.089 

trillion over the next ten years. Total receipts under the President's Budget in Table 

8-5 total $41.231 trillion over the next ten years. The difference between those two 

figures is $1.142 trillion. Please provide me with a table that shows the specific revenue policies that reconcile the difference between the two figures. 

The Administration's revenue proposals reduce the deficit and make the tax system fairer 

by reducing tax benefits for higher-income taxpayers and eliminating a number of tax 

loopholes, while providing support for job creation, incentives for investment in infrastructure, and help to families saving for retirement and paying for college and child care. The 

Budget includes the President's offer to Speaker Boehner during the fiscal cliff negotiations 

that raises $580 billion from upper income tax provisions. The upper income tax provisions 

include a limitation on the value of tax deductions and preferences for the highest-income 

families and compliance with the Buffett rule so that the wealthiest American families 

pay no less than 30 percent of their income in taxes. The offer also includes a switch to 

the chained CPI for indexing tax provisions for inflation which generates $100 billion in 

additional revenue. 

In addition to the offer to Speaker Boehner, the Budget includes other revenue changes 

and loophole closers to offset tax cuts and job creating initiatives and investments, which 

account for $199 billion of the proposed tax increases and include proposed increases in 

unemployment insurance taxes and an increase in tobacco excise taxes. An additional $20 

billion in increases is attributable to the Administration's proposals to increase employee 

contributions to Federal defined benefit retirement plans. Finally, several of the mandatory 

savings proposals include receipt effects which, on net, increase government receipts. 

The specific tax increases, loophole closers, and reforms proposed by the Administration 

are summarized in the table below. Descriptions and estimates of the receipt effect of 

each proposal are presented in Chapter 14 of the Analytical Perspectives volume of the 

FY 2014 Budget; estimates oftbe proposals are also provided in Summary Table 5-9 of 

the main Budget volume. 
119 

Effect of Revenue Proposals on Receipts 

(in billions of dollars) 

Adjusted baseline receipts .................................................................. .. 

Tax simplification, incentives and relief: 

Tax relief to create jobs and jumpstart growth 1/ ............. ................. .. 

Incentives for investment in infrastructure 1"-. ........ " ......................... . 

Tax cuts for families and individuals 1/....................... .. .................. . 

Simplify the tax system 11 ..................................................... . 

Trade initiative ........................................................................ .. 

Total tax Simplification, incentives and relieL ............................... .. 

Tax increases, loophole closers and reforms: 

Upper-income tax provisions ......................................................... " 

Modify estate and gift tax provisions .................................................. . 

Reform treatment of financial industry institutions and products ....... .. 

Other revenue changes and loophole closers ................................. ". 

Reduce the tax gap and make reforms 1/ ............................ ,. ......... .. 

Userfees ............................................................................................. . 

Other initiatives ................................................................................. . 

Total tax increases, loophole closers and reforms ....................... .. 

Net effect of revenue proposals on receipts 21 .....•..••••..••....••. 

Policy receipts ....................................................................................... . 

2014-23 

40,089 

-32 

72 

·24 

·4 

.:1 

11 

583 

79 

63 

199 

78 

11 

120 

1,131 

1,142 

41,231 

11 The provision affects both receipts and outlays; only the receipt effect is presented here. 

21 Tolal effect of the Administration's receipt proposals with outlay effects presented as 

though they were receipts is as follows: 

Total tax simplification, incentives and relieL ..................................... .. 

Total tax increases, loophole closers and reforms ........ " .................... .. 

Net effect of revenue proposals (total budget effect) ................. . 

2014-23 

-89 

1,132 

1,043 
120 

Sen. Sessions 

The President's Budget cuts defense discretionary spending by $120 billion, compared 

to the initial Budget Control Act caps. Has the new national security strategy been 

modified to accommodate this reductiou'l Would it need to be? 

The President's Budget proposes a total of$5,996 billion in national defense (050) function 

discretionary budget authority over the FY 2014 - FY 2023 period. This is approximately 

$120 billion, or two percent, less than current law would allow, assuming an extension 

of the caps in current law to FY 2023. This reduction, along with a roughly equal reduction 

in non-defense budget authority, is part of a balanced deficit reduction package that would 

allow Congress to replace and repeal the much larger cuts to both defense and non-defense 

programs required under current Jaw. 

This Budget supports implementation of the defense strategy announced last year. The 

senior leaders of the Department of Defense (DOD) were fully consulted in the development of the Budget, and no reductions to the defense caps in current law are proposed 

until FY 2017. That gives the Department time to carefully assess a variety of approaches 

to accommodate the reductions. DOD has begun a Strategic Choices and Management 

Review to develop options to ensure that the Department is prepared to defend the Nation 

and our strategic interests, whether a balanced deficit reduction proposal is enacted or the 

deeper cuts associated with sequestration are allowed to continue. 
121 

Sen. Sessions 

The President's Budget proposes an immediate $50 billion surface transportation 

stimulus and $166 billion in additional stimulus, including an Infrastructure Bank 

and billions of dollars for high-speed rall. No state has been able to secure enough 

funding to complete and operate high-speed rail in the U.S. In fact, Florida, Ohio, 

and Wisconsin all rejected federal high-speed rail funds from the 2009 stimulus bilI 

because such projects were too costly. Are states better able to undertake such projects now? \Vhat is the federal share of high-speed rail projects assumed to be in the 

President's budget? 

The President first laid out his vision for high-speed rail in America over four years ago 

and since that time the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) has funded improvements and upgrades in major corridors around the country, including the Northeast Corridor. To date the Federal Railroad Administration has obligated more than $10 billion 

in grant funding provided by Congress through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of2009 (ARRA) along with additional funding provided in FY 20ID. 

As of the end of 20 12, 27 individual projects were under construction or completed and 

California is set to break ground this year. When grants were made available through the 

HSIPR program, the Department of Transportation (DOT) received applications from 39 

States and the District of Columbia totaling more than $75 billion. While States like 

Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin ultimately returned F cderal funds, DOT received bipartisan 

letters submitted by delegations from 24 States seeking a portion of the $2.4 billion that 

Florida returned to the Department. The Administration proposes to include rail within 

the broader surface transportation framework so that projects to expand and improve rail 

surface can proceed with greater certainty with regard to long-tenn funding. 

Generally speaking, programs to expand rail service, such as High Speed Rail, assume 

an 80 percent Federal share and a 20 percent non-Federal share. 
122 

Sen. Sessions 

The President's Budget calls for an increase in funding for surface transportation 

programs beyond the current surface transportation authorization (MAP-21, which 

expires at the end of FY 2014} of $88.5 billion over 2015-2020 period. How much of 

that amount will be devoted to highways? At the same time, the President's Budget 

also caUs for the creation of an expanded Transportation Trust Fund to replace the 

Highway Trust Fund, and would move several General Fund programs (including 

Amtrak) to the new Trust Fund. The Transportation Trust Fund would also provide 

dedicated funding for a National High-Performance Rail System, among other rail 

programs, through a new Rail Account (in addition to the existing Highway and 

Transit accounts). Can you provide a table that shows the allocations to the various 

programs that will be covered by the proposed Transportation Trust Fund? 

The 2014 Budget includes $469 billion in total transportation funding across the proposed 

surface and rail reauthorization periods. Funding for the reauthorization proposals would 

be derived from the Transportation Trust Fund. Funding for the two reauthorizations is 

distributed as follows: 

(J) For rail, beginning in 2014, $40 billion is proposed over five years, an authorization 

length in line with the Passenger Rail and Improvement Aet (PRIIA). 

(2) For other surface transportation programs, the budget reserves $429 billion over six 

years beginning in 2015. The start of the authorization coincides with the expiration of 

MAP-21. This amount covers baseline funding levels, including general fund transfers 

to keep the transportation trust fund solvent, and includes programmatic increases for 

highway, transit, highway safety, and multi-modal programs. 

Because the rail proposal begins in the budget year, the budget includes year-by-year 

amounts over the reauthorization period. The surface transportation funding is reserved 

in an outyear allowance without modal splits. 

Tbough this detail is not included in the out year estimates due to the allowance, the Administration envisions that allocations for surface transportation programs will generally 

be consistent with the 20] 3 Budget proposal, when surface and rail were proposed for a 

concurrent six-year period, with the allocations proposed in the attached table. 
123 

FY 2013 Surlace Reauthorization Proposal 

AY"rage Annual Modal Allocations 

Mode Percentage Share 

Highways (FHWA) 

Highway Safety (NHTSA, FMCSA) 

Transit (FT A) 

Rail (FRA) 

Total 

66% 

2% 

23% 

9% 

100% 
124 

Sen. Sessions 

The President's budget proposes universal access to pre-kindergarten programs for 

all four-year-oIds, financed by new tobacco taxes- a tax increase of 94 cents per pack 

(from $1.01 to $1.95). According to the Centers for Disease Control, tobacco usage 

in the U.S. has been declining nearly 2 percent every year since 1965, so, other thing 

being equal, tobacco taxes likely 'Will not keep up with future costs of the new prekindergarten programs. Do you think it is smart to initiate a new entitlement program 

- that will grow larger over time - but pay for it with a declining revenue source? 

Would the administration advocate scaling back the new spending if the new taxes 

did not keep pace with spending growth? 

The President's pre-kindergarten proposal, Preschool for All, is a financial incentive to 

States to provide access to high-quality preschool to all children, not an entitlement that 

will grow over time. The program establishes Federal-State cost-sharing partnerships 10 

provide all low- and moderate-income four-year-olds with high-quality, publicly-funded 

preschool. The tcn-year Federal cost of the program is fully paid for through new tobacco 

taxes, which also would result in 230,000 fewer youths smoking. Funding for Preschool 

for All is based on a model where thc Federal government would assume a significant 

share oftbe program costs in tbe first years ofthe program with states gradually assuming 

more responsibility over time. For example, in the first year ofthe program, Federal funds 

would support approximately 90 percent of the cost in a typical State and this funding 

would decrease to approximately 25 percent of the cost in the tenth year. Under this program, the Federal government provides critical support for the creation and expansion of 

State preschool while encouraging states to evcntually incorporate preschool into their 

K-12 education system. This model ensures the Federal cost does not exceed declining 

tobacco tax revenue. 
125 

Sen. Sessions 

In the prepared testimony, you applaud the creation of 6.S million new jobs since 

the Great Recession ended, but in that time nearly the same number of individuals 

- 5.5 million people - have left the workforce. Many of those folks now receive (some 

simultaneously) federally-funded food stamps, federally-funded unemployment insurance, federally-funded disability insurance, and federally-funded health care. As 

previous testimony in this committee has sbown, many of these people are trapped 

by federal policies that discourage work and perpetuate poverty. How does the 

President's Budget change these federal programs to incentivize financial independence? 

The programs you mention provide a critical safety net to those who have lost their jobs 

or are unable to work, and the Administration is committed to making sure they are 

available for those who need them. At the same time, the President's Budget builds on 

the significant progress made over the last four years to create ladders of opportunity into 

the middle class. The President's 2014 Budget contains a variety of initiatives and reforms 

designed to help unemployed Americans find jobs more quickly. Specifically, the Budget 

includes: 

• A $4 billion Reemployment NOW proposal, which incorporates a number of reforms 

to help U1 claimants and other long-term unemployed individuals get back to work 

more quickly. 

• $25 million to facilitate State take-up of the demonstration authority that was included 

in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 20 12, to help States test new 

and better strategies for getting U1 beneficiaries back to work. 

• $30 million for reemployment services targeted at UI claimants who are identified 

as most likely to exhaust their benefits. 

• A reformed Universal Displaced Workers program to provide a core set of support 

and reemployment services to all workers who lose their jobs. 

In addition, the Budget includes reforms to ensure that these programs provide benefits 

only to those who are eligible. The Budget includes additional funding for: 

• Medical eligibility reviews for Social Security Disability Insurance. While most 

Disability Insurance beneficiaries have permanent disabilities, these reviews ensure 

that those who do medically improve and are able to work leave the program. The 

Budget proposes to fund a historic number of medical eligibility reviews to make 

certain that only those who remain eligible for benefits continue to receive them. 

• Unemployment Insurance Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments (REAs), a 

proven strategy whereby States review the continued eligibility ofUI cl.aimants and 

refer them to additional reemployment services. The Budget's proposed investment 

of$80 million is expected to provide benefit savings of$315 million. 

The Budget also includes a legislative proposal to reduce an individual's Social Security 

Disability Insurance benefit in any month in which the person also receives tmemployment 
126 

benefits. This proposal would eliminate duplicative payments for the same period out of 

the workforce, while still providing a base level of income support. 

The Administration also strongly supports changes to ensure that hard work leads to a 

decent living. The President has long championed the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), 

enacting substantial expansions as part of the Recovery Act, which were subsequently 

extended. The EITC reduces poverty by encouraging work and supplementing the wages 

of low-income workers. The EITC is particularly effective at increasing the work and 

earnings offemale-headed families. By boosting employment among single mothers, the 

EITC also reduces the number of families that receive cash welfare assistance. The Budget 

proposes to permanently extend recent EITC and Child Tax Credit expansions. The 

President has also called for an increase in the minimum wage to $9 per hour, which 

would raise wages for 15 million wage earners. Along with refundable tax credits, tbis 

would ensure that a minimum wage earner with children no longer falls below the poverty 

line. 
127 

Sen. Sessions 

Under current law, Social Security benefits would be reduced 25 percent by 2034. 

If chained CPI were implemented as envisioned in the President's Budget, in what 

year would a reduction in benefits start? 

The Social Security actuaries estimate that adopting the chained CPI immediately would 

extend the ability ofthe Social Security trust thuds to make full scheduled benefit payments 

by about two years. Building in protections for the elderly and long-term disabled would 

likely reduce that estimate. 
128 

Sen. Sessions 

The President's Budget again proposes placing caps on Overseas Contingency Operations. In the absence of caps, would funding for Overseas Contingency Operations 

decrease on its own due tQ the realities on the ground in Afghanistan and policy decisions already in place? Are there other options available to the Congress to reduce 

spending beyond the proposed caps if Congress believed national security was at 

risk? 

The Budget proposes a $450 billion multi-year cap, from FY 2013 to FY 2021, on Govermnent-wide Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. This proposal generates 

an estimated $675 billion in deficit savings relative to OMB's adjusted baseline. 

This Administration brought a responsible end to the war in Iraq, with all American forces 

out by December 2011. We are steadily drawing down our presence in Afghanistan, as 

well. The President announced in this year's State of the Union address that we will bring 

half our 68,000 troops in Afghanistan home within one year. By the end of calendar year 

2014, our war in Afghanistan will be over. As a result of these policies, war spending has 

begun to decline. 

We expect that OCO funding will continue to decline over thc next few years, and capping 

OCO funding will ensure that the OCO budget cannot be used to evade the discipline requifl~d by the Budget Control Act in other parts of the discretionary budget. 

As required by law, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the baseline deficit assumes that we will be spending as much as we are today on OCO for years into 

the future. OMB's adjusted baseline makes a similar assumption. In reality, rcsponsibly 

ending the war in Afghanistan in 2014 and capping OCO will mean that we spend much 

less, and the projected deficit wi!! come down as a result. 

In case of a national emergency requiring OCO funding above the proposed cap level, 

Congress could designate such funding as an emergency requirement. This is also the 

case with regular discretionary funding subject to caps under current law. 
129 

Sen. Sessions 

The Administration claims that most of the tax increases in the President's Budget 

fall on upper income taxpayers. However, adopting the chained CPI-U would affed 

taxes paid by taxpayers in lower tax brackets as well, such as taxpayers that are now 

on the edge between the 10 and 15,15 and 25, and 25 and 28 percent tax brackets. 

These tax brackets are those that contain the middle income taxpaying households. 

How many of these middle income taxpayers will face tax increases under the Administration's budget plan? 

No middle income taxpayers will face tax rate increases. When tax brackets are indexed 

to inflation, tax rates stay constant for taxpayers of any given real income level. The 

chained cpr proposal would use an altemative measure of inflation to index tax brackets, 

and therefore make it more certain that tax rates would stay tbe same for each real income 

level. 
130 

Sen. Sessions 

During the hearing, you spoke of a list of programs that would be affected by the 

President's chained CPI proposal. Could OMB provide a list ofthose programs, as 

well as programs that currently receive an indation adjustment tbat would not be 

covered by the President's proposal? 

In the interest of achieving a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement, the Budget proposes 

to use the chained CPI to compute cost-of-living adjustments in major Federal programs, 

such as Social Security and federal employee retirement, as well as the tax code. However, 

this change must be paired with protections for the elderly and those who rely on Social 

Security for long periods oftime and it would not be applied to any means-tested programs. 
131 

Sen. Sessions 

Under the President's proposal, interest payments more than triple from $220 billion 

today to $760 billion in 2023. These payments go to foreign and domestic creditors 

to pay for our gmVting national debt. Will higher interest payments in the future 

prevent the government from fully funding worthwhile goals like defense? Does interest on the debt pose a risk to this country's fiscal fntnre? 

We all agree that we must take steps to put our country on a sustainable fiscal path. That 

is why the President has proposed an additional $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction, bringing 

our deficit below 2 percent of GDP and putting debt as a share of the ecooomy on a declining path. Including previously enacted deficit reduction, this will lower interest payments over the next decade by almost $700 billion. 

Under our projections, interest payments do rise from where they are today-in large part 

because we expect interest rates to eventually increase from their historic lows as the 

economy continues to recover. The President's plan takes this into account and puts the 

budget on a sustainable path. To be clear-we need to take action, and the President has 

a plan to do so. 
132 

Sen. Sessions 

As OMB Director, you are the Administration official responsible for submitting 

legislation to Congress in response to Medicare funding warnings issued by the 

program's trustees. Last year (2012) was the sixth consecutive year that the trustees 

were required to issue a Medicare funding warning. The Administration has never 

submitted legislation in response to these warnings. Will the Administration submit 

Medicare legislation to Congress this year? If not, why not? 

The Administration takes very seriously both Medicare costs and the program's financing 

gap and has worked relentlessly to enact legislation that strengthens the program's benefits 

and financing for seniors, The President's FY 2014 Budget proposes specific actions to 

strengthen Medicare that would produce roughly $370 billion in Medicare savings over 

the next decade and would extend the program's solvency about four years by promoting 

high-quality, efficient care, while encouraging beneficiaries to seek high-value services, 

Moreover, the most recent Medicare Trustees Report shows that the funding warning 

threshold was last exceeded in 2012, and not during any other subsequent year during the 

applicable 2012-2018 time franle. Therefore, legislation is not necessary to bring general 

revenue financing below the funding 'warning threshold for 2013 through the remainder 

of the seven-year funding warning window, 

Additionally, as noted in prior years dUling this Administration as well as during the 

previous Administration, the Executive Branch considers the provision requiring the 

submission oflegislation in response to the Medicare funding warning to be advisory and 

not binding, in accordance with the Recommendations Clause of the Constitution, 
133 

Sen. Sessions 

The President's Budget proposal calls for increasing receipts from offshore and onshore oil aud gas development by $2.5 billion over 10 years through royalty reform, 

encouraging development of existing leases, and improved revenue conection. How 

many additional (fewer) barrels of oil and cubic feet of natural gas are estimated to 

be produced if the President's proposals are enacted? What percentage increase 

(decrease) in production does that represent? What general geographic regions 

represent the bulk ofthis increase (decrease)? What proportion oHlle increase (decrease) comes from offshore production in federal waters and from onshore production on Federal lands? 

The Budget includes a package of legislative and administrative reforms to improve the 

management of Federal oil and gas resources both onshore and offshore. These reforms 

serve three purposes: 

(I) improving the return to taxpayers from development of publicly-owned oil and gas 

resources; 

(2) encouraging diligent development of both new and existing oil and gas leases; and 

(3) streamlining revenue collection processes. 

Collectively, these reforms will generate roughly $2.5 billion in net revenue to the 

Treasury over 10 years, of which about $1.7 billion would result from statutory changes. 

Many States will also benefit from higher Federal revenue sharing payments. The details 

of some reforms are still under development, so it is too early to estimate the net aggregate 

impact of these reforms on Federal oil and gas production or speculate on impacts by 

geographic region. However, in total, these reforms are not expected to have a significant 

negative impact on near-ternl production, and the impact may ultimately be positive. 

It is worth noting that the FY 2014 Budget also includes permitting reforms and increased 

resources for Department ofthe Interior agencies to support the responsible development 

of our Federal oil and gas resources. The Budget provides robust SUppOlt for onshore energy 

permitting and oversight on Federal lands, with a more than 20 percent increase over the 

2012 enacted level in total discretionary funding for the oil and gas program ofthe Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM). We are also proposing an extended and revamped BLM 

pemlitting pilot office authority and we continue to implement administrative changes 

that will faeilitate improved responsiveness to industry permit requests. 

The Budget proposes $169 million and $222 million, respectively, to fund the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, which 

share responsibility for overseeing development of oil and gas resources on the Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS). The ClUTent OCS five-year leasing program will make more 

than 75 percent of estimated undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas resources 

on the OCS available for development. 
134 

Sen. Sessions 

Tbe President's Budget caUs for an Energy Security Trust, provided $200 million 

annually. Is this increase in spending tied to receipts from new production from 

federal onshore or offsbore areas? The Trust is intended to "transition our cars and 

trucks off of oil." In what form will this money be spent (e.g., on advanced research 

at DOE facilities)? What technologies are expected to receive funding through this 

program? What will be the level of market penetration achieved by cars and trucks 

not powered by oil in 10 years without the Energy Security Trust? In 20 years? What 

will he the level of market penetration achieved with the Energy Security Trust in 

place in 10 years? In 20 years? 

The Administration is calling on Congress to establish an Energy Security Trust, setting 

aside $2 billion over 10 years (or $200 million annually) that would support breakthrough 

research into a range of cost-effective technologies like advanced vehicles that run on 

electricity, homegrown biofuels, fuel cells, and domestically produced natural gas. The 

mandatory funds would be set aside from royalty revenues generated by oil and gas development in Federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), already included in the 

Administration's five year plan. The Energy Security Trust would be administered by the 

Department of Energy (DOE), supplementing DOE programs funded on an annual basis 

with discretionary appropriations. This R&D investment would accelerate cost reduction 

and improve performance, presenting consumers with cleaner transportation alternatives 

and enabling increased market penetration within the next 10 to 20 years. 

The intent of this Trust is to support efforts to reduce our reliance on oil. In furtherance 

of that objective, it will support the highest-priority research designed to accelerate the 

transfolmation of our transportation system from one that relies nearly exclusively on oil 

to one in which alternative fuels play an increasingly important role. We expect that it 

will fund R&D in support of alternative fuel vehicles, such as advanced battery chemistries 

for electric vehicles; stronger, lighter, and cheaper containers for compressed natural gas; 

and advanced liquid biofuels. It also could support limited deployment related R&D in 

areas where such support could help iacilitate the adoption ofvehic!es that do not use oiL 

The Energy Security Trust will continue to increase momentum towards a cleaner, more 

efficient fleet that is good for consumers, increases energy security, and cuts carbon pollution. And it will help set us on a course to meet the President's goal to cut net oil imports 

in halfby the end of the decade, relative to 2008 levels. 
135 

Sen. Sessions 

The President's Budget caUs for increasing the receipts that fund the inland waterways trust fund by $1.1 billion over 10 years. Under the President's proposal, when 

does the Army Corps of Engineers estimate the Olmsted Lock and Dam will be 

completed and no longer consume resources from the inland waterways trust fund? 

Olmsted Locks and Dam would replace two aging dams on a key segment of the inland 

waterways on the Ohio River, near the point where it flows into the Mississippi. For the 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) civil works program, this project is a high priority .. 

The Corps is in the process of developing a revised detailed schedule for completing this 

project. Under the President's legislative proposal and the current Corps construction 

schedule: 

• the Olmsted Locks and Dam would become operational in FY 2019, based on the 

minimal project features required for the dam to safely hold the pool and pass commercial tows and barges through the new locks; 

• the Corps would complete the other physical work associated with the dam contract 

in FY 2020, including contractor de-mobilization and equipment salvage; and 

• the Corps would complete the remainder of the project in FY 2023, including work 

on miscellaneous other facilities (e.g., buildings and grounds), peIll1anent operating 

equipment, river dikes, and the demolition of Locks and Dams 52 and 53. 

Due to the low level of receipts now in the inland waterways trust fund, the ongoing cost 

of the Olmsted Locks and Dam project accounts for roughly 66 percent ($163 million) 

of the total Corps budget authority proposed for inland waterways capital investments in 

FY 2014, and roughly 87 percent ($81.5 million) of the amount financed through this 

trust fund. 

The Administration recognizes the need for additional capital investment on the inland 

waterways. The President's legislative proposal is an equitable way to finance the nonFederal share of this investment, which is the responsibility of the commercial users of 

these waterways under current law. The proposal would create a workable balance of 

funds in the inland waterways trust fund, based on an assessment of the likely capital investment needs. With the additional revenue collected from the users and matching funds 

from the general fund, the Corps would be able to complete the Olmsted Locks and Dam 

project sooner, without consuming such a large percentage of the receipts in this trust 

fund, and would therefore be able to undertake and complete other inland waterways 

capital investments sooner as welL 
136 

Sen. Sessions 

The President's Budget calls f(}r a strategic review of the Tennessee Valley Authority, potentially including divestiture. Will the President keep Members of Congress from states serviced 

by the Tennessee Valley Authority informed at the start of tbe strategic review, during the 

review, and at the conclusion of tbe review? Will tbe President commit to seeking Congressional input during the strategic review? What factors will govern the Administration's 

consideration of this issue? Does the Administration expect to make a determination for 

proposal to Congress? If so, when? 

The Administration's primary consideration is how to best position TVA to address its 

capital financing constraints within the current fiscal environment. The possible TVA 

divestiture option referenced in the President's Budget was not intended to suggest a 

specific course of action but rather to provide a basis for discussion. The Administration 

will evaluate various options for addressing this issue, including potentially some ofthose 

outlined in the September 2011 TVA Office ofInspector General's (OlG) report entitled 

"History, Status, and Alternatives: TVA Financial Flexibility." 

Administration officials will work with TVA over the next few months to develop a plan 

for the review which will address its financing issues to meet future capacity needs, fulfill 

its environmental responsibilities, and modernize its aging generation system. The review 

will include discussions with appropriate stakeholders, including the Congress, customers, 

State and local governments, and employees, contractors and labor organizations to ensure 

that all issues are taken into consideration-including electricity prices, environmental 

obligations, employment issues, and the safe and reliable delivery of electricity. 

Should the Administration determine actions which require legislative changes may be 

appropriate, the Administration will work with the Congress on them. 
137 

Sen. Sessions 

The President's Budget proposal caUs for savings of nearly $38 billion in a new Farm 

Bill, including reductions in Crop Insurance ofnearly $12 billion. $7.4 billion ofthis 

is would come from lower premium support rates. How many farmers do you estimate 

will forego crop insurance under your proposal? How many will seek lower levels 

ofc.overage? If these reductions have minimal impact on farmers' coverage decisions, 

at what reduction level would you expect to see more than negligible impact? 

The Administration does not currently have an estimate of how much the government 

paid premium would have to decrease before farmers would leave the crop insurance 

program. However, the reduction would have to be larger and more broadly applied before 

farmers would be likely to forego crop insurance. 

The Administration assumes that no farmers currently participating will forego crop insurance because of the Budget proposal. 

The savings estimate reflects a change in growers' insurance coverage choices based on 

the decrease in government subsidy. The Budget assumes that a small proportion of 

growers (from 2 percent to 5 percent of policies) would opt out of buy-up crop insurance 

program, especially those who purchased the lowest levels of coverage. These farmers 

are expected to participate in catastrophic (CAT) coverage, for which the premium would 

continue to be subsidized at 100 percent of the premium. Within the buy-up coverage, 

the Budget assumes that a larger portion of growers would drop a coverage level or so, 

depending on the degree to which the decrease in subsidy increased out-of-pocket costs. 

ClUTent estimates are that the effect on the out-of-pocket cost per farmer will average 

12.5 percent or about $500 annually. 
138 

Sen. Sessions 

The President's Budget calls for increasing the Department of Energy's Budget by 

$1. 7 billion over FY 2012 levels. At the same time, it calls for reducing spending on 

coal research and development by more than $80 million, a cut of nearly 25 percent. 

Does the President have an estimate on when carbon capture technology will he 

commercially available? Wbat impact will this reduction in spending have on that 

when that milestone will occur? 

The President's Budget is consistent with the Administration's plan, as outlined in The 

Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, to overcome the 

barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) 

with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. With 

over $4 billion of support from prior year appropriations and the American Reinvestment 

and Recovery Act, the Department of Energy is managing a portfolio of eight commercialscale demonstration projects that are progressing toward meeting this goal. In fact, one 

of these projects is already operating while two more are under construction. These projects 

will demonstrate a range of currently available CCS technologies integrated at scale with 

power plants and industrial facilities. The research and development activities in the 

President's Budget focus on second generation CCS technologies--those that are not 

currently in commercial application at any scale or level of integration, but have potential 

to improve the efficiency or reliability of CCS processes. 

As stated in The Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage, 

there are no insurmountable technological, legal, institutional, or other barriers that prevent 

CCS from playing a role in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The technologies 

exist and the President's Budget continues to invest in improving their perfonnance and 

reliability. However, widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS wiil occur only when 

driven by a policy designed to reduce GHG emissions. Ultimately, comprehensive energy 

and climate legislation will provide the largest incentive for CCS deployment as an option 

for climate change mitigation, because it will create a stable, long-term, market-based 

framework to channel private investment into low-carbon technologies, 
139 

Sen. Sessions 

Recently, acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe indicated that EPA's FY 2014 

appropriations would fund an effort to curb greenhouse gases from existing coalfired power plants. 1. Does the President's Budget envision the incremental shutdown 

of more than 5% ofthe nation's coal-fired power plants that are currently not slated 

for closure as a result of this rule? 10%? 2. How much of EPA's budget will be dedicated to all stages of development and promulgation ohhis rule? Does that estimate 

include fundi.ng for performing economy-wide modeling of the rule? 

EPA will continue to collaborate with Federal and State agencies, tbe private sector, and 

otber stakeholders, to explore cost-effective strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

As such, the Budget requests an increase of$2 million to support climate-related emissions 

reduction efforts in tbe stationary source program. In FY 2014 EPA will work to address 

whether New Source Performance Standards for new and existing sources of greenhouse 

gases are warranted. Tbe additional resources will improve the agency's ability to perform 

analyses of prioritized sectors, including power plants. 
140 

Sen. Sessions 

During testimony, you asserted that debt held by the public J'elative to Gross Domestic 

Product (GDP)-not gross debt, which includes the bonds held by the Social Security 

trust funds-was the "relevant" measure of our indebtedness. When asked why the 

debt held by the Social Security trust funds was not relevant, you responded that 

the federal government would simply "sell the trust funds' honds to the public," 

therefore debt held by the public relative to GDP was still the best measure, However, 

neither the Social Security Administration nor the US Treasury are permitted to 

sell the bonds held by the trust funds to the public. By law, these bonds are nonmarketable (see section 20l(d) ofthe Social Security Ad). Therefore, your statement 

that the federal government would simply "sell the trust funds' bonds to the public" 

appears to be incorrect. Moreover, it seems fiscally irresponsible to ignore the debt 

burden imposed by the Social Security trust funds. Treasury's obligations to Social 

Security will have to be financed with higher taxes or new (marketable) debt-a fact 

conceded by the Clinton Administration: "These [trust fund] balances are available 

to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures-but only in a 

bookkeeping sense. Unlike the assets of private pension plans, they do not consist of 

real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, 

they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by 

raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. 

The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, make it 

easier for the Government to pay benefits." (Fiscal Year 1999 Budget of the United 

States Government, Analytical Perspectives, p. 328.) The bonds issued to the Social 

Security trust funds also count towards the debt ceiling. During the debt crisis of 

2011 , obligations held by the trust funds comprised over 30 percent of the debt 

subject to limit. Between 1997 and 2002, the federal government raised the debt 

limit twice even though debt held by the public was declining. It seems clear, the 

debt issued to the Social Security trust funds, and hence gross federal debt, is certainly 

not irrelevant. Given this, bow do you justify the Administration's position that gross 

debt relative to GDP, which includes debt held by the Social Security trust funds, is 

not a superlative measure of our nation's indebtedness? How do you explain to the 

US taxpayers who will have to finance our gross debt that debt held by the public 

relative to GDP (which excludes the promises to Social Security), is "the best measure" of our debt burden? 

Debt held by the public is more important than gross Federal debt in economic terms, 

because debt held by the public requires borrowing on the capital markets, absorbing 

funds that could othetwise be invested in the private sector. 

While the balances of the trust fimds provide the fund with authority to draw upon the 

U.S. Treasury in later years to make future payments to the public, issuing debt to Government accounts does not have any of the credit market effects of borrowing from the 

public. The issuance of debt to Government accounts is an internal transaction of the 

Government, is not financed by private saving, and does not compete with the private 
141 

sector for available funds in the credit market. The assets provided to the account are fully 

offset by the increased liability of the Treasury to pay the claims, which will ultimately 

be covered by the collection of revenues or by borrowing. 

The current interest earned by the Government account on its Treasury securities does 

not need to be financed by other resources. In contrast, interest on debt held by the public 

contributes to the unified Budget deficit and must be financed through revenues or borrowing. 

Some observers point to the debt held by trust funds as a measure ofthe future payments 

to be made by these programs and therefore of future demands on the capital markets. 

However, it is important to note that debt held by trust funds does not accurately represent 

the actuarial present value of projected payments to beneficiaries. Those future payments 

are betler captured by the projections in the annual trustees' reports. 
142 

Sen. Warner 

The GPRA Modernization Act required OMB and the agencies to develop an inventory of federal programs - can you tell us when we can expect that inventory and 

what will it include? 

Over the past year, OMB has worked with agencies to develop a comprehensive list of 

government programs, as required by the GPRA Modernization Act. The initial list of 

programs for the major agencies will be available online at the end of May. The ini tlal 

inventory will describe each program and show how it supports the agency's strategic 

goals and objectives, and show three years of funding at a summary leveL Once this initial 

inventory is established, and we have collected feedback, we plan to continue to build 

out additional information in the coming year. We look forward to hearing feedback on 

the initial inventory as we continue to improve this effort over time. 
143 

Sen. Warner 

OMB expanded the performance.gov website last year to include quarterly performance updates for the priority goals across government, but unfortunately, the website 

developed is difficult to navigate and the data is not presented in a consistent way 

with trend data for all the goals. What are your plans to improve this website to 

make it easier for Congress and the taxpayers to track the performance of our government? Do you have plans for a citizen scorecard/report card to communicate the 

results on key priorities? 

OMB is continuously improving Performance.gov to provide a clear, concise picture of 

Federal performance-both on mission-oriented goals and government-wide management 

priorities-and meet the requirements of the GPRA ModemizationAct. OMB's first priority has been to develop the capacity to collect the information from Federal agencies 

required by the Act and present this information in a useful wayan Performance.gov. In 

December 2012, Performance.gov was updated to provide the public with the first-ever 

quarterly performance reporting on Priority Goals. For each Priority Goal, users can see 

the Goal Leader, progress summary, key performance indicators, major milestones, and 

contributing programs. In total, agencies have identified 241 quantitative performance 

indicators, which are displayed in graphs to allow an easy view of the trends; in other 

cases milestones may be more appropriate. For the first time, agencies are reporting results 

for most of their indicators on a quarterly basis, not just through annual reports. 

As you mention, work remains to be done. This includes the addition of new content to 

fulfill the requirements of the Act, as well as enhancements to the site to improve usability. 

OMB is working closely with GSA, agencies and tbe Performance Improvement Council 

(PIC) to further develop Performance.gov, including refining the presentation and 

streamlining the back-end data collection capabilities. Constraints on available funding 

and agency capacity, and the need to learn what works before we scale up governmentwide, have necessitated a phased development path. We've requested additional funds in 

the FY2014 budget to enhance Performance.gov, including adding more citizen-focused 

presentations. Within resource and capacity constraints, we will continue to develop 

Performance.gov to provide more useful and timely performance information. 

(145) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET 

AND REVENUE PROPOSALS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:01 p.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Murray, Nelson, Sanders, Whitehouse, Coons, 

Kaine, Sessions, Enzi, Portman, Johnson, and Ayotte. 

Staff Present: Evan T. Schatz, Majority Staff Director; and 

Marcus Peacock, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MURRAY 

Chairman MURRAY. This hearing will come to order, and I want 

to thank all of my colleagues, and in particular our Ranking Member Senator Sessions, for joining me today, as well as all the members of the public who are watching, whether it is here in person 

or from home. 

Before we begin, I do just want to take a quick moment to express my dismay and heartache at the tragedy that took place at 

the Boston Marathon yesterday. Secretary Lew, I know you have 

a strong connection to Boston. And I know I join with all of our colleagues here, and all Americans, in saying that my thoughts are 

with the athletes and the spectators, their families, and everyone 

who has been impacted from around the world. And I echo President Obama, who said last night that all Americans stand with the 

people of Boston, and that we will bring those people responsible 

to justice. 

We are here today to continue our discussion of the President’s 

fiscal year 2014 budget proposal and, particularly, its approach to 

reducing the deficit through a combination of spending cuts and 

new revenue from those who can most afford it. 

Secretary Lew, it is nice to welcome you back to this Committee 

in your new role as Secretary of the Treasury, and congratulations 

and thank you so much for your doing that and for appearing, of 

course, before us today, and for all of your work, really, to help 

strengthen our economy and our middle class. 

As we all know, yesterday was Tax Day. Americans across the 

country sat down at their kitchen tables or at a computer and filled 

out a lot of complicated forms. It is a common experience but, unfortunately, one that some workers and families experience very 

differently than others. This year, for example, it will be very pos-
146 

sible for a hedge fund manager to pay a lower tax rate on his income than a soldier or a police officer or a teacher. 

Taxpayers will subsidize millionaires more when they purchase 

a second home or a yacht than they will middle-class families who 

are purchasing their very first home. American families will continue to subsidize billions of dollars in tax incentives for companies 

reporting record-breaking profits. And the complicated forms that 

I just mentioned, a lot of that complication is due to tax expenditures, which a member of President George W. Bush’s Council of 

Economic Advisers called ‘‘spending in disguise.’’ 

The majority of these tax expenditures, about 70 percent of them, 

are structured so they are more valuable as your income increases. 

In 2012, middle-class families received an average benefit from tax 

expenditures of about $3,500. But the top 1 percent of income earners received an average benefit of nearly $250,000. In other words, 

the less you needed, the more you got. And tax expenditures are estimated to cost us $1.3 trillion this 

year. We have heard testimony in this Committee that too many 

of those expenditures are not doing much to support our economy, 

although they have helped to drive the effective tax rates of the 

wealthiest Americans to historic lows. 

At a time when we are looking for savings everywhere to address 

our debt and deficit, finding ways to both make our tax code fairer 

and help reduce our deficit makes sense. And addressing tax earmarks for special interests, like tax subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and the special tax rates applicable to hedge fund managers’ 

income, should be at the top of our list. We should also address the 

tens of billions of dollars lost each year to offshore tax abuse and 

the nearly $400 billion the IRS has told us we lose each year to 

the tax gap. 

These are the kinds of goals a bipartisan budget deal could accomplish, which is one of the reasons why it is so important that 

we take advantage of the opportunity we have right now. 

The Senate has passed our budget, the House has passed their 

budget, and the President weighed in with a bipartisan path forward, and now we need to do everything we can to get to a balanced and fair agreement. And an essential part of any agreement 

will be asking the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations 

to pay their fair share. 

That is why I am pleased the President’s budget proposal maintains the key principle in the Senate budget, which is supported by 

bipartisan groups and the vast majority of the American people: we 

need to tackle our deficits and debt in a balanced way, with a mix 

of spending cuts and new revenue from those who can afford it 

most. 

If the Senate budget were enacted, 64 percent of total deficit reduction since the original Simpson-Bowles report would come from 

spending cuts—64 percent—14 percent would come from rate increases on the wealthiest, and 22 percent would come from new 

revenue raised by closing tax loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the Tax Code that benefit the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations. 

The ratios under the President’s compromise proposal would be 

slightly different, but the fact that it includes a mix of spending 
147 

cuts and new revenue reflects the principles of balance and fairness 

that the vast majority of Americans support. 

It is disappointing that, given the clear need for fairness in our 

tax code and the need for a balanced approach to deficit reduction, 

the budget passed in the House last month represents the opposite 

values and principles. The House budget doubles down on protecting tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. 

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, to avoid 

increasing the deficit while achieving its tax reform goals, the 

House budget would provide filers with incomes of $1 million or 

more an average net tax cut of $245,000, while families with children who make less than $200,000 would see their taxes increase 

by $3,000 on average. 

The House budget pursues an extreme, cuts-only approach, 

slashing our investments in education and infrastructure and research that help ensure our country can create good middle-class 

jobs in the future. All in all, the House budget is an extreme plan 

that makes it harder for the middle class, and those aiming to 

reach the middle class, to get ahead. 

It just will not work for American families or for our economy 

and it certainly does not suggest the willingness to compromise, or 

work across the aisle, that we will need to see from Republicans 

in the next few months. 

We have reached a unique point in the last 2 years of discussions 

about our country’s economic and fiscal future, one that both 

Democrats and Republicans have pursued. We have the opportunity now to go to conference through regular order, debate our 

different approaches, and hopefully come to a fair, bipartisan deal. 

This process, which I would think my Republican colleagues 

would want to begin as soon as possible, will require tough choices 

on both sides. Democrats have consistently shown we are willing 

to do so, and now it is up to Republicans to join us at the table 

ready to compromise. 

Secretary Lew, as you know from your history of bipartisan 

budget deals, including the year-end deal to avert the fiscal cliff, 

revenue will have to be a focal point of our debate and any solution. 

Republican leaders, who are seemingly rejecting any effort at 

compromise, will need to put our families and our economy above 

partisan ideology. This should be doable, especially because some 

leading voices in the Republican Party have expressed a willingness to look at new revenue. 

Speaker Boehner himself has proposed raising $800 billion in 

deficit reduction by closing special interest loopholes and deductions, likely including many of the ones I just talked about. In the 

House budget, Chairman Ryan’s tax plan implicitly assumes he can 

find $5.7 trillion in savings from our Tax Code. He, of course, puts 

every dollar of these savings to rate reduction and puts nothing toward addressing our debt and deficit. 

But the majority of the Senate has made it clear that when it 

comes to eliminating spending in the Tax Code or moving forward 

with tax reform, we must identify savings to address our debt and 

our deficit. Doing so would be consistent with the approach supported by the vast majority of Americans and with bipartisan rec-
148 

ommendations and would help us reach the fair and comprehensive 

agreement that American families and businesses deserve. 

I hope that our hearing today can be a productive part of this 

conversation, and I want to again thank everyone for being here. 

Secretary Lew, I look forward to hearing more from you about the 

President’s proposal today and why new revenue from the wealthiest has to be part of any fair and responsible budget plan. 

With that, I will turn it over to Senator Sessions for his opening 

remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SESSIONS 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. The budget of 

the United States is indisputably in terrible shape, and we remain 

on an unsustainable path. 

I would note, however, in defense of the House budget, that it 

balances in 10 years. It does not just use the word ‘‘balance.’’ Its 

revenue equals its outflow. That is what a real balance means, although we are in ‘‘Through the Looking Glass’’ sometimes in this 

place, and we do not understand what a balanced budget is. 

It is a balanced budget, and it allows spending to increase 3.4 

percent each year. That is the kind of budget we ought to be doing 

here, not another one that increases taxes but increases spending 

almost as much. 

The President has now sent us his budget. It came after the Senate and House had passed their budgets. But we do have—Madam 

Chairman, you mentioned tax expenditures, but I do recall so vividly the witness you called, a Democratic witness who told us there 

are tax expenditures, deductions that can be eliminated and loopholes that can be confronted in corporate tax policy, but that all of 

that should be utilized to reduce our rates because we have the 

highest corporate tax rate in the world, and we should be using 

that to reduce the corporate rate rather than increasing spending, 

and that is the view shared by the Democratic Chairman of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus, also. 

I have examined this budget. I did not really intend to talk about 

it too much, but you have talked about, and I know Mr. Lew will 

talk about it also. We have disagreed over these things before, and 

I do not really want to prolong it. But I do think it is important 

that I share a few thoughts about it. 

The President says this budget raises taxes $580 billion over 10 

years, but the budget actually calls for $1.1 trillion in tax increases. It is easy for anyone to figure this out. If you subtract the 

total taxes in OMB’s baseline shown on Table S.5 from the total 

revenues OMB proposes in Table S.4, the difference is $1.1 trillion. 

That is just a fact. The House Budget Committee independently 

analyzed the budget. They reached the same number. It is easy to 

see. 

The President uses the term ‘‘balanced’’ seven times in his cover 

letter on the budget in his message, but it does not balance. It does 

not pretend to balance. And not once does he reveal that he raises 

taxes $1.1 trillion. 

Your budget would require people to send $1.1 trillion more to 

Washington at a time when the economy is already weak. But this 
149 

does not go to reduce the debt. It is not even used to reduce the 

debt. 

You also increase spending $1.1 trillion over current law that the 

President signed into law August almost 2 years ago. The budget 

hides this by using a number of gimmicks. For instance, it claims 

$675 billion in savings from war costs—costs that are not going to 

happen because we are drawing down. And that was virtually basically emergency spending. It hides another $250 billion in spending by just asserting that 

Congress will eventually find offsets to the so-called doc fix, but 

CBO will not score that as an offset, paid-for expenditure, and it 

should not be. 

You then claim the budget will reduce deficits by $1.8 trillion. 

That is just not accurate. Compared to current law, the law we are 

on, the baseline we are on, apples to apples, excluding the war cost 

gimmick, the deficit reduction in this budget is no more than about 

$100 billion over 10 years, not $1,800 billion. 

The administration claims that the increased spending and debt 

will grow the economy, however. We are not to worry, it is going 

to grow the economy. The Government has tried to boost the economy through stimulus spending for several years. That has not 

worked. It has failed. Instead, we have the weakest recovery since 

the end of World War II, and this has meant that Federal tax revenues have failed to recover as we would like to see them recover 

from a growing economy, and that has contributed to our debt 

problem, leaving us more debt than projected. 

How weak has this recovery been? After 63 months from the beginning of the recession, the total number of people who have jobs 

remains far below the number that were working when the recession began. Total employment is 2,847,000 below the level of employment in December of 2007, and wages are not up either. Wages 

are down. 

At no time since the end of World War II have we had such a 

high percentage of working-age Americans simply give up trying to 

find work. Over 5.5 million workers have left the labor force since 

the recovery began. An additional 485,000 left just last month, with 

only 88,000 new jobs being created. One might think that this is 

due to people retiring, but the data show that only a fifth of the 

people who have dropped out of the labor market retired. So people 

are just giving up. 

Why are they dropping out? The likely truth is unsettling. The 

four-fifths who have not retired are working-age Americans who 

may be forced to live on food stamps or housing assistance or Government programs in a netherworld of no work and dependency on 

the Government. This budget does nothing to effectively help them, 

but continues a tax-and-spend policy that has not worked. 

The fact is spending continues out of control. I believe that 

spending and debt is affecting our economic growth adversely right 

now. Entitlement spending would continue to grow at 5.2 percent, 

much faster than OMB expects the economy to grow. Yet the administration refuses to reform the broken welfare and retirement 

programs that are driving the spending surge. You did propose a 

CPI change that helps somewhat, but is not in any way a systemic 

fix of a program out of control. 
150 

Later in the 10-year budget window, these surging programs 

overwhelm the rest of the budget. But let us focus today on a danger here. I will not argue with you anymore in my questions, Mr. 

Lew, about the budget numbers. I know what you will talk about 

in your talk, though I disagree with your analysis. This budget increases our debt over $8 trillion over 10 years. That is a fact. That 

is in your own tables that you have given us. That is an increase 

of $61,000 for every household—$61,000 in additional debt per 

household over the next 10 years. This is more debt than the budget that our Chairperson has produced for us and the Senate passed. 

Based on your own numbers, gross debt never gets lower than 

96 percent of GDP. Erskine Bowles sat in the chair you are in now 

and said we face the most predictable economic crisis in our Nation’s history. This budget does not avert that crisis. It increases 

deficits over current law over the next few years. It increases deficits more than current law over the time that President Obama remains in office and adds more debt than the Senate budget. 

We are in a danger zone, and there are many ways for us to get 

out of it, but this budget does not get us out of it. 

Mr. Lew, congratulations on your confirmation. You got a strong 

vote. I gave you a hard time. We disagreed on a lot of issues. But 

you are our Secretary of the Treasury. You are an individual that 

I think has the ability to help us get out of this fix and get us on 

a path to sound economic growth. I will be asking some questions 

about our current financial situation, where we will be going in the 

future, and I appreciate having a discussion with you on those 

issues. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

With that, we will turn to you, Secretary Lew, for your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JACOB J. LEW, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Secretary Lew. Thank you, Chairman Murray and Ranking 

Member Sessions, and I, too, would like to begin by just saying 

that our hearts go out to the people of Boston today. It is a second 

home to me. It is very personal thinking about that place and those 

people. And they are in our thoughts and prayers today, and we 

are going to do everything we can to find out who did this. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the President’s 

budget. I would like to begin by taking a quick look at our economy. Our economy is much stronger today than it was 4 years ago, 

but we must continue to pursue policies that will continue to grow 

the economy and create jobs. 

Since 2009, the economy has expanded for 14 consecutive quarters. Private employers have added nearly 6.5 million jobs over the 

past 37 months. The housing market has improved, consumer 

spending and business investment have been solid, and exports 

have expanded. 

But we have very tough challenges still. We have removed much 

of the wreckage from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, but the damage left in its wake is not fully repaired. 

Families across the country are still struggling. Unemployment remains high. Economic growth needs to be faster. And while we 
151 

have made progress, we need to do more to put our fiscal house in 

order. 

At the same time, political gridlock in Washington continues to 

generate a separate set of head winds, including harsh, indiscriminate spending cuts from the sequester that will be a drag on the 

economy in the months ahead if they are not replaced with sensible 

deficit reduction policies like the ones in the President’s budget. 

This budget is animated by the simple notion that we can and 

must do two things at once: we must strengthen the recovery in the 

near term, while reducing the deficit and debt over the medium 

and long term. 

This has been the President’s longstanding approach to fiscal policy, and when you compare the trajectory of our recovery with 

those of other developed economies in recent years, it is clear why 

the President remains so committed to this path. 

It is important to bear in mind that our deficits are already falling. In the last few years, the President and Congress working together have come to hammer out historic agreements that substantially cut spending and modestly raise revenue. When you combine 

these changes with savings from interest, we have locked in more 

than $2.5 trillion of deficit reduction over the next 10 years. And 

now we are putting forward policies that will lower the deficit to 

below 2 percent of GDP and bring down the national debt relative 

to the size of the economy over 10 years. 

We restore the Nation’s long-term fiscal health by cutting spending and closing tax loopholes, taking a fair and balanced approach. 

At the same time, the budget incorporates all the elements in the 

President’s offer to Speaker Boehner last December, demonstrating 

his readiness to stay at the table and make very difficult choices 

to find common ground. 

Consistent with that offer, the budget includes things the President would not normally put forward, such as means-testing Medicare through income-related premiums and adopting a more accurate but less generous measure of inflation known as ‘‘chained 

CPI.’’ 

It includes these proposals only so we can come together around 

a complete and comprehensive package to shrink the deficit by an 

additional $1.8 trillion over 10 years and to remove fiscal uncertainty that hampers economic growth and job creation. 

This framework does not represent the starting point for negotiations. It represents a fair balance between tough entitlement savings and additional revenues from those with the greatest incomes. 

The two cannot be separated and were not separated last December when we were close to a bipartisan agreement. 

This budget provides achievable solutions to our fiscal problems, 

but as crucial as these solutions are, we have to do more than just 

focus on our deficit and debt. 

Now, the significance of balancing the budget is something I 

know well. Under President Clinton, I helped negotiate the groundbreaking agreement with Congress to do just that. And as Budget 

Director in that administration, I oversaw three budget surpluses 

in a row and worked with many on the left and the right on a plan 

to pay down the debt. 
152 

But that does not mean we should make deficit reduction our one 

and only priority. So, in addition to ensuring that we have a sound 

fiscal footing, this budget lays out initiatives to fuel our economy 

now and well into the future. Every one of these initiatives is paid 

for in our deficit reduction package, meaning they do not add a 

dime to the deficit. 

As the President explained in his State of the Union address, the 

surest path to long-term prosperity is to strengthen the middle 

class. This budget does that by zeroing in on three things: bringing 

more jobs to our shores, equipping American workers with the 

skills they need to make the United States more competitive, and 

making sure hard work amounts to a decent living. 

We will strengthen manufacturing and domestic energy production, invest in infrastructure and worker training, and expand opportunities for children and those hardest hit by the recession. 

The President has provided a detailed blueprint for growing our 

economy and cutting our deficits, and as this budget shows, we do 

not have to choose between the two and, indeed, we must not. We 

can adopt a powerful jobs and growth plan even as we embrace 

tough reforms to stabilize our finances. 

The debate we are engaged in is very important. It is part of a 

complex sorting-out process that will determine our Nation’s future. But as everyone on this Committee knows, the path before us 

is going to be a struggle. It is going to require difficult decisions 

that will directly affect the daily lives of millions of Americans, and 

it really matters that we get it right. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Lew follows:] 
o 

Recent Estimates of 

Fiscal Multipliers* 

Oxford Economics: 1.4 

o.s I.S 1 l.S 1 l.S 

*Figures represent possible fiscal multipliers for economies in recession or recovery_ 
UThese balances are available for future benefit 

payments and other trust fund expenditures, 

but only in a bookkeeping sense. 

The holdings of the trust funds 

are not assets of the Government as a 

whole that can be drawn down in the 

future to fund bene • 

Instead, they are claims on the Treasury." 

- Office of Management and Budget, 2010 Analytical Perspectives, p
"The existence of large trust fund balances, 

therefore, does not, by itself, increase the 

Government's ability to pay benefits. 

Put differently, these trust fund balances 

are assets of the program agencies and 

corresponding liabilities of the Treasury, 

netting to zero." 

- Office of Management and Budget, 2010 Analytical Perspectives, p
156 

Statement of Secretary Jacob J . .Lew 

Committee on The Budget 

U.S. Senate 

April 16, 2013 

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, and members of the committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2014 Budget. 

The President's Budget is based on a belief that an agreement to achieve balanced deficit 

reduction is consistent with making and fully paying for targeted investments critical to 

continued economic groMh and job creation. The Budget includes the President's compromise 

offer to Speaker Boehner to reduce the deficit by an additional $1.8 trillion, in addition to the 

more tban $25 trillion already enacted, and fully pays for all new initiatives to ensure that they 

do not add to our deficit burden. 

L Introduction 

The United States economy has made substantial progress toward recovering from the worst 

financial crisis since the Great Depression. Despite significant headwinds - both as a result of 

the crisis and from other temporary shocks - the economy has grown at an average annual rate of 

just ove!' 2 percent over the last three and a half years. We have seen steady improvement in the 

labor market, where private sector employers have added nearly 6.5 million jobs since the trough 

orlhe labor market in February 2010. Tbe housing market, wbich had been a significant drag on 

economic growth thl'Oughout the recession and into the early stages of the recovery, is now 

gaining upward momentum. 

While our economy is stronger today, more work must be done to help create jobs and accelerate 

growth. Even though the unemployment rate, at 7.6 percent, is at its lowest level in tour years, it 

is still too high. Too many Americans are still struggling to find work. Despite recent 

improvements in the housing market, many families remain underwater on their mortgages and 

credit-worthy borrowers continue to have trouble getting tbe financing they need to buy a home 

or refinance existing mortgages. Although corporate protlts are at an all-time high, America's 

middle class continues to struggle. 

The President's Budget addresses tbese challenges in a way that builds on the momentum ofthe 

economic recovery. It takes a credible approach to bringing our deficits down to a sllstainable 

level; al the same time, it makes important investments to help build a foundation for sustainable 

economic growth. These proposals are based on the conviction that an agreement is within our 

reach, and that it is also possible to achieve both our fiscal goals and our long-term priorities. 

While deficit reduction is necessary to put our nation on a sound tlscal course, we have to bear in 

mind that the recovery remains fragile. Cutting spending too deeply or too soon would harm the 

recovery in the near term, undermining our shared fiscal goals and our ability 10 make necessary 

investments for growth over the long term. 
157 

The proposals in the Budget are targeted at growth and opportunity - cutting where we can and 

investing where we will see the strongest return, both now and into the future. Specifically, the 

Budget calls for increased investment in innovation and infrastructure to make the United States 

a more attractive place for job creation. It introduces initiatives to bolster education and worker 

training so Americans have the necessary skills to compete in a global economy. And it puts 

forward policies that are designed to give all Americans the opportunity to share in the benefits 

of economic growth. These measures will help grow and strengthen the middle class, which has 

been the key engine of prosperity in the United States. Additionally, they are fully paid for, so 

they will not add to the deficit. 

Ultimately, the central challenges addressed in the President's Budget - strengthening growth 

now, investing in our future, and putting ollr nation on a sound fiscal fooling complement and 

depend on each other. Investing in ollr economy today will help us grow in the future and that, 

in turn, makes our fiscal challenges considerably more manageable. Committing to a credible 

path for detlcit reduction today allows for investments that enhance our long-term growth. 

n. Balanced Deficit Reduction 

When the President came into office four years ago, he inherited a large fiscal deficit - projected 

to be more than 9 percent measured as a share of the economy before any of his policies were 

enacted. As the economy has been healing, both the expiration of cyclical spending and a pickup 

in economic growth have contributed to a more sustainable path for the country's finances. 

Over the past two and a half years, we have made considerable progress in reducing the size of 

the deficit, which fell to about 7 percent ofGDP in FY 20] 2 - the fastest pace of deficit 

reduction over a similar time frame since just after WWIL Moreover, following current policy, 

the deficit will continue to decline over the next 10 years, owing to a mix of spending cuts and 

tax reforms including $1.4 trillion in spending cuts to discretionary programs (as a result of both 

the Budget Control Act of20 11 and other appropriations bills enacted since 20 ll), as well as 

over $600 billion in revenue from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of2012. Taking into 

accollnt interest savings, this amounts to more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the 10-

year window, not including savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But 

we need to do more to ensure that our long-term fiscal outlook continues to improve. 

We must continue to achieve deficit reduction in a balanced way. It must include entitlement 

reform and spending reductions. We must also pursue tax reform that closes loopholes and 

addresses deductions and exclusions that allow the wealthy to pay less in taxes as a percentage of 

income than many middle-class families. Individual tax reform must be coupled with reform of 

the U.S. business tax system to enhance American competitiveness, lower rates, broaden the tax 

base, and level the playing field for companies without losing any revenue. All told, these 

initiatives constitute a balanced approach to deficit reduction. Such a balanced approach does 

not force unnecessary cuts to education, energy, and medical research and does not endanger 

Medicare and Social Security. 
158 

The President's Budget takes this balanced approach with additional spending cuts and increased 

revenues through tax reform. These policies will reduce the deficit to roughly 1.7 percent of 

GOP by the end of the budget window and put the nation's debt on a declining path, reaching 

73.0 percent of GOP by 2023. 

The additional $1.8 triilion in deticit reduction proposed in this Budget comes from closing tax 

loopholes and reducing tax benefits for those who need them least; continued health care reform; 

savings from mandatory programs; additional cuts to discretionary spending; and savings from 

using a more accurate measure of inflation, plus the I'cduced interest payments resulting from 

lower borrowing. 

The most important pieces of the compromise offer made by the President include: 

• Tax Reform: $580 billion in additional revenue tl'om tax reform that closes tax loopholes 

and reduces tax benefits for those who need them least and that will support the creation and 

retention of high·quality jobs. 

• Health Savings: $400 billion in health savings that build on the health reform law and 

strengthen Medicare. 

• Other Mandatory Savings: $200 biJ lion in savings from other mandatory programs, such as 

reductions to farm subsidies and reforms to federal retirement contributions. 

Discretionarv Savings: $200 billion in additional discretionary savings, with equal amounts 

trom defense and non-defense programs- that is $200 billion below the Budget Control Act 

spending caps that were lowered even further by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of2012. 

Consumer Price Index: $230 billion in savings from switching to the use of chained-CPI. 

Interest Pavments: Almost $200 billion in savings from reduced interest payments on the 

debt and other adjustments. 

I will address each of the key elements of the President's compromise offer, all of which are in 

the Budget. 

Components of Balanced Deficit Reduction 

Tax Reform 

As a first step toward balanced deficit reduction and tax reform, the President proposes enacting 

two individual tax reform measures that would raise $580 billion by broadening the tax base for 

high-income taxpayers, and ensuring that the very wealthy pay federal tax rates at least equal to 

those paid by middle-class Americans. The first measure sets a 28 percent maximum rate at 

which upper-income taxpayers could benefit from itemized deductions and certain other tax 

preferences to reduce their tax liability. The second puts in place the Buffet rule, which requires 

those individuals with incomes over $1 million to pay no less than 30 percent of income after 

charitable contributions in taxes. At the same time, the Budget includes business tax reform that 

will provide greater certainty and improve global competitiveness while preserving the revenue 

collected today. 
159 

Health Care Reform Savings 

The President's Budget builds on the health care cost savings driven by the Affordable Care Act 

by reducing excess payments for health care services and supporting reforms that boost the 

quality of care. The Budget also includes structural changes that will help encourage Medicare 

beneficiaries to seek high-value health care services, while preserving the basic structure and 

promise of the program. These actions would save an additional $400 billion. 

Other Spending Cuts and Savings 

The Budget calls for a total 0[$400 billion in additional discretionary and non-health mandatory 

spending cuts over the next 10 years. Savings in mandatory programs outside of health care 

include reforms to agricultural subsidies and tederal retirement benefits as well as from a variety 

of smaller savings initiatives across the agencies. 

The budget includes an additional $200 billion in spending cuts, split evenly between defense 

and nondefense spending. On its current trajectory, discretionary spending is projected to 

decline to its lowest level as a share of the economy since the end of the 19505; the discretionary 

cuts included in the President's offer to Speaker Boehner would push discretionary spending 

even lower. The President's cuts are coupled with targeted investments that are imperative to 

growth and opportunity, such as early childhood education. 

In addition, the Budget includes additional savings of $230 billion by changing the standard 

measure of inflation used to adjust spending programs and the tax code fi'om the standard CPT to 

a chained CPI, coupled with protections for the most vulnerable. The chained CPt is a more 

accurate measure of inflation in that it does a better job ofretlecting the substitution of goods in 

response to relative price changes. 

HI. Strengthening the Middle Class by Investing in the U.S. Economy 

In addition to the proposals to stabilize our finances, the President's Budget offers a number of 

policies aimed at making targeted investments to promote long term growth. These policies 

make domestic job creation more attractive by increasing investment in innovation, 

infrastructure, and manufacturing. The Budget also offers policies to increase access to and the 

affordability of education and job training programs. At the same time, it includes proposals so 

that the gains from these policies can be shared by all Americans. 

Promote Greater Competitiveness in Global Markets 

A number of proposed initiatives afe designed to enhance our ability to sell American-made 

goods and services to the rest of the world. The Budget increases funding for agencies involved 

in trade promotion and trade financing so that these agencies can help the United States achieve 

the goal set in 2010 by the National Export Initiative (NEl) to double U.S. exports over a fiveyear period. In addition to the NEI, the Budget prioritizes completing ongoing trade negotiations 

such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership - and opening new negotiations - like the Transatlantic 
160 

Trade and Investment Pat1nership with the European Union - to help strengthen trade ties with 

the Asia-Pacific region and the European Union, respectively. In addition, more resources for 

trade enforcement will help make sure that our workers and businesses exporting their products 

and services overseas are operating on a level playing field. 

Currently, the U.S. corporate tax system provides incentives for companies to relocate operations 

abroad by alJowing them to reduce their tax liability. The President's Budget changes that by 

reforming the corporate tax system to encourage domestic Job creation without losing any 

revenue. Part ofthar e·ffort will .include removing deductions for moving production overseas 

and providing a new tax credit for firms that bring foreign operations back to US. soiL 

Investing in Innovation, Infrastructure, and Manufacturing 

As global markets become more open and as economic activity abroad continues to strengthen, it 

is crucial that U.S. firms and workers remain on the technological frontier. That is why we need 

to invest in Research and Development (R&D), infrastructure, and our manufhcturing base. 

These investments will help taster job creation, raise living standards, and keep our nation 

competitive in a global economy. 

The President's Budget increases funding for non-defense R&D investment to $70 billion, a 

roughly 9 percent increase over its 2012 level of $64 billion. These investments are targeted to 

areas most likely to unleash transformational technologies that will create the businesses and 

jobs of the future. History bas shown that federal support for R&D has helped spur new 

technologies, including the internet, global positioning systems, and clean energy. 

Similarly, federal investments in public infrastructure projects, such as the national highway 

system, have led to significant gains in our nation's productive capacity. In recent years, 

however, work to maintain and improve public infrastructure has failed to keep pace with the 

rate of deterioration and obsolescence. As CEOs tell me every time we meet, our aging 

infrastructure has become a detriment to our future growth prospects, and modernizing 

infrastructure must be a national priority. 

The President meets this obligation by directing $50 billion toward infrastructure upgrades and 

repairs. And to get started on the most urgent projects as quickly as possible, the Budget would 

create a "Fix it First" program that puts people on the job right away to clear Olll the backlog of 

deferred work on highways, roads, bridges, transit systems, and airports. But taxpayers need not 

shoulder the entire cost of these projects: the President's Budget calls for a Partnership to 

Rebuild America. This program helps leverage private investment in infrastmcture by starting a 

National Infrastructure Bank as well as by enacting America Fast Forward bonds, which help 

facilitate and reduce the cost of financing new projects. These initiatives will help lay the 

foundation /01' long-term economic growth and also help generate new high-quality middle-class 

jobs today. 

Growing our manufacturing sector also generates new, high-quality middle-class jobs. The 

Budget makes a one-time down payment of$1 billion to establish manufacturing innovalion 

hubs in various regions around the country. The Budget also includes funding to launch 
161 

Manufacturing Technology Acceleration Centers oriented toward improving supply-chain 

efficiency. Finally, the Budget prioritizes investments and initiatives to make the United States a 

world leader in clean energy. 

Iuvesting in the American Workforce 

lfwe want to make America more competitive in the global economy, we must equip America's 

workers with the high-tech skills that the 21 st century requires. 

The Budget takes a number of steps to help Americans acquire these skills. It proposes to work 

together with states to make high-quality preschool available to every four-year old in America. 

It rewards school districts that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers, and focus 

on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) so that high school students are 

better prepared for the jobs of tomorrow. And it expands access to higher education by making 

college more atfordable. The Budget makes the American Opportunity Tax Credit which 

helps students pay for college expenses permanent. At the same time. it reaffinns the 

Administration's strong commitment to the Pell Grant program, which provides grant assistance 

to low- and moderate-income students and provides a mechanism to keep interest rates for 

student loans from rising - at a time when market rates are low. 

In addition to investing in education, the Budget strongly supports training and employment 

programs to help workers gain skills and tlnd new jobs or careers. One specitlc fOCus is on 

modemizing, streamlining, and strengthening government delivery of job training services. The 

Budget proposes a Universal Displaced Worker program that would reach over I million 

workers per year with a set of core services, combining the best elements of two more narrowly 

targeted programs. In addition, starting in tlscal year 20 15, the Budget provides $8 billion for 

the Community College to Career Fund; this Fund supports state and community college 

partnerships with businesses, thereby enhancing the skills of American workers. 

Strellgthelling the Middle Class 

Investing in U.S. tlrms and workers is critical to maintaining competitiveness, but it is also 

important to make sure that all Americans have an opportunity to benefit from the resulting 

economic gains. 

To this end, the President's Budget includes tax proposals that are geared toward rebalancing the 

tax code in a way that eases the burden on the middle class, including closing specitlc loopholes 

that benetlt only a small group of the wealthiest Americans. The Budget also contains a number 

of proposals designed to build ladders of opportunity so that hard work is rewarded and 

inequality and poverty are reduced. 

The Budget creates a Pathways Back to Work fund to make it easier for workers, particularly the 

long-term unem ployed, to remain connected to the workforce and gain new skills for sustained 

employment. The Budget would also increase the minimum wage to $9.00 an hour by the end of 

2015 and index it to int1ation thereafter. 
162 

Taken as whole, the policies put forth in the President's Budget enhance America's 

competitiveness and, in doing so, create a healthy environment for fostering a strong, growing 

middle class - a key engine for sustainable economic growth in which hard work is rewarded and 

every American has an opportunity to advance and succeed. At the same time, we maintain our 

commitment to our most vulnerable citizens and to our seniors. 

Moreover, tbese new policy initiatives are fully funded, so that the Budget is able to make 

essential investments in the nation's future while also reducing the deficit. 

IV. Conclusion 

In summary, the U.S. economy has made significant progress toward recovering from the worst 

t1nanc.ial crisis since the Great Depression. However, it is important to recognize that we should 

be doing more to secure the recovery, create jobs, and improve the future prospects of the nation. 

We have made significant gains in the labor market, but unemployment remains unacceptably 

high at 7.6 percent and too many Americans are still looking for work. Congress has already 

passed some parts of the American Jobs Act. We can further support the recovery in the private 

sector by passing the rest. Similarly, activity in the housing market appears to be gaining 

momentum, but we need to do more to support credit-constrained families who want to buy a 

house or refinance their existing mortgage. 

The President's FY 2014 Budget, by including the components of the President's December 

compromise offer to Speaker Boehner, reiterates a commitment to coming together around a 

balanced plan to reach more than $4 trillion in total deficit reduction over the I O-year budget 

window. At the same time, it prioritizes growth-oriented policies that arc designed to enhance 

U.S. competitiveness and strengthen the middle class, ensuring that the resulting economic gains 

can be shared broadly among aU Americans. 

In conclusion, it is important to note that this framework does not represent the starting point fi)r 

negotiations, It represents a fair balanc,e between tough entitlement savings and additional 

revenues from those with the greatest incomes. The two cannot be separated. and were not 

separated last Decem bel' when we were close to a bipartisan agreement. 

This is my first opportunity to appear before you as Treasury Secretary, but this is far from the 

first budget that 1 have worked on. There is nO doubt that this is a serious proposal at a serious 

time. There is a path to a bipartisan agreement that moves the country forward. This budget 

deals with tbe world as it is now and as it will be in the future. It makes difficult choices. It 

includes a powerful jobs and growth plan. And it is the right course of action for our nation and 

our economy, and a path for bipaltisan agreement to move the country forward. 

Thank you. I look forward to taking your questions. 
163 

illllii~. E_namiS ani ~1~.u-mlJ(;e _pen ~.. smle_.lo,l1 ~I ~III [GI.A 

- - -

No empirical basis for reducing the Social Security COLA 

NOllember 20,2072 - 250 PhD. economists and more than 50 social insurance experts with doctorates in 

related fields oppose proposals to reduce the Social Security cost-ol-living adjustment by tying it to an indexlthe 

chained CP/··Uj thaI does not reflect the spending patterns 01 beneficiaries. 

As economists and socia! insurance experts, we agree that the annua! Social Security cost-af-living 

adjustment (COLA) should be based on the most accurate measure possible of the impact 01 inflation on 

beneficiaries. For this reason, we oppose proposals to reduce the Social Security COLA by tying it to a 

chained consumer price index that does not directly measure the actual expenditures of beneficiaries. Such 

a move would lower the COLA by an estimated 0.3 percentage points per year, translating into a 3 percent 

benefit cut after 1 Q years and a 6 percent cut after 20 years. The oldest beneficiaries, who are often the 

poorest beneficiaries, and persons receiving disability benefits for more than 20 years would see even larger 

cuts over time, 

Arguments in favor of reducing the COLA are premised on the assumption that the current COLA 

overcorrects for inflation. However, it is just as llkely that the current COLA fails to keep up with rjsi~g costs 

confronting elderly and dlsabled beneficiaries. For historical reasons, the current COLA is based on a 

consumer price index for workers, excludIng retire-es and other Social Security reCipients who are not in the 

laborforce.lt and other indices based on the spending patterns of workers or the gener~1 population likely 

understate the impact of cost increases faced by Social Security beneficiaries because seniors and disabled 

people spend a greater share of their incomes on out-of-pocket medical expenses than do other consumers, 

and health costs have risen faster than overall inflation in recent decades. 

A chained price index is supposed to more fully reflect the ability of consumers to substitute cheaper goods 

and services in response to price changes. Whether or not such substitution preserves consumers' standards 

of living, different consumers have varying ability to make such adjustments. Since elderly and disabled 

people spend a greater share of their incomes on necessities such as health care, rent, and utilities, and since 

this population is also less mobile, a chained COLA based on the spending patterns of workers or the general 

population may overestimate the ability of Social Security beneficiaries to take advantage of cheaper 

substitutes. 

The actual spending patterns of Social Security beneficiaries have not been comprehensively studied. 

However, an experimental index computed by the Bureau of Labor Statistk:s suggests that the current COLA 

may not keep up with seniors' costs of living. Until direct evidence is gathered, there is no empirical basis for 

reducing the Social Security COLA, which could exacerbate, rather than correct, an existing problem. 

ECONOMl( Pouey INSTITUTE· 1333 H STREET, NW-- SUITE 300 ~ WASHINGTON,DCZ0005· 2Dlfn5-.Ball)~ FAX 202/77S-0a:19~ WWW,EPI.ORG 
164 

Signatories 

The organizations of the signatorIes are listed for identification purposes only; the signatories are representing 

themselves, not their organizations. 

W. A. Achenbaum 

Professor 

University of Houston 

Earl Adams 

Professor Emeritus 

Allegheny College 

Randy Albelda 

Professor 

University of Massachusetts, 

Boston 

Mona Ali 

Assistant Professor 

State University of New York, 

New Paltz 

Sylvia A. Allegretto 

ECDnomist 

University of California, Berkeley 

Bernard E. Anderson 

Professcr Emeritus 

Wharton Schoot, University of 

Pennsylvania 

Peter Arno 

Director 

Center for Long Term Care 

Research & Policy, New York 

Medical College 

Nahid Aslanbeigui 

Professor of Economits 

Monmouth University 

Algernon AUstin 

Director, Program on Race, 

EthnicitYI and the Economy 

Economic ~ojjcy Institute 

Lee Baogett 

Professor 

University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst 

Soda! Socurity COLA Statement· November 1:0, 2012 

Ron Baiman 

Director of Budget and Policy 

Analysis 

Center for Tax ano Budget 

Accountability 

Dean Baker 

Co~Director 

Center fer Economic and Policy 

Research 

Erdogan Sakir 

Assistant Professor 

Bucknell Unjversity 

Benjamin Salak 

Associate Professor of Economics 

RolHns College 

Radhika Balakrishnan 

Professor 

Rutgers University 

Stephen Baldwin 

Retired Economist 

Erol Balkan 

Professor 

Hamilton College 

Nesecan Salkan 

Lecturer 

Hamilton College 

Nina Banks 

Associate Professor of EconDmics 

Bucknell University 

William barclay 

Founding Member 

Chicago Political Economy Group 

James Baron 

William 5, Beinecke 

Professor of Management 

Yale School of Management 

Franc;is Bator 

Professor Emeritus 

Harvard Kennedy Schoo! 

William Baumol 

Professor 

New York UnIversity 

Dale Belman 

Professor 

Michigan State University 

Michael Belzer 

Associate professor 

Wayne State University 

Albert Benjamin 

Professor 

University of CaHfornla, Los 

Angeles 

Barbara R. Bergmann 

Profe~sor Emerita 

University of Maryland and 

American University 

Edward Berkowitz 

Professor of History and of Public 

polley and Public Adminfstration 

George Washington University 

Alexandra Bernasek 

Professor 

Colorado State University 

Cyrus Bina 

Distinguished Research Professor 

University of Mlnnesota 

Josh Bivens 

Research and Polley Director 

Economic Policy Institute 

Gail Btattenberger 

Associate Professor 

University of Utah 

Robert Blecker 

Professor of Economics 

American University 

Barry Bluestone 

Professor of Public Policy 

Northeastem University 
165 

Radford Boddy 

Professor Emeritus 

San Diego State University 

Peter Bohmer 

Faculty in Economics and Political 

Economy 

The Evergreen State College 

Howard Botwinitk 

Associate Professor of EconomiCs 

State University of New York, 

Cortland 

Roger Even Sove 

Associate Professor! Retired 

West Chester Ufllversity 

James Bovce 

Professor 

UniverSity of Massachusetts, 

Amherst 

Elissa Braunstein 

Associate Professor 

Colorado State University 

Vernon Btiggs, Jr. 

Professor of Labor Economics, 

Emeritus 

Cornel! University 

Clair Brown 

Professor 

Un-iversity of California, Berkeley 

Eleanor Brown 

Professor 

Pomona College 

Robert Buchele 

Professor of Economics 

Smith College 

Andrea Campbell 

Professor 

Massachussetts Institute of 

Technology 

AI Campbell 

Professor 

UnIversity of Utah 

Social SeClJrlty COLA Statement • NovJ::mber :W, 2012 

Martha CiJmpbeH 

Associate Professor of Economics 

State University of New York, 

Potsdam 

Jim Campen 

Professor of Economics 

University of Massachusetts, 

Boston 

Francoise Carre 

Research Director/ Center for 

Soda I Policy 

University of Massachusetts, 

Boston 

Nancy Ca uthen 

Principal 

NKC Consulting 

Yung-Ping Chen 

Professor of Geronto!ogy, Emeritus 

University of Massachusetts 

Howard Chernick 

Professor 

Hunter Conege, City University of 

New York 

Robert Chernornas 

Professor 

University of Manitoba 

Charles Chittle 

Professor of Economics, Emeritus 

Bowling Green State University 

Kjmberly Christensen 

Economics Faculty 

Sarah Lawrence College 

Gary E. Clayton 

Professor of Economics 

EconSources.com 

David Coates 

Worrell Professor of Ang!oM 

American Studies 

Wake Forest University 

Richard Coe 

Professor of Economics 

New College of Florida 

Alan B. Cohen 

Executive Director and Professor 

of Health Policy and Management 

Boston University Health Pollcy 

Institute 

Steve Cohn 

Professor of Ecor'tom!cs 

Knox College 

Fay lomax: Cook 

Professor 

Northwestern University 

Paul Courant 

Professor 

University of Michigan 

David Crary 

AssoCIate Professor 

Eastern Michigan University 

James Crotty 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Massachusettsl 

Amherst 

James Cypher 

Research Professor 

Universldad Autonoma de 

Zacatecas 

Anita Danes 

AssOCiate Professor 

Western New England University 

Paul Davidson 

Editor 

Journal of Post Keynesian 

Economics 

Charles Davis 

Professor 

Indiana UniversIty 

Maat1en de Kadt 

Retired Teacher 

Gregory DeFreitas 

Professor of Economics 

Hofstra University 

J. Bradford Delong 

Professor of Economics 

University of Californl;;l, 8erkeley 
166 

James Devine 

Professor 

Loyola Marymount University 

Geert Dhondt 

Asststant Professor 

City University of New York 

G. William Domhoff 

Research Professor in Psychology 

and Sociology 

University of Cailfornia, Santa 

cruz 

Arthur Oomike 

Facu lty Fellow 

American University 

Kafi Dompere 

Professor 

Howard University 

Peter Dorman 

Faculty in Political Economy 

The Evergreen State College 

Matthew Drennan 

Visiting Professor 

University of Callfornla f Los 

Angeles 

Richard DuBoff 

Professor of Economics, Emeritus 

Bryn Mawr College 

Marie Duggan 

Associate Professor of Economic$ 

Keene State College 

Lloyd Dumas 

Professor of Economics 

University of Texas, Dallas 

Tom Duston 

Professor Emeritus 

Keene State College 

Gary Dymski 

Professor 

University of Leeds; UC Riverside 

Richard Easterlin 

Professor of Economics 

University of Southern CaHfomla 

Social Security COLA Statement. November 20, 2012 

Todd Easton 

Associate Professor 

University of Portland 

Aaron Edlin 

Richard Jennings Professor 

University of Cal1fornia, Berkeley 

David Ekerdt 

Professor of Soctology 

University of Kansas 

Justin Elardo 

Economics Instructor 

Portland Community College 

Ernie Englander 

Associate Professor 

George Washington University 

B.ilge Erten 

Postdoctoral Research Scholar 

Columbia University 

Carroll Estes 

Professor 

University of California, San 

Francisco 

Rashi Fein 

Professor of Economics of 

Medicine, Emeritus 

Harvard University 

Susan Feiner 

Professor 

Unlver5.ity of Southern Maine 

Thomas ferguson 

Senior Fellow 

Roosevelt Institute 

Myra Marx Ferree 

Allce H, Cook Professor of 

Sociology 

University of Wisconsin-MadIson 

Rudy Fichtenbaum 

Professor of Economics 

Wright State University 

Kade Finnoff 

Assistant Professor 

Department of Economics 

University of Massachusetts, 

Boston 

Peter Fisher 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Iowa 

Sean Flaherty 

Professor of Economics 

Franklin and Marshalf College 

Richard Fowles 

Associate Professor 

University of Utah 

lames Galbraith 

Professor 

University of Texas, Austin 

Kevin Gallagher 

Associate Professor 

Boston University 

John Gallup 

ASSistant Professor 

Portland State Unlversrty 

Irwin Garfinkel 

Professor 

Columbia University School of 

Social Work 

Armagan Gezici 

ASSistant Professor 

Keene State College 

Teresa GhHarducci 

Professor 

The New Schoo! 

Reza Ghorashi 

Professor -of Economics 

Stockton College 

Helen lachs Ginsburg: 

Professor of Economics; Emerlta 

Brooklyn College-City University 

of New York 

Norman Glickman 

Professor 

Rutgers University 

David Gold 

Associate Professor 

The New School for Social 

R€search 
167 

Gertrude Schaffner Goldberg 

Professor of Social Policy, EmerIta 

Adelphi University 

Steven Goldman 

Professor Emeritus 

University of California, Berkeley 

Don Goldstein 

Professor 

Allegheny college 

Neva Goodwin 

Co-Director/ GlobaJ Development 

and Environment Institute 

Tufts University 

CoHn Gordon 

ProFessor of History 

Universlty of Iowa 

Stephen Gorin 

Professor 

Plymouth State University 

Janet Gornick 

Professor of Political Science and 

Sociology 

Graduate Center, City University 

of New York 

Elise Gould 

Economist 

Economic Policy Institute 

Ilene Grabet 

Professor 

University of Denver 

Chdstcphel" Gunn 

Professor 

Hobart and William Smith 

Colleges 

Douglas Hall 

Director of the Economic Ana!ysis 

and Research Network 

Economic Policy Institute 

Darrick Hamilton 

Associate Professor 

The New School for Social 

Research 

Social Security COlA St~temerl!' November 20, 2012 

John Hansen 

Director 

TransTec 

Melissa Hardy 

Distmguished Professor of 

Sociology and Demography 

Pennsylvania State University 

Roger H. Harrell 

Professor Emeritus 

California State University', 

Northridge 

Madonna Harrington Meyer 

Professor 

Syracuse University 

Martin H-art~Landsberg 

Professor 

Lewis and Clark College 

Heidi Hartmann 

President 

Institute for Women's Policy 

Research 

Mitchell Harwitz 

Associate Professor Emeritus 

University at Buffalo, The State 

University of New YorK 

John Henry 

Visiting Professor 

UnIversity of t-1fssouri, Kansas City 

Stephen Herzenberg 

Executive Director 

Keystone Research Center 

Donald Hester 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Wisconsin 

Peter Ho 

Associate Professor 

University ,of Denver 

Em ilV Hoffman 

Professor Emerita 

Western Michigan University 

Joan Hoffman 

Professor 

John Jay College-Clty UniverSity 

of New York 

Karen Holden 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Wisconsin, Madison 

Duncan Holthausen 

Professor of Economics1 Emeritus 

North Carolina State University 

Barbara Hopkins 

Associate Professor, Department 

of Economics 

Wright State University 

Christopher Howard 

Pamela C. Harriman Professor of 

Government and Public Policy 

College of William and Mary 

Charles Howe 

Professor of EconomIcs, Emeritus 

University of Coloradol Boulder 

David Howell 

Professor 

The New School 

Candace Howes 

Professor 

Connecticut College 

Kenneth Jameson 

Professor 

Universlty of Utah 

Russell Janis 

Senior Lecturer II 

University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst 

Richard Johnston 

Professor Emeritus 

Oregun State University 

Sta.cey Jones 

Senior Lecturer 

Seattle University 

Helene Jorgensen 

Economist 

Independent 

linda Kamas 

Associate Professor 

Santa Clara University 
168 

Jeffrey Keefe 

Assodate Professor 

Rutgers University 

Stephanie Kelton 

Chair and Associate Professor of 

Economics 

University of MissouriJ Kansas City 

Robert Kemp 

Associate P-rofessor, College of 

Pharmacy 

University of Louisiana, Monroe 

Farida Khan 

Professor of EconomiCs 

University of Wisconsin 

Mary King 

Professor 

Portland State University 

Eric: R. Kingson 

Professor of Social Work 

Syracuse University 

Timothy Koechlin 

Dlrector, Internationa! Studies 

Vassar College 

Andrew Kohen 

Professor of Economics, Emeritus 

James Madison University 

Geratd Kominski 

Professor 

UniversIty of California, Los 

Angeles 

David Laibmal1 

Professor Emeritus 

City University of New York 

Catherine Langlois 

Associate Professor 

Georgetown U nlversity 

Mark lapping 

Distinguished Professor of Public 

Policy 

University of Southern Maine 

Gary latanich 

Professor of Economics 

Arkansas State University 

Socii}J Security (OU>. Stilt~mellt' November 20, 2D12 

Scott lazerus 

Professor 

Western State Colorado 

Unlversity 

WitJiam la.,zonick 

Professor 

University of Massachusetts 

Frederic Lee 

Professor of Economics 

University of Missouri, Kansas City 

Marvin lee 

Professor Emeritus 

San Jose State Unlver-sity 

Paul leigh 

Professor 

University CaBfomia, Dav!s 

Lene levy"'Storms 

Associate Professor 

University of California, Los 

Ange!es 

Carlos Liard"Muriente 

Associate Professor and Chair, 

Economics Department 

Central Connecticut state 

University 

Linda Loubert 

Assistant Professor 

Morgan State University 

Gabriel1..0zada 

Assodate Professor 

University of Uta h 

Daniel luria 

Vice Prestdent, Retired 

Michlgan Manufacturing 

Technology Center 

Robert lynch 

Professor of Economics 

Washlngton College 

Arthur MacEwan 

Professor of Economics, Emeritus 

University of Massachusetts, 

Boston 

Nancy Maclean 

Professor of History and PubHc 

Policy 

Duke University 

Mark Maier 

Professor of Economtcs 

Glendale College 

Jay Mandle 

W, Bradford Wiley Professor of 

Economics 

Colgate University 

Ann Markusen 

Professor 

University of Minnesota 

Ted Marmor 

Professor Emeritus 

Yale UnIversity 

Ray Marshall 

Rapoport Chair in Economics and 

Public Affairs 

University of Texas, Austln 

Jerry Mashaw 

Sterllng Professor of Law and 

Management 

Yale University 

Patrick l. Mason 

Professor of Economics 

Florida State University 

Pl:!.ter Matthews 

Professor 

Middlebury College 

Gaf"y Mattson 

Associate Professor, Master of 

Public Administration Program 

Northern Kentucky University 

Wendy Max 

Professor 

University of California, San 

Francisco 

Kate McGovern 

Adjunct Faculty 

SpringFleld College! Schoo! of 

Human Services 
169 

Michael Meeropol 

Visiting Professor of Economics 

John Jay College of Criminal 

Justice of the City University of 

New York 

Suzanne Mettler 

Clinton Rossiter Professor of 

America n Institutions 

Corne!! University 

Peter Meyer 

President and Chief Economist 

The E, P. Systems Group, Inc, 

Thomas Michl 

Professor of Economics 

Colgate University 

William Milberg 

Professor of EconDmics 

The New Schoo! for Social 

Research 

John Miller 

Professor of Economlc5 

Wheaton College 

Ida Mirzaie 

Senior Lecturer 

Ohio State University 

Lawrence Misnei 

President 

Economic Policy Institute 

Monique Morrissey 

Economist 

Economic Policy Institute 

Tracy Mott 

AssDciate Professor and 

Department Chair, Economics 

University of Denver 

Nancy Mudrick 

Professor 

Syracuse Uhiversity 

Michele Naples 

Associate Professor 

The College of New Jersey 

Ruth Needleman 

ProfesSQr Emeritus 

Indiana University 

Eric Nilsson 

Professor 

Californ!a State University San 

Bernardino 

Paulette Olson 

Professor 

Wri9ht State University 

Douglas Orr 

Professor of Economics 

City College of San Francisco 

Rudolph Oswald 

Past Research Director 

AFL-Cro 

Spencer Pack 

Professor of Economics 

Connecticut College 

Thomas Pallev 

Economic Policy Adviser 

AFL-Cro 

Dimitri B. Papadimitriou 

President 

Levy Economjcs Institute 

Eva Paus 

Professor 

Mount Holyoke College 

Michael Perelman 

Professor 

California State University, Chico 

Kenneth Peres 

Economist 

Communications Workers of 

America 

Karl Petrick 

Associate Professor of Economics 

Western New England University 

Karen Pfeifer 

Professor of Economicsl Emerita 

Smith College 

lC Poindexter 

Professor Emeritus 

North CaroHna State University 

larry Polivka 

Director 

Claude Pepper Center 

Shirley Porterfield 

Associate Professor 

University of MissourI, St. Louis 

Robert Prasch 

Professor of Economic;:s 

Middlebury College 

Mark Price 

Labor Economist 

Keystone Research Center 

Jill Quadagno 

Mildred and Claude Pepper 

Eminent Scholar 

Pepper Institute on AgIng and 

Public Policy 

Florida State University 

Willard Radell 

Professor of Economics 

Indiana University of 

Pennsylvania 

Cordelia Reimers 

Professor Emerita 

Hunter College, City University of 

New York 

Nola Reinhardt 

Professor of Economics 

Smith College 

Daniel Ri'Chards 

Professor of Economics 

Tufts University 

Judith Robinson 

ASSOciate Professor 

Castleton State Co1lege 

Malcolm Robinson 

Professor 

Thomas More College 

Alan Nasser Charles Rock 

ProFessor Emeritus Professor of Economics 

The Evergreen State co!!ege.~ ____________________ R_o_ll_in_5_c_o_lI_eg __ e __ 

Sl)(ia! Security (OlA Sti!t~m€nt· November 20, 2012 
170 

Leah Rogne 

Professor 

Minnesota State University, 

Mankato 

Sergio Romero 

Assistant Professor 

Boise State University 

Frank Roosevelt 

Professor Emeritus 

Sarah Lawrence college 

Nancy Rose 

Professor Emerita 

California State University/ San 

Bernardino 

Michael Rosen 

Professor of Economics 

Milwaukee Area Technical 

College; 

Executive Vice President 

American Federation of Teachers 

Wisconsin 

Joshua Rosenbloom 

Professor 

University of Kansas 

RoV Rotheim 

Professor of EconomicS 

Skidmore College 

Lynda Rush 

Professor 

California State Polytechnic 

University, Pomona 

P'eter Schaeffer 

Professor 

West Virginia University 

Frederic Scherer 

Professor Emeritus 

Harvard University 

John Schmitt 

Senior Economist 

Center for Economic and Policy 

Research 

Juliet Schor 

Professor 

Baston College 

Soda! Sw,uiry COLA 51atement > November 20, 2012 

Sanford Schram 

VlslUng Professor 

Bryn Mawr College 

Eric Schutz 

Professor 

Rollins CoHege 

Elliott Sclar 

Professor 

Columbia University 

Robert E. Scott 

Director of Trade and 

Manufacturing Po [icy Research 

Economic Policy Institute 

Jean Shackelford 

Professor Emerita 

Bucknell University 

Nina Shapiro. 

Professor of Economics 

Saint Peter's University 

Michael Sheehan 

Partner 

Sheehan & Sheehan Economics, 

LLC 

Heidi Shierhol:i: 

Economist 

Economic Policy Institute 

Laurence Shute 

Professor of Economics~ Emeritus 

CalifornJa State Polytechnic 

University, Pomona 

Max Skidmore 

Curators' Professor of Political 

Science 

University of Missouri, Kansas City 

Allen Soltow 

Professor of Economics/ Emeritus 

University of Tulsa 

Roger Sparks 

Profe-ssor of Economics 

Mills College 

Peter Spiegler 

Assistant Professor 

University of Massachusettsl 

Boston 

Janet Spitz 

Associate Professor of Business 

The College of Saint Rose 

Case Sprenkle 

Professor Emer-Itus 

University of Illinois, UtbanaChampaign 

WitHam E. Spriggs 

Professor of Economics 

Howard University 

and Chief Economist, AFL-CIO 

James Starkey 

Professor of Economics, Emeritus 

University of Rhode Island 

Mary Stevenson 

Professor of Economics, Emerita 

University of Massachusetts, 

Boston 

Chace Stiehl 

Economics Instructor 

Bellevue College 

Stephen Strand 

Professor 

Carleton Coilege 

Frank Stricker 

Professor Emeritus 

California State UnIversity, 

Dominguez Hills 

Donna Sullivan 

As-socrate Professor 

Marshall University 

Gale Summerfield 

Associate Professor 

University of Illinois/ UrbanaChampaign 

Catherine Sveikauskas 

Self Employed 

Paul Swaim 

Senior Economist 

The Organisation for Economic 

CD-operation and Development 

Paul Swanson 

Professor of Economics 

WilHam Paterson UnIversity 
171 

Lance Taylor 

Arnhold Professor, Emeritus 

The New School for Socia! 

Research 

Peter Temin 

Professor Emerjtus 

Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology 

David Terkla 

Associate Dean and Professor of 

Economics 

University of Massachl,Jsetts, 

Boston 

Frank Thompson 

Lecturer, Research Investigator 

University of Mlchlgan 

Alexander Thompson 

Professor of Economics, Emeritus 

Vassar College 

Marta Tienda 

Professor 

Princeton University 

Chris Tilly 

Professor 

Universlty of California, Los 

Angeles 

Renee Toback 

Labor Economist 

Economy Connection 

Jim Tobt!r 

Faculty in Economics 

Marlboro CoJlege 

Mayo Toruno 

Professor and Chair 

California State University, San 

Bernardino 

Lynn Unruh 

Professor 

U nfversity of Centra! Florida 

Hendrik Van den Berg 

Professor of Economics 

University of Nebraska 

Socia! Secunty COLA Statement· November 20, 2012 

William Van Lear 

Professor of Economics 

Belmont Abbey College 

Roberto Veneziani 

Senior Lecturer 

Queen Mary Universlty of London 

Paula Voos 

Professor 

Rutgers University 

Jeff Waddoups 

Professor 

University of Nevada, Las Vegas 

Steven WaHace 

Professor 

UCLA Center for Hea!th Pollcy 

Research 

Marilyn Watkins 

Policy Director 

Economic Opportunity Institute 

John Weeks 

Professor 

University af London 

David Weiman 

Professor of Economics 

Barnard College 

Mark Weisbrot 

CD-Director 

Center for Economic and Policy 

Research 

Thomas Wersskopf 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Michig-an 

Ri-chard Wertheimer 

Vice President, Retired 

Child Trends 

Joseph White 

Professor 

Case Western Reserve University 

Nancy White 

Professor 

Bucknell University 

Howard Wial 

Associate ProfessoF 

University of Iliinols, Chicago 

John Williamson 

Professor 

Boston College 

John Willoughby 

Professor, Economics 

American University 

Gordon Winston 

Professor Emeritus 

Wi/Hams College 

Edward Wolff 

Professor 

New York University 

Martin Wolfson 

Director, Higgins Labor Studies 

Program 

University of Notre Dame 

Yavuz Yasar 

AssocIate Professor 

University of Denver 

Anne Yeagle 

Assistant Prof-essor 

Untverslty of Utah 

laurie Young 

Aging and Economic Security 

Director 

National Gay and Lesbian Task 

Force 

Helen Youngeison-Neal 

Professor Emerita 

Portland State University 

June Zaccone 

Associate Professor of !;conomfcs, 

Emerita 

Hofstra University 

David Zalewski 

Professor 

Providence CoHege 

Lyuba Zarsky 

Associate Professor 

Monterey Institute of 

International Studies 
172 
173 
Budget Control Act 

2011 Appropriations 

Fiscal Cliff Agreement 

Reduced Interest Payments 

Totar 

$11090 B 

$370 B $660B 

$4808 

> $2.5 T 
$4,000 

$3,500 $3,000 

$2,500 

$200 B 

$400 B 

Health Other 

savings mandatory 

savings 

$580 B 

$200 B 

$230 B 

$190 B 

-----, 1 ____ -

$508 

Investments 

More than $2 in 

spending cuts for 

every $1 of revenue 

$4,

(PI Discretionary Revenues Interest Infrastructure T

spending from tax and other 

reform 
176 

m 

N 

a 

N 

N 

N 

a 

N 

rl 

N 

a 

N 

a 

N 

a 

N 

0) 

rl 

a 

N 

00 

rl 

a 

N 

~ 

rl 

a 

N 

I.D 

rl 

a 

N 

~ 

rl 

a 

N 

~ 

rl 

0 

N 

m 

rl 

a 

N 

N 

rl 

a 

N 

* * * * * ~ ~ ~ ~ m *- * *- N rl 0 

(d09 JO %l lP!J"'O 
177 
178 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much, and, Secretary Lew, 

let me start. I want to ask you a question that I also asked Acting 

Director Zients last week, because I feel the topic really does cut 

to the heart of the current budget debate. 

Since enactment of the fiscal cliff deal, which made most of the 

Bush tax cuts permanent but does raise $600 billion from the highest-income Americans, we hear Republicans now claiming that the 

tax discussion is finished because revenues as a share of the economy are now projected to rise slightly above their 40-year average 

of 18 percent of GDP. They are saying that any additional revenue, 

even if it is generated by closing unfair tax loopholes, is off the 

table. 

But as you well know from your time as OMB Director during 

the late 1990s, every time we have had a balanced budget in recent 

memory, revenues have been higher than we are projected to experience going forward, even after the fiscal cliff deal. And now, unlike in past years, we have to consider the retirement of the baby 

boomers and the need to invest in our people and in our infrastructure so that we can compete internationally. 

The revenue policy in the budget that this Committee wrote and 

the Senate passed a few weeks ago was shaped by those unavoidable realities, and I believe that is why every bipartisan group— 

Simpson-Bowles, Gang of Six—has also recommended several times 

more revenue than the year-end deal brought us. 

So, Secretary Lew, I would like you to respond to that and what 

you would say in response to the notion that somehow the revenue 

discussion is finished. 

Secretary Lew. Madam Chair, I totally agree with the notion 

that, in order for us to reduce the deficit and ultimately close the 

gap so that we can have a conversation about balancing the budget 

in the future, revenue is going to have to be higher than it is in 

the baseline. 

In December, there was a broad understanding that if there was 

going to be a deal, a real deal, something that covered everything, 

there would be more revenue than the $600 billion that was enacted in January. There was a debate as to whether it should be 

$1 trillion, $1.2 trillion, or more, but it was clear that $600 billion 

was not going to close the gap. 

I think if you look at the next 10 years, the next 20 years, the 

baby boom is retiring, and that is a fact. We have known that fact, 

you know, for a very long time, and that means more people, 30 

million more people, are becoming eligible for Medicare and for Social Security. So the thing that is going to drive up spending is not 

decisions that we are making today. It is decisions that were made 

a long time ago, and I think we have a real obligation to keep the 

commitments behind that. 

So if we are going to talk about closing the deficit or if there is 

going to be a discussion about balancing the budget, if you do not 

honor—if you honor those commitments, you are going to need 

more revenue. There is no way to cut your way out of that alone. 

Now, it does not take the kind of revenue that puts us into a 

place that should create the kind of partisan gridlock that we have 

seen over revenues. It just takes a fair mix. The President’s plan 

is $2 of spending cuts for every $1 of revenue. That is something 
179 

he has been saying. He said it all fall, all summer. And I think the 

American people accept that. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. During February 2012, the White 

House released a framework for business tax reform that supported 

lowering the top corporate rate to 28 percent in a revenue-neutral 

fashion by eliminating loopholes and taking other steps to broaden 

the tax base. The administration’s most recent budget for the first 

time also embraces revenue-neutral business tax reform. 

Now, I am sure you are aware that there are many Democrats 

in Congress who do not agree with the idea that corporate taxpayers should not have to contribute to deficit reduction. Not only 

are corporate revenues as a share of the economy at historic lows, 

but at the same time, in recent years middle-class taxpayers have 

been asked to bail out and subsidize large corporations who are 

making record profits. 

In your testimony before the Ways and Means Committee last 

week, you noted that the White House supports revenue-neutral 

corporate tax reform, but only in the context of comprehensive tax 

reform—I assume meaning individual and corporate reform together—that raises revenue for deficit reduction. 

So can you elaborate a little bit on that and explain where you 

are? 

Secretary Lew. Sure, I would be happy to. 

I think that when we look at the fiscal challenges, the only way 

we are going to get to the kind of balanced and fair solution is if 

there are additional revenues. The President’s budget calls for $580 

billion of additional revenues to hit the deficit target. 

In terms of where those revenues come from, we have been clear. 

We think they should come from those at the high end of the income scale. Now, that is a pretty clear overlap with individuals 

who benefit a lot from corporate profits, so I do not think it is fair 

to say that we have shielded high-income or big investors from potential tax increases. 

On the business side, our view is that one of the real benefits of 

business tax reform is to make it more competitive to do business 

in the United States than overseas. And we have a challenge that 

our statutory tax rate on the business side is very high. Our average tax rate is not as high as our statutory rate because we have 

so many loopholes and deductions and special provisions. 

So the goal is to bring down the statutory rate by closing loopholes, and we have a number of things that are offsets for specific 

things in our budget as well, but do not net out to any new taxes. 

So we think it is fair. We think it puts a burden on those who 

are able to pay and where the income is in the current distribution 

of income in this country. 

Chairman MURRAY. I assume that you are talking about moving 

both of those at the same time. Correct? 

Secretary Lew. Well, it certainly would be our notion that it 

should be part of an overall fiscal frame. Obviously, Congress will 

choose how to move pieces of legislation. But I think even if you 

just look at the decisions businesses make to organize either as a 

corporation or as a partnership, I think you need to know what the 

world is going to look like in both the individual Tax Code and the 

business Tax Code in order to make a sensible decision. So we need 
180 

the deficit reduction, and it also makes more sense to do tax policy 

that way. 

Chairman MURRAY. All right. Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Lew, I do agree that economic growth is 

so important for us. If we can get that, it will help our situation. 

I am generally of the view that we cannot grow our way out of this. 

I think we need to have some belt tightening. You say we should 

have some more tax increases. 

Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff published a best-selling book 

that concluded that when gross debt as a percentage of GDP approaches or exceeds 90 percent, it hurts economic growth. I think 

you and I have talked about that before. 

When Senator Conrad asked Secretary Geithner, your predecessor, about this study, he said it was an excellent study and in 

some ways understated the danger. We are now at 106 percent of 

GDP gross debt. There has been a disagreement about whether we 

were talking about public or gross debt, but it is clear from our review of the Rogoff-Reinhart study their numbers were based on 90 

percent of gross debt, it is the numbers they have. 

But in February of this year, importantly, the Federal Reserve 

sponsored a conference in New York dedicated to looking at the 

question of how high debt impacts economic growth and can slow 

job creation. The participants looked at all the studies on debt and 

growth. 

For instance, a study published by the International Monetary 

Fund concluded that levels of debt above 90 percent of GDP have 

a significant negative impact on growth. 

A study by the Bank of International Settlements concluded, 

‘‘The results support the view that, beyond a certain level, debt is 

bad for growth. For government debt, the number is about 85 percent of GDP.’’ 

The European Central Bank published a report called ‘‘Debt and 

Growth: New Evidence for the Euro Area’’ that found, ‘‘For high 

debt-to-GDP ratios above 95 percent, additional debt has a negative 

impact on economic activity.’’ 

Well, I guess my first comment would be—and I would make one 

more observation. As I understand the Federal Reserve’s discussion 

about this, the presenters concluded that the correct figure is gross 

debt, not public debt, in their discussion. And these studies that I 

have just read are all talking about gross debt, not public debt. 

So I guess I would ask you, first and foremost, do you think that 

high debt can slow economic growth? And do you think our debt 

level is at such a level that it could be impacting our growth right 

now? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, I do think that it is important for us to 

make sure that debt does not grow beyond a danger point. I would 

disagree in terms of whether the metric should be the debt held by 

the public or the gross debt. 

I think when you look at the United States and the way we have 

our public finance structured and other countries’, for most countries there is no big difference between gross debt and what we call 

‘‘debt held by the public,’’ because they do not fund their insurance 

programs like Social Security with trust funds. 
181 

I think it is a difference that makes a difference. I think if you 

look at the presence of the Federal Government in the marketplace, 

it is debt held by the public that represents our borrowing in the 

marketplace. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, can I just interrupt you briefly? Because 

time does go by. But I know a lot of people have assumed that to 

be the figure, but our research indicates otherwise. Do you have 

any studies that have actually stated that the better figure is gross 

debt—or public debt rather than gross debt? 

Secretary Lew. Well, I would be happy to go back afterwards 

and, you know, give you the basis for the thought. But in the few 

minutes that we have, I would just make a couple of other points, 

if I could, Senator. 

You know, our treatment of the unified budget, as had the surpluses that were in the trust funds for many years, contributing to 

smaller deficits. For many years, when the Social Security and 

Medicare Trust Funds were, you know, more flush, it made it easier to avoid making the tough decisions in the rest of the budget, 

and it made it possible to do things like pass tax cuts that we could 

not afford and to put wars on the credit card. 

I think that we are going to have to pay those bills. I do not disagree with you. And I also do not disagree that we still have to do 

some belt tightening. The President’s budget has a lot of belt tightening in it. So we agree that there needs to be some belt tightening. Where we disagree is there has to be a balance between revenue and spending cuts. 

I would argue that debt held by the public is the right measure. 

That is what the financial markets have looked at for a very long 

time, and I would be happy to follow up on it with you. 

Senator SESSIONS. We will have to look at that some more. I will 

just quote from the Rogoff-Reinhart report recently: ‘‘In this paper, 

‘public debt’ refers to gross central government debt.’’ And I think 

the other studies do, too. 

So I would suggest that 2 years ago, in 2010, the Congressional 

Budget Office projected that we would have growth in 2012 of 4.4 

percent of GDP, and we came in at 2.2 percent of GDP. And we 

had a very slow fourth quarter, and we got a real bad jobs number 

this last week, which indicates to me that our debt may be the precipitating factor that is not being properly calculated. And I thank 

the Chair for giving me time to study that. If you are in error 

about that, then I think it gives greater credence to our need to 

change our debt course. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Sanders? 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. And congratulations, Mr. Secretary. You managed to squeeze to squeak in without 

my vote. But you did it. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary Lew. Someday I will get it. 

Senator SANDERS. Someday. I am going to give you the opportunity right now to get you to change my mind. 

[Laughter.] 
182 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Secretary, in your prepared remarks, you 

stated that, ‘‘The chained CPI is a more accurate measure of inflation...’’ 

Madam Chair, I want to introduce and put into the record with 

unanimous consent a letter signed by 250 Ph.D. economists and 50 

social insurance experts that states that the chained CPI is not the 

most accurate measure of inflation for seniors. And, in fact, as you 

know, Mr. Lew, many economists will tell you, including people 

from the AARP and quite knowledgeable people on senior issues, 

that the current formulation underestimates inflation for seniors 

because it does not fully take into account what seniors spend 

money on, which is prescription drugs, health care, heating, food— 

which is going up faster than general inflation. 

So, Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous— 

Chairman MURRAY. Without objection. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Secretary, according to the Social Security 

Administration, under the administration’s chained CPI proposal, 

average 65-year-old retirees would lose about $658 a year in Social 

Security benefits by their 75th birthday, a cumulative loss of more 

than $4,600. 

I understand the theory of the chained CPI is that if you do not 

want steak, you can eat chicken. In my State, the weather gets 20 

below zero, and a lot of elderly people spend a lot of money on heat. 

Your budget, the President’s budget, is going to make significant 

cuts in LIHEAP for a start. But on top of that, I want you to tell 

the people, the elderly people in Vermont, what substitute they 

might use for heating oil when the weather gets 20 below zero. Do 

you have any good ideas for them on that one? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, I do not disagree that heat is a big issue 

in Vermont. It is a big issue in the Northeast. And in all the years 

that I worked on the LIHEAP program— which I do not right now, 

but for many years I did—I worked to make sure that the assistance went to the states that were hard hit by things like heating 

oil. 

Senator SANDERS. But this budget, as you know, makes over 

$400 million in cuts. 

Secretary Lew. Yes, I actually am less familiar with some of the 

details on the spending side of this budget than I have been when 

I did— 

Senator SANDERS. My point that I just wanted to make— and 

forgive me, I do not mean to be rude. We just do not have a whole 

lot of time. 

The second point that I want to ask you is that White House 

spokesman Jay Carney said—and I think, by the way, you said 

something fairly systemic risk, but this is what Carney said, November 26, 2012: ‘‘We should address the drivers of the deficit, and 

Social Security currently is not a driver of the deficit.’’ Adding that 

Social Security should be addressed on a ‘‘separate track.’’ 

I think a number of administration people have acknowledged— 

Mr. Zients was here last week—that Social Security has a significant surplus, and its trust fund could pay out benefits for the next 

20 years. If Social Security is not a cause of the deficit, why are 

you proposing in your budget to cut Social Security? 
183 

Secretary Lew. Senator, I think the President made clear in the 

budget, I tried to make clear in my opening remarks, that the 

President would not normally choose to put a proposal like this forward. We have been in 2–1/2 years of budget discussions of one 

form or another where it has been made crystal clear that there is 

no path to a bipartisan agreement, something that Republicans will 

sign on to with revenue, that does not include fixing the chained 

CPI—changing the chained—adopting the chained CPI. 

I tried to make the case, as I did in my remarks, and I believe 

that it is overall a more accurate measure. CPI is used for many 

purposes in the Government— 

Senator SANDERS. I do not want to argue that point. I disagree 

with you, not for seniors. 

But let me ask you this question. I think essentially your political point of view is you want to make a compromise. Republicans 

wanted to privatize Social Security for years. They wanted to cut 

access for years. And you are giving them a little bit of something. 

They will want more. 

In your compromise efforts, what have you gotten from my Republican friends? Will any of them stand here and tell me that they 

are prepared to support more revenue now? 

Secretary Lew. Well, Senator, I can tell you, the President has 

made clear that he is not proposing chained CPI on its own. It is 

something he is proposing as part of a package that would resolve 

these budget issues for some time, that would have a balance of the 

kind of spending cuts and tax increases that would move the country in the right direction. 

I know that there are many who are concerned that, even as part 

of a package like that, we should not do chained CPI. But the thing 

I would tell you very strongly is it is not something that can be 

pulled apart from the other elements. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me ask you this, and now I speak as Chair 

of the Veterans Committee, inheriting that Committee from the 

wonderful job that Patty Murray did. You also know that it is not 

just cuts in Social Security. You know that it is significant cuts in 

benefits for disabled veterans. And these are fairly significant. We 

are talking about VA disability benefits at age 30. Folks would 

have their benefits reduced by $1,425 a year at age 45 and $3,200 

a year at age 65. 

At a time when one out of four major corporations pays zero in 

taxes, when we have growing wealth and income inequality in this 

country, by which the wealthiest people are doing phenomenally 

well, do you really think from a moral perspective it is appropriate 

to balance the budget or move to deficit reduction on the backs of 

men and women who have lost their arms and legs defending this 

country? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, I think you have to look at this budget 

in its totality. There are billions of dollars in one year of spending 

initiatives for health care, for job training, for job search assistance. This administration takes very seriously its obligation to veterans, and we have put together a budget that represents that. 

Senator SANDERS. If I could just—it does. Your VA budget was 

a decent budget. I said that just yesterday at a hearing. On the 

other hand, I do want you to really think about cutting benefits for 
184 

men and women who have lost arms and legs defending this country. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Enzi. 

Senator ENZI. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here, and I hope you will answer additional 

questions in writing—with the help of your staff, of course, because 

there are a lot of questions on a budget of this magnitude. 

In your testimony, you said that the budget was closing the gap, 

and in your response to Senator Sessions, you said that there was 

a lot of belt tightening. It appears to me that most of the sequester 

was eliminated, and that is the first real cuts that we have made. 

But there is a proposal in there for $580 billion in additional taxes. 

Now, the summary tables accompanying the President’s budget 

show gross debt increasing from $17.2 trillion to $25.4 trillion by 

fiscal year 2023. So it is fair to say the President’s proposed budget 

increases gross Federal debt by over $8 trillion. 

Secretary Lew. Senator, it depends, obviously, how you measure 

in order to answer your question. Our budget reduces the debt from 

where it would be without our policies. Obviously, there is going to 

be additional debt as long as we have a national debt to service, 

and, you know, that is something we are going to work our way 

down. 

But I do not think that, looking at the sequester the way you described it, is—well, it is not the way we look at it. The sequester 

was not meant to be policy. When it was enacted, it was not meant 

to be policy. It was meant to be so bad that we would avoid it, and 

the super committee, which the Chair knows well— 

Senator ENZI. But it did wind up being passed and signed. 

Secretary Lew. Well, it was signed into law with the super committee created, and the super committee did not hit the deadline— 

Senator ENZI. If I had more time, I would go into that one in a 

lot more depth, but you did eliminate most of the sequester. 

Secretary Lew. But that was the goal. That was the goal. 

Senator ENZI. The gross debt increases $17.2 trillion to $25.4 trillion. That does not sound like a lot of belt tightening to me. And 

the Congressional Budget Office projects somewhat higher interest 

rates than the President’s budget. Even using those lower interest 

rates in the budget, OMB expects that the cost of servicing our 

debt will exceed the costs of national defense by 2020. 

What would be the effect on deficits if interest rates were, say, 

one percentage point higher than forecast? 

Secretary Lew. Clearly, it is very sensitive in interest rates. I 

think that if the—the question, I think, is how quickly can we reduce the deficit while we are contributing to the kind of economic 

growth that we need to create jobs and have the economy moving 

in the right direction. 

The sequester moves in the wrong direction. The sequester takes 

too much out of the economy in a ham-handed way that was designed to be bad policy and it is bad policy. It is bad for difference, 

it is bad for domestic programs. 

So we intentionally replace it with more sensible policies. So that 

was not an accident. It was an intention. It was what the joint 
185 

committee was hoped to do. I know the Chair tried very hard to 

get the joint committee to an agreement. 

This is an attempt to get to that kind of an agreement on a bipartisan basis to make sensible policy that can balance the kind of 

growth in the short term and deficit reduction in the medium and 

long term. That was the goal when the sequester was created. 

Senator ENZI. Well, I think the sequester could have been done 

a lot more diplomatically and a lot more beneficially. I did not appreciate the notice that went out that it should be made painful. 

Our State had a budget deficit. They knew a year ago they were 

going to have a budget deficit. I think with sequester we knew we 

were going to have a deficit. Our Governor said, ‘‘Every department, every agency, every program needs to give me a 2-percent reduction, a 4-percent reduction, a 6-percent reduction, and an 8-percent reduction.’’ He looked through those to see how consistent the 

reductions were in each of those areas and wound up having to implement a 6-percent reduction. And you did not hear a whine from 

the people around Wyoming that they had been significantly hurt, 

because they cut the worst first. So there are ways of doing that, 

but not unless there is some leadership from the White House. 

Along with the interest rates, of course, there is the near-term 

assumption that growth in gross domestic product is significantly 

rosier than what the CBO economic and budget outlook is and also 

what is contained in the Blue Chip Economic Indicators, which is 

an average of 50 private forecasts. So the administration projects 

GDP growth being one-half of a percentage point higher than the 

Blue Chip and 1.2 percentage points higher than CBO. 

In 2014, this rosier outlook continues to be about seven-tenths 

percentage points higher than both CBO and Blue Chip. Over the 

entire 10-year window, the administration predicts higher growth 

than Blue Chip forecasts. 

Why are your economic forecasts so much higher than the CBO 

and the private sector? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, depending on which years you look at, 

we are a little higher in some years, lower in other years. I think 

in the short term we are already seeing the economy outperform 

the expectations that were originally used in the budget. So we are 

in the range of the mainstream assumptions. We are in the Fed’s 

range of assumptions. We could go assumption by assumption. I do 

not think you are going to find overall that they are very inconsistent. There is never any two forecasts each year that are exactly 

the same. But ours are well within the band of mainstream forecasts. 

Senator ENZI. I think the Government has a record of being phenomenally wrong. I yield my time. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Secretary Lew. Good to have you 

with us today. I want to begin by thanking you for producing a 

budget that tries to balance some very difficult—very, very difficult 

issues. I appreciate the elimination of the sequester because, as you 

pointed out, it was not Congress’ intent that it should go into effect. No rational body would have designed cuts of this kind, 

across-the-board cuts that would have fallen equally on so many 

programs. There is not a single American who thinks we should be 
186 

spending less money on cybersecurity, for example. And so the notion that because Congress designed this mechanism of pain that 

was never supposed to go into effect, that we should just accept it 

seems to me to be ridiculous. I was not here when it happened, so 

I guess I it is easier for me to criticize it. But my purpose of criticizing is just to find an alternative. And the Senate budget did 

that, and I am happy that the President’s budget did that. 

I do not fault you for laying out a series of compromises that 

might not be your opening gambit. I want to associate myself with 

some of Senator Sanders’ points. I think that Social Security does 

not contribute to the deficit. I think the best way to deal with Social Security reform is to deal with it separately from the deficit. 

I think the best and first thing to do, to the extent that we are 

going to wrestle with Social Security solvency, is to consider the 

payroll tax cap and adjust it upward and possibly even adjust it 

upward without adjusting benefits as a form of means testing. And 

so in those senses, I think we are probably in the same place on 

a lot of the policy issues. 

But where I would differ a little bit is I do not think by putting 

a good-faith discussion about is there a more accurate way to calculate the CPI on the table that you are trying to harm veterans 

or harm anyone. 

There is either a more accurate way to calculate CPI or there is 

not. If it not a more accurate way to calculate CPI, especially as 

the CPI would affect seniors, you know, that is something that I 

would like to dig into. And if it is not more accurate, I would not 

support it. But I do not think you are making an attempt to harm 

folks. But I do credit your point that you are trying to do something that is big picture. 

As I look at this budget, I see a whole series of things where you 

are attempting, the White House is attempting, the President is attempting, to find reasonable compromises to try to find that big 

deal. 

You do not propose any increase in tax rates. You could have 

done that. My sense is Republican colleagues have often taken 

pledges that would render that a nonstarter from the very beginning, regardless of oath of office. And so as a way of compromising 

with those who have taken such pledges, you have avoided any increase in tax rates. 

You have focused on tax expenditures, where the other side has 

often said that is a fair way to look at it. The tax expenditure adjustments that you put on the table are quite modest. The amount 

of tax expenditures in the budget every year is about $1.3 trillion; 

$583 billion over 10 years, if we just even it out across 10 years, 

$60 billion a year, you have reduced the size of the tax expenditures in the budget by about 5 percent a year, which strikes me 

as extremely reasonable in terms of compromising given the size of 

some of the cuts we have seen in sequester and otherwise. 

You have proposed to do corporate tax reform and make it revenue neutral, which, again, does not make everybody on my side 

of the aisle happy. That seems to be clearly a compromise. 

I do agree with also the question that Senator Sanders asked. 

For all these compromises, no comments have been made today to 

suggest you are getting any credit—any credit—for adjusting to try 
187 

to compromise with the other side. But in another sense, I do not 

mind because your goal is not to try to impress or get comments. 

Your goal is to try to do what the American public want. And I 

think what the American public deeply want us to do is to take the 

two budgets, the House budget and the Senate budget, to take our 

different philosophies and to try to find some longer-term deal that 

would keep the economy strong while we are responsibly managing 

the debt and deficit as a percentage of GDP, and to do that in a 

way where we can do it, set it and forget it for a while, and then 

allow some positive market forces to move forward. 

So as you will notice, I have not asked any questions, and my 

time is almost up. But what I just want to say is there are really 

two philosophies that are competing right now, and that is, what 

do we do to fix the American balance sheet? And I think one philosophy is you fix one side of the balance sheet. And the other philosophy is you fix both sides of the balance sheet. And I am going to 

associate myself with those who say you have to fix both sides of 

the balance sheet. And I appreciate the fact that your budget does 

just that and does it by offering a number of compromises that 

shows you have been listening to both Houses and both parties and 

you are trying to find a path forward where we can find that kind 

of a compromise. And I wish you the best in that work. 

Secretary Lew. Well. thank you, Senator. I think that very much 

captures the intent and the spirit of the budget, and it reflects 

what I think is what the American people very much want us to 

do. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate 

your being here, Secretary Lew, and I enjoyed talking to you in the 

Finance Committee about some of these issues. 

I would like to associate myself with Senator Kaine’s comments 

about the need for us to figure out how to deal with this debt and 

deficit, because I do think that is what the American people want 

us to do. They want to see this economy grow. And as Senator Sessions has made clear—and I think it is backed up by all kinds of 

studies, but also just common sense—having record deficits and 

debt—and this year’s deficit is going to be over a trillion bucks, and 

the debt is at record levels—does have a negative impact on the 

economy, and it is tough for us to see the kind of robust economic 

recovery we all hope for until we deal with this issue. I think that 

is something that you have talked about. Your budget indicates 

how you would like to get there. 

I do not think it is enough, as you know. I do not think it is adequate to the task before us. I will say, because my colleague has 

said that Republicans are not saying anything good about it, I do 

like the fact that the tax reform piece on the business side is revenue neutral. I will also say that when you ask, you know, who 

benefits from this, it is not the board room. CBO has a study, and, 

you know, they are the nonpartisan folks up here who tell us what 

the economic impact is. They say 70 percent of the benefit of a 

lower rate on the corporate side is going to go to who? The workers. 

Why? Because we are not competitive now. And I think you said 

that accurately. 
188 

I will say that you do not have enough money to do it in here because you have in your budget $335 billion and elimination of 

loopholes, tax preferences. But then you create another $241 billion 

of new loopholes. And I am not suggesting they are all bad. In fact, 

one of them I really like, which is making the R&D credit permanent. That is the research and development, or R&E credit, as 

some call it, and that is a good thing. But the net of that would 

be enough to finance about one-tenth of a 1-percent cut in the corporate rate. And we do have the highest rate among our trading 

partners, the highest in the industrialized world. 

And, by the way, we are not only number one, even if you assume that the effective rate is what we ought to be talking about, 

the Tax Foundation tells us our effective rate is 26 percent, it is 

still above the average. And when you add State taxes, of course, 

which some countries have and some do not, then it is even higher. 

So the fact is we are high, and that is one reason we are losing 

headquarters and we are losing jobs. And we see it every day. 

But can you tell us, do you have additional thoughts on corporate 

reform to meet the standards you set up in your own budget? 

Secretary Lew. Well, Senator, obviously our budget is not an exhaustive list of the things that could be done to broaden the base 

as we go through tax reform. Our goal would be to work together. 

It is going to be tough. I mean, we have had this conversation before, and every one of these deductions has fierce defenders. But 

if we are going to be able to succeed in substantially lowering the 

corporate tax rate, it is going to require that we go at a lot of 

things that are in the Code right now. We would look forward to 

working on a bipartisan basis to do that. 

I do think that the point you were making about the deficit, 

record deficits not being good, I agree with that. That is why we 

are bringing the deficit down. It is why at the end of the budget 

window in this 10-year window our budget deficit would be 2 percent of GDP—less than 2 percent of GDP, which is tremendous 

progress. We have already cut in half the deficit as a percentage 

of GDP. We are now proposing to go down to 2 percent or under 

2 percent—on the way to further policy discussions where, you 

know, it has rarely—this has never gotten done in just one piece 

of legislation. 

Senator PORTMAN. Let us talk about that for a second. I, as you 

know, disagree with some of the economic assumptions, as Senator 

Enzi talked about, you know, because they are way above CBO and 

even above Blue CHIP, but sort of different numbers. But applesto-apples comparison, we still have, unfortunately, a budget deficit 

as a percentage of GDP that is relatively high, but more importantly is the debt. And, by the way, in that tenth year you can always get that last number down to get, you know, under 3 percent, 

and that is fine, and we should— 

Secretary Lew. It is under 2 percent. 

Senator PORTMAN. Under 2 percent. 

Secretary Lew. We cannot get it from 3 to 2 so easily. 

Senator PORTMAN. But we are still talking about, based on, 

again, an apples-to-apples comparison with CBO, probably high 70s 

on public debt and 100 percent on gross debt. So, obviously, you are 

not satisfied with that, I know. And the reason is we really do not 
189 

deal with this mandatory spending issue. And there is a lot of talk 

today about CPI. I would just remind my colleagues on this side 

who are complaining that there is no guarantee of tax increases if 

the administration supports anything on CPI—and, by the way, the 

CBO number is $340 billion a year, is about $230 billion because 

you do not do the full chained CPI. But I, you know, commend you 

for taking a step in the right direction in terms of an accurate 

measure of inflation at a time when we have these explosion in 

costs and we have to deal with it to save the programs. But it is about $100 billion in taxes, so it is $130 billion under 

your numbers in savings, and then it is $100 billion in additional 

revenue. So just to remind folks, because of the fact that our income tax brackets are indexed to inflation, and inflation will be relatively less by this more accurate measure. So there are not a lot 

of tax increases. 

But on chained CPI, I will give you a chance to respond generally 

to this, but we have been told by CBO that these incredibly important programs cannot be sustainable in their current form, and 

what they have said is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid 

alone increase by 95 percent over the next 10 years, a 100-percent 

increase almost. And so if you look at what you all have proposed 

on the mandatory spending side, we actually take mandatory 

spending from about 65 percent of the budget today to about 77 

percent of the budget in 2023. 

I know there is concern around this table about research and our 

military and about education and other things. My point is we are 

continuing to squeeze that part of the budget that is annually appropriated here, and we are putting more and more into mandatory. 

So when I said earlier, you know, it is not adequate to the challenge that we face, it is in terms of the spending and it is specifically in terms of the mandatory side and the fact that, under your 

own numbers, your net interest goes from $220 billion today to 

$763 billion in 2023. And, again, you have substantial increases, 

and this mandatory part of the spending is going to crowd out 

other spending. 

Do you have any thoughts on that? 

Secretary Lew. Well, may I take a couple of minutes, Madam 

Chair? 

Senator PORTMAN. I will not ask any more questions. Sorry, 

Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. We will give you a few seconds here 

to answer that long question. 

Secretary Lew. First, in terms of where our debt as a percent of 

GDP would be, publicly held debt would be at 73 percent at the end 

of this period, which is a lot of progress. I mean, we obviously need 

to keep bringing it down. But that is at a level that, you know, is 

enormously better than if it were at 100. I mean, we are making— 

which is where it was projected to go. 

The full chained CPI— 

Senator PORTMAN. By the way, it is not projected— well, never 

mind. It is not—under the CBO analysis, it is 76. 

Chairman MURRAY. If we can let him answer the question. 

Senator PORTMAN. Yes. 
190 

Chairman MURRAY. I do have to turn to Senator Whitehouse. 

Secretary Lew. The full chained CPI, the reason we do not take 

credit for all the savings is we have from the very beginning, every 

time we have discussed doing chained CPI, it has been something 

that we said was essential that there be provisions that protect the 

most vulnerable. And I actually think there has been pretty broad 

bipartisan agreement that if we change the way we calculate the 

CPI, even if we can justify that it is a more accurate measure, for 

certain populations even small adjustments are something that 

cannot be absorbed. 

So that is something we put in our proposal. You know, people 

can debate whether or not you have drawn the line in the right 

place. But I think everyone can agree that the very old—the ‘‘oldold,’’ as they say—for whom $10 a month is a difference that makes 

a huge difference, is the kind of thing that has to be reflected, and 

that is why there is an offset. So we have not taken full credit for 

it because we have built in the ability to protect those who would 

be most adversely affected. 

On the question is it sufficient, in all the negotiations that I have 

sat through on the budget, there were three things that we were 

told were critical if there was going to be a willingness on the part 

of Republicans to do more revenue. We have put two of those in 

this budget. We put in means testing Medicare through premiums, 

and we put in chained CPI. 

Now, I think that that is going more than halfway. That is a way 

of saying we very much want this to come to closure in a way that 

can give some confidence that for the next number of years the 

budget is in a decent place, and you come back and you visit it. 

I think the right way to do Social Security reform is outside of 

the context of a budget bill. That is how it was done in 1983. I 

think that it is going to be impossible to get the kind of bipartisan 

cooperation to deal with Social Security if it is intertwined with a 

budget bill. 

Now, some of my friends say that chained CPI crosses that line. 

Chained CPI is something that affects many, many parts of the 

budget. So I think we have gone, you know, considerably more than 

halfway to try and elicit the kind of cooperation to put together a 

serious bipartisan effort. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Secretary Lew. I appreciate 

very much that cutting Social Security is sort of catnip for Republicans, and as a negotiating strategy, I can understand why you 

might want to advance that to sort of get things started. 

But I really join my colleagues in disputing that it is a more accurate version of the CPI than—at least for seniors. Most seniors 

spend their money on food and drink, health care, gas, and heat. 

And if you look at 2010, food went up 1.5 percent, health care went 

up 3.3 percent, gasoline went up 13.8 percent, fuel oil went up 13.5 

percent; and their existing COLA, the one that I guess you guys 

think is too high, went up 0 percent. 

The following year, 2011, food and beverage went up 4.5 percent, 

medical care went up 3.5 percent, gasoline went up 9 percent, heat-
191 

ing oil went up 14.3 percent. That is on top of the previous raises 

in the previous year. And the COLA again went up 0 percent. 

So when that is the environment in which most seniors live, 

please, fine, make it your negotiating strategy. But I think to tell 

the public that it is actually more accurate where seniors are concerned is just factually a mistake. And so I would like to at least 

urge that on you. 

I have a question about the so-called fiscal multiplier, which is, 

as you know, the ratio between Government spending and economic growth. And as I understand it, if the fiscal multiplier is 

below 1, that means that Government spending is not economically 

effective and that it does not create as much economic growth as 

the spending itself. And if it is over 1, that means that there is an 

amplifying effect in the economy. 

We have seen I think as many as five recent reports that show 

in the circumstances that we are in right now, there is a way above 

1.0 fiscal multiplier, which would mean that cuts in Federal spending have a much more dramatic negative effect on the economy, 

and Federal spending itself has a much more dramatic beneficial 

effect on the economy. 

I think that that is a fact. Our friends on the other side believe 

that it is a matter of faith that all Federal spending is bad for the 

economy, all Federal spending cuts are good for the economy. I 

think that is ideology, not economics. Where do you think the fiscal 

multiplier—what signals should we be taking from the fiscal multiplier information that we are getting out of some pretty conservative institutions, like Goldman Sachs and Oxford Economics and 

the International Monetary Fund? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, I have read probably a dozen different 

analyses of what the impact of the sequester will be on the economy, and all of them assume that if the sequester stays in effect, 

it will take in the neighborhood of a half a percent out of GDP, 

which supports very much the notion that there is a direct effect, 

that Government spending has an effect on the macro economy. 

Now, I for one do not understand why this is a time when one 

would want to reduce GDP by half a percent. If we get into the 

high 2’s or cross the line to 3, that is hundreds of thousands of jobs. 

And that is a world of difference to real people. 

So I very much believe we need to reduce the deficit in the medium term and the long term. I think if you look at the history of 

the last 4 years, the experience of the United States versus the experience in countries where the move to fiscal consolidation has 

been more rapid and more abrupt, we have had better recovery 

from the recession, which also supports the theory that you are articulating. 

I do not think we can put it off forever. The sooner we lock into 

place a plan that gives confidence to the whole economy that we 

are not going to either have gridlock or kicking the can down the 

road, it will probably have a very substantial beneficial effect in 

terms of decisions to invest and hire. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. A vicious circle is an economic possibility 

in which Government cuts lead to GDP shrinking, lead to lower 

revenues, lead to a worse deficit. And if you are following the ideology, you chase that with more cuts which drive the economy 
192 

down further, which leads to less revenue, which creates bigger 

deficits, and down the spiral you go. Is there any example you can 

think of in the world right now where we might be actually seeing 

that take place? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, I just spent 2 days meeting with European finance ministers, and you do not have to look very far to see 

examples of where the rapid reductions in public spending slowed 

the recovery or caused a double-dip recession. I urged many of our 

friends in Europe that it was a time for them to think more about 

balancing growth and jobs with the pace of fiscal consolidation. 

And I do not think it is a choice between the two. Just as our budget has to balance the two and accomplish both, that was the message that I carried to them. I would rather have our growth rate 

than theirs right now. But I am not happy with ours. Ours needs 

to be better, which is why I think we need to replace the sequester. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Johnson? 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Lew, isn’t it true that your budget actually increases the deficit over the CBO baseline in the first 3 years? 

Secretary Lew. I do not believe— 

Senator JOHNSON. It does by $326 billion. Actually, if you add in 

2013, it is $450 billion. So— 

Secretary Lew. Yes, I think it may just be the first year. I will 

go back and check. 

Senator JOHNSON. No, it actually does the first 3 years. During 

the rest of President Obama’s administration, the deficit increases 

over CBO baseline. Then, of course, after President Obama leaves 

office, then you supposedly claim about $2 trillion worth of deficit 

reduction. So I guess my question is, you know, how credible is 

that type of budget for actual deficit reduction? 

Secretary Lew. I think if you look at the policies of this budget, 

they are very credible. You know, there might be small differences 

in terms of scoring. But you enact policies like the policies in the 

President’s budget, and it is going to reduce the deficit. 

Senator JOHNSON. We are already trying to cancel sequestration, 

so the promise of deficit reduction in the future is not particularly 

credible. 

Secretary Lew. Well, if you enact it now— 

Senator JOHNSON. Let me turn—let me turn to— 

Secretary Lew. In the case of sequestration, Senator, we did not 

enact alternate policies. This is alternate policies that are being 

recommended. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Anyway, so the first 3 years, your budget actually increases the deficit by $326 billion. Let us talk about 

Social Security. It is true that in the next 10 years Social Security 

will run a cash deficit of $1.3 trillion. Isn’t that correct? 

Secretary Lew. Well, I think that you are defining the Social Security fund drawing down its trust fund— 

Senator JOHNSON. Cash. No, I am talking about just cash right 

now. 

Secretary Lew. I have a fundamental disagreement, Senator— 
193 

Senator JOHNSON. No. Hang on. In terms of the dedicated revenue coming in versus the amount that is being paid out will be 

$1.3 trillion, according to the Social Security Administration. 

Secretary Lew. But that is not the measure of whether Social Security is running a deficit. 

Senator JOHNSON. Then over the next— 

Secretary Lew. From 1983 until now, we have been building up 

reserves to draw down when we need them. So those reserves are 

part of— 

Senator JOHNSON. So let us talk—good. Let us talk about the Social Security Trust Fund. What assets does the trust fund hold? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, there are special treasuries in the trust 

fund. 

Senator JOHNSON. So let us go through the scenario when we are 

no longer adding to that trust fund with interest payments now, 

and the trust fund actually has to start redeeming those bonds. 

Who pays those things off? 

Secretary Lew. It obviously comes back to the unified budget, 

just as the benefit of the surplus went to the unified budget while 

the surpluses were being built up. 

Senator JOHNSON. Acting Director Zients said that you sell those 

bonds to the general public. That is not correct, is it? 

Secretary Lew. Well, to finance whatever deficit we have at the 

Federal Government, you do go to the general public for bond— 

for— 

Senator JOHNSON. The Treasury will do that, not the Social Security Trust Fund. 

Secretary Lew. Correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. So let us talk— 

Secretary Lew. The special bonds are between Treasury and Social Security. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Let us put up on the screen here a report by the Office of Management and Budget that basically says 

what I have been trying to make the point, that the Social Security 

Trust Fund in total, on a consolidated basis, has no value to the 

Federal Government. Do you agree with this statement put out by 

the Office of Management and Budget that these balances are 

available for future benefit payments but only in a bookkeeping 

sense? The holdings of the trust fund are not assets of the Government as a whole that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. They are claims on the Treasury. 

Let us go to the next slide here real quick. Basically what we are 

talking about is the Social Security Trust Fund, yes, has assets, 

Treasury bonds worth $2.7 trillion right now. But at the same 

time, the Treasury holds that liability. When you consolidate 

that—I mean, you are a financial guy. You consolidate that statement, those cancel out, it is worth zero—netting to zero. I mean, 

isn’t that correct that the Social Security Trust Fund has no value 

to the Federal Government? Isn’t that— 

Secretary Lew. I do not agree with that, Senator. I am happy to 

answer the question— 

Senator JOHNSON. So you do not agree with your own Office of 

Management and Budget? 
194 

Secretary Lew. If you read that whole chapter, that chapter says 

quite a number of things, and if you would permit me, I would be 

happy to answer the question. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, tell me how those have any value whatsoever and why those would not be included in total debt. 

Secretary Lew. Senator, from 1983 until now, we have been 

building up surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund. In years 

when there were balances that were positive, it went to the benefit 

of the unified budget, and it made it possible to do things like enact 

tax cuts and make it seem like we could afford— 

Senator JOHNSON. Right, that money was spent. It is gone. 

Secretary Lew. Okay, but, Senator— 

Senator JOHNSON. It is gone. 

Secretary Lew. —I do not believe that. I think— 

Senator JOHNSON. It was not invested in a real asset that has 

value to the Federal Government. 

Secretary Lew. See, that is where I fundamentally disagree with 

you. That is an asset that is backed by the full faith and credit of 

the United States, like every other bond. 

Senator JOHNSON. That gets replenished how? 

Secretary Lew. I do not believe— 

Senator JOHNSON. Increasing taxes or by floating more bonds? 

Secretary Lew. I do not believe that we will— 

Senator JOHNSON. Increasing more debt. 

Secretary Lew. I do not believe we will tell the American people 

that the full faith and credit matters in other cases but not in Social Security. It does put a burden on all of us to make balanced 

fiscal policy to reduce the deficit so that we can have a fiscal position where we can make—do the right thing and pay back the Social Security Trust Fund. But I think it is not right to say that it 

is meaningless. I just disagree with that. 

Senator JOHNSON. It nets to zero. The value of the trust fund 

nets to zero to the Federal Government. 

Secretary Lew. That is a— 

Senator JOHNSON. Isn’t it true the Federal Government is either 

going to have to tax the American public or the Treasury will have 

to float different bonds? You are going to have to do the same 

thing— 

Secretary Lew. You will have to have a unified budget that can, 

at the bottom line, pay the bills, and either there will be revenues 

or spending cuts elsewhere or borrowing. I do not disagree with 

that. But what you are saying is different. You are saying that it 

is meaningless. And it is not meaningless. It is a bond backed by 

the full faith and credit of the United States. 

Senator JOHNSON. It is a bookkeeping—it is a bookkeeping— 

Secretary Lew. The fact that accountants describe something in 

one way does not give it the status you are giving it. I have made 

this case for many decades. I fundamentally disagree with the view 

you are taking. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Coons? 
195 

Senator COONS. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony here today. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a moment to 

breathe, if we could. 

Secretary Lew. No, I am fine. 

Senator COONS. I think the President’s budget has a lot to commend it. There is obviously a lot to dislike and a lot to like, and 

I appreciate your coming and taking vigorous questions and challenges from both parties, from both sides of the dais here. 

In general, as you know, budgets are a reflection of values and 

priorities. I think the President’s budget, broadly speaking, does 

the right thing by prioritizing investment and growth in the short 

run, and then focusing on competitiveness in the longer run. And 

as previous questioners suggested, there is a counter-example in 

Europe to look at in terms of strict austerity and its impact in the 

short run. 

I think we had comparable goals when we enacted the Senate 

budget last month focusing on the investments we need to make 

in order to help grow the economy while also engaging in responsible deficit reduction. In particular, I have been concerned about 

how we accomplish that, responsible deficit reduction, while still 

enacting a circle of protection around the most vulnerable in our 

society and ensuring that we do not undermine some of our most 

treasured programs. We have made a lot of progress, $2.4 trillion together so far to- wards that $4 trillion deficit reduction objective, and it is my hope 

that we will find ways to work together towards that. 

I wanted to talk with you about interest rates, if I could. I think 

further deficit reduction is absolutely critical. We do have to reduce 

our deficits, and we have to deal with our national debt. And a big 

reason for that is so that we do not have interest payments that 

crowd out other priorities, whether it is Head Start, affordable 

housing, cancer screening, R&D, infrastructure. 

Interest rates are at an all-time low. Table S.12 of the budget 

says we had a 10-year note rate of 1.8 percent in 2012, but it forecasts that rate going to 5 percent by 2023, if I have that right. 

In the long run, what is driving that increase in interest rates? 

It is obvious, I think, that higher debt can lead to higher debt service, but is there a connection between higher debt and higher interest rates in the market? And if—or I should probably say when— 

interest rates do rise, what is the impact of that on seniors, on students, on families, on businesses? Because I think to have a whole 

picture here, we need to also focus on those broader macroeconomic 

impacts on working people, students, and seniors. 

Secretary Lew. Senator, the forecast shows that both growth goes 

up and interest rates go up. I think it is very different if interest 

rates go up while the economy is growing. And right now we have 

very low interest rates, in large part because we were in the deepest recession of a generation, and those low interest rates were a 

way to help get out of the recession. 

So I think that the reason for interest rates going up makes a 

big difference. I do not think that where we are now is permanent 

and normal interest rates. And as long as the economy is growing 

and interest rates are going up in an orderly way, not spiking in 

a way that is out of line with economic growth, you know, from a 
196 

Federal perspective, obviously, we will see more robust revenue because a larger economy throws off more income. And that is why 

our budget shows that you can accommodate, you know, too large 

a national debt, but you can accommodate it in a growing economy. 

If you do not have a growing economy, I do not know how you can 

accommodate it, because if interest rates go up and the economy 

does not. 

For individuals, you know, one of the things that we think is 

very important is that as many families as possible get a chance 

to refinance their mortgages while interest rates are low. You 

know, this is a time-limited opportunity. We are not going to be in 

a world of 3.5- to 4-percent mortgages forever. As many families as 

can should refinance, and we have done everything we can, and we 

hope to pass legislation making it possible to help more families. 

I am not sure when you get to seniors how to answer your question. It tends to be less of a direct issue in the lives of seniors. They 

are not typically taking mortgages at the same rate that, you know, 

they did when they were younger. But, obviously, to the extent that 

seniors have debt and they have a fixed income, you know, it will 

be more pressure. I think there are other things we have talked 

about here that are probably more of a direct factor in the economic 

well-being of seniors, things like we were talking about earlier with 

fuel prices. 

Senator COONS. If I could have just a brief follow-on, what fiscal 

policy tools do you propose in order to keep interest rates and interest payments in check, since I think there would be some really 

negative consequences if the interest rates rise but growth does 

not? 

Secretary Lew. Well, you know, this budget incorporates, as you 

pointed out, a rising interest scenario. So I think the fact that we 

have built in the capacity to manage a debt service with interest 

rates getting back into what is a more normal range is one answer 

which is very important. 

In our regular management of the national debt, we have been 

working to make sure that we do it in an orderly way. There has 

been some extension of maturities that gives you a little bit more 

adjustment space. But we do not market-time the purchases of the 

sale of Federal debt, and I do not think we should start now. 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Ayotte? 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Secretary. I appreciate your being here today. 

I wanted to ask you, within the Affordable Care Act there was, 

in order to pay for the Affordable Care Act, a tax that recently lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are concerned about, and I 

think there is a recognition that it taxes—that it will have the potential of stifling innovation and impacting American jobs in the 

area of the medical device industry. 

Just looking at, you know, one State, the State that I represent, 

New Hampshire, certainly having visited many of these companies 

in our State, I have heard directly that this 2.3-percent tax on revenue is having a negative impact both on the cost of the devices 
197 

that will be passed on to consumers, also on their hiring projections, and then finally many of them are taking it out of their research and development budget, which we, of course, want Americans to have the very best medical devices. 

So the vote passed in the budget resolution 79–20 to repeal this 

tax. You know, there is not much around here that we get 79 votes 

for in the Senate, so I guess I would ask you, given the bipartisan 

support in the United States Senate for repealing this tax, what is 

the President’s position on the medical device tax repeal? And will 

he commit—will I guess you as the Secretary of Treasury, if you 

have spoken to him about it—I hope that he would commit to 

working with both sides of the aisle to support bipartisan efforts 

to overturn this tax, which I think that there is agreement is 

harming an important industry within our country that also, of 

course, most of all helps the patients that want the very best medical devices? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, I think we all agree that having the best 

technology available for our patients is a very high priority. I think 

it is also important, though, to note that there has been a dramatic 

increase in the costs associated with the reimbursement for these 

medical devices, and I am aware of the vote, you know, in the Senate on the budget resolution. 

I think there were some misunderstandings at the time of the 

vote in terms of how it affected U.S. versus foreign manufactured 

devices. In fact, it does not distinguish, so a foreign device sold 

here would be covered by it just as much as a U.S. device. It has 

nothing to do with making U.S. industry less competitive against 

devices that are manufactured elsewhere. 

It obviously is a piece of the funding that is in the Affordable 

Care Act. It is something that, you know, if it were to have to be 

replaced, there is— 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, Mr. Secretary, I understand that it would 

treat foreign as well as American devices the same, but the reality 

is that on the ground what we are hearing from the medical device 

companies in this country is a 2.3-percent tax on revenue, if you 

couple that with the actions of the FDA, this is an industry that 

is becoming less competitive. It is an industry that is very vibrant, 

and so, you know, I would hope that the President would work 

with us to try to come up with a solution to repeal this tax, because 

it would be good for our economy. 

Secretary Lew. I would only point out that it has been a very 

profitable business, so this is not a difference that is the difference 

between it being profitable to being in— 

Senator AYOTTE. Except can I ask you, given that it is a 2.3-percent tax on revenue, even if I am a startup and I do not make a 

profit, don’t I still have to pay the tax? 

Secretary Lew. Well, if you have sales, you are— 

Senator AYOTTE. I have sales, but I have no profit because I am 

a brand-new company, starting with a brand-new device in this 

country, a brand-new idea, the basis of innovation in this country, 

I still have to pay the tax, don’t it? 

Secretary Lew. I believe that is correct. I would have to—it is on 

the sale of the devices, yes. 
198 

Senator AYOTTE. So when you talk about these companies being 

profitable, the reason that the concerns are coming back on innovation is because the companies that it punishes the most, frankly, 

are the startups because it is a tax on revenue, not profit. So I 

think this is one of the issues that many of us on both sides of the 

aisle are hearing about. 

Secretary Lew. I understand the concern, and maybe there is a 

way of looking at it differently than the way it was designed. It is 

always a dangerous business to reopen something when it is a critical funding element in a complicated piece of legislation. But the 

idea was not to target startups. It has a much broader effect than 

that, and many, if not most, of the sales are not of startups. But 

I would be happy to go back and take a look at that? 

Senator AYOTTE. I appreciate it. I know my time is up. I have 

some questions I will submit for the record, including one on Iran 

sanctions. So I will submit those for the record. Thank you. 

Secretary Lew. Yes, and I would be happy to answer them. 

Senator AYOTTE. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. Do you feel a little chagrined, Mr. Secretary, 

that you put out what you consider a fair and balanced approach 

to a budget as your first offer and you are getting hit from both 

sides? 

Secretary Lew. I think we are proud to defend the budget that 

we put out. 

Senator NELSON. But, you know, from revenue versus cuts, you 

have just one to three, one part revenue to three parts of cuts. And 

the budget that came out of this Committee, it was bold. It was one 

to one, half revenues and half cuts to lower the deficit. So even 

your proposal, which is more modest, is getting all kinds of stuff. 

Secretary Lew. Ours is two to one, not three to one. 

Senator NELSON. Two to one. 

Secretary Lew. Yes. 

Senator NELSON. Well, my compliments to the Chairman. She 

was bold. 

I would be curious, because I am in a State that does not have 

a State income tax. And what is deductible to our citizens is the 

State sales tax, which is sizable, 6 percent. Why is that something—what was your calculation that you wanted to eliminate 

that as a deduction? 

Secretary Lew. Well, to be clear, we did not eliminate it as a deduction. We have a cap of 28 percent in our budget that essentially 

says for people who are in the very top bracket, they will get the 

same benefit of deductions as people in the 28-percent bracket. So 

that is different than eliminating deductions. 

It is something we only do as part of a budget that overall is 

helping to pay for infrastructure and other important things that 

we need to do in this country. So, you know, it is like many other 

things in our budget. It is connected to an overall set of policies. 

Senator NELSON. I would just point out for your folks sitting behind you that the sales tax deduction expires at the end of this 

year, and therefore, you would have the treatment differently of 

different States as to what would compromise that 28 percent. 
199 

Secretary Lew. Senator, I am sorry. I have to correct myself. I 

was talking about the deductibility of taxes generally which is covered by the 28-percent provision. Because the sales tax deduction 

is an expiring provision, it does expire unless it is extended. And 

what we said was we wanted to work with the Congress on expiring provisions, and we are obviously going to have to pay for the 

expiring provisions that are—if they are extended. And, you know, 

we would be open to working with you on that. I was talking about 

the general deduction of State and local taxes. 

Senator NELSON. Do you want to comment on the territorial tax 

system? 

Secretary Lew. The debate is often laid out in pretty stark terms 

of either territorial or worldwide. It actually is already something 

of a hybrid, and I think we will find a path, if we can accomplish 

business tax reform, to find the right balance of the hybrid where 

we can address the concerns about competitiveness without having 

the enormous revenue loss associated with the kind of black-andwhite choices. 

I think that we—you know, we put a worldwide minimum proposal—global minimum proposal in our white paper, and we would 

look forward to working with the Congress in the context of corporate and business tax reform to see if we can find that right balance. 

Senator NELSON. Do you see any potential change of the sequester in the present fiscal year until September the 30th? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, that is really a question of whether Congress is prepared to take action. We have made clear we think it 

would be advisable to act sooner rather than later. The cuts are not 

good. They are not good on the defense side; they are not good on 

the nondefense side. 

In the macroeconomic sense, every month they are in place is 

costing us GDP growth. So I think the sooner, the better. 

The President put this budget forward in, you know, large measure to try to jump-start the conversation, to get it to a place where 

we can see where the reasonable center is. 

Getting back to your initial question about chagrin, obviously 

there is going to have to be some willingness to do business in that 

reasonable center if it is going to work in any timely way. 

Senator NELSON. And I must say that I am concerned, because 

I do not see a lot of give. And the whole process of putting a budget 

together is a give-and-take, and especially in a country as big and 

as broad and as complicated as our country. And yet it is like there 

are two different worlds out there. And you have heard some of 

that questioning right here. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Lew, I just had one additional question. You know, 

over the past several decades, we have witnessed a dramatic rise 

in income inequality in this country. Over that time period, we 

have seen top tax rates on earned income, capital gains, and dividends fall considerably, and not only that, the number of so-called 

tax expenditures, which often primarily benefit the wealthiest 

Americans, has exploded. Due to the confluence of those factors, we 

now have a situation in which we see the wealthiest Americans are 
200 

able to pay tax at a lower effective rate than a typical middle-class 

family. 

Can you comment on what you see as the relationship between 

our country’s tax policy and rising inequality? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, there is no doubt that the trend over the 

last few decades is as you describe: a heavy concentration of income 

growth at the very high end and at the expense of the middle and 

the bottom. That has real implications for our tax system because 

we tax income, and if income is at the top, there is going to be 

more of a burden of taxation at the top as well. 

I think it was very important in January to have the top rate go 

back to 39.6. I did not support lowering it in the first place. The 

economy was doing quite well with the 39.6-percent rate. I think 

it will continue to do well with the current rate where it is. 

We have also put in our budget what we call the ‘‘Buffett rule’’ 

to make sure that, you know, people who earn a million dollars or 

more pay at least a minimum tax rate that puts them above where 

middle-class people are. Again, it is only fair. I mean, if through 

a complex set of tax deductions and forms of income people who 

make millions of dollars pay a lower percentage tax rate than people who work for $50,000 a year, it is just not right. 

So I think our budget addresses that. I think it is something the 

Tax Code has to deal with, because the Tax Code and income tax 

is based on income. And I think we have made more progress in 

January than we had for a long time in terms of the Tax Code reflecting that, and I think if the Buffett rule were enacted, it would 

make further progress. And tax reform which takes away deductions that go disproportionately to people at the high end or that 

put a cap on deductions at the high end would have the same effect. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Well, this tax policy and income inequality is a problem for me. 

It seems to me quite clear that the President believes that you 

should just tax the upper-income people more and pass out benefits 

to other people with the money extracted from them. I do not believe that is the right approach. 

We do have a growing income inequality. The average working 

person has not had his wages kept up with inflation for, I think, 

15 years or more—maybe longer than that. Some say back to 1970. 

So it is a really worrisome thing. I just reject the idea that you 

solve it by raising more taxes. 

And let me just say we have looked at the numbers, we have 

studied the Borjas report, three members of the Civil Rights Commission have written. This immigration bill will bring in a huge 

number of low-wage workers, and there is no doubt that it will impact adversely already hurting low-income workers in terms of 

their wages not advancing and in terms of higher unemployment. 

And that is going to be clear as we go through this debate, colleagues. You are going to have to look at those numbers. It is an 

absolute fact. 

We have a surplus, as the Civil Rights Commission said—used 

the word ‘‘glut’’—of low-wage workers, low-skilled workers. Busi-
201 

nesses—I do not share the view that we have a shortage of lowwage workers. So I will wrestle with that, and we can figure out 

precisely what the impact is and how to create an immigration policy that does not hurt those who are already hurting, create an immigration policy and a social welfare policy that moves people from 

dependency and Government benefits to independence in the workforce. I know we can do better, and I hope we will on that. 

Mr. Lew— 

Secretary Lew. I was just going to respond, if I could, Senator. 

You know, I believe that it is considerably more than just a question of tax policy, so I did not mean in my response to the Chair 

to suggest that the entire answer to income disparity is on the tax 

side. The question was: What role does the Tax Code play? 

Our fundamental challenge is to create good middle-class jobs, to 

have a growing economy so we create more and more good middleclass jobs with good wages, and that will actually put more people 

into the place where they are paying taxes because they are earning more income. 

I think the minimum wage is part of it, also, because the minimum wage has eroded considerably in the last decades. And I 

think the benefit of immigration reform is, I think, greater than 

your comments suggest, because right now we have people who are 

in the shadows who are working without legal status, and if those 

people come out of the shadows, it becomes much less likely that 

they are going to drive down labor rates. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would totally disagree with that, and I think 

that economic studies are going to prove that is wrong. It is going 

to pull down wages, and you also have a 50-percent increase in the 

future flow in addition to the large numbers that would be legalized. But we will go through that as the debate goes. 

One thing I would say with regard to Senator Johnson’s questions, if you believe there is a valid Social Security Trust Fund— 

and I do; I believe our trustees, I believe they have a Treasury bill 

note, an IOU from the U.S. Treasury. But Senator Johnson is correct. If you believe that it is a valid trust fund, it is owed money, 

we have saved no money to pay it back, and it should be part of 

the—and it is part of the gross debt of the United States of America, that unpaid internal debt, then you should count the gross debt 

as the most appropriate figure for ascertaining the true debt of the 

United States. 

And with regard—and I will let you respond, but in the paper 

presented to the Fed conference in New York February 22nd, the 

title of it is ‘‘Crunch Time,’’ Mr. Lew, ‘‘Crunch Time: The Fiscal 

Crises and the Role of Monetary Policy.’’ And in their abstract, first 

page, they say, ‘‘We analyzed the experience of advanced economies 

using both econometric methods and case studies, and conclude 

that countries with debts above GDP and persistent current account deficits are vulnerable to rapid fiscal deterioration as a result 

of these tipping point dynamics. Such feedback is left out of current 

long-term U.S. budget projections and could make it more difficult 

for the U.S. to maintain a sustainable budget course.’’ 

And then a little further one, it makes the—answers our question about gross debt. After setting forth one of the most complex 
202 

economic formulas I have ever seen, they say, ‘‘Note that gross debt 

regression has a better predictive power than net debt regression.’’ 

So we rail about those figures, and I think we are in a danger 

zone. You need to help us get out of it. Your budget does not. But 

I yield. 

Secretary Lew. You know, I think that the—I appreciate that you 

agree that the Social Security Trust Fund is real. I think it is an 

important point. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is a legal document. There are trustees who 

hold notes on the U.S. Treasury. 

Secretary Lew. In my new role— 

Senator SESSIONS. That is a fact. 

Secretary Lew. In my new role as Chair, I consider them to be 

real obligations, and I am glad that you agree. 

Senator SESSIONS. But there is no money to pay it with. 

Secretary Lew. But at the point when the Social Security Trust 

Fund is being drawn down for, you know, the purpose it was intended, it has an impact on the unified budget, the bottom line of 

the unified budget. And if we look at our deficit and the unified 

budget year to year, that will incorporate the effect of paying back 

the Social Security Trust Fund. So I think that is actually a more 

accurate way of doing that than looking at gross debt. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is not what the— 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Sessions— 

Senator SESSIONS. —told the Fed. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Sessions—Sanders. Senator Sanders. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SANDERS. It has been a long hearing, right? 

Senator SESSIONS. Making a habit of that. 

Senator SANDERS. I knew, by the way, that if I listened to Jeff 

Sessions long enough, I would find areas where I agree with him. 

I knew it. And he made two good points. 

Number one, obviously the Social Security Trust Fund is real. It 

is held by bond backed by the faith and credit of the United States 

of America. And if we stop paying that, we do not have to worry 

about anything else, Jeff. The entire world will be in a financial 

collapse. We do not have to worry about Social Security. 

The second point, though, where you were right—and I think 

Secretary Lew is right—is on immigration. His point, taking people 

out of the shadows so that they are not exploited, is a good thing 

because it will raise the wage structure. On the other hand, your 

point is also a good point. If the Chamber of Commerce were to get 

its way and bring hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers into 

this country, there is no question in my mind it would drive wages 

up. I think that was your point. 

But I want to go to another issue. Out of curiosity, Mr. Secretary, 

you mentioned earlier that you gave the Republicans two out of 

three. You gave them cuts in Social Security, and you gave them 

deficit-neutral tax reform. What was the third thing you have not 

yet given them? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, the third item was eligibility age in 

Medicare. That has been the thing we have heard over and over 
203 

again, and I think you and I have had private conversations about 

this. 

Senator SANDERS. Yes. 

Secretary Lew. We have come to the view, after looking at it very 

carefully, that it actually does not have any savings, it increases 

national health care spending. 

Senator SANDERS. Right. Okay. Let me ask you this, getting back 

to one of your gives to our Republican friends. The GAO just came 

out with a report the other day—published by Reuters yesterday, 

I think—‘‘Corporate tax breaks cost U.S. Government $180 billion 

per year.’’ A huge amount of money. 

Now, what I do not understand is at a time when one out of four 

corporations pay nothing, many major corporations, some of the 

most profitable corporations of the world, pay nothing—maybe they 

get a rebate from the IRS—why you think it is more preferable to 

cut benefits for disabled vets or cut Social Security on people making $15,000, $16,000 a year, rather than getting some revenue from 

these large corporations? 

Secretary Lew. So, when, I guess I am not sure that is the way I would describe the trade-off. If we are saying we need $580 billion of revenue and we are saying that revenue has to come from 

closing tax loopholes that go to people in the top brackets, one 

could argue it is a different form. I mean, the beneficiaries of corporate profits are in those top brackets. So if we can increase the 

competitiveness of the United States and have job creation expand 

and we get the revenue on the individual side, that was the— 

Senator SANDERS. Well, that is a big if, and I understand that 

many of the people who get their dividends from corporate stock 

are in the top 1 percent. But, on the other hand, as you know, 

while corporate profits today are at an all-time high, corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low. 

True? That is true. I mean, that is—and today, as opposed to, say, 

in 19— 

Secretary Lew. I do not know if it is a record. It is low. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, I will give you an example. Back in 1952, 

32 percent of all the revenue generated in this country came from 

large corporations. Today that number is 9 percent. 

Now, many of our friends here talk about how high corporate tax 

rates are. You know—and I think you have indicated—that is the 

nominal rate. 

Secretary Lew. The statutory rate. 

Senator SANDERS. Right. The effective tax rate is just 12 percent, 

and, in fact, in 2011—and this is an important point to make—corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP was just 1.2 percent lower 

than any other major country in the OECD. 

So my question, again—I do understand your point. But are you 

really suggesting to me, when the GAO tells us we are losing $180 

billion per year, there is no way to capture revenue from corporate 

tax loopholes to help us with deficit reduction that is preferable 

than cutting Social Security? 

Secretary Lew. Senator, if the world were a binary choice between those two, it would be different than the world that, you 

know, the budget is in. If you add to that the choice of raising revenue from the top brackets, I think that is a better way to do it 
204 

than to do something which might be something there is an argument about, but we believe is something that is a competitiveness 

issue for bringing jobs to the United States, which is lowering the 

business tax rate. 

Senator SANDERS. But you can do both, and, again, I would argue 

that right now corporate revenue as a percentage of GDP today is 

the lowest among any OECD nations. 

Secretary Lew. I would be happy to follow up on this, Senator. 

The effective bonus depreciation over the last number of years has 

been to reduce taxes now so that taxes will be higher in the future. 

The deductions have been accelerated and taken now. And I am not 

sure the extent to which that explains the phenomenon of the 

lower corporate tax share, but I would be happy to take a look at 

it. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Kaine, my understanding is you had 

no additional questions. 

Senator Whitehouse, the last 5 minutes is yours. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. Two things. 

As you are considering lowering the corporate tax rate for the 

folks at the top, we might want to consider figuring out ways to 

raise the corporate tax rate for the folks at the bottom. Rhode Island has CVS located in it, which is a great chain of drug stores 

pretty much all across the country now, and being a retail store, 

they pay pretty much a 35-percent rate. And to see their rate go 

down I think would be very good for them and probably good for 

Rhode Island. 

At the same time, a lot of Rhode Islanders take cruises, and a 

lot of them take cruises on Carnival Cruise Lines. Carnival Cruise 

Lines pays a 0.8 percent corporate tax rate. And it is hard for me 

to understand why even if you have adjusted CVS’ rate from 35 to 

25—let us just pick that as a hypothetical number—you still have 

Carnival Cruise Lines out there at 0.8, and they are not unique. 

You can look at tech companies, you can look at electric manufacturing companies, you can look at oil companies, and over and over 

again what they are paying to the United States in taxes is zero. 

So I hope we will consider ways to try to prevent that kind of 

tax evasion on the corporate side as well as just lowering the top. 

We should lower both bands if we are going to go that way, in my 

view. 

Secretary Lew. Well, I think there are two things that are at 

issue. One is, in some of the cases you mentioned, it is because of 

deductions and credits that are available that in broadening the 

base would go away. And that is why tax reform will be very hard, 

because it will be a tax increase on companies that take advantage 

of special provisions. There are other— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But it is also sheltering offshore— 

Secretary Lew. That is my second—the other issue is overseas 

shelters, and that falls into two categories. There are legal and illegal overseas transactions. We have worked very hard to try and 

create an environment of much greater transparency so that we 

can see and other countries can see when companies are illegally 

hiding income. And we are very open to exploring ways to close 

down legal means of creating tax havens. 
205 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. One thing that I would like to mention on 

that subject is that I think, at least in Rhode Island, when I talk 

to people about this, folks understand about spending and they are 

concerned. They understand about borrowing and they are concerned. They understand about revenues, and they know that we 

are at a more or less all-time low, at least in modern history, for 

tax revenues. And then there is that fourth piece that rarely gets 

discussed, and that is all the tax spending, all the tax earmarks, 

what goes out the back door of the Tax Code. 

And what many Rhode Islanders do not understand—and I will 

ask you to check my numbers. I think they are roughly right. If we 

allow for no growth, then in the 10-year budget period we are looking forward to more than $11 trillion goes out the back door of the 

Tax Code. If you allow for reasonable expectations about growth, 

more than $14 trillion goes out the back door of the Tax Code. And 

if you count the amount of revenue that is hidden offshore and 

never even gets calculated in the Tax Code, guesstimates range on 

that pretty widely, but it could be $17, $18 trillion, out of which, 

to Senator Kaine’s point, what you are looking for is a pretty small 

percentage. But it is also astounding to most people that actually 

if you count it that way, more money goes out the back door of the 

Tax Code than actually gets collected by the United States Government in revenues. So why would we not want to look at that part 

of the Tax Code other than it tends to go to people who can get 

deals into the Tax Code and it is biased towards higher-income and 

politically connected institutions? Correct? Secretary Lew. We very much want to go at that base of $1 trillion a year of tax expenditures. It may be that we can accomplish 

more than others have been able to accomplish in the past and we 

can do better. And we look forward to working with you on that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And the last point, and as Monty Python 

said, ‘‘Now for something completely different,’’ as Secretary of the 

Treasury, you oversee the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 

Service. The Internal Revenue Service oversees the tax-exempt organizations. The tax-exempt organizations include 501(c)(4)s. 

501(c)(4)s, some of them, are groups that are engaged in very aggressive political activity. One study showed 32 different 501(c)(4)s 

actively engaged in political activity, in fact, even reporting it to 

the Federal Election Commission, but they signed a form at the 

IRS that said they would do no political activity at all. And in a 

hearing I held on the Judiciary Committee last week, it turned out 

that zero cases had been referred by the IRS to the Department of 

Justice, not over complicated tax matters, not over peculiar calculations of Tax Code liability, but over whether these statements were 

false or not, which, as the woman from the DOJ said, ‘‘That is a 

plain-vanilla criminal case.’’ But they are getting exactly zero referrals, and every witness said that the IRS was the wrong place for 

these cases to be made. They were ill suited, un- or understaffed, 

and unwilling. 

So I would ask you to consider having a conversation with the 

Attorney General about changing the paradigm between the IRS 

and the Department of Justice so that it can make these plain-vanilla cases without the IRS giving a referral where the IRS has apparently fallen down pretty heavily in making those referrals. 
206 

I think this study took 72 501(c)(4)s and looked at them, and of 

them, 32 had made the apparently totally false statement that they 

would not engage in political activity. And I think in a country of 

laws, failing to enforce the law is a mistake. 

Secretary Lew. I am happy to take a look at it, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate it. We will look forward to 

working with you on it. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Let me thank all of our Senators for participating in this hearing 

today. Secretary Lew, thank you very much for coming here to testify and your incredibly important work on all this. 

As a reminder to all my colleagues, additional statements and/ 

or questions for the record are due by 12:00 p.m. tomorrow. And 

we will meet again next Tuesday, April 23rd, to consider the President’s fiscal year 2014 budget and veterans programs. Secretary 

Shinseki will be here. This is going to be an important hearing, 

and I encourage our members to attend. 

Thank you very much. Thank you, Secretary Lew. 

Secretary Lew. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 4:54 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
207 

Question 1: 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing on the Administration's FY 14 Budget Proposal 

Questions jor the Recordfor Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J, Lew 

Apri!16,2013 

Senator Kellv Ayotte (R-NH) 

Secretary Lew, as you know, the United States and European Union (ED) sanctions 

have taken a severe toll on Iran's economy as inflation rates have skyrocketed amid the 

Rial's substantial depreciation. 

Despite increasing economic pressure, Tehran continues to pursue a nuclear weapons 

capability. American and European officials must continue to work together to further 

increase ec,onomic pressure to convince the regime in Tehran to honor its international 

obligations and halt its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. 

I believe Iran's passenger airlines offer such an opportunity. Iran Air, the country's 

flagship airline, and its largest private airline. Mahan Air, bave facilitated tbe illicit 

activities of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Iranian Ministry of 

Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL). which oversees Iran's ballistic missiie 

program, and Hezbollah. Additionally, the IRGC has IIsed Iran Air's passenger jets to 

transport rocket and missile components to Syria disguised as medicine and spare pal·ts. 

Sinee 1995, Iran Air has been subject to U.S. sanctions that prel'cnt it from buying spare 

parts from Boeing and Airbus. 

As you know, in June 2011, the Department of the Treasury froze the assets of Iran 

Air and its affiliates to cut off their access to the U.S. financial system. In September 

2011, the Treasury Department took similar action against Mahan Air for its links to 

Iran's support for terrorism. 

In September 2012, the Treasury Department implemented another round of sanctions 

against botl! airlines for transporting military and crowd control equipment to the 

Assad regime. 

I believe it is critical that the EU join the United States in applying tough sanctions 

against Iran Air and Mahan Air to prohibit their purchase of spare parts from 

European aerospace companies. 

Secretary Lew, in order to increase the economic pressure on the regime in Tehran, will 

you urge your EU cOllnterparts to go a step further and ,join the United States in fully 

sanctioning J ran Air and Mahan Air? 

Treasury is actively engaged in isolating Iran Air and Mahan Air from the international financial 

and commercial system. In addition to designating Iran Air and Mahan Air under our weapons 

of mass destruction proliferation and terrorism authorities, we have also targeted their 

procurement and support networks. Most recently. in May 2013 Treasury took action pursuant 

to these authorities against thirteen additional entities and individuals as a result of their 

connection with Iran Air or Mahan Air, including some with a presence in Europe. We have 

urged our European partners to take parallel action. Our engagement with our European 

counterparts has led to the EU imposing restrictions on alilranian airlines. including Iran Air and 
208 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing on the Administration's FY 14 Budget Proposal 

Questions jiJr the Record for Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew 

April 16, 2013 

Mahan Air, The EU prohibits cargo flights operated by Iranian carriers from accessing EU 

airports and maintains export bans on a wide variety of dual use goods, including dual use 

avionic equipment. For safety and related humanitarian reasons, U,S. policy does not seek to 

deny all spare parts for aircraft in Iran. 
209 

Question 1: 

Senate Budget Committee 

He£1ring on the Administration '0' FY 14 Budget Proposal 

Questions for the Record for Secretary of the Treasury Jacob 1. Lew 

April 16, 2013 

Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY) 

I was glad to see the Administration included in its budget a proposal to exempt foreign 

pension funds from the application of the Foreign Investment iu Real Property Tax Act 

(FIRPTA). As we have discussed previously, Senator Menendez and I liave been working 

on legislation tliat would reform tlie F1RPTA rules to encourage greater foreign investment 

in U.S. real property. Qne of our reqnests lias been that Treasury would review a Notice it 

issned back in 2007 (Notice 2007-55) that deals with certain liquidating distributions from 

real estate investment trusts (REITs). During your confirmation hearing back in 

February, you stated that you had not yet had an opportunity to fully develop a position 

regarding the Notice. Given the Administration's proposal to alleviate the burden of the 

FIRPTA lax, when will you be taking Administrative action to further lessen the burden by 

reversillg the liquidating distribution guidance issued ill the 2007 Notice? 

Notice 2007-55 was intended to enforce a statutory rule that imposes U.S. tax on distributions by 

a real estate investment trust (REIT) that are attributable to the REIT's gain from the sale of U.S. 

real property. That statutory rule is intended to prevent foreign investors from taking advantage 

oflhe REIT provisions to achieve a more tax-advantaged position than those investors could 

achieve by investing in U.S. real property directly. 

I have not yet had an opportunity to fully develop a position on Notice 2007-55, but J understand 

that it was intended to clarify that foreign investors in U.S. real property who would otherwise be 

subject to U.S, tax under FIRPTA cannot avoid that tax by holding the U.S. rea! property in a 

RElT and to support the basic notion underlying FIRPTA - to treat foreign investors in real 

estate in a similar fashion to domestic investors. In contrast the budget proposal to exempt 

foreign pension funds from the application of FIR PTA promotes parity for foreign and domestic 

pension funds with respect to investments in U.S. rca! property. 

Question 2; 

The Administration's budget includes a uumber of proposals intended to be part ofa 

"revenue-neutral business tax reform that would also cut the corporate rate alld 

comprehensively reform tax subsidies," but docs not identify a target statutory corporate 

tax rate. The revenue-neutral business tax reform reserve fund raises a net $95 billion over 

10 years, wllich is only a fraction of the roughly $700 to $800 billion estimated cos! of 

reducing the 35 percent statutory corporate tax rate to 28 percent, as the Administration 

targeted ill its Framework for Business Tax Reform released in February 2012. Does the 

Administration really believe the corporate tax rate should be reduced ollly by I percent, 

from 35 percent to 34 percent? If not, why did the budget proposal not fully identify how 

to achieve a 28 percent tax rate? What other provisions do you recommend that Congress 

consider removing from the tax code in order to reduce the corporate tax rate to 28 

percent? 
210 

Senale Budget Committee 

Hearing on the Administration's FY 14 Budget Proposal 

Questionsfor the Record for Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J Lew 

April 16, 2013 

The President's Frameworkfor Business Tax Reform provided a framework that would reduce 

the top corporate tax rate to 28 percent, broaden the business tax base, preserve key tax 

incentives, strengthen international taxation, and simplifY and cut small business taxes, all 

without increasing the deficit. As a start 011 the process, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2014 

Budget lists several specific business tax reform measures that would be consistent with that 

framework. As we discussed in the President's Framework, additional policy changes would be 

needed to lower the corporate rate to 28 percent, so this Jist is not exhaustive. The 

Administration looks forward to working with Members of Congress on tax reform. 

Question 3; 

In addition to lowering the corporate tax rate, we've got to reform the tax code to ensure 

we address the taxes paid by so-called "flow-through" businesses - these are the 

partnerships, S-corporations, lind limited liability companies. Just fixing the corporate 

side doesn't help the millions of businesses that are structured as flow-through entities. I 

appreciate the President wanting to do revenue-ncutral corporate tax reform. But that 

only addresscs part of the problem. 

I generally don't like to do things "comprehensively." We should do legislation in smaller 

parts so people can understand what's in them and can vote for and against the things they 

support and don't support. But given the interaction between the individual and corporate 

side of the tax code, we really need to look at them together and make sure cbanges we 

make in olle area don't make things worse in another area. 

Do you amI the President agree tbat we need to reform both the corporate and the 

individual tax code at the same time? 

The President '.I Frameworkfor Business Tax Reform includes provisions affecting both 

traditional corporations taxed at the entity level and pass-through businesses taxed at the 

individual level. Many of the base-broadening provisions in the Framework would affect both 

corporations and pass-through entities. To prevent this base-broadening from leading to a tax 

increase for small businesses (and also to reduce complexity), the Framework would enhance the 

aonual expensing of invest men Is for small businesses and increase the threshold for which cash 

accounting is allowed. 

The largest gains from tax reform could be achieved under a comprehensive reform of both the 

corporate and individual tax systems. Our view is that there is already a general consensus about 

the need to reform the business tax system, toward which our detailed proposals have been 

addressed. The Administration looks forward to working with Members of Congress on both 

business and individual tax reform. 

Question 4: 

The President's budget proposal would increase taxes as a percent oftbe nation's total 

output, or GDP, each year oyer the next 10 years, resulting ill revenues as a percent of GDP 
211 

Senate Budget Commillee 

Hearing on the Administration's FY 14 Budget Proposal 

Questions for the Record fiJI' Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew 

April 16, 2013 

at 20 percent in fiscal year 2023. The llverllge rllte over the Pllst 40 years has been 

approximately 18 percent ofGDP. The U.s. has balanced the budget 12 times since World 

War n. The average revenue for those 12 years was 18 percent ofGDP. These numbers 

tell the story - our problem is Dot that we tax too little but that we spend too mucb. Our 

nation owes over $16 trillion and no one is talking abont reducing it. We've got to get to 

balance - the sooner the better -and start paying down the debt. How do yon defend 

raising taxes by nearly $1 trillion and still not getting to balance and stilllldding to the 

deficit and the debt? 

The key fiscal test of any deficit-reduction proposal is whether it stabilizes and then starts to 

reduce publicly held federal debt as a percent of GOP -- the preferred metric of debt used by most 

public finance economists as well as by the Congressional Budget Office. The President's 

FY2014 Budget - as scored by both OMB and CBO passes this test, reducing debt from 78.2 

percent of GDP in FY20 15 to 73 percent in FY2023 thanks to a balanced proposal that both cuis 

spending and raises revenues_ 

A long-term average of historic revenueS does not necessarily inform us about the appropriate 

level of revenues in the future. We also note that the last four times the budget was balancedFiscal Years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 - revenues averaged 20 percent of GOP. 

Finally, note that earlier this year, the American Taxpayer Relief Act locked in marginal 

individual income tax rates at 19905 levels for high-income households, and at or below 19905 

levels for the rest of Americans. Going forward, the President in his Budget has called for 

comprehensive tax retorm that closes loopholes, lowers rates, and reduces deficits by raising 

revenue, an approach shared by virtually all bipartisan deficit reduction commissions over the 

past three years. 

Question 5: 

The President's budget did not include an extension of aU tbe so-called "tax extenders." 

The Acting OMB director, Mr. Zients, indicated that tax extenders would be covered nnder 

the revenue-neutral business tax reform policy, saying "those either have to be gotten rid of 

or paid for tbrongh revenue-neutral tax reform." In an apparent reference to the 

extenders, the budget said the President's proposal for revenue-neutral corporate tax 

reform wonld "prevent hundreds of billions of dollars from being added to the deficit if the 

Congress continues to extend temporary business tax incentives without paying for them." 

Because the budget was silent on how to pay for permanent extensions of these provisions, 

wonld you tell us which spending cuts or other revenue provisions YOII suggest Cougress 

consider as it potentially extends some or all of these provisions? 

The baseline used in tbe President's Budget assumes that most temporary tax provisions expire 

as scheduled under current law. By not proposing to extend them, these provisions generally are 

assumed to expire. In contrast to the general approach, the. Budget proposes permanent 

extension of a few expiring provisions that have substantial social benefits, such as the R&E 

credit. In the context of developing a fiscally responsible comprehensive tax reform proposal, 
212 

Senate Budgel Commilfee 

Hearing on the Administration's FY 14 Budget Proposal 

Questions for the Record for Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J Lew 

AprilJ6,20J3 

the Administration is willing to discuss the pros and cons of permanent extension of other 

expiring provisions. We look forward to working with Members of Congress on this important 

matter, 

Question 6: 

The President's budget did not include an extension of all the so-called "tax extenders." 

Comments from the White House seem to suggest that "husiness" tax extenders might be 

addressed as part of revenue-neutral corporate tax reform, But how does the 

Administration propose addressing the individual tax extenders, like the deduction for 

state and local sales taxes, which is important to my constituents back in Wyoming? 

Temporary provisions create uncertainty for taxpayers and for the state and federal government. 

Routinely extending temporary provisions, particularly without paying for them, is fiscally 

irresponsible. Thus, Congress ancl the Administration should work together to create a Tax Code 

that is permanent and that raises the revenue needed to pay for important national priorities. The 

Budget proposes to make permanent severa! of the most critlea! tax incentives. The President is 

not necessarily opposed to continuation of other tax extenders btlt believes they should be not 

addressed as part of comprehensive tax reform. Moreover, the President has articulated a set of 

broad principles dealing with revenue, efficiency, and equity that fundamental tax reform should 

meet. Any oflhe expiring provisions that are retained should be made permanent and should 

provide substantial social benefits. I look forward to working with you to create an individual 

income tax code that is fiscally responsible, fair, and provides long-term certainty, 

Question 7: 

You have previously been asked about tbe potential movement of the U.S. international tax 

system to a "territorial" system, where the offshore earnings of U.S. companies are largely 

exempt from U.S. tax. You commented that the U.S. has a "hybrid" system, i.e., a 

worldwide system that provides deferral thai potentially serves as a de-facto territorial 

system. You also indicated that the Administration's proposal to implement a worldwide 

minimum tax on offshore earnings would make the U.S. international tax system even more 

ofa hybrid system. Wouldn't implementing a minimum tliX simply erode deferral and 

push the U.S. from being a hybrid system to more of a worldwide system with even-more 

limited deferral? Have you taken a look at my international tliX proposal (S, 2091, 

introduced in the l12fh Congress) which we discussed during your eonfirmation hearing 

two months ago'! Would YOII commit to providing me your thoughts on my territorial 

proposal because I think you might see some things that you could support and we should 

focus on those things? 

Under the President's Frameworkjor Business Tw; Reform, foreign income deferred in a low-tax 

jurisdiction would be subject to immediate U.S. taxation at a minimum tax rate with a foreign tax 

credit allowed for income taxes on that income paid to the host country. This minimum tax 

would be designed to balance the need to prevent a race to the bottom in corporate tax rates with 
213 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing on the Adminislralion 's FY 14 Budget Proposal 

Questionsfor the Recordfor Secretmy of the Treasury Jacob J Lew 

April 16, 2013 

the goal of keeping U.S. companies on a level playing field with competitors when engaged in 

activities which, by necessity, must occur in a foreign country. There is considerable debate as 

to how to reform the intemational tax system, but I believe that there is common ground on this 

subject, including a shared concem 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 Congress on a bipartisan basis to 

develop approaches to international taxation that will cnsure the United States will retain and 

attract high-quality jobs. 

Question 8: 

Similal' to previous Administration budgets, the President's budget contains a proposal to 

limit the value of itemized deductions to 28 percent for higher-income individuals. The 

proposal in the last eouple of years has been expanded to limit income exclusions related to 

tax-exempt state and local bond interest, employer-sponsored health insurance, employee 

deferrals to 401(k) plans, contributions to IRAs, and contributions to health savings 

accounts and Archer MSAs, among others. The limitation would reduce the value to 28 

percent of the specified exclusions and deductions that would otherwise reduce taxable 

income in the 33-pel'cent, 35-percent, or 39.6-percenl tax brackets. The 33 percent tax 

bracket starts at $183,250 of taxable income for singles and $223,050 oftaxablc income for 

married couples filing jointly. Doesn't applying the 28 percent limitation to this tax 

bracket represent a break from the President's pledge that those making under $200,000 

(single) or $250,000 (married) would not have a tax increase? Isn't this clearly a violation 

of the President's pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class? 

In virtually all cases, taxpayers affected by this provision will have adjusted gross incomes 

(AGI) above $250,000 ($200,000 in the case of a single filer). While the 33-percent bracket for 

married couples begins at taxable income slightly below that in 2014, nearly everyone with 

taxable income at this level would have AGI in excess of $250,000. For example, a couple with 

taxable income of $227,650 (the beginning of the 3J-percent bracket in 2014) claiming just two 

personal exemptions and the standard deduction would have AGI 0[$247,950. Since most highincome taxpayers will have incentives that are excluded from taxation or claim itemized 

deductions in excess of the standard deduction, these households would have income above 

$250,000. 

QUestion 9: 

As we consider tax reform, one of the most important things I think we need to consider is 

transition how we move from the current system to the new system. That might include 

delayed effective dates lUlIl phase-in's and phase-out's of certain provisions. Are there 

particular provisions that you think we should be particularly mindful of as we consider 

transition to a new system? 
214 

Senale Budget Committee 

Hearing on the Adminislmlion's FY 14 Budget Proposal 

Questions for the Record jcw Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew 

April 16, 2013 

It is difficult to find basic principles that can help to separate instances in which transition relief 

is appropriate from those in which it is not appropriate. This is because many unanticipated tax 

changes can have effects that appear to be inequitable to some. Nonetheless, certaill types of 

transition relicf are frequently provided Of suggested, These sometimes seek to apply the tax 

change only prospectively. Another approach is to phase in or out over time certain provisions, 

such as an increase in a tax rate, A third approach would be to penn it taxpayers to elect the new 

or old tax treatment We look forward to working with you on transition rules and other issues 

that arise in the important task of enacting a reformed tax system. 

Question 10: 

The President's budget calls for reinstating on a permanent basis the 2009 estate tax 

regime, witb a top tax rate of 45 percent and a $3.5 million per-person exemption. The socalled fiscal cliff deal made permanent a top tax rate of 40 percent and a $5 million perperson exemption. The cbange is proposed to take effect in 2018. Wby is the 

Administration re-litigating tbe estate tax issue? Tbe President got wbat be wanted out of 

tbe fiscal cliff deal- more money from bardworking Americans. Now be wan Is even more 

money from people like the ranchers back in my state of Wyoming. 

The Administration believes tbat the $5 million exemption and the 40 percent federal tax rate for 

both estate and gift taxes was too generous to the very wealthy, and that we cannot afford to 

preserve these levels indefinitely, The Administration has consistently proposed making 

pemlanent the exemption and tax levels that were in effect in 2009, and continues to believe that 

the 2009 parameters would affect a small number of estates and generate an appropriate level of 

revenue fj'om the estate and gift taxes. 

Question 11: 

Tbe retirement plan account savings cap in tbe Presidellt's budget proposal is not tied to a 

hard dollar limit, but to tbe amount that would finance, in 2013, an annuity of $205,000 IJer 

year in retirement. Converting a S205,OOO/year annuity amount into an estimated lump 

sum equivalent depends on factors such as interest rates and annuity pricing. Would tbe 

cap be pegged to inflation? Would a higher interest rate environment result in an even 

lower cap threshold? 

The proposal 10 limit the total accrual of tax-favored retirement savings in the President's b\ldget 

is based on the accumulation necessary to provide an annuity of $205,000 per year beginning at 

age 62 and extending tor the lifetime of the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse, The $205,000 

annuity amount is based on the maximum permitted annuity under a tax-qualified defined benefit 

plan and would be adjusted for future inflation, When interest rates are higher, smaller taxadvantaged accumulations can generate an annuity of this size, However, tbe basic point would 

remain unchanged, that the tax system should not provide subsidies for people who have already 

accumulated sufficient savings to finance very large annuities. 
215 

Question 1: 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing on the Administration's FY 14 Budget Proposai 

Questions for the Recordfor Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew 

April 16, 2013 

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WIl 

According to the Social Security trustees, the combined OASDI trust funds are now 

running cash deficits that will continue to increase, Whcn you were told, "in terms of 

dedicated revenue coming in versus the benefits being paid out, it'll be $1.3 trillion" of 

deficit, you replied that "that's not the measure or whether Social Security is running a 

deficit." If benefit payments exceeding dedicated revenue is not the measure of whet he I' 

Social Security is running a deficit, what is? 

According to the latest Social Security Trustees report, OASDI trust fund income (payroll tax 

revenue, general fund reimbursements, and taxation of benefits, and interest) is projected to 

exceed costs (benefits, administrative costs, and railroad retirement interchange) by $133 billion 

between 20 J 3 and 2022. Interest on trust fund assets is projected to total $1,087 billion over lhe 

time same time period. Meanwhile, costs are projected to exceed non-interest income by $953 

billion. The Administration is committed to protecting Social Security for ollr nation's current 

and future elderly population. 

Question 2: 

When Social Secul'ity's trustees redeem Treasury securities in tlJe OASI and DI trust 

funds, where does the Treasury get the money to pay? Does Treasury have a reserve of 

money or wealth set aside 011 which it can draw'? How will Treasury raise the revenlle to 

make payments on the redeemed bonds? 

Transfers are made from the general fund to execute the redemption of trust fund assets. 

Question 3: 

You said, in explaining the Social Security trust funds' vallie, that "from 1983 until now, 

we'ye been building up surpluses in the social sccurity trust fund. In years when there 

were balances that were positive, it went to the benefit of the ullified budget. And it made 

it possible to do things." Did the federal government set aside any of those surpluses in any 

asset that is not offset by a correspouding liability of the Treasury? If so, in what form 

precisely? Specify the natu re and quantity of that store of wealth. 

By law, the Department of the Treasury must invest trust fund reserves in interest-bearing 

securities of the U.S. Government. 
216 

Question 4: 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing on the Administration's FY 14 Budget Proposal 

Questionsfor rhe Recordfor Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew 

April 16,2013 

You testified, in explaining the value of the Treasury securities in the Social Security tfllst 

funds, that they are "an asset tbat's backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, 

like every other bond." If tbey arc backed in the same way as every other bond, why 

wouldn't they have the same effect on the economy as deb! held by the public would? If the 

two forms of debt should be distinguished and debt held by the public should be preferred 

as a metric ove/, gross federal debt, please explain why. Does one form of debt constitute a 

lesser obligation or an obligation less binding 011 the government? 

Both gross debt and publicly held debt are measures of government finances. Accounting for 

assets held in the Social Security trust fund allows us to measure the promises we have made to 

current and future workers and their dependents and survivors. The combined Old Age, 

Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Fund has $2.7 trillion in assets and has sufficient fimds 

to pay full benefits until 2033. 

QuestionS: 

You said that the obligation to pay off the Treasury debt owed to the Social Security trust 

fund "does put a burden 011 the rest of us to have a balanced fiscal policy." In the 

President's proposed fy2014 budget, does revenue ever equal or exceed outlays in any 

year? Can you project, based on the changes in outlays and revenue called for in the 

President's budget, what year we will have a balanced budget? 

Revenue does not equal or exceed outlays in any year. The Administration and the CBO project 

publicly held debt as a share of GOP to stabilize and then fall through the budget window under 

the Administration's budget, but neither projects the budget to be balanced in any year in the 

budget window. 
217 

Question 1: 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing on the Administration '.'I FY J 4 Budget Proposal 

Questionsfor the Record for Secretary of the Treasury Jacob J. Lew 

April J 6, 2013 

Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) 

I am very disappointed by the Administration's bndget proposal to repeal a tax incentive to 

pay employee owners dividends on stock in their ESOP accounts, or used to have 

employees own more stock -- (Section 404(k) Employee Stock Ownership Plan Dividend 

Deduction for "large corporations"), 

On pages 96 and 97 of the "Green Book," the Administration justifies eliminating this 

incentive for ESOP creation and operation because employee stock ownership is "risky," 

and employees do not understand how their labor can benefit tbeir company, and their 

stock value if the company's ,'evenue is over $5 million a year, which would be a company 

witb approximately 10 to 20 employees. 

On what data, researcb, or surveys does the Administration base its claim that employee 

stock ownership provides no boost in productivity, profits, or job sustainability in 

companies with more than $5 million in gross revenue? 

The reason tbat I ask this question is bc.cause all of Ihe studies that I have seen on this 

subject have shown that broad-based employee ownership has been prm'en to increase 

employment, increase productivity, increase sales, and increase wages in the United States. 

Unlike large corporations that have been shipping jobs overseas, employee owned 

bnsinesses, by and large, are not sbutting down and moving Ihelr businesses to China or 

other low-wage countries where workers are paid as little as 25 or 30 cents an hour. 

Further, employee owncd businesses boost morale because workers share in future profits 

and have greater control over their work-life. 

According to a 2010 survey conducted by researcbers at the University of Chicago, during 

the Great Recession, ESOP companies laid off employees at a rate of less than 3%, wbile 

cOllventionally owned companies laid off employees at a rate of more than 12%, 

According to the National Center for Employee Ownership, fOi' every $1 in tax 

expenditures to promote employee stock ownership, the Federal government collected $13 

in taxes. 

In my opinion, we need lIIore employee-owned companies in America, not less. 

By expanding employee ownership and participation, we can create stronger companies in 

my state of Vermont and throughout tbis country, prevent job loss, and improve working 

conditions for struggling employees. 

When employees own their own companies, when they work for themselves, when they are 

involved ill the decisioll-making that impacts their jobs, workers become more motivated, 

absenteeism goes dOWII, worker productivity goes up, and people stay 011 the job for a 

longer period of time. 
218 

Senale Budget Committee 

Hearing on the Administration's FY 14 Budget Proposal 

Questions for the Record for Secretory of the Treasury Jocob J. Lew 

April 16. 2013 

Simply put, when employees have an ownership stake in their company, they will not ship 

their own jobs to China to increase their profits. They will be more productive. And, they 

will earn a better living. 

Unfortunately, I believe that the Administration's budget proposal on ESOPs is a step 

backwards that will lead to fewer employee owned businesses, lower wages, and higher 

unemployment. 

Adding insult to injury, the $6 billion in estimated savings over 10 years by ending this tax 

incentive for employee ownership wouldo 't go into deficit reduction, but would be used to 

lower the tax rates and provide even more tax breaks to some of the largest corporations in 

America. 

I would respectfully ask you to reconsider this proposal and work with me to expand 

broad-based employee ownership in this country. 

I look forward to your response. 

The deduction for certain dividends paid on ESOP·held stock is one of several special tax 

benefits afforded ESOPs under current tax law. It is important to note that the remaining special 

tax benefits afforded ESOPs under cnrrent law would not be affected by the proposal and would 

continue to provide incentives to expand broad-based employee ownership. Moreover, the 

proposal would retain the deduction for celiain dividends paid on ESOP-held stock for those 

companies (smaller C corporations and S corporations) that are more likely to provide broadbased employee ownership through an ESOP. Employees of companies for which the special tax 

benefit for dividends paid on ESOP-held stock is proposed to be repealed are more likely to own 

a smaller percentage of the company through the ESOP (such as through a 401(k) plan that 

includes an ESOP component that may own a relatively small percentage of the company) and 

therefore the performance effects of the ESOP are more, likely diluted. 
219 

Question 1: 

Senate [Judget Committee 

Hearing on the Administration '5 FY 14 Budget Proposal 

Questions for the Record for Secretary of the Treasury Jacob 1. Lew 

April 16, 2013 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse W-RD 

I recently had the opportunity to travel to Cuba and Haiti on a Congressional Delegation 

led by Senator Patrick Leahy. While there, we met with American and Cllban scientists. 

These scientists are condncting research in many areas, inclnding the state of fisheries, 

weather, and offshore drilling safety-issues that affect both of our nations. They 

explained to me that professional staff of their organizations sometimes has difficulty 

travelling to Cuba for scientific exchanges due to U.S. Treasury regulations that do not 

allow general licenses for U.S. individuals attending professional organization meetings 

sponsored by a U.S. organization. They also explained that their support staff has 

difficulty obtaining permission to travel with them. 

Can Treasury revise its regulations to eliminate the exclusion against generailicenses for 

individuals attending professional organization meetings in Cuba organized by U.S. 

organizations? Can Treasury also revise regulations to eliminate restrictions against 

support staff travelling to Cuba with U.S. researchers and U.S. individuals attending 

professional meetings? 

Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) implements the Cuba sanctions programincluding regulatory changes - consistent with current U.S. foreign policy and with statutory 

requirements. OFAC has issued a generallkense authorizing travel transactions for purposes of 

professional research of a noncommercial, academic nature and attendance at professional 

meetings organized by international professional organizations. OFAC also authorizes, via 

specific license, travel by individuals to attend conferences or meetings sponsored by a U.S. 

organization that is itself licensed, should the individuals meet the criteria set forth in the 

application guidelines. However, OFAC receives very few such applications from U.S. 

organizations. 

(221) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET 

PROPOSAL AND VETERANS’ PROGRAM PROPOSALS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Murray, Nelson, Whitehouse, Merkley, Baldwin, Kaine, King, Sessions, and Ayotte. 

Staff Present: Evan T. Schatz, Majority Staff Director; and 

Marcus Peacock, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MURRAY 

Chairman MURRAY. Good morning, and welcome to this morning’s hearing on the fiscal year 2014 budget and the fiscal year 

2015 advance appropriation request for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Thank you to Secretary Shinseki and your team for 

being here this morning. I know you have been very busy over the 

past couple weeks as you worked to get this budget request out. 

One month ago, the Senate passed our budget resolution. There 

was plenty of debate and plenty of disagreement, a long markup 

in this Committee, and extensive consideration on the floor. But 

there was never any question about the importance of providing for 

our Nation’s veterans. 

The budget resolution protected funding for veterans benefits 

and services. It also included deficit-neutral reserve funds to assist 

in several important policy areas, including eligibility and delivery 

of benefits, rural health care, education and training, veterans’ 

families, and homeless veterans. 

The Department’s budget submission will help inform us as we 

move forward in discussions with the House on a compromise budget resolution. 

The President’s request is $152.7 billion for VA in fiscal year 2014 and $55.6 billion in advance appropriations for medical care 

in fiscal year 2015. Overall, this is a strong request, and it represents an increase of more than 10 percent over last year. It also 

makes important investments in some high priority areas. 

As we have discussed in the past, it is important that the Department follows good financial management principles. This 
222 

means being straightforward with Congress about what the Department’s real needs are. 

It also means accurately projecting costs and savings. And it goes 

without saying that we expect the Department to be good stewards 

of taxpayer dollars, especially in this difficult budget environment. 

There is no place for wasteful spending or inefficiency. 

One of the newest developments is VA’s recent announcement 

that it will focus on expediting claims that have been pending for 

more than a year by granting provisional ratings. This will allow 

veterans to receive benefits while their claims are finalized. I am 

pleased the Department is taking action and trying a new initiative 

to make a difference for our veterans. 

But I still have a number of questions about how this will be implemented. Certainly we cannot maintain the status quo, where almost 70 percent of our veterans are waiting 125 days or more for 

their claims. 

Secretary Shinseki, considering the steps you have taken to address this problem so far, I think you share my concern and dedication to solving this. So I look forward to exploring this new initiative with you today. I was pleased to see the Department requested almost $7 billion 

in funding for mental health care. This is an increase of more than 

7 percent. 

During the last Congress, we took a hard look at mental health 

in VA and found some serious problems. VA was generally providing good mental health care. But understaffing and long wait 

times were plaguing the VA and keeping veterans from the care 

they needed. 

Importantly, we also found that the Department did not have an 

accurate, reliable way of measuring the need for mental health care 

and of distributing its staff effectively. We asked the Department 

to undertake a number of reforms to improve access to care and 

bring down unacceptably long wait times. This included key 

changes that were part of the Mental Health ACCESS Act. 

Today, I hope we will hear more about what progress the Department is making in implementing those changes. 

As I have said before, not every veteran will be affected by these 

invisible wounds. But when a veteran has the courage to stand up 

and ask for help, the VA must be there every single time. VA must 

be there with not only timely access to care, but also the right type 

of care. 

This is especially important at a time when 22 veterans every 

day are taking their own lives. The VA has a number of good initiatives, such as the Veterans Crisis Line and the Suicide Prevention Coordinators, but we clearly need to do more. 

As you know, women are the fastest growing part of the veteran 

population. The VA has needed to make major changes to ensure 

there is a full range of health services for female veterans, that facilities are safe and privacy is protected, and support services are 

available. The requested $422 million for gender-specific care for 

women is a 13.7-percent increase over last year. 

I will also continue working to end the terrible epidemic of military sexual assault in the services. In the coming days, I will be 

introducing legislation to help prevent sexual assault and protect 
223 

the victims. And at the same time, the VA must continue to provide for those suffering from MST. Only a small fraction of sexual 

assaults in the military are reported, so the VA has to provide both 

the highest quality treatments, but also outreach and screening to 

help the victims get into care. 

Developing a seamless transition is another challenge the VA 

and DOD continue to face, though we have made important 

progress. 

The requirement in the VOW to Hire Heroes Act making the 

Transition Assistance Program mandatory, along with a major 

overhaul of the curriculum, has created a much more useful tool to 

assist servicemembers who are leaving the military. And the feedback I have received is that even colonels and sergeants major 

found the training invaluable. If even those senior leaders are benefitting from the help on resume writing and VA resources, we are 

doing something right. 

Other requirements, to expand job opportunities and eliminate 

barriers to getting civilian licenses and credentials, are key to combating the unemployment rate for veterans which is still far too 

high. We have made a great deal of progress working with employers to encourage them to hire veterans. And I will continue to engage our private sector partners to help them understand the skills 

veterans bring to the table and why they make the best of employees. 

Getting our veterans into education programs, good jobs, or starting small businesses does not just benefit the veteran; it helps us 

grow our economy and the middle class. It builds on the investments we have made in our veterans as they continue to help our 

communities, our businesses, and their fellow veterans. 

While we are making these investments in our veterans, we 

must also continue to invest in VA infrastructure. I have concerns 

about the proposed cuts to major construction and non-recurring 

maintenance. The Department is proposing a 47-percent cut in 

non-recurring maintenance and only $342 million in major construction funding. This comes while the Department still estimates 

it has between $54 and $66 billion in infrastructure needs. I was 

pleased to see the request includes funds to complete work on the 

mental health building in my home State of Washington at the VA 

hospital in Seattle. 

Information technology also provides a critical role in many of 

the Department’s major initiatives, and it is a key part in giving 

our servicemembers a truly seamless transition from active duty to 

civilian life. 

The President’s budget request includes an overall 18-percent increase in IT funding for the VA. This request includes a number 

of important priorities, such as the continued development and implementation of the Veterans Benefits Management System. 

The request would also fund further development of the Virtual 

Lifetime Electronic Record, which, while implemented regionally, 

has not been rolled out nationwide. However, the recent announcement by VA and DOD that the Departments will no longer pursue 

development of a single electronic health record has raised important questions about the future of the iEHR program. 
224 

The Departments must clearly define the path forward for this 

important project and address the underlying reasons for the program’s abrupt change of course. VA and DOD have to make sure 

there is clear, strategic leadership to guide further development of 

the iEHR program. 

So, Secretary Shinseki, I want to thank you for your dedication 

and leadership over the past several years. It is not easy to steer 

the Federal Government’s second largest Department. And it is not 

easy to make the changes that are needed. 

You have set some very ambitious goals, including ending veteran homelessness, breaking the claims backlog, and transforming 

the way the VA delivers health care. 

Setting these high goals is a good thing. And I am confident you 

have set these goals because of your continuing demand for excellence on behalf of our Nation’s veterans. 

We recognize the good progress that has been made, but we will 

continue to push you to meet those goals. So I am looking forward 

today to a constructive discussion about the challenges ahead, the 

concerns that we have, and what we can do to provide the resources and authorities that you need. 

I will now call on Senator Sessions, our Ranking Member, for his 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SESSIONS 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much, Chairman Murray, and 

thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I recall well our 

working together when you were Chairman, and you produced the 

Stryker vehicle that is so much a part of the military army today. 

I am real impressed with your performance and leadership on that, 

and you serve your country so well with integrity and courage. 

Let me begin by saying that much of America’s greatness comes 

from our veterans. I believe that supporting them, as we have committed to do, is one of the main priorities of the United States Government. This is a belief that goes well beyond party lines. It goes 

beyond State lines. 

This budget request is one that, in a time where sequestration 

is affecting many programs, including our defense budget, the defense budget is getting cut significantly. It looks like another $480 

billion or so, $490 billion, in cuts in addition to an almost equal 

number previously. But we do see a $2.5 billion increase from last 

year’s levels in support of the commitment of the Nation to those 

who have served and sacrificed for our country. They served not because they had to but because they were willing and able to serve. 

It is undeniable we owe much to the courageous men and women 

who put their lives on the line for their country and their countrymen repeatedly. 

So my concern today with the budget that is before us is whether 

or not we are truly serving our veterans effectively in the best way 

we can. Can we do it better? As we examine the VA budget more 

closely today and hear from Secretary Shinseki, it is my hope that 

the questions that I have and others have will be answered. 

I hear from veterans in Alabama about the major concerns facing 

the veteran population, and the top-most concern I am hearing 
225 

right now is about the very serious backlog of disability compensation claims. That is just a top concern for our veteran community. 

Another thing I heard recently was a passionate call by former 

servicemember I believe in Vietnam who expressed concerns about 

the suicide situation in the military and among veterans. The 

Chair has raised that. I do think we need to focus on that and ask 

if there are other things that we can do to confront that problem. 

Mr. Secretary, in last year’s fiscal year 2013 budget, you requested an increase of $9.2 billion to decrease the backlog of disability claims. I have a press release that your Department issued 

in February of 2012 discussing the fiscal year 2013 VA budget. It 

states, and I quote: ‘‘By 2013, the budget projects no more than 40 

percent of compensation and pension claims will be more than 125 

days old.’’ 

It goes on to say that claims were at 60 percent in 2012. But as 

of last Monday, April 15th, disability compensation claims were at 

70 percent, with nearly 900,000 claims pending for more than 125 

days. So this is a problem that is not getting better, it would appear, but it hasten worse. 

This budget for fiscal year 2014 includes an increase of $10 billion over the fiscal year 2013 levels for the Veterans Benefit Administration, which administers those disability claims. How do we 

know this money is being used to fix the backlog when the performance levels on the issue are worse than previously? So we will have 

to look at that. 

Another issue that the Chair mentioned was the electronic 

records. We have a national discussion of those issues at the time 

of the concern at Walter Reed, and that was perceived to be a way 

to improve dramatically the seamlessness of our health care system. That it is not there may be justifiable, but it is a concern. We 

would like to see it get there so it is fully operational in serving 

like we think it can serve to benefit health care and avoid delays 

and paperwork problems. 

The budget before us now states that the backlog problem will 

be under control by 2015. I look forward to greater detail on your 

plan to do this, and I am sure my colleagues do as well. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you and your team for being with us today. 

I know you care about these issues, and we look forward to cooperating with you in a common concern. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions. 

Now let me introduce our witness today. Our panel consists of 

Veterans Affairs Secretary Shinseki. He is accompanied by Under 

Secretary for Health Robert Petzel and Under Secretary for Benefits Allison A. Hickey. Also accompanying the Secretary are Under 

Secretary for Memorial Affairs Steve L. Muro; Acting Assistant 

Secretary for the Office of Information and Technology Stephen W. 

Warren; and Executive Director for the Office of Management and 

Chief Financial Officer Todd Grams. 

We look forward to hearing from you. All of the witnesses’ statements will be in the record. Secretary Shinseki, we will hear from 

you verbally, and then we will go to questions and answers from 

all of us. So thank you very much for being here, Secretary 

Shinseki. 
226 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC K. SHINSEKI, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; 

ACCOMPANIED BY THE HONORABLE ROBERT A. PETZEL, MD, UNDER 

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH; THE HONORABLE ALLISON A. HICKEY, 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS; THE HONORABLE STEVE L. 

MURO, UNDER SECRETARY FOR MEMORIAL AFFAIRS; STEPHEN 

W. WARREN, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR THE OFFICE 

OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY; AND W. TODD GRAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

Secretary Shinseki. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking 

Member Sessions, distinguished members of the Committee. Thank 

you for this opportunity to present the President’s 2014 budget and 

2015 advance appropriations requests for the VA. We deeply value 

your partnership and support in providing the resources needed to 

assure quality care and services for veterans. 

Let me also acknowledge other partners who may be here today, 

our veteran service organizations with whom we work fairly closely 

and whose insights and support make us much better at our mission of caring for veterans, their families, and survivors. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for introducing the members of the 

panel and also for accepting my written statement. 

The 2014 budget and 2015 advance appropriations requests demonstrate the President’s steadfast commitment to our Nation’s veterans. I thank the members for your resolute commitment to veterans as well and seek your support on these requests. 

The latest generation of veterans is enrolling in VA at a higher 

rate than previous generations. Sixty-two percent of those who deployed in support of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have used 

at least one VA benefit or service. 

VA’s requirements are expected to continue growing for years to 

come, and our plans and resources must be robust enough to care 

for them all. 

The President’s 2014 budget for VA requests, as the Chairman outlined $152.7 billion—$66.5 billion in discretionary funds and 

$86.1 billion in mandatory funding— an increase of $2.7 billion in 

discretionary funds, 4.3 percent above the 2013 level. 

This is a strong budget which enables us to continue building 

momentum for delivering three long-term goals we set for ourselves 

roughly 4 years ago, and the first is to increase veterans’ access to 

VA benefits and services. 

The second is to eliminate the disability claims backlog in 2015, 

understanding when we open access, we are adding to workload. 

And then, finally, and thirdly, key for us is ending veteran homelessness in 2015. 

These were bold and ambitious goals 4 years ago. They remain 

bold and ambitious today because veterans deserve a VA that is an 

advocate for them and one that puts resources behind its words. 

Access. Of the roughly 22 million living veterans in this country 

today, more than 11 million now receive at least one benefit or 

service from VA, an increase of over 1 million veterans in the past 

4 years. We have achieved this by opening new facilities, renovating others, increasing investments in telehealth and telemedicine, sending mobile clinics and vet centers to remote areas where 

veterans live, and then using every means available, including so-
227 

cial media, to connect more veterans to VA. Increasing access has 

been a success story at VA. 

Regarding the backlog, too many veterans wait too long to receive benefits they deserve. We know this, and it is unacceptable. 

And no one wants to turn this situation around more than this Secretary or Secretary Hickey or the workers at VBA, 52 percent of 

whom are veterans themselves. 

We are resolved to eliminate the claims backlog in 2015, a goal 

we set a few years ago. And in 2015, the intent is that claims will 

be processed in 125 days or less at a 98-percent accuracy level. 

Our efforts mandate investments in VBA’s people, processes, and 

technology. In terms of our investments in people, more than 2,300 

claims processors have completed training to improve the quality 

and productivity of their claims decisions. More are being trained 

each day, and this will be an ongoing effort. VBA’s new employees 

now complete more claims per day than their predecessors. 

Processes. Use of a disability benefits questionnaire, DBQ, an online form for submitting medical evidence, has dropped average 

processing times of medical exams and improved accuracy. We are 

now organized into three lanes for processing claims: an express 

lane for those that will predictably take less time; a special operations lane for unusual cases or those requiring special handling; 

and the core lane for the remainder, which will be the majority of 

claims. 

Technology is critical to ending the backlog. Our paperless processing system, which we call VBMS, Veterans Benefits Management System, will be faster, improve access, drive automation, and 

reduce variance. Thirty-six regional offices now VBMS. All 56 will 

have it by the end of this year. 

Finally, homelessness. The last of our three priority goals is to 

end veterans’ homelessness, again, in 2015. Since 2009, we have reduce the estimated number of homeless veterans by more than 17 

percent. The latest available estimate from January 2012 is 62,600. 

There is more work to be done here, but we have mobilized a national program that reaches into communities all across this country. Prevention of veterans’ homelessness will be our follow-on 

main effort for the long term. 

So, Madam Chairman, we are committed to the responsible use 

of the resources you and this Congress provide. Again, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear here today and for your support of 

veterans, and we look forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Shinseki follows:] 
228 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC K. SHINSEK! 

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

FOR PRESENTATION BEFORE THE 

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE 

BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

APRIL 23, 2013 

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, Distinguished Members of the 

Senate Budget Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the President's 2014 Budget and 2015 

advance appropriations requests for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This 

budget continues the President's historic initiatives and strong budgetary support and 

will have a positive impact on the lives of Veterans, their families, and survivors. We 

value the unwavering support of the Congress in providing the resources and iegislative 

authorities needed to care for our Veterans and recognize the sacrifices they have 

made for our Nation. 

The current generation of Veterans will help to grow our middle class and provide 

a return on the country's investments in them. The President belieVes in Veterans and 

their families, believes in providing them the care and benefits they've earned, and 

knows that by their service, they and their families add strength to our Nation. 

Twenty-two million living Americans today have distinguished themselves by their 

service in uniform. After a decade of war, many Servicemembers are returning and 

making the transition to Veterans status. The President's 2014 Budget for VA requests 

$152.7 billion - comprised of $66.5 billion in discretionary funds, including medical care 

coflections. and $86.1 billion in mandatory funds. The discretionary request reflects an 

increase of $2.7 billion. 4.3 percent above the 2013 level. Our 2014 budget will allow 

VA to operate the largest Integrated healthcare system in the country, with more than 

9.0 million Veterans enrolled to receive healthcare; the ninth largest life insurance 

provider, covering both active duty members as well as enrolled Veterans; an education 

assistance program serving over 1 million students; a home mortgage service that 

guarantees over 1.5 million Veterans' home loans with the lowest foreclosure rate in the 

Nation; and the largest national cemetery system that leads the Nation as a highperforming organization, with prOjections to inter about 121,000 Veterans and family 

members in 2014. 
229 

Priority Goals 

Over the next few years, more than one million Veterans will leave military 

service and transition to civilian life < VA must be ready to care for them and their 

families, Our data shows that the newest of our country's Veterans are relying on VA at 

unprecedented levels, Through January 31,2012, of the approximately 1,58 million 

Veterans who returned from Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and New 

Dawn, at least 62 percent have used some VA benefit or service, 

VA's top three priorities - increase aCcess to VA benefits and services; eliminate 

the disability compensation claims backlog in in 2015; and end Veterans homelessness, 

also in 2015 - anticipate these changes and identify the performance levels required to 

meet emerging needs, These ambitious goals will take steady focus and determination 

to see them through, As we enter the critical funding year for VA's priority goals, this 

2014 budget builds upon our multi-year effort to position the Department through 

effective, efficient, and accountable programming and budget execution for delivering 

claims and homeless priority goals, 

Stewardship of Resources 

Safeguarding the resources - people, money, time - entrusted to us by the 

Congress, managing them effectively, and deploying them judiciously, is a fundamental 

duty, Effective stewardship requires an unflagging commitment to use resources 

efficiently with clear accounting rules and procedures, to safeguard, train, motivate, and 

hold our workforce accountable, and to assure the effective use of time in serving 

Veterans on behalf of the American people< Striving for excellence in stewardship of 

resources is a daily priority< At VA, we are ever attentive to areas in which we need to 

improve our operations, and are committed to taking swift corrective action to eliminate 

any financial management practice that does not deliver value for Veterans. 

VA's stewardship of resources begins at headquarters, Recognizing the very 

difficult fiscal constraints facing our country, the 2014 request inciudes a 5,0 percent 

reduction in the Departmental Administration budget from the 2013 enacted leveL This 

reduction follows a headquarters freeze in the 2013 President's Budget - a two-year 

commitment 

Recent audits of the Department's financial statements have certified VA's 

success in remediating all three of our remaining material weaknesses in financial 

management, which had been carried forward for over a decade, In terms of internal 

controls and fiscal Integrity, this was a major accomplishment In the past four years, 

we have also dramatically reduced the number of significant financial defiCiencies from 

16 to 1. 

At VA, we believe that part of being responsible stewards is shutting down 

information technology (IT) projects that are no longer performing, Developed by our 
230 

Office of Information and Technology, the Project Management Accountability System 

(PMAS) requires IT projects to establish milestones to deliver new functionality to its 

customers every 6 months. Now entering its third year, PMAS continues to instill 

accountability and discipline in our IT organization. Through PMAS, the cumulative, ontime delivery of IT functionality since its inception is 82 percent. a rate unheard of in the 

industry where, by contrast, the average is 42 percent. By implementing PMAS, we 

have achieved at least $200 million in cost avoidance by shutting down or improving the 

management of 15 projects. 

Through the effective management of our acquisition resources, VA has 

achieved savings of over $200 million by participating in Federal strategic sourcing 

programs and establishing innovative IT acquisition contracts. In 2012, VA led the 

civilian agencies in contracting with Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small 

Businesses, which, at $3.4 billion, accounted for 19.3 percent of all VA procurement 

awards. In addition, we have reduced interest penalties for late payments by 19 percent 

(from $47 to $38 per million) over the past four years. 

Finally, VA's stewardship achieved savings in several other areas across the 

Department. The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) assumed responsibility in 

2009 for processing First Notices of Death to terminate compensation benefits to 

deceased Veterans. Since taking on this responsibility, NCA has advised families of the 

burial benefits available to them, assisted in averting overpayments of some $142 

million in benefit payments and, thereby, helped survivors avoid possible collections. In 

addition, we implemented the use of Medicare pricing methodologies at the Veterans 

Health Administration (VHA) to pay for fee-basis services, resulting in savings of over 

$528 million since 2012 without negatively impacting Veteran care and with improved 

conSistency in billing and payment. 

Technology 

To serve Veterans as well as they have served us, we are working on delivering 

a 21 st century VA that provides medical care, benefits, and services through a digital 

infrastructure. Technology is integrated with everything we do for Veterans. Our 

hospitals use information technology to properly and accurately distribute and deliver 

prescriptions/medications to patients, track lab tests, process MRI and X-ray imaging, 

coordinate consults, and store medical records. VA IT systems supported over 1,300 

VA pOints of healthcare in 2012: 152 medical centers, 107 domiciliary rehabilitation 

treatment programs, 821 community-based outpatient clinics, 300 Vet Centers, 6 

independent outpatient clinics, 11 mobile outpatient clinics, and 70 mobile Vet Centers. 

Technology supports Veterans' education and disability claims processing, claims 

payments, home loans, insurance, and memorial services. Our IT infrastructure 

consists of telephone lines, data networks, servers, workstations, printers, cell phones, 

and mobile applications. 
231 

No Veteran should have to wait months or years for the benefits that they have 

earned. We will eliminate the disability claims backlog in 2015; technology is the critical 

component for achieving our goal. VA is deploying technology solutions to improve 

access, drive automation, reduce variance, and enable faster and more efficient 

operations. Building on the resources Congress has provided in recent years to expand 

our claims processing capacity, the 2014 budget requests $291 million for technology to 

eliminate the claims backlog- $155 million in Veterans Benefits management System 

(VBMS) for our new paperless processing system, and $136 million in the Veterans 

Benefits Administration (VBAl to support a Veterans Claims Intake Program, our new 

online application system that will allow for the conversion of paper to digital images for 

our new paperless processing system, the Veterans Benefits Management System 

(VBMS). Without these resources, VA WIll be unable to meet its goal to eliminate the 

disability claims backlog in 2015. 

fnformation Technology 

At VA, advances in technology -- and the adoption of and reliance on IT in our 

daily commercial life -- have been dramatic. Technology is integral to providing high 

quality healthcare and benefits. The 2014 budget requests $3.683 billion for IT, an 

increase of $359 million from the President's 2013 Budget, reflecting the critical role 

technology plays in VA's daily work in serving and caring for Veterans and their families. 

Of the total request, $2.2 billion will support the operation and maintenance of our digital 

infrastructure and $495 million Is for IT development modernization and enhancement 

projects. 

The 2014 budget includes $32,8 million for development of V8MS, our new 

paperless processing system that enables VA to move from its current paper-based 

process to a digital operating environment that improves access, drives automation, 

reduces variance, and enables faster, more efficient operations. As we increase claims 

examiners' use of VBMS version 4.2 to process rating disability claims, our major focus 

is on system performance, as we tune the system to be responsive and effective. VA 

will complete the rollout of VBMS in June 2013. 

In addition, the 2014 budget includes $120 million for development of the 

Veterans Relationship Management (VRM) initiative, which enhances Veterans' access 

to comprehensive VA services and benefits, especially in the delivery of compensation 

and penSion claims processing. The program gives Veterans secure, personalized 

access to benefits and information and allows a timely response to their inquiries. 

Recently, VRM released Veterans Online Application Direct Connect (VDC), which 

enables Veterans to apply for VBA benefits by answering guided interview questions 

through the security of the eBenefits portal. Claims filed through eBenefits use VOC to 

load information and data directly into VBMS. 

The Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) is an overarching program which aims to 

share health, benefits, and administrative information, including personnel records and 

military history records, among 000, VA, SSA, private health care providers, and other 
232 

Federal, State and local government partners. eBenefits is already reaching 2 million 

Veterans and Servicemembers and 1 million active users with BlueButton. The 2014 

budget requests $15.4 million for VLER to develop and support these functions as well 

as the Warrior Support Veterans Tracking Application; the Disability Benefits 

Questionnaires; a VAiDoD joint health information sharing project known as 

Bidirectional Health Information Exchange; and a storage interface known as Clinical 

Data Repository/Health Data Repository. All of these efforts are designed to enable the 

sharing of health, military personnel and personal information among VA, other Federal 

agencies, Veteran Service Organizations and private health care providers to expedite 

the award and processing of disability claims and other services such as education, 

training and job placement. 

Eliminating the Claims Backlog 

Too many Veterans wait too long to receive benefits they have earned. This is 

unacceptable. Today's claims backlog is the result of several factors, including: 

increased demand; aver a decade of war with many Veterans returning with more 

severe, complex injuries; decisions on Agent Orange, Gulf War, and combat PTSD 

presumptions; and, successful outreach to Veterans informing them of their benefits. 

These facts, in no way, diminish the urgency that we all feel at VA to fix this problem 

which has been decades in the making. VA remains focused on eliminating the 

disability claims backlog in 2015 and proceSSing all claims within 125 days at a 98-

percent accuracy level. 

To deliver this goal, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is implementing 

a comprehensive transformation plan based on more than 40 targeted initiatives to 

boost productivity by over the next several years However, as VBA transforms its 

people, processes, and technologies, its claims demand is expected to exceed on 

million annually. From 2010 through 2012, for the first time in its history, VBA 

processed more than one million claims in three consecutive years. In 2013, VBA 

expects to receive another million claims and similar levels of demand are anticipated in 

2014. This is driven by successful outreach, claims growth not previously captured in 

VBA's baseline, and new requirements. Included are mandatary Servicemember 

participation in VOWNEI benefits briefings and an expected increase upon successful 

completion of a transition assistance program, revamped by the President as Transition: 

Goals, Plan, Success (GPS). As more than one million troops leave service over the 

next 5 years, we expect our claims workload to continue to rise. In addition, VBA is 

experiencing an unprecedented workload growth arising from the number and 

complexity of medical conditions in Veterans' compensation claims. The average 

number of claimed conditions for our recently separated Servicemembers is now in the 

12 to 16 range - roughly 5 times the number of disabilities claimed by Veterans of 

earlier eras. While the increase in compensation applications presents challenges, it is 

also an indication that we are being successful in our efforts to expand access to VA 

benefits. 
233 

Investments in transformation of our people, processes, and technologies are 

already paying off in terms of improved performance. For example: 

• People: More than 2,100 claims processors have completed Challenge Training, 

which improves the quality and productivity of VBA compensation claims decision 

makers. As a result of Challenge Training, VBA's new employees complete 

more claims per day than their predecessors - with a 30 percent increase in 

accuracy. 

VBA's new standardized organizational model incorporates a case-management 

approach to claims processing that organizes its workforce into cross-functional 

teams that work together on one of three segmented lanes: express, special 

operations, or core. Claims that predictably can take less time will flow through 

an express lane (30 percent); those taking more time or requiring special 

handling will flow through a special operations lane (10 percent); and the rest of 

the claims flow through the core lane (60 percent). Initially planned for 

deployment throughout 2013, VBA accelerated the implementation of the new 

organizational model by nine months due to early indications of its positive 

impact on performance. 

VBA instituted Quality Review Teams (QRTs) in 2012 to improve employee 

training and accuracy while decreasing rework time. QRTs focus on improving 

performance on the most common sources of error in the claims processing 

cycle. Today, for example, QRTs are focused on the process by which proper 

physical examinations are ordered; incorrect or insufficient exams previously 

accounted for 30 percent of VBA's error rate. As a result of this focus, VBA has 

seen a 23 percent improvement in this area. 

• Process: Disability Benefits Questionnaires (08Qs) are online forms used by 

non-VA physicians to submit medical evidence. Use of DBQs has improved 

timeliness and accuracy of VHA-provided exams - average processing time 

improved by 6 days from June 2011 to October 2012 (from 32 to 26 days). 

Fully developed claims (FDCs) are critical to reducing "wait time" and "rework." 

FoCs include all DoD service medical and personnel records, including entrance 

and exit exams, applicable oBQs, any private medical records, and a fully 

completed claim form. Today, VBA receives 4.5 percent of claims in fully 

developed form and completes them in 117 days, while a regular claim takes 262 

days to process. Fulfilling the Veterans Claims Assistance Act, to search for 

potential evidence, is the greatest portion of the current 262-day process. The 

Veterans Benefit Act of 2003 allows Veterans up to 365 days, from the date of 

VA notice for additional information or evidence, to provide documentation. Of 

the 262 days to complete a regular claim, approximately145 days are spent 

waiting for potential evidence to qualify the application as a fully developed claim. 

VBA built new decision-support tools to make our employees more efficient and 

their decisions more consistent and accurate. Rules-based calculators provide 
234 

suggested evaluations for certain conditions using objective data and rulesbased functionality, The Evaluation Builder uses a series of check boxes that are 

associated with the Veteran's symptoms to help determine the proper diagnostic 

code of over BOO codes, as weI! as the appropriate level of compensation based 

on the Veteran's symptoms, 

• Technology: The centerpiece of VBNs transformation pian is V8MS - a new 

paperless electronic claims processing system that employs rules-based 

technology to improve decision speed and accuracy, For our Veterans, VBMS 

will mean faster, higher-quality, and more consistent decisions on claims, Our 

strategy includes active stakeholder participation (Veterans Service Officers, 

State Departments of Veterans Affairs, County Veterans Service Officers, and 

Department of Defense) to provide digital electronic files and claims pre-scanned 

through online claims submission via the eBenefits Web portaL 

• VBA recently established the Veterans Claims Intake Program (VCIP), This 

program will streamline processes for receiving records and data into V8MS and 

other VBA systems, Scanning operations and the transfer of Veteran data into 

VBMS are primary intake capabilities thai are managed by VCIP, As VBMS is 

deployed to additional regional offices, document scanning becomes increasingly 

important as the main mechanism for transitioning from paper-based claim 

folders to the new electronic environment. 

There are other ways that VA is working to eliminate the claims backlog, VHA 

has implemented multiple initiatives to expedite timely and efficient delivery of medical 

evidence needed to process a disability claim by VBA, As a result, timeliness improved 

by nearly one-third, from an average of 38 days in January 2011 to 26 days in October 

2012. Recently, VA launChed Acceptable Clinical Evidence (ACE), an initiative that 

allows clinicians to review existing medical evidence and determine whether they can 

use that evidence to complete a DBQ without requiring the Veteran to report for an inperson examination, This initiative was developed by both VHA and VBA in a joint effort 

to provide a Veteran-centric approach for disability examinations, Use of the ACE 

process opens the possibility of doing assessments without an in-person examination 

when there is sufficient information in the record, 

Another way to eliminate the claims backlog is by working closely with the 000, 

The Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) is a collaborative system to make 

disability evaluations seamless, Simple, fast and fair. If the Service member is found 

medically unfit for duty, the IDES gives them a proposed VA disability rating before they 

leave the service, These ratings are normally based on VA examinations that are 

conducted using required IDES examination templates, In FY 2012, IDES partiCipants 

were notified of VA benefit entitlement in an average of 54 days after discharge, This 

reflects an improvement from 67 days in May 2012 to 49 days in September 2012, 

The Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BOD) and Quick Start programs are two 

other collaborations for Servicemembers to file claims for service-connected disabilities, 
235 

This can be done from 180 to 60 days prior to separation or retirement. BOD claims are 

accepted at every VA Regional Office and at intake sites on military installations in the 

U.S., and at two intake site locations overseas. In 2012, BOD received more than 

30,300 claims and completed 24,944 •• a 14% increase over 2011 's productivity 

(21,657), During this same period of time Quick Start decreased their rating inventory 

by over 44 percent 

Expanding Access to Benefits and Services 

VA remains committed to ensuring that Veterans are not only aware of the 

benefits and services that they are entitled to, but that they are able to access them. 

We are improving access to VA services by opening new or improved facilities closer to 

where Veterans live. Since 2009, we have added 57 community-based outpatient 

clinics (CBOCs), for a total of 840 CBOCs through 2013, and increased the number of 

mobile outpatient clinics and mobile Vet Centers, serving rural Veterans, to 81. Last 

August, we opened a state-of-the-art medical center in Las Vegas, the first new VAMC 

in 17 years. The 2014 medical care budget request includes $799 million to open new 

and renovated healthcare facilities and includes the authorization request for 28 new 

and replacement medical leases to increase Veteran access to services. 

Today, access is much more than the ability to walk into a VA medical facility; It 

also includes technology, and programs, as well as, facilities. Expanding access 

includes taking the facility to the Veteran -- be it virtually through telehealth, by sending 

Mobile Vet Centers to rural areas where services are scarce, or by using social media 

sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to connect Veterans to VA benefits and 

faCilities. Telehealth is a major breakthrough in healthcare delivery in 21st century 

medicine, and is particularly important for Veterans who live in rural and remote areas. 

The 2014 budget requests $460 million for telehealth, an increase of $388 million, or 

542 percent, since 2009. 

As more Veterans access our healthcare services, we recognize their unique 

needs and the needs of their families-many have been affected by multiple, lengthy 

deployments. VA provides a comprehensive system of 11igll-quality mental health 

treatment and services to Veterans, We are using many tools to recruit and retain our 

large mental healthcare workforce to better serve Veterans by providing enhanced 

services, expanded access, longer clinic hours, and increased telemental health 

capabilities. In response to increased demand over the last four years, VA has 

enhanced its capacity to deliver needed mental health services and to improve the 

system of care so that Veterans can more readily access them. Since 2006, the 

number of Veterans receiving specialized mental health treatment has risen each year, 

from over 927,000 to more than 1.3 million in 2012, partly due to proactive screening. 

Outpatient visits have increased from 14 million in 2009 to over 17 million in 2012. VA 

believes that mental health care must constantly evolve and improve as new knowledge 

becomes available through research. 
236 

The 2014 budget includes $168.5 million for the Veterans Relationship 

Management (VRM) initiative, which is fundamentally transforming Veterans' access to 

VA benefits and services by empowering VA clients with new self-service tools. VA has 

already made major strides under this initiative. Most recently, in November 2012, VRM 

added new features to eBenefits, a Web application that allows Veterans to access their 

VA benefits and submit some claims online. Veterans can now enroll in and manage 

their insurance policies, select reserve retirement benefits, and browse the Veterans 

Benefits Handbook from the e8enefits Website. With the help of Google mapping 

services, the update also enables Veterans to find VA representatives in their area and 

where they are located. Since its inception in 2009, eBenefits has added more than 45 

features allowing Veterans easier, quicker, and more convenient access to their VA 

benefits and personal information. 

V8A has aggressively promoted eBenefits and the ease of enrolling into the 

system. We currently have over 2.5 million registered eBenefits users. Users can check 

the status of claims or appeals, review VA payment history, obtain military documents, 

and perform numerous other benefit actions through eBenefits The Stakeholder 

Enterprise Portal (SEP) is a secure Web-based access point for VA's business partners. 

This electronic portal provides the ability for VSOs and other external VA business 

partners to represent Veterans quickly and efficiently. 

VA also continues to increase access to burial services for Veterans and their 

families through the largest expansion of its national cemetery system since the Civil 

War. At present, approximately 90 percent of the Veteran population-about 20 million 

Veterans-has access to a burial option in a national, state, or tribal Veterans cemetery 

within 75 miles of their homes. In 2004, only 75 percent of Veterans had such access. 

This dramatic increase is the result of a comprehensive strategiC planning process that 

results in the most efficient use of resources to reach the greatest number of Veterans. 

Ending Veteran Homelessness 

The last of our three priority goals is to end homelessness among Veterans in 

2015. Since 2009, we have reduced the estimated number of homeless Veterans by 

more than 17 percent. The January 2012 Point-In-Time estimate, the latest available, is 

62,619. We have also created a National Homeless Veterans Registry to track our 

known homeless and at-risk populations closely to ensure resources end up where they 

are needed. In 2012, over 240,000 homeless or at-risk Veterans accessed benefits or 

services through VA and 96,681 homeless or at -risk Veterans were assessed by 

VHA's homeless programs. Over 31,000 homeless and at-risk Veterans and their 

families obtained permanent housing through VA specialized homeless programs. 

In the 2014 budget, VA is requesting $1.393 billion for programs to assist 

homeless Veterans, through programs such as Department of HOUSing and Urban 

Development-VASupportive Housing (HUD-VASH), Grant and Per Diem, Homeless 

Registry, and Health Care for Homeless Veterans. This represents an increase of $41 
237 

million, or 3 percent over the 2013 enacted level. This budget will support our long. 

range plan to end Veteran homelessness by emphasizing rescue and prevention --

rescue for those who are homeless today, and prevention for those at risk of 

homeless ness. 

Our prevention strategy includes close partnerships with some 150 community 

non·profits through the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program; 

SSVF grants promote housing stability among homeless and at-risk Veterans and their 

families. The grants can have an immediate impact, helping lift Veterans out of 

homelessness or providing aid in emergency situations that put Veterans and their 

families at risk of homelessness. In 2012, we awarded $100 million in Supportive 

Service grants to help Veterans and families avoid life on the streets. We are currently 

reviewing proposals for the $300 million in grants we will distribute later this year. In 

2012, SSVF resources directly helped approximately 21,000 Veterans and over 35,000 

household members, including nearly 9,000 children. This year's grants will help up to 

70,000 Veterans and family members avoid homeless ness. The 2014 budget includes 

$300 million for SSVF. ' 

To increase homeless Veterans' access to benefits, care, and services, VA 

established the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans (NCCHV). The NCCHV 

provides homeless Veterans and Veterans at-risk for homelessness free, 2417 access to 

trained counselors. The call center is intended to assist homeless Veterans and their 

families, VA medical centers, federal, state and local partners, community agencies, 

service providers, and others in the community. Family members and non-VA providers 

who call on behalf of homeless Veterans are provided with information on VA homeless 

programs and services. In 2012, the National Call Center for Homeless Veterans 

received 80,558 calls (123 percent increase) and the center made 50,608 referrals to 

VA medical centers (133 percent increase). 

VA'S Homeless Patient Aligned Care Teams (H·PACTs) program provides a 

coordinated "medical home" specifically taiiored to the needs of homeless Veterans. 

The program integrates clinical care with delivery of social services and enhanced 

access and community coordination. Implementation of this model is expected to 

address health disparity and equity issues facing the hOmeless population. Expected 

program outcomes include reduced emergency department use and hospitalizations, 

improved chronic disease management, and improved "housing readiness" with fewer 

Veterans returning to homelessness once housed. 

During 2012, 119,878 unique homeless Veterans were served by the Health 

Care for Homeless Veterans Program (HCHV), an increase of more than 21 percent 

from 2011. At more than 135 sites, HCHV offers outreach, exams, treatment, referrals, 

and case management to Veterans who are homeless and dealing with mental health 

issues, including substance use. Initially serving as a mechanism to contract with 

providers for community-based residential treatment for homeless Veterans, many 

HCHV programs now serve as the hub for myriad housing and other services that 
238 

provide VA with a way to outreach and assist homeless Veterans by offering them entry 

to VA medical care. 

VA's Homeless Veterans Apprenticeship Program was established in 2012--a 1-

year paid employment training program for Veterans who are homeless or at risk of 

homelessness. This program created paid employment positions as Cemetery 

Caretakers at five of our 131 national cemeteries. The initial class of 21 homeless 

Veterans is simultaneously enrolled in VHA's Homeless Veterans Supported 

Employment program. Apprentices who successfully complete 12 months of 

competency-based training will be offered permanent full-time employment at a national 

cemetery. Successful participants will receive a Certificate of Competency which can 

also be used to support employment applications in the private sector. 

Another avenue of assistance is through Veterans Treatment Courts, which were 

developed to avoid unnecessary incarceration of Veterans who have developed mental 

health problems. The goal of Veterans Treatment Courts is to divert those with mental 

health issues and homelessness from the traditional justice system and to give them 

treatment and tools for rehabilitation and readjustment. While each Veterans Treatment 

Court is part of the local community's justice system, they form close working 

partnerships with VA and Veterans' organizations. As of early 2012 there are 88 

Courts. 

The Veterans Justice Outreach (VJO) program exists to connect these justiceinvolved Veterans with the treatment and other services that can help prevent 

homelessness and facilitate recovery, whether or not they live in a community that has a 

Veterans Treatment Court. Each VA Medical Center has at least one deSignated justice 

outreach speCialist who functions as a link between VA, Veterans, and the local justice 

system. Although VA cannot treat Veterans while they are incarcerated, these 

specialists provide outreach, assessment and linkage to VA and community treatment, 

and other services to both incarcerated Veterans and justice-involved Veterans who 

have not been incarcerated. 

Multi-Year Plan for Medical Care Budget 

Under the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009, 

which we are grateful to Congress for passing; VA submits its medical care budget that 

includes an advance appropriations request in each budget submission. The legislation 

requires VA to plan its medical care budget using a multi-year approach. This policy 

ensures that VA requirements are reviewed and updated based on the most recent data 

available and actual program experience. 

The 2014 budget request for VA medical care appropriations is $54.6 billion, an 

increase of 3.7 percent over the 2013 enacted level of $52.7 billion. The request is an 

increase of $157.5 million above the enacted 2014 advance appropriations level. 

Based on updated 2014 estimates largely derived from the Enrollee Health Care 
239 

Projection Model. the requested amount would allow VA to increase funding in 

programs to eliminate Veteran homelessness; continue implementation of the 

Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act; fulfill multiple responsibilities 

under the Affordable Care Act; provide for activation requirements for new or 

replacement medical facilities; and invest in strategic initiatives to improve the quality 

and accessibility of VA healthcare programs. Our multi-year budget plan assumes that 

VHA will carry over negligible unobligated balances from 2013 into 2014 - consistent 

with the 2013 budget submitted to Congress. 

The 2015 request for medical care advance appropriations is $55.6 billion. an 

increase of $1.1 billion. or 1.9 percent. over the 2014 budget request. Medical care 

funding levels for 2015, including funding for activations. non-recurring maintenance. 

and initiatives. will be revisited during the 2015 budget process. and could be revised to 

reflect updated information on known funding requirements and unobligated balances. 

Medical Care Program 

The 2014 budget of $57.7 billion, including collections. provides for healthcare 

services to treat over 6.5 million unique patients, an increase of 1.3 percent over the 

2013 estimate. Of those unique patients. 4.5 million Veterans are in Priority Groups 1-

6. an increase of more than 71.000 or 1,6 percent. Additionally. VA anticipates treating 

over 674,000 Veterans from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. an increase of over 

67.000 patients. or 11.1 percent, over the 2013 level. VA also provides medical care to 

non-Veterans through programs such the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) and the Spina Bifida Health Care Program; 

this population is expected to increase by over 17,000 patients, 2.6 percent, during the 

same time period. 

The 2014 budget proposes to extend the Administration's current policy to freeze 

Veterans' pharmacy co-payments at the 2012 rates. until January 2015. Under this 

policy, which will be implemented in a future rulemaking, co-payments will continue at 

$8 for Veterans in Priority Groups 2 through 6 and at $9 for Priority Groups 7 through 8. 

The 2014 budget requests $47 million to provide health care for Veterans who 

were potentially exposed to contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune as required 

by the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 

2012. enacted last August. Since VA began implementation of the law and in January 

2013. 1.400 Veterans have contacted us concerning Camp Lejeune. Of these. roughly 

1.100 were already enrolled in VA healthcare. Veterans who are eligible for care under 

the Camp Lejeune authority, regardless of current enrollment status with VA. will not be 

charged a co-payment for healthcare related to the 15 illnesses or conditions 

recognized. nor will a third-party insurance company be billed for these services. In 

2015, VA expects to start treating family members as authorized under the law and has 

included $25 million for this purpose within the 2015 advance appropriations request. 
240 

VA continues a robust outreach campaign to these Veterans and family members while 

we press forward with implementing this complex new law, 

Menta/ Healthcare and Suicide Prevention 

At VA, we have the opportunity and Ihe responsibility to anticipate the needs of 

returning Veterans. Mental healthcare at VA is a system of comprehensive treatments 

and services to meet the individual mental health needs of Veterans. VA is expanding 

mental health programs and is integrating mental health services with primary and 

specialty care to provide better coordinated care for our Veteran patients, Our 2014 

budget provides nearly $7.0 billion for mental healthcare, an increase of $469 million, or 

7.2 percent, over 2013. Since 2009, VA has increased funding for mental health 

services by 56.9 percent. VA provided mental health services to 1,391,523 patients in 

2012, 58,000 more than in 2011. 

To serve the growing number of Veterans seeking mental healthcare, VA has 

deployed significant resources and is increasing the number of staff in support of mental 

health services. Consistent with the President's August 31,2012 Executive Order, VHA 

is on target 10 complete the goal of hiring 1,600 additional mental health clinical 

providers and 300 administrative support staff by June 30, 2013 to meet the growing 

demand for mental health services. In addition, as part of VA's efforts to implement the 

Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, VA has hired over 100 

Peer Specialists in recent months, and is hiring and training nearly 700 more, 

Additionally, VA has awarded a contract to the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance 

to provide certification training for Peer Specialists. This peer staff is expected to be 

hired by December 31,2013, and will work as members of mental health teams. 

In addition to hiring more mental health workers, VA is developing electronic 

tools to help VA clinicians manage the mental health needs of their patients. Clinical 

Reminders give clinicians timely information about patient health maintenance 

schedules, and the High-Risk Mental Health National Reminder and Flag system allows 

VA clinicians to flag patients who are at-risk for suicide. When an at-risk patient does 

not keep an appointment, Clinical Reminders prompt the clinician to follow-up with the 

Veteran. 

Since its inception in 2007, the Veterans Crisis Line in Canandaigua, New York, 

has answered over 725,000 calls and responded to more than 80,000 chats and 5,000 

texts from Veterans in need. In the most serious calls, approximately 26,000 men and 

women have been rescued from a suicide in progress because of our intervention-the 

equivalent of two Army divisions. 

We recently completed a 2012 VA suicide data report, a result of the most 

comprehensive review of Veteran suicide rates ever undertaken by VA. We are working 

hard to understand this issue - and VA and DoD have jointly funded a $100 million 

suicide research project. We will be better informed about suicides, but while research 

is ongoing, we are taking immediate action and are not waiting 10 years for final study 
241 

outcomes. These actions include Veterans Chat on the Veterans Crisis Line, local 

Suicide Prevention Coordinators' for counseling and services, and availability of 

VAiDoD Suicide Outreach resources. 

Tile Affordable Care Act 

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expands access to coverage, reins in health 

care costs, and improves the Nation's health care delivery system. The Act has 

important implications for VA. Beginning in 2014, many uninsured Americans, including 

Veterans, will have access to quality, affordable health insurance choices through 

Health Insurance Marketplaces, also known as Exchanges, and may be eligible for 

premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions to make coverage more affordable. 

The 2014 budget requests $85 million within the Medical Care request and $3.4 million 

within the Information Technology request to fulfill multiple responsibilities as a provider 

of Minimum Essential Coverage under the Affordable Care Act, including: (1) providing 

outreach and communication on ACA to Veterans related to VA health care; (2) 

reporting to Treasury on individuals who are enrolled in the VA healthcare system; and 

(3) providing a written statement to each enrolled Veteran about their coverage by 

January 2015. 

Medical Care in Rural Areas 

VA remains committed to the delivery of medical care in rural areas of our 

country. For that reason, in 2012, we obligated $248 million to support the efforts of the 

Office of Rural Health to improve access and quality of care for enrolled Veterans who 

live in rural areas. Some 3.4 million Veterans enrolled in the VA healthcare system live 

in rural or highly rural areas of the country; this represents about 41 percent of all 

enrolled Veterans. For that reason, VA wilf continue to emphasize rural health in our 

budget planning, including addressing the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native 

(AllAN) Veterans. 

VA is committed to expanding access to the full range of VA programs to eligible 

AllAN Veterans. Last year, VA signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Indian 

Health Service (IHS), through which VA will reimburse IHS for direct care services 

provided to eligible American Indian and Alaska Native Veterans. While the national 

agreement applies only 10 VA and IHS, it will inform agreements negotiated between the 

VA and tribal health programs. 

This follows the agreement already in place between VA and IHS whereby nearly 

250,000 patients served by IHS have utilized a prescription program that allows IHS 

pharmacies to use VA's Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy (CMOP) to process 

and mail prescription refills for IHS patients. By accessing the service, IHS patients can 

now have their prescriptions mailed to them, in many cases eliminating the need to pick 

them up at an IHS pharmacy. 
242 

Women Veterans Medical Care 

Changing demographics are also driving change at VA. Today, we have over 2.2 

million women Veterans in our country; they are the fastest growing segment of our 

Veterans' population. Since 2009, the number of women Veterans enrolled in VA 

healthcare increased by almost 22 percent, to 591,500. However, by 2022 -- less than 

a decade from now -- their number is projected to spike to almost 2.5 million, and an 

estimated 900,000 will be enrolled in VA healthcare. 

The 2014 budget requests $422 million, an increase of 134 percent since 2009, 

for gender-specific medical care for women Veterans. Since 2009, we have invested 

$25.5 million in improvements to women Veterans' clinics and opened 19 new ones. 

Today, nearly 50 percent of our facilities have comprehensive women's clinics, and 

every VA healthcare system has designated women's health primary care providers, 

and has a women Veteran's program manager on staff. 

In 2012, VA awarded 32 grants totaling $2 million to VA facilities for projects that 

will improve emergency healthcare services for women Veterans, expand women's 

health education programs for VA staff, and offer telehealth programs to female 

Veterans in rural areas. These new projects will improve access and quality of critical 

healthcare services for women. This is the largest number of one-year grants VA has 

ever awarded for enhancing women's health services. 

Medical Research 

Medical Research is being supported with $586 million in direct appropriations in 

2014, with an additional $1.3 billion in funding support from VA's medical care program 

and through Federal and non-Federal grants. VA Research and Development will 

support 2,224 projects during 2014. 

Projects funded in 2014 will be focused on supporting development of New 

Models of Care, identifying or developing new treatments for Gulf War Veterans, 

improving social reintegration following traumatic brain injury, reducing suicide, 

evaluating the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine, developing 

blood tests to assist in the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and mild 

traumatic brain injury, and advancing genomic medicine. 

The 2014 budget continues support for the Million Veteran Program (MVP), an 

unprecedented research program that advances the promises of genomiC science, The 

MVP will establish a database, used only by authorized researchers in a secure 

manner, to conduct health and wellness studies to determine which genetiC variations 

are associated with particular health issues - potentially helping the health of America's 

Veterans and the general public. MVP recently enrolled its 100,000th volunteer 

research partiCipant, and by the end of 2013, the goal is to enroll at least 150,000 

partiCipants in the program. 
243 

Veterans Benefits Administration 

The 2014 budget request of $2.455 billion for VBA, an increase of $294 m:llion in 

discretionary funds from the 2013 enacted level, is vital to the transformation strategy 

that drives our performance improvements focused most squarely on the backlog. 

Virtually all 860,000 claims in the VBA inventory, including the 600,000 claims 

that have been at VA for over 125 days and are considered backlogged, exist only in 

paper. Our transition to VBMS and electronic claims processing is a massive and 

crucial phase in VBA transformation. VA awarded two VCIP contracts in 2012 to 

provide document conversion services that will populate the electronic claims folder, or 

eFolder, in VBMS with images and data extracted from paper and other source material. 

Without VCIP, we cannot populate the eFolder on which the VBMS system relies. The 

2014 request for $136 million for our scanning services contracts Will ensure that we 

remain on track to reach this key goal. In addition, the budget request includes $4.9 

million for help desk support for Veterans using the Veterans On-Line 

Application/eBenefits system. 

VBA projects a beneficiary caseload of 4.6 million in 2014, with more than $70 

billion in compensation and pension benefits obligations. We expect to process 1.2 

miliion compensation claims in 2014, and we are pursuing improvements that will 

enable us to meet the emerging needs of Veterans and their families. 

Veterans Employment 

Under the leadership of President Obama, VA, 000, the Department of Labor, 

and the entire Federal government have made Veterans employment one of their 

highest priorities. In August 2011, the President announced his comprehensive plan to 

address this issue and to ensure that all of America's Veterans have the support they 

need and deserve when they leave the military, look for a job, and enter the civilian 

workforce. He created a new DoD-VA Employment Initiative Task Force that would 

develop a new training and services delivery model to help strengthen the transition of 

our Veteran Servicemembers from military to civilian life. VA has worked closely with 

other partners in the Task Force to identify its responsibilities and ensure delivery of the 

President's vision. On November 21,2012, the effective date of the VOW Act, VA 

began deployment of the enhanced VA benefits briefings under the revised Transition 

Assistance Program (TAP), called Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success). VA will also 

provide training for the optiona! Technical Training Track Curriculum and partiCipate in 

the Capstone event, which will ensure that separating Servicemembers have the 

opportunity to verify that they have met Career Readiness Standards and are steered to 

the resources and benefits available to them as Veterans. Accordingly, the 2014 

budget requests $104 million to support the implementation of Transition GPS and meet 

VA's responsibilities under the VOW Act and the President's Veterans Employment 

Initiative. 
244 

Veterans Job Corps 

In his State of the Union address in 2012, President Obama called for a new 

Veterans Job Corps initiative to help our retuming Veterans find pathways to civilian 

employment The 2014 budget includes $1 billion in mandatory funding to develop a 

Veterans Job Corps conservation program that will put up to 20,000 Veterans back to 

work over the next five years protecting and rebuilding America. Jobs will include park 

maintenance projects, patrolling public lands, rehabilitating natural and recreational 

areas, and administrative, technical, and law enforcement-related activities. 

Additionally, Veterans will help make a significant dent in the deferred maintenance of 

our Federal, State, local, and tribal lands including jobs that will repair and rehabilitate 

trails, roads, levees, recreation facilities and other assets. The program will serve all 

Veterans, but will have a particular focus 011 post-9f11 Veterans. 

Post 9-11 and other Education Programs 

Since 2009, VA has provided over $25 billion in Post-9f11 GI Bill benefits to 

cover the education and training of more than 893,000 Servicemembers, Veterans, 

family members, and survivors. We are now working with Student Veterans of America 

to track graduation and training completion rates. 

The Post-9f11 Gl Bill continues to be a focus of VBA transformation as it 

implements the Long-Term Solution (L TS). At the end of February we had 

apprOXimately 60,000 education claims pending, 70 percent lower than the total claims 

pending the same time last year. The average days to process Post-9f11 GI Bill 

supplemental claims has decreased by 17 days, from 23 days in September 2012 to 6 

days in February 2013. The average time to process initial Post-9/11 GI Bill original 

education benefit claims in February was 24 days. 

National Cemetery Administration 

The 2014 budget includes $250 million in operations and maintenance funding for 

the National cemetery Administration (NCA). As we move forward into the next fiscal year, 

NCA projects our workload numbers will continue to increase. For 2014, we antiCipate 

conducting approximately 121,000 interments of Veterans or their family members, 

maintaining and providing perpetual care for approximately 3.4 million gravesites. NCA will 

also maintain 9,000 developed acres and process approximately 345,000 headstone and 

marker applications. 

Revi€!w of National C;emeteries 

For the first time in the 150-year history of national cemeteries, NCA has 

completed a self-initiated, comprehensive review of the entire inventory of 3.2 million 

headstones and markers within the 131 national cemeteries and 33 Soldiers' Lots it 

maintains. The information gained was invaluable in validating current operations and 
245 

ensuring a sustainment plan is in place to enhance our management practices. The 

review was part of NCA's ongoing effort to ensure the full and accurate accounting of 

remains interred in VA national cemeteries. Families of those buried in our national 

shrines can be assured their loved ones will continue to be cared for into perpetuity. 

Veterans Emplovment 

NCA continues to maintain its commitment to hiring Veterans. Currently, 

Veterans comprise over 74 percent of its workforce. Since 2009, NCA has hired over 

400 returning Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans. In addition, 82 percent of contracts in 

2012 were awarded to Veteran-owned and service-disabled Veteran-owned small 

businesses. NCA's committed, Veteran-centric workforce is the main reason it is able to 

provide a world-class level of customer service. NCA received the highest score-94 

out of 100 possible-in the 2010 American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) 

sponsored by the University of Michigan. This was the fourth time NCA participated and 

the fourth time it received the top rating in the Nation. 

Parinerships 

NCA continues to leverage its partnerships to increase service for Veterans and 

their families. As a complement to the national cemetery system, NCA administers the 

Veterans Cemetery Grant Service (VCGS). There are currently 88 operational state 

and tribal cemeteries in 43 states, Guam, and Saipan, with 6 more under construction, 

Since 1978, VCGS has awarded grants totaling more than $500 million to establish, 

expand, or improve Veterans' cemeteries. In 2012, these cemeteries conducted over 

31,000 burials for Veterans and family members. 

NCA works closely with funera! directors and private cemeteries, two significant 

stakeholder groups, who assist with the coordination of committal services and 

interments. Funeral directors may also help families in applying for headstones, 

markers, and other memorial benefits. NCA partners with private cemeteries by 

furnishing headstones and markers for Veterans' gravesites in these private cemeteries. 

In January of this year, NCA announced the availability of a new online funeral directors 

resource kit that may be used by funeral directors nationwide when helping Veterans 

and their families make burial arrangements in VA national cemeteries. 

Capital Infrastructure 

A total of $1.1 billion is requested in 2014 for VA's major and minor construction 

programs. The capital asset budget reflects VA's commitment to provide safe, secure, 

sustainable, and accessible facilities for Veterans. The request also reflects the current 

fiscal climate and the great challenges VA faces in order to close the gap between our 

current status and the needs identified in our StrategiC Capital Investment Planning 

(SCIP) process. 
246 

Maior Construction 

The major construction request in 2014 is $342 million for one medical facility 

project and three National Cemeteries. The request will fund the completion of a mental 

health building in Seattle, Washington, to replace the existing, seismically deficient 

building, It will also increase access to Veteran burial services by providing a National 

Cemetery in Central East Florida; Omaha, Nebraska; and Tallahassee, Florida, 

The 2014 budget includes $5 million for NCA for advance planning activities. VA 

is in the process of establishing two additional national cemeteries in Western New York 

and Southern Colorado, according to the burial access policies included in the 2011 

budget These two new cemeteries, along with the three requested in 2014, will 

increase access to 550,000 Veterans. NCA has obligated approximately $16 million to 

acquire land in 2012 and 2013 for the planned new national cemeteries in Central East 

Florida; Tallahassee, Florida; and Omaha, Nebraska. 

Minor Construction 

In 2014, the minor construction request is $715 million, an increase of 17.8 

percent from the 2013 enacted level. it would provide for constructing, renovating, 

expanding and improving VA facilities, including planning, assessment of needs, 

gravesite expansions, site acquisition, and disposition. VA is placing a funding priority 

on minor construction projects in 2014 for two reasons. First, our aging infrastructure 

requires a focus on maintenance and repair of existing facilities, Second, the minor 

construction program can be implemented more quickly than the long-term major 

construction program to enhance Veterans' services, 

In light of the difficult fiscal outlook for our Nation, it's time to carefully consider 

VA's footprint and our real property portfolio. In 2012, VA spent approximately $23 

million to maintain unneeded buildings. Achieving significant reduction in unneeded 

space is a priority for the Administration and VA To support this priority, the President 

has proposed a Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA), which would allow agencies 

like VA to address the competing stakeholder interests, funding issues, and red tape 

that slows down or prevents the Federal Government from disposing of real estate. If 

enacted by Congress, this process would give VA more flexibility to dispose of property 

and improve the management of its inventory. 

Legislation 

Besides presenting VA's resource requirements to meet our commitment to the 

Nation's Veterans, the President's Budget also requests legislative action that we 

believe will benefit Veterans. There are many worthwhile proposals for your 

consideration, but let me highlight a few, For improvements to Veterans healthcare, our 

budget includes a measure to allow VA to provide Veterans with alternatives to longstay nursing homes, and enhance VA's ability to provide transportation services to 
247 

assist Veterans with accessing VA health care services. Our legislative proposals also 

request that Congress make numerous improvements to VA's critical homelessness 

programs, including allowing an increased focus on homeless Veterans with special 

needs, including women, those with minor dependents, the chronically mentally ill, and 

the terminally ill. 

We also are putting forward proposals aimed squarely at the disability claims 

backlog - such as establishing standard claims application forms-that are reasonable 

and thoughtful changes that go hand-In-hand with the ongoing transformation and 

modemization of our disability claims system. We are offering reforms to our Specially 

Adaptive Housing program that will remove rules that in some circumstances can 

arbitrarily limit the benefit. The budget's legislative proposals also include ideas for 

expanding and improving services in our nationai cemeteries. 

Finally, this budget includes provisions that will benefit Veterans and taxpayers 

by allowing for efficiencies and cost savings in VA's operations - for example, we are 

forwarding a proposal that would require that private health plans treat VA as a 

'partiCipating provider' - preventing those plans from limiting payments or excluding 

coverage for Veterans' non-service-connected conditions. VA merits having this status, 

and the additional revenue will fund medical care for Veterans. We are also requesting 

spending flexibility so that we can more effectively partner with other federal agencies, 

including 000, in pursuit of collaborations that will benefit Veterans and 

Servicemembers and deliver healthcare more efficiently. 

Summary 

Veterans stand ready to help rebuild the American middle class and return every 

dollar invested in them by strengthening our Nation. And we, at VA, will continue to 

implement the President's vision of a 21 st century VA, worthy of those who, by their 

service and sacrifice, have kept our Nation free. Thanks to the President's leadership 

and the solid support of Congress, we have made huge strides in our joumey to provide 

all generations of Veterans the best possible care and benefits through improved 

technology that they earned through their selfless service. We are committed to 

continue that journey, even as the numbers of Veterans using VA services increase in 

the coming years, through the responsible use of the resources provided in the 2014 

budget and 2015 advance appropriations requests. Again, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today and for your steadfast support of our Nation's Veterans. 
248 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Let me start. As I mentioned, you have a new announcement of 

a new initiative to expedite claims that have been waiting for over 

a year, and that is encouraging, and I am glad to see that the Department is taking action, but I do have some questions about how 

it is going to be implemented, and I wanted to ask you, if the VA 

determines the veteran’s final rating is lower than the provisional 

rating, will the Department seek to recover money that has already 

been paid to that veteran? 

Secretary Shinseki. Madam Chairman, you know, that is a question—what I would say is that, historically, when we have established a standard for a veteran, we have usually stayed with that. 

And let me call on Secretary Hickey here, but my intent is that the 

provisional rating that is provided will be on those issues for which 

we have clarity and documentation and we can render a decision. 

For issues where documentation is not provided, those are the 

issues that will remain open up to a year for veterans to locate, 

with our help even, documentation that would allow us to make a 

decision there. 

Secretary Hickey? 

Ms. HICKEY. Chairman Murray, thank you for the question and 

for your interest in this initiative, which we think is really important to ensure that we are taking care of those veterans who have 

waited the longest while we completed the more than 260,000 

Agent Orange Nehmer claims to take care of our Vietnam veterans 

over the last 2–1/2 years. 

We are using the provisions that allow us to make good decisions, so we will continue under this provisional criteria to use 

service treatment records, to use private medical records, to use the 

information available on our veterans in terms of the nature and 

character of their service. So all the similar evidence that we have 

used in previous decisions we will use again to ensure that we do 

not make any of those kinds of decisions. I do not expect to see any 

of those decisions where we overcompensate for a claim. 

The other thing that we will do is we will keep—the reason for 

the provisional decision, that would put a really huge safety net 

under every one of our veterans. We are going to keep the record 

for a whole year, the ability for our veterans to come back with additional evidence. And we will keep asking if we do not have— 

Chairman MURRAY. So the additional year will only be to provide 

information to have an additional claim, not to lower the claim? 

Ms. HICKEY. The reason for the year is to allow additional evidence to increase the rating, if necessary. So I think in that, it advantages our veterans for that additional year. And then they still 

have, after that, the same appeal processes that they have had in 

the past. So we do not anticipate having conditions where we overpay a veteran under this initiative. 

Chairman MURRAY. Mr. Secretary, are you going to need additional support from the Defense Department in order to meet the 

timelines you proposed? 

Secretary Shinseki. For these particular claims? 

Chairman MURRAY. Correct. 

Secretary Shinseki. We are dealing with claims in our inventory 

right now, and so we are—I think we have as much control as we 
249 

need. Of course, we work closely with the Defense Department on 

an ongoing basis because the sharing of data is something that 

goes on daily. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. There are a number of different services that are contingent on a disability rating. Benefits from health 

care, home loans, designation as a disabled veteran-owned small 

business, they all rely on the rating that you are talking about. 

How will this provisional rating affect those other benefits? 

Secretary Shinseki. Secretary Hickey? 

Ms. HICKEY. Chairman, thanks for the question. I will tell you 

that in the same way that we provide those additional benefits 

today associated with a claims decision, we will continue that avenue. 

I will say, though, that any veteran who is returning home today 

does not require a decision from us to seek the 5 years’ worth of 

medical care that this Congress made provision for. They can still 

get that by just showing up to one of the VA medical hospitals or 

clinics and get that medical care for free without a decision even 

today associated with this new initiative. It does not have an impact there. They still can get health care. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. Under this initiative, as you just described, there is the provisional rating that will be given to them, 

and then they can make continued claims. So are we looking at increasing the workload by requiring two ratings decisions instead of 

one? 

Ms. HICKEY. Chairman, we are not. We are actually trying to 

benefit the veteran who has been waiting the longest in this case. 

We want to get a decision to them. If that veteran returns after the 

fact saying, ‘‘I have additional information,’’ we will expedite that 

claim to the front of the line. We will re-rate it based on the additional information; then we will get them a final decision. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. There are a number of efforts going 

on, programs like Benefits Delivery at Discharge and fully developed claims process. Both have been successful. They need to be 

maintained. A successful Integrated Disability Evaluation System, 

the IDES, is critically important to our injured servicemembers. 

There is a lot of work that still needs to be done from both DOD 

and VA on that, and we cannot lose sight of keeping making improvements to fundamental issues in the claims processing that we 

still have. 

So are you going to be able to implement this new initiative and 

still support all those other efforts? 

Secretary Shinseki. Chairman Murray, that is our intent, and as 

you implied earlier, this requires a level of continuous synchronization between DOD and VA. 

As you know, BDD, Benefits Delivery at Discharge, Quick Start, 

IDES, Integrated Disability—these are DOD programs in which VA 

has provided our capability to support on medical exams. And so 

there is good collaboration there. We do this best when we have 

some indication of what the flow is, and then we match up. 

About the only times we have run into difficulty here is when the 

flow exceeded what we thought it was going to be, and then there 

is a period in which we have to generate additional capability. But 

these are things we work on a daily basis. 
250 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. I have a number of additional questions. I am going to let my Committee members go ahead. Senator 

Sessions had to leave for a few moments, so I will turn to Senator 

Ayotte first. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank 

all the witnesses for being here, for what you do is so important 

to the country, and how we treat our veterans is incredibly important. 

I wanted to ask you, Mr. Secretary, New Hampshire is a State 

that does not have a full-service veterans hospital. And, in fact, as 

you know, Alaska and Hawaii also do not, but they at least have 

an active-duty hospital there that New Hampshire does not have 

as well. So we have nearly 10 percent of our population—we are 

a State that serves—has served in the military, and many of our 

veterans are traveling long distances to get the care that they deserve and across State lines, and it is very difficult for many of 

them. 

So I wanted to ask you, does the VA have a plan to ensure that 

all States have access to a full-service veterans hospital? Or in the 

absence of a hospital, you have, for example, instances where you 

have entered into a contract, for example, with the Concord Hospital. And so while our veterans are waiting, we would like a fullservice hospital. But even access to health care that is already 

available to, for example, local hospitals would be very important 

to our veterans. 

Could you help me with that? 

Secretary Shinseki. Sure. Senator, I am going to call on Dr. 

Petzel here in a second, but let me just say up front, for 4 years 

now my commitment has been that veterans ought not to have to 

wait for access to health care, and so for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, this discussion about 5 years of care under VA is important. 

It also increases our responsibilities. And it is not just access, but 

it is access to quality health care. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Secretary Shinseki. And it should not matter whether it is a veteran living in a rural area or a veteran in an urban environment. 

And so we have to create the opportunities to meet those requirements. Whether it is a full-service hospital or some combination of 

working with quality hospitals that are currently available to us, 

we arrange our relationships to provide what the veterans deserve. 

And so with that, Dr.— 

Senator AYOTTE. Mr. Secretary, I certainly want to hear from the 

doctor. I just wanted to follow up, though. Would you agree with 

me that New Hampshire is certainly in a unique position vis-a-vis 

other States, not having that full-service access for our veterans? 

Secretary Shinseki. I would, Senator. But I would also say that 

in terms of the access criteria that I described, one of the things, 

for example, we do is provide fee basis for those veterans to quality 

medical facilities that are already there. And this is our fee-basis 

arrangement. I think we spend maybe $5 billion to provide that 

kind of access, and we are increasing it in the 2014 budget. 

Senator AYOTTE. I appreciate that, and I will have a couple of 

specific follow-ups on certain areas of our State with regard to 

more access. Thank you. 
251 

I wanted to allow the doctor to answer. 

Dr. PETZEL. Thank you, Senator. The Secretary described, I 

think, the situation quite well. Specifically in New Hampshire, we 

have a very extensive outpatient operation at Manchester and a 

number of community-based outpatient clinics around the State, as 

well as the access to telehealth. 

In Manchester particularly, there is specialty services as an outpatient available, and probably more than 90 percent of the health 

care needs of people are met in those kinds of services. We have 

what I would deem to be an excellent contract with Concord for the 

immediate hospitalization right in that metropolitan area of Manchester. And then for quaternary and tertiary care, people are referred, as they had been previously even with inpatient beds, to the 

Boston VA Medical Center and also to the White River Junction 

VA Medical Center. 

I think one of the most important indicators of the fact that this 

is working well is the satisfaction of the veterans that use health 

care in that area with the Concord contract. They are very satisfied. They have good access to really excellent inpatient care 

through that contract and through fee basis. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, Doctor, that contract with Concord is only 

providing that type of access to a limited number of veterans in our 

State. And so many of them that have to, for example, live in the 

North Country of our State, they are in a position where—and I 

would love to have you all come up to the northern part of our 

State and see the geography up there and see the mountainous terrain and where they are having to drive to get to White River 

Junction, and many of them just to get from the north part of the 

State to Manchester, 150 miles. And the same thing with trying to 

go over to Massachusetts. Many of them are having very— difficulty with it. 

So I wanted to ask you in particular, because the Concord contract, I agree, is a very positive thing, and it is my hope that you 

will expand that to other areas of the State that have many geographic challenges, including, for example, Berlin. I was up at 

Androscoggin Hospital recently, and they are very interested for 

the northern part of our State of having a similar contract that you 

already have in place with Concord. And I hope that that is something that you would consider, particularly in the northern part of 

New Hampshire. 

Dr. PETZEL. Yes, we would. 

Senator AYOTTE. I appreciate it. And as a follow-up to that, our 

delegation on a bipartisan basis, we appreciate, Mr. Secretary, that 

we have asked you in Colebrook, which is even farther north than 

Berlin that I just told you in New Hampshire, that you had written 

our delegation in July of 2012 saying that you were considering 

putting a telehealth technology partnership in that area. So I wanted to follow up on where that is. 

And then we have also requested a view if you would consider 

putting a part-time CBOC in that area in conjunction with the telehealth initiative, because it is so far north for our folks to go from 

there over to White River Junction, that they are having a lot of 

difficulties. And our veterans in our North Country deserve the 
252 

same kinds of access to other more populated areas of the state, I 

think you would agree. 

Dr. PETZEL. Thank you, Senator. We can explore both of those 

that you mentioned. The telehealth clinic, as I understand it, is 

proceeding apace. I do not know exactly where it sits now. We can 

certainly get back to you about that. And the partial clinic that you 

described, we will look into that. 

Senator AYOTTE. I really appreciate that, and this is something 

that my colleague Senator Shaheen and I have been working on together, and our entire delegation feels this is very important to our 

veterans, particularly in the northern part of our State. So thank 

you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, 

Secretary Shinseki and your team. There are two things I would 

like to raise. 

The first is just to note my continuing objection to the President’s 

decision to put the so-called chained CPI benefit cut in for Social 

Security recipients and for disabled veterans. The context for this 

is that a 100-percent disabled veteran who begins to receive benefits at age 30, which is not unheard of considering the young men 

and women who are sustaining very significant injuries overseas 

now, would see $1,425 less a year at age 45, $2,341 less a year at 

age 55, and $3,233 less a year at age 65. And as you know, we are 

not very profligate in our spending on these veterans. This is a 

pinch that they will really feel. 

And my take is that, at least with respect to Social Security, the 

COLA is too low already. When you look at the kind of things that 

seniors and disabled veterans are likely to be spending their resources on, it is food, it is health care, it is heat, and to a degree, 

perhaps also gasoline. When you look at those things, you look at 

2010, food was up 1.5 percent, medical care was up 3.3 percent, gas 

was up 13.5 percent, fuel oil was up 13.5 percent. The COLA went 

up zero percent. It strikes me that for that year the COLA was too 

low, not too high. 

You go to the next year, food was up 4.5 percent, health care was 

up 3.5 percent, gas was up 9.5 percent, fuel oil was up 14.3 percent. That is on top of the increases in the previous year, not incorporating them, so you would actually have to sum those increases 

and add a little bit for the compounding. Again, zero in the costof-living adjustment. 

So I think that this is a very misguided strategy, and I just want 

to serve notice to everybody in the administration who has a role 

in this that I intend to fight it with whatever means I have at my 

disposal. 

The second piece that I want to—you can comment on that if you 

want, but let me get my question I have to you out, which is something specific to Rhode Island. You have been to Rhode Island a 

couple of times to visit Senator Reed and myself, and each time I 

have talked to you about the problem we have that the VA has a 

terrific electronic health record, but if a veteran gets hit by a bus 

in Kennedy Plaza and rushed to the Rhode Island Hospital emer-
253 

gency room, it does not do them any good because the VA record 

is enclosed within the VA system. 

Rhode Island is one of the most advanced States in terms of developing electronic health records and providing true interoperability among different components. And we are working very hard 

to try to integrate the VA into that process. It is not easy. There 

are technical problems. There are funding problems and so forth. 

But what I would like to ask you to do is to convey your view, if 

it is your view, down to the folks in Rhode Island that this should 

be a priority for them. And to the extent that the so-called VLER 

Program, the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record initiative, is extended, I would like to have Rhode Island become—I think you call 

them ‘‘VLER,’’ ‘‘a VLER site.’’ 

I honestly do not think that there is a State that is further ahead 

than Rhode Island in terms of developing an interoperable electronic health record. There are individual companies that are 

where you can have a CEO direct here is what we are going to do, 

but in terms of a whole community of everybody, from the imagers 

to the laboratories to the hospitals to the providers, I really think 

that we are at the forefront. And I would ask that in the spirit that 

we should be doing what we can in this area to let the lead dogs 

move faster, to put an asterisk next to the effort in Rhode Island 

and try to give it some of your and your staff’s direct personal attention, if you can do that. 

You can respond to both of those if you wish. 

Secretary Shinseki. Well, Senator, on the first issue, the chained 

CPI proposal, I would just say thanks for, you know, your statement here. I would also point out that the President has been very 

clear in his consistent desire to protect vulnerable populations. The 

proposal excludes means-testing veterans’ pensions, which have 

provided to low-income wartime veterans who are age 65 and older 

or who are under 65 but remain totally permanently disabled as a 

result of conditions unrelated to military service. And I believe that 

addresses some of your concerns. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Only a little bit, just because of the num- bers involved. The President identifies $230 billion in savings from 

the so-called chained CPI benefit cut. And all those programs put 

together that you mentioned put back $15 billion. So there is still 

a huge whack that is taken out of the populations that are subject 

to chained CPI, and the amount that gets brought back is pretty 

small, less than 10 percent. It is whatever percentage $15 billion 

is of $230 billion. 

Secretary Shinseki. I would also include that the budget proposal 

excludes certain veterans’ education programs as well. Post 9/11 GI 

bill, Montgomery GI bill for active-duty, those inflationary adjustments are decided elsewhere, so they are not included under 

chained CPI. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And on the VLER Program in Rhode Island? 

Secretary Shinseki. On the VLER Program, I would say we have 

been very aggressive in our outreach between VA and DOD in 

terms of record sharing, and then a number of pilot test events, 

west coast and east coast, between VA, DOD, and the civilian community. And, you know, I regret that we have not made it up to 
254 

your home State yet, but I do recall our discussion, and that is 

something I would be happy to explore with you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If you could review it and give it a moment of your personal attention, talk to your senior staff about it 

and see what we can do, that would be helpful to us. 

Secretary Shinseki. Sure. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I truly believe—there is actually, Madam 

Chair, quite an interesting report in the HELP Committee written 

by the minority criticizing the so-called high-tech bill that provides 

for meaningful use of electronic health records in the private sector 

that it did not focus enough on interoperability. And I think they 

are actually dead right about that. So I think you need to put your 

resources where the lead dogs are. The pack will never run faster 

than the lead dogs. Move out the lead dogs and let us get this done. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Baldwin. 

Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Chairman Murray, and I appreciate the fact that you are holding this hearing today. And I also 

want to thank our panel, Secretary Shinseki and all of the panelists. Thank you for being here today and also thank you for your 

service to our country. 

As we face our budget challenges, one of the most important 

things for me is ensuring that we are keeping our promises to our 

veterans and their families. When our servicemen and -women return from serving their country, they and their families deserve the 

peace of mind that they will have all the resources they need to 

thrive upon their return. 

However, for many of our returning veterans, this is not the case. 

Too many are waiting far too long for the benefits that they have 

earned. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, alone, veterans are waiting an 

average of more than 311 days for their claims to be processed. 

And I know that the VA has recently announced a new process to 

expedite claims that have been pending for over a year. However, 

while these reforms are positive steps, veterans do not want to 

hear about new programs or new processes. They really want results, and so do I. And in this regard, I look forward to working 

with you to make sure that we finally tackle in a comprehensive 

way this claims backlog. 

Moving on to another area in which I have some very serious 

concerns, Secretary Shinseki, I want to start by asking you about 

the VA’s response to the epidemic of military sexual trauma among 

our brave veterans. I have two specific areas that I want to delve 

into and ask you about. 

First, we know that the high prevalence of military sexual trauma among female veterans requires a substantial degree of staff 

and provider sensitivity at VA health facilities. Yet we also know 

from a number of studies that the VA is still struggling to provide 

gender-specific let alone trauma-informed care. 

We know that the VA is all but failing our women veterans in 

the screening process for military sexual trauma. A recent American Legion report found that 40 percent of female veterans were 

dissatisfied with the screening process. 
255 

And we know the VA struggles to hire experienced staff and provide guidance for those mental health providers who will work with 

victims. 

The second area, I understand that legislation has been introduced to help assist survivors of military sexual assault in securing 

VA benefits. I have heard from veterans in the State of Wisconsin 

who are dealing with severe PTSD due to military sexual trauma, 

in some cases so severe that they are unable to work. But as these 

brave women have related to me, their dealings with the VA system and trying to secure adequate benefits can feel very traumatic 

in and off itself. 

So I would like, Secretary Shinseki, for you to provide me with, 

for purposes here today, a brief update on these two issues—the 

gender-specific and gender-sensitive services, and then as well as 

the issue of accommodating benefits to serve the needs of those 

who have suffered military sexual trauma. 

Secretary Shinseki. Well, Senator, I am going to call on two people who work with this issue daily, but let me just say, if you were 

to look at our budget over the past 4 years, five submissions now, 

I think in the case of women veterans funding, between 2009 and 

this year’s budget, 2014, you would see a 134.4-percent increase in 

funding, which I hope suggests to you that women’s issues are important to us. And we realize that today women veterans comprise 

about 6 percent of our veteran population, but we know out there 

in the active force, 15 percent in the active military and in the reserve component about 17 or 18 percent. So we understand there 

is a growth coming, and we are trying to get ahead of it. 

I am going to call on Dr. Petzel to talk about the investments in 

health care, both in infrastructure, programs, and in research as 

well. 

And let me just set up the second response to you, and I will ask 

Secretary Hickey to take that on from a benefits perspective. 

The issue is sexual assault. We can call it, you know, MST, military sexual trauma, as though it were a condition, but this is assault. And I do know that in DOD they are taking great strides to 

address this. 

On our side, I think in the past we may have been less discerning about these issues. But I can tell you, since her arrival, 

Secretary Hickey has gone back and relooked at previous cases and 

challenged ourselves that our instincts and our assumptions were 

correct. 

For one thing, we know that these assaults are underreported, 

and then even at this stage of asking for benefits, it is difficult for 

people to come forward and say this happened. So I think Secretary 

Hickey will describe a fairly generous approach to reviewing these 

cases. 

Let me start with Dr. Petzel and then Secretary Hickey. 

Dr. PETZEL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator Baldwin, over the past 15 years, the VA has invested, 

as the Secretary has indicated, in trying to provide for a safe, private, sensitive environment for women in our clinics and in our 

medical centers. And I think we have made great progress. We still 

have things that we need to do, but I think we have made great 

progress. 
256 

In terms of services specifically, we are developing a three-part 

program to provide gender-specific care to women. The first is the 

women veterans’ clinic. In about 76 of our places where we have 

large numbers of women, we have clinics that basically have all the 

services one might need concentrated in one place. 

Secondly, in those areas where there is a smaller population of 

women veterans, we have primary care women veterans’ clinics 

where the primary care clinic is exclusively devoted to the needs 

of women veterans and the primary care providers are trained to 

provide gender-specific and -sensitive care. 

And then in those remaining places, such as our communitybased outpatient clinics, we have trained at least one primary care 

provider in each one of those clinics in gender-specific care again 

so that virtually at 100 percent of our places, primary care can be 

delivered in a gender-specific fashion. 

In terms of military sexual trauma, we screen everybody. Everybody, male or female, that comes to the VA is screened for military 

sexual trauma. In 2012, 24 percent of the women that we screened 

indicated that they had been subjected to some form of sexual trauma or assault. And 1.2 percent of men also indicated they had been 

subjected to some sort of sexual assault. 

We provide gender-specific military sexual trauma treatment at 

all of our medical centers. All primary care providers and all mental health providers have been trained in recognizing and in dealing with military sexual trauma— 

Chairman MURRAY. I hate to interrupt, but we have gone way 

over time. If you can summarize really quickly, we can get to Senator Sessions. 

Dr. PETZEL. All right. I am sorry. 

We have special places where we can give specific, very special 

care for military sexual trauma. Not to say that we do not have 

more work to do, but I think we have made good progress in identifying the problem and providing the appropriate treatment. 

Secretary Shinseki. Madam Chairman, may I ask Secretary 

Hickey to very quickly respond to the benefits? 

Ms. HICKEY. Very quickly, we now have a woman, as requested 

by our people who suffer from military sexual trauma PTSD, in 

every single regional office. They are the only ones that are trained 

to do these claims. They are done down our special operations lane 

to handle them sensitively. No one else is allowed to touch them 

but that woman who is designated in every single regional office. 

When I arrived in 2011, in June 2011, within 2 weeks I had 

them pull a statistically valid sample. I saw that we did have a 

problem. We had a 35-percent grant rate compared to about a 55- 

percent grant rate for PTSD due to the other conditions. I jumped 

on it fast. We drove new training, integrated training with the 

health folks, and within 6 months had that gap totally closed, and 

will remain closed. I check it every 3 to 4 months. And right now 

we are within 2 to 3 percentage points of every other grant for 

PTSD within MST right up next to it. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. [Presiding.] Thank you. One thing I would like 

to emphasize is that it is not a definition of good policy or concern 
257 

just to spend more money. So we have been spending more money. 

Some of that is, I know, necessary. Maybe all of it is necessary. But 

we do, I believe, have a right to expect efficiency. 

I was just looking at the job situation, the programs that we 

have for impacting jobs. According to the GAO, there are 40 job 

training programs in America, Federal job training programs. 

GAO’s most recent duplication report made a specific recommendation for VA to ‘‘incorporate DOD’s employment assistance initiatives into the agreements that guide interagency cooperation.’’ 

Do you agree with that, Secretary Shinseki? And have you made 

any progress toward that? 

Secretary Shinseki. Senator, I am not particularly familiar, I 

would say, with this particular GAO report. Let me get into it and 

provide you a better answer. 

But I would just say, if we were to look back over what this Department has tried to do for 4 years, efficiency, effectiveness, savings has been very much a priority. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it is going to take strong leadership, 

there is no doubt about that, and you have to stay on it every day. 

But I think the point of this is should we be creating a more veteran-specific program and allocating more resources for that? Or 

can we somehow coordinate with many of these other existing programs that have training for carpenters or computer experts and 

that sort of thing? And I believe we can do a better job. The idea 

that this Government ought to have 40 job training programs—not 

in the VA you do not have 40, but throughout the whole Government—speaks to some of the inefficiencies and duplications we 

have. 

Secretary Shinseki. Well, I would say, Senator, about the only 

area that we have a specific training program would be where we 

have a need and there is a population of veterans not being addressed elsewhere, for example, homeless veterans, and our opportunity to provide them work experience occurs in our National 

Cemetery System where they come in as entry-level folks, and then 

we give them a successful work experience. It is a modest payroll, 

but at the end of the year-long training program in which we invest the experience of other senior people into their development, 

they have a choice to come to work for us or to go out and do it 

elsewhere. So that is one example of where we meet a need, because, one, we have a requirement to backfill our retirements. And 

then we have the homeless population in need of an opportunity. 

We do the same in our emergency rooms where we take medics 

and corpsmen from the military, and for a variety of reasons, they 

immediately are not able to be certified in the States where they 

are residing, and so we will take a number of them, put them in 

our ERs, and have them work for us and develop the credentials 

they need. Very modest. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, Mr. Secretary, I think those are some 

good, specific proposals that we should do more of in the Government, and I do think we can do a better job of having military people certified for State—according to State rules if they often have 

been operating at standards far above what the States require, but 

then they are unemployed until they can get their State certifications. There has been some good work done on that. 
258 

Can I just ask you this question, a bigger question? Where are 

we in terms of the next 10, 15 years with the number of veterans 

you serve? What will the trends look like as we go forward in terms 

of the number? 

Secretary Shinseki. Senator, I think as we look back historically, 

after an operation ends, VA’s requirements in terms of veteran support has generally grown for about 10 years. And so I would expect 

that in our case, we will continue to see a growth in requirements 

of veterans coming to us, and especially in this case. We are dealing with a very small professional force, but one that has been used 

repeatedly over 10 to 12 years. And with the advances in battlefield 

medicine, many of them are incurring serious and complex injuries. 

So I think our requirements—my answer to your question is historically there has been continued growth. In our case, I do not see 

a need to change that. We will continue to see growth over the next 

10 years, but the complexity of the cases we deal with will add a 

measure we probably have not seen before. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Do you have any percentage numbers of growth? Have you made any estimates of what those numbers might be? 

Secretary Shinseki. Well, Senator, we here rely on DOD’s sort of 

flow of what they think it is going to be. At one point we were told 

a million veterans over the next 5 years, and so we are trying to 

understand what that flow rate will be. 

Senator SESSIONS. Is that more or less than what we have seen 

in the last 5 years? 

Secretary Shinseki. Generally what we have seen in the last 4 

years. 

Senator SESSIONS. Maybe you could give us a report on that. I 

am just curious about the total numbers. 

And, you know, the disability backlog needs to be dealt with. Let 

me say this to you. When you get behind and people start rushing, 

we start throwing money at problems, sometimes it does not work 

very well, and we do not do it as well either. So I know you have 

to strike that balance. I encourage you to do so, both in terms of 

doing a full evaluation and getting people their disability promptly 

and making evaluations that are justified in the process. So speed 

can be a problem, but the growing backlog situation we have seen 

recently is not acceptable, and you probably have already discussed 

that while I had to step out. But if you have not, you might give 

us an insight. 

I think I am over my time, so you can be brief, if you would. 

Secretary Shinseki. Well, Senator, let me try to do this very 

quickly. Let me start by just telling you that I am sensitive to your 

concerns about, you know, ensuring that taxpayer dollars that are 

provided to us by the Congress are zealously guarded and executed 

in meaningful ways. And, therefore, we have taken a deliberate approach in this issue on resolving the claims backlog. It did not 

begin 4 years ago. It has been decades in the making. 

But over the past 4 years, we have taken actions to generate savings for ourselves and reinvest them in our own budget, $528 million for fee basis at the medical care rates; $200 million savings in 

acquisition improvements, $200 million in a better way of fielding 

information technology projects. Four years ago, we were fielding 
259 

less than 30 percent of them successfully. Today we are in excess 

of 80 percent. And then $142 million First Notice of Death. We go 

after these so that we can take those dollars and reinvest them in 

the next budget cycle so that while the top line may be established, 

we are buying down the requirement for new dollars, if we could. 

Let me turn to the backlog. We sit astride a river of paper. We 

get paper, we process paper. That is the way it has been. It is not 

efficient. It is not effective from a management standpoint because 

you cannot see all of your variance. We need to go to an automation system. 

We have been developing this automation system for 2 years 

now. It is being fielded. We started 6 months ago. It is called 

VBMS, Veterans Benefits Management System. It is in 36 of our 

56 stations today. It will be in all 56 by the end of this year. 

But having an automation system is one thing. Unless it is connected, it leads nowhere. So a part of this has also been connecting 

with DOD, who has agreed to provide us electrons by the end of 

this year. This will be an important connection, and this is an important partnership. 

Part of this is we have 800,000 claims already in paper. Some 

of that already begun in paper we are going to allow to finish in 

paper. That is the most efficient way and the fairest way to get 

them through the system. The rest of that in paper, we are currently scanning into electrons to feed our electronic database. 

And, finally, we have provided veterans an online capability to 

file claims electronically. So this is the year where all these connections come together. To do this, we have requested an increase in 

the budget of VBA, our Benefits Administration, by 13 percent and 

an increase in IT for 10 percent, crucial to making these connections sync up and have our promised delivery in 2015. We are 

ahead of 2015, and we intend to end the backlog then. 

Chairman MURRAY. [Presiding]. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kaine? 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Secretary Shinseki, and to your 

team. You know, three stats kind of occur to me as you talk that 

ought to cause us pause and tell us what our works is going to be 

like here in supporting your mission: the growing number of veterans that you just testified to in the aftermath in that million estimate, what we will see in the next few years will present additional challenges. 

You indicated in your testimony, your written testimony, that 62 

percent of veterans of IF, EF, and New Dawn are using at least 

one VA service, and you suggested that was higher than earlier 

norms. What would have been a norm in an earlier time period? 

Secretary Shinseki. I would say something in the low 30 percent. 

Senator KAINE. So a growing number of veterans, a higher percentage of them using at least one VA service, and then this aspect 

of your testimony: the average number of claim conditions for our 

recently separated servicemembers is now in the 12 to 16 range, 

roughly five times the number of disabilities claims by veterans of 

earlier eras. Growing numbers of vets, higher percentage accessing 

at least one service, and those filing disability claims claiming 

numbers of disabilities about five times earlier averages. This is a 
260 

very significant challenge, obviously, and it is going to be with us 

for a long time. 

And that moves into some follow-up questions I had to Senator 

Sessions on the backlog issue. You indicated that the VBMS management system has already been implemented across a number of 

your regions, and then will you just tell me, it will be in all regions 

by when? 

Secretary Shinseki. Well, our plan laid out by December of this 

year, but our feeling, it is going well enough that I can anticipate 

that is going to be sooner. And I always hesitate to put the sooner 

date out there because you know one hiccup there, and— 

Senator KAINE. Sure, right. 

Secretary Shinseki. —we are having to revisit that. 

Senator KAINE. But I understand you started to implement this 

system, the VBMS system, in 2011? 

Secretary Shinseki. 2012. 

Senator KAINE. 2012? 

Secretary Shinseki. 2011 was testing and, you know, bringing 

folks that could help us. But we began in September of 2012, so 

we are 6 months into it. 

Senator KAINE. And when was the system—when did you start 

to design the system? It was tested in 2011. When was the design 

started? 

Secretary Shinseki. Probably 2 years ago, early 2011, late 2010. 

I do not have a specific date, but it is about then, and I will tell 

you the reason this occurred. In 2009, we were given the 9/11 GI 

bill, a brand-new program. We had no automation for it. We were 

a paper-driven exercise there. That fall of 2009, just to get 173,000 

veterans into schools was a major effort because it was pen and 

paper. 

Senator KAINE. And, Secretary, if I could just stop you right 

there, in 2009 when you got the new GI bill and it was paper driven, was everything else paper driven too pretty much at that time? 

Secretary Shinseki. Everything else, yes. 

Senator KAINE. So we went to war in 2002—well, 2002 immediately after—into Afghanistan or 2001, 2003 in Iraq. We did not 

have an electronic system for managing VA benefits until you 

started to try to work to design one in 2009? 

Secretary Shinseki. Well, you know, I think there may have been 

several efforts that did not pan out. 

Senator KAINE. So you would describe what existed before 2009 

as rudimentary at best, even as we were 5, 6, 7 years into two 

wars? 

Secretary Shinseki. Yes, that is correct. 

Senator KAINE. Well, obviously, getting that system right is key. 

We have three freshmen right here. We all got elected in November, and people started writing Senator Kaine, Senator King, and 

Senator Baldwin that first day, and we did not show up until January 3rd. We had massive backlogs. And what they told us all is: 

Before you freak out about the backlog, you have to have a system 

for dealing with it. 

I mean, I am just kind of stunned as I hear that we did not have 

a credible system for dealing electronically with veterans’ claims 

until you started to do that work in 2009– 10, and we were already 
261 

7, 8 years into a war by the time we did it. No wonder we are having such challenges today. 

One kind of claim that I am particularly interested in is mental 

health claims. I had a recent experience with an individual veteran 

in the Hampton Roads area who had called seeking mental health 

assistance—who had e-mailed the local VA seeking mental health 

assistance and was given an appointment 8, 9 months into the future. 

When we checked it out, what we found is that if he had called 

by phone, there was an effective triage to try to determine if he 

needed mental health assistance right away. But if you e-mailed, 

which, frankly, is a little bit easier to do for some people that are 

trying to overcome the stigma of ‘‘I guess I need mental health assistance,’’ to e-mail in was a little bit easier, there was no triage 

done on e-mails coming in seeking help. 

You talked about the way you are trying to manage claims. Mental health claims are particular ones because I think a lot of mental health professionals say once somebody gets over that burden 

of saying, ‘‘Okay, I admit, I need help,’’ if you do not take advantage of their request for help pretty much when they ask, 6 months 

later bad things could have happened. Somebody could have committed suicide, or other problems, or they may be in a mind-set 

where now they are self-medicating, and ‘‘I do not even want to 

come in for an appointment, I do not need help.’’ 

What are you doing within the VA on this mental health issue, 

which is so connected to veteran suicide, to try to triage and respond promptly to mental health claims? 

Secretary Shinseki. Well, Senator, I am going to call on the expert here, Dr. Petzel, but let me just say, again, if we look at what 

we have tried to do in terms of budgeting to provide resources to 

address issues like mental health, since 2009 up to the 2014 budget, we have increased our investments in mental health by 56.9, almost 57 percent. 

For the individual who is looking for mental health care, there 

is no claim to be filed, there is no waiting in line. For the veteran 

that is coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq, they present to a 

medical facility with identification, and they are enrolled, and their 

access to mental health is immediate. If it is urgent, it is within 

24 hours. If it is urgent, there will be some scheduling. If it is routine, there will be another set of scheduling tasks. 

We hold ourselves to a pretty high standard of 14 days for an initial appointment for a non-urgent condition. We are not where we 

want to be in meeting that standard, and, therefore, we hire staff 

to give us that capability. But this is an ongoing balance between 

our requirement just grew, we need to have staff to accommodate. 

And so that will continue. 

Dr. Petzel? 

Dr. PETZEL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator Kaine, just to go through a couple of other things, one 

is that we have for phone, as you mentioned, the crisis hotline, 

which has worked very well—800,000 calls, 26,000 rescues from 

people harming themselves, and good, hot transfers of patients to 

immediate care. 
262 

As the Secretary mentioned, you can walk into either a clinic or 

the emergency room, and you will be seen immediately. Anybody 

with an urgent or emergent need will be evaluated immediately. 

I would like to talk with your staff afterwards to find out about 

this e-mail call— 

Senator KAINE. Good. We have some information to share with 

you. 

Dr. PETZEL. —to see where that e-mail went and to find out exactly what happened. 

For patients that are established, we have secure messaging 

where they can communicate back and forth with their providers. 

But I would want to find out where that e-mail went. 

We are, as the Secretary mentioned, holding ourselves to a high 

standard of 14 days for the routine appointment, and we are getting better and better at both measuring and meeting that standard. Very importantly is making people aware of the fact that, one, 

these services are available; two, that it is okay to come, that it is 

okay to say, ‘‘I have a mental health problem.’’ And we have two 

campaigns going on, one directed at veterans specifically called 

‘‘Make the Connection,’’ and another one directed at both veterans 

and family members, urging them to understand what the signs 

are, urging them to know what can be done, and urging them to 

get people into care. 

Our biggest issue and our biggest problem really are the people 

that do not come to us. When somebody comes to us seeking care, 

we usually do an excellent job of taking care of them. It is reaching 

the others that we need. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator King? 

Senator KING. You must not get up in the morning of a hearing 

like this and say, ‘‘Gee, I cannot wait to get over there for the questions.’’ So I want to start with a compliment. The VA hospital in 

Togus is a gem. It is the oldest VA hospital. Togus, Maine, is the 

oldest VA hospital in the country. I was there just a couple of 

weeks ago. A good friend of mine’s husband recently passed away 

at the hospice facility, the new hospice facility there. Nothing but 

positive comments about the treatment received at that facility. 

The staff you have there is fantastic, and it really is a model of 

serving our veterans well. So I want to share that with you. That 

is something that is really working. 

I just want to express my frustration about the backlog and 

about the computer system. I do not understand, Madam Chairman, why Government agencies have so much trouble getting systems running. Amazon does it, eBay does it. If eBay, you know, 

had a system like this, they would have been out of business a long 

time ago. I do not understand why the FBI, the Veterans Administration, the Defense Department just cannot seem to get these systems going, and this is no answer, Mr. Secretary, but it is just frustrating. It costs us a fortune, and they never seem to work, and 

they do not talk to each other, and it is just very frustrating. I am 

going to spend some time here working on this. 

I thought that the VA—I have always been told that the VA 

medical records system, electronic medical records system, was one 
263 

of the best in the there, and now I am hearing it is—has something 

deteriorated in the last few years? 

Secretary Shinseki. Senator, our electronic health record remains 

quality. At one time it was well up there, and I think over time 

others have closed the gap. But it still remains about the best electronic health record in this country. 

Senator KING. But it is not interoperable with the Department 

of Defense? 

Secretary Shinseki. It is not. And so for the past 4 years, two 

Secretaries, first Secretary Gates and then Secretary Panetta and 

I, and now Secretary Hagel and I will undertake dealing with the 

frustration you described, and that is, why don’t we have a single, 

common, joint, integrated electronic health record? 

Senator KING. And, of course, we ought to have one for the whole 

country. I would settle for the VA and the Department of Defense, 

but it would be nice if every hospital in America was not reinventing this. 

Secretary Shinseki. Sure. And I think between the Secretaries, 

the intent was if we get this right, this will be of great use to— 

other health care systems in the country will not have to invest development dollars in a program they may not be able to afford. And 

I think this is what the President had in mind when he declared 

VLER, this Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record, that would do, you 

know, administrative data as well. But a key piece of that would 

be the Integrated Electronic Health Record that both DOD and VA 

were putting together. 

Senator KING. Well, I commend you on that project and hope you 

will give it the highest priority, because once we get the systems 

in place that Senator Kaine mentioned, then everything else can 

fit. That will deal a lot with your backlog and all the other issues. 

Senator Whitehouse asked a question about the chained CPI. Do 

you have a figure of what that would cost veterans over 10, 20, 30 

years, and also what the escape hatch for low-income and disabled 

veterans that you mentioned would deduct from that? In other 

words, I am trying to get an idea of what we are—what are we 

talking about for numbers here? 

Secretary Shinseki. I do not have the numbers. I did not the 

numbers that the Senator provided, and I will have to go and take 

a look at that. 

Senator KING. Well, that overall number he mentioned of 230 billion I think is the number for the chained CPI for all of Government. But I would appreciate if for the record you could do some 

looking at what it would cost veterans and then what would be put 

back by the escape hatches that the President has proposed in his 

budget. It just gives us a better idea of what it is we are actually 

grappling with here, having the real numbers instead of speculation about what it would be save and what it would cost. 

Secretary Shinseki. Okay. I will do that. 

Senator KING. I was late for this hearing. I just came from a 

hearing at the Armed Services Committee with the Army, and we 

were talking about outplacement and what happens when somebody leaves the military, falls under your jurisdiction, and then has 

a hard time finding a job. 
264 

Are you satisfied with the Department of Defense’s work on 

transitioning soldiers and sailors and marines into the private sector economy? It just seems to me they spend a lot of money on recruiting. Perhaps they could spend some money on what amounts 

to outplacement. 

Secretary Shinseki. Well, Senator, we have for several years now 

worked very closely with DOD to create a Transition Assistance 

Program that is different than the one I remember when I left the 

military, and this one is intended for both Departments to share 

in that transition period so that when the uniform does come off, 

for our purposes we have the data we need to make decisions regarding health care needs for the long term, and benefits issues 

that a veteran may have. Not all veterans will have those issues, 

but for the ones who do, we need to have that handoff. And, also, 

a decision to go to college, that should be accomplished before the 

uniform comes off so that there is a vector on which a veteran is 

moving, whether it is to college, whether it is to vocational training, whether it is straight to employment. And that is work in 

progress. 

Senator KING. Well, one thing the veterans have when they leave 

is tremendous training, and one of the problems across the country 

is that that training does not necessarily match the certification requirements of individual States. And I would urge a research 

project, if you will, to see what the certification requirements are 

and how we can work with the individual States. It is ridiculous 

that you have someone in the military who is trained as an electrician and cannot become an electrician in whatever the State is 

because they do not meet some apprenticeship requirement when 

that is what they have been doing. 

So I would urge you. I think that is something that could be done 

that would ease this transition. It is very frustrating, if I were a 

veteran and had those kind of skills, that I could not get a job because I do not meet some kind of paper requirement when I have 

been doing it for 4 or 5 or 10 years in the military. 

Secretary Shinseki. I would say, Senator, the military, as I recall, 

does document that work experience, and now it is a matter of having various trades and States accept it. And I would say at the last 

annual Governors conference, I do know that the First Lady had 

this discussion with the Governors present and asked them in each 

of their States to take a leadership role in this. And I understand 

some States have already legislatively begun to create those opportunities you describe. 

Senator KING. Thank you. As a former Governor, I still believe 

in States rights, but I think this is one where the States ought to 

act with alacrity. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for all of your companions who are working so hard on 

these issues. 

I wanted to first thank you very much for working closely with 

my team on the burial waiver issue. Very, very thoughtful, very 

thorough, and deep appreciation. 
265 

I wanted to ask you about the Veterans Job Corps. I am happy to see the budget include $1 billion in funding for this. The reason 

I am so interested in this is when I met with our soldiers overseas 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of them talked about their anxiety 

in finding jobs when they came home. And for those who cannot 

find jobs in this difficult job environment, it seems like having a 

volunteer corps—or a job corps, not a volunteer corps but a job 

corp, in which folks can get their feet back on the ground, create 

structure in their lives, create income while they are readjusting to 

life stateside would be enormously valuable and related to the 

broader issues we face in kind of the disorientation that soldiers 

have and their financial success in transition. 

We had a vote on this in the Senate where we did not get cloture. 

I hope we are going to be revisiting it. But do you consider this to 

be an important, valuable initiative? 

Secretary Shinseki. Senator, thank you for that question. Several 

initiatives here. I think you will recall that out of the White House 

there was a tremendous effort under a program called ‘‘Joining 

Forces’’ where the First Lady and Dr. Jill Biden reached out to the 

private sector and asked employers to step forward and provide, as 

I recall, up to 100,000 jobs for military spouses and veterans by the 

end of fiscal year 2013. That target was met in 2012, and I think 

they have increased their objective to something in the neighborhood of 250,000. So that is one effort. 

On Veterans Job Corps, the proposal is to look at $1 billion in 

mandatory funds for up to 20,000 veterans over the next 5 years 

in conservation and restoration, law enforcement, and infrastructure projects on public lands. This is intended to address the issues 

that you described of members in the military coming back and 

having immediate access to the kinds of jobs that require skills and 

experience that they have had recently. So it is national parks and 

forests, national monuments, other public lands, everything from 

park maintenance projects to patrolling public lands, rehabilitating 

natural recreational areas, and then administrative, technical, law 

enforcement-related activities. That is the program, and it remains 

high priority. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, thank you so much for advocating for it, 

and I wanted to mention that I hope that if we can accomplish this, 

we can also include forest health jobs in our national forests because we have millions of acres that need to be thinned for better 

ecosystems, better timber stands, fewer fires, and less disease. And 

it is a very solid, robust way to be engaged in furthering a public 

good, if you will. 

I wanted to turn to the suicide hotline or the veterans hotline, 

and I think the statistic that really strikes me in your testimony 

on page 15 is, ‘‘In the most serious calls, approximately 26,000 men 

and women have been rescued from a suicide in progress...’’ That 

is phenomenal. And how many others have been helped as they 

were maybe hours away or days away by the concern expressed, 

the access to resources, the chance to talk to other veterans? 

I just want to make sure that this has all the support it could 

possibly have and to note that there is a group in Oregon that provides backup services to this line when they have a high demand 

and need additional folks. This is a group that has done a lot of 
266 

work with our National Guard, and so I thank you for that contract 

to that group in Oregon. 

But do we have the resources here that we need? And is this 

playing an important role? 

Secretary Shinseki. Senator, I would just begin by saying, you 

know, one suicide by a veteran is a tragedy, and it is one too many, 

and that has been the approach we have taken for 4 years now. 

Our mental health budget, as I indicated earlier, over 2009 to 2014 

has been increased by nearly 57 percent. You know, 57 percent is 

a percentage, but the 2014 request is for $6.9 billion. That is how 

much effort we are putting into this. 

And one of the programs that is resourced by this is the National 

Veterans Crisis Line you described in Canandaigua, New York, 

probably in the last 5 years, near 800,000 calls, but the key factor 

here is the 26,000 interventions you describe. 

What we have watched over time is those calls continue to increase. The number of crisis calls, the 26,000, have begun to taper 

off. And our understanding of these data points is that people are 

calling earlier, not at the last minute, and our clinicians online— 

these are actually professional mental health folks—are able to get 

them referred into mental health care. They are getting there. We 

see the trends. And our suicide rates have stayed flat. They are 

still too high, but we think we have a program here that works. 

But the crisis line is sort of that last resort. It is not the solution 

here, and so we are putting energy into research and trying to understand what DOD—how to deal with this better in the future. 

And I know Dr. Petzel has something to add, but let me just try 

to stifle him for a moment and see if you have any other questions 

here. 

Senator MERKLEY. Doctor, my time has expired, so I will mention 

three things, and I will leave it to the Chair as to whether—one, 

I wanted to mention the hard work on homelessness. I will follow 

up with some questions for the record about the estimates. I was 

surprised to see the 17-percent decrease. That is tremendous. I 

wanted to understand better how those statistics are put together, 

because I am not seeing the decrease in my State, so I want to understand that. But I applaud it. 

Second, I want to emphasize the point that has been made about 

the disability claims. That is a huge issue. 

And, finally, I want to echo Senator Whitehouse’s concerned 

about the chained CPI. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Nelson? 

Senator NELSON. General, thank you for your services to our 

country and your continuing service to our country. 

No doubt you are all the more frustrated in realizing that so 

many of the veterans retire, and where do they come? They come 

to my State of Florida. The Tampa Tribune points out recently that 

the Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg is behind on 

benefit claims processing; 70 percent of the claims are classified as 

backlogged and older than 125 days. And I am sure that is an enormous frustration to you. It clearly is to us. And so we wish you the 

best as you try to get your hands around this, and the money that 
267 

you are spending on all of the IT, then you have to implement all 

of that IT. 

I would merely bring up one other issue, and that is the one that 

you and I have—you graciously have talked to me individually 

about the Orlando VA hospital. It was supposed to be completed a 

year ago. In January, we got a report that says that it is 75 percent 

complete. And yesterday I got a report that it is 75 percent complete. And we have been assured that the VA says that it will be 

open August of this year. 

What can you tell us, please? 

Secretary Shinseki. Senator, I believe the original date was October of 2012, so we are behind schedule. Construction continues on 

this VA medical center. For the most part, it is complete. It is the 

main building that is still left to be completed. 

Overall, several days have passed, but my number here says it 

is 79 percent. But we continue to make progress. There are people 

on-site. 

The contractor has been served two cure notices and one showcause notice for not staying with the schedule and the contracting 

timelines we had agreed to. 

We received a response to the show-cause letter that was issued 

in January. We have just received the response, and we are going 

through it now and trying to be as collaborative with the contractor 

to get us to complete this project, you know, as we had expected. 

And— 

Senator NELSON. Then does this imply that it will not be completed in August of this year? 

Secretary Shinseki. I do not know that yet. I mean, we are dealing with a contractor’s response to show-cause, and, frankly, the 

contracting folks are into this, and at some point I will get an assessment of what they— 

Senator NELSON. Does this suggest incompetence on the part of 

the contractor? 

Secretary Shinseki. Is this—say that again? 

Senator NELSON. Does this suggest incompetence on the part of 

the contractor? 

Secretary Shinseki. Since this is in a contract phase, allow me 

not to pass judgment here. I would just say we are behind schedule. 

Senator NELSON. Well, that must be, of course, doubly frustrating to you who are trying to get all of this care done. For example, the community living center and the domiciliary, that is all 

complete. 

Secretary Shinseki. That is correct. 

Senator NELSON. But you cannot open it up until you get the rest 

of the complex complete. 

Secretary Shinseki. That is correct. 

Senator NELSON. And that is a domiciliary facility for about 60 

beds for homeless vets. We cannot just accept this. It seems to me 

that from your office you ought to suggest that some heads ought 

to roll so that people know that we mean business when we set a 

contract and set some deadlines. 

Are there financial, are there severe financial penalties in the 

contract for not completing on time? 
268 

Secretary Shinseki. I would say there are provisions for that. I 

am not knowledgeable enough to declare whether they are severe 

or not, but these are normal steps in the contracting process. 

Senator NELSON. Maybe that suggests that we ought to rethink 

how we contract. If there are just provisions and there are no severe financial penalties or financial incentives, the carrot-and-stick 

approach, maybe our contracting is outdated. 

Secretary Shinseki. I did not mean by the use of the word ‘‘provisions’’ that there were no carrot-and-stick opportunities here. They 

are there. I am just not familiar with exactly the details of it. 

Senator NELSON. Well, I would request, since the Chairman of 

the Veterans Committee is here, Senator Sanders, I would suggest 

that since we have this continuous delay in the construction of a 

major VA facility in a State where veterans are moving to in 

droves, my State, that there be a response to the Committee of 

record, Senator Sanders’ Committee, on what are the provisions 

and what are we going to do about it in future contracts so we do 

not have these kind of delays. Financial incentives of both benefits 

and penalties have worked in the past. 

Secretary Shinseki. We do have those as part of the contract. I 

am happy to provide that for the record. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Sanders, the Chairman of the Veterans Committee, has joined us. Thank you very much. Senator 

Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, and, Madam Chair, let me apologize for being so late, but I was chairing a Subcommittee on primary health care for the last couple of hours, which takes me to 

one of the questions I would like to ask perhaps Dr. Petzel or the 

Secretary. 

I just spent several hours on Saturday in White River Junction 

and being very impressed by some of the work they are doing in 

terms of diabetes prevention. But, Dr. Petzel, my impression is that 

the VA is actually cutting edge in terms of addressing, Madam 

Chair, what is clearly one of the health care crises facing our country. God knows how many people are coming down with diabetes, 

are going to lose their legs, are going to go blind, end up in kidney 

dialysis. 

What is the VA doing in terms of treating people who are likely 

or at risk for diabetes? Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Shinseki. Mr. Chairman, let me call on Dr. Petzel to 

provide his insights, and I will try to wrap when he is done. 

Dr. PETZEL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman Sanders, the concept that you described was people 

that are at risk for developing diabetes, and I want to just describe 

briefly a program that the VA is pioneering where we are taking 

a selected group of what we call pre-diabetics, people who have 

mildly elevated but not seriously elevated blood sugars, and enrolling them in a 16-week program involving nutrition and exercise to 

try and prevent them and teach them the life habits to prevent 

them from developing Type 2 diabetes in the future. Type 2 diabetes is an epidemic in this country, and the veteran population is 

not being spared that. 
269 

In addition to that program, we have extensive programs within 

our PAC systems, the Patient Aligned Care teams in primary care, 

to deal with diabetes. The emphasis, again, is on exercise and nutrition so that you do not have to take insulin, so that you do not 

have to take the medications that might be associated with it. 

You are absolutely right, the VA is on the cutting edge. 

Senator SANDERS. And not only that, if I might ask, you are 

doing some very interesting work with telehealth. I learned a little 

bit of a lesson. I thought, ‘‘Telehealth, well, that is nice. A psychiatrist can talk to a patient.’’ It is a heck of a lot more than that. 

In other words, as I understand it, early treatment, if somebody 

has a symptom, a foot problem, that can be treated. If it is ignored, 

you could lose your foot. Is that correct? 

Dr. PETZEL. That is correct. 

Senator SANDERS. Tell us a little bit about what the VA is doing 

in that area. 

Dr. PETZEL. Well, first of all, we were one of the first health care 

organizations to have a set of measures related to the care of diabetes, so we require a foot exam at least annually. We require an eye 

examination at least annually. We follow the blood sugar, we follow 

the cholesterol. We require the cholesterol to be below a certain 

level. 

Senator SANDERS. Is that a cost-effective—I mean, forget the fact 

that people obviously do not want to go blind or lose their feet. In 

terms of saving money, if you amputate and have to treat that, 

isn’t that pretty expensive? 

Dr. PETZEL. This is very cost-effective care. Preventing the complications of diabetes not only enhances people’s lives, but it saves 

money. 

Senator SANDERS. Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Shinseki. I would just add, just to wrap here, dialysis. 

We have historically employed commercial support on dialysis, and 

here of late I have asked and Dr. Petzel has led in bringing freestanding dialysis capability back inside the VA, not a lot but 

enough to help us understand dialysis in the way that we should. 

We are a health care institution. If we outsource all of our dialysis, it is out there and we do not think twice about it. If we do some 

of it in-house, it forces us to think about the question you are asking: What causes all of this that ends up in dialysis? And it will 

force us to put research dollars at the front end to solve the problem as opposed to at the back end outsource the service. So I think 

for VA this is an important step. 

Senator SANDERS. Madam Chair—and this is an issue we look 

forward to working with you on. I have been getting around a little 

bit, going to some facilities, and, again, as I mentioned, I was at 

my own facility in Vermont just this Saturday. And you know what 

I noticed? They have built a really pretty much state-of-the-art 

gymnasium in the facility which they say is being utilized by some 

400 veterans. People come down every morning to exercise, work 

together. 

Can you give us a guess, anyone, as to how many of your VA facilities have exercise gyms? 
270 

Dr. PETZEL. Many of them do, Senator Sanders. I cannot tell you 

how many do. We would have to get back to you, take that for the 

record. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. Let me ask you this also. I noticed 

when I went to L.A. and Brooklyn, New York, that there was a discussion of acupuncture being increasingly used and wanted by veterans in terms of, among other things, pain management. One of 

the problems that I understand is that if somebody utilizes acupuncture, that treatment has to be given by a physician with expertise in acupuncture. 

Have you explored enabling folks who are experts in acupuncture 

but not physicians to be able to practice within the system? Mr. 

Secretary or Dr. Petzel? 

Dr. PETZEL. You are correct, Senator Sanders. As it stands right 

now in the VA, acupuncture is administered by physicians, often 

anesthesiologists. We are exploring the possibility of providing the 

credentialing and privileging of people other than physicians who 

are trained in acupuncture. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, we are going to help you because we are 

going to be introducing a pilot project to see if we can move that 

along. 

But is that problem—and, again, I want to congratulate you. 

And, again, as the Secretary knows, my major criticism of the VA 

is they forget to tell the world what they are doing. It is an area 

that has to be worked on, because I think there is a lot—at a time 

when we are spending so much money on health care, and when 

the VA is coming up with cutting-edge improvements and cost-efficient programs, it would be helpful to the rest of the world to know 

about that. 

That would be my questioning right now. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Let me follow up on Senator Kaine’s question on the mental 

health, and he gave you a specific example, but as you know, this 

is something we have been very concerned about, making sure that 

we get access at a critical moment for someone coming in for mental health care. And you have asked for a $469 million increase in 

mental health, and I appreciate that. 

Under the Mental Health ACCESS Act that we passed, we required VA to develop new tools to determine exactly whether our 

VA facilities were meeting that 14-day standard that your answer 

to Senator Kaine was on. We had found previously that that was 

not being met. I assume those new tools are in place now. Can you 

tell us now what the current wait times are, according to the new 

tools that have been put in place and the staffing, any staffing 

shortfalls that you have? 

Secretary Shinseki. Dr. Petzel. 

Dr. PETZEL. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Madam Chairman, we have done a number of things since we 

last talked about this in the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. 

I want to just go through, before I talk about the wait times, a few 

of the other things that have been done. 

First of all, we have redone the way we measure wait times. We 

now use two different measures, depending on whether you are a 
271 

new patient into the system or whether you are an existing patient 

that is going for either further treatment or another kind of treatment. 

For new patients, it is the ‘‘create date,’’ so when you call or you 

walk in and say, ‘‘I want to be seen,’’ or are judged to be needed 

to be seen for mental health, that is the starting time. 

Chairman MURRAY. Right. 

Dr. PETZEL. And the appointment time then is measured from 

that ‘‘create date.’’ 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. So knowing that, what are our current 

wait times? And my time is short, so I want—if you can just answer the question. 

Dr. PETZEL. About 50 percent of our patients are being seen in 

less than 14 days, and about 50 percent are being seen in more 

than 14 days right now. That is from November. We do not have 

data since we haveten this going in the entire system. 

The average wait time for an appointment for a new patient that 

is not walking in for an emergency is 15 days. So we are getting 

close, but we are not there, and I would openly admit that we— 

Chairman MURRAY. And if you could answer me in writing on 

the staffing levels, because that is a critical part of this, and it is 

certainly important to all of us. 

Dr. PETZEL. Right. 

Chairman MURRAY. I just wanted to quickly ask a couple other 

questions. One of them is on the integrated health care record that 

has been referred to back and forth here between the Department 

of Defense and the VA. We knew from the Walter Reed time, scandal time, that this was a critical effort. A lot of money has been 

put into this to have a coordinated record system. We considered 

the Department’s joint development of a single integrated electronic health care record as really a cornerstone of that whole solution, but the Departments have now abandoned the drug cartel of 

a single record in favor of just interoperability between the two systems. 

We have a March 28th memorandum from the DOD Operational 

Test and Evaluation Director that criticizes DOD’s approach to the 

iEHR development as being, quote, manifestly inconsistent with 

the President’s Open Standards Agenda for electronic health care 

records and notes that this resistance appears to be based on an 

in correct assumption that using open standards will take too much 

time. 

I disagree. I support the White House’s approach to implementing open standards. Open-source development brings together 

Government, industry, academia, and drives innovation, and is the 

right way forward. Are you concerned that DOD’s apparent preference for commercial software will make achieving true interoperability even more difficult? 

Secretary Shinseki. Madam Chair, let me just say, like you, I am 

committed to what we have been asked to produce here, and I 

would say that over my 4 years of working with Secretary Shinseki 

Gates and Panetta and now Secretary Hagel that both Secretaries 

are committed to a single, joint, common, integrated electronic 

health record, open in architecture and nonproprietary in design, 

which is what the President asked us to go to work on. 
272 

For Secretary Hagel, who arrived and was not familiar with the 

previous history on iEHR, he asked for time to get into is and understand where the program was. And so I await the next opportunity for the two of us to sit down here and ensure that the program is on track as we have committed to. 

Chairman MURRAY. Well, I hope that is going forward, and I will 

certainly push DOD to do the same. 

There is a December 6, 2012, memo from the U.S. Chief Information Officer and U.S. Chief Technology Officer that requires VA 

and DOD to submit a number of documents regarding the status 

of iEHR program, and I would ask t you provide us with a complete 

set of those documents as well. 

Secretary Shinseki. All right. 

Chairman MURRAY. Finally, just really quickly on Washington 

State, I appreciate the VA hospital campus construction being part 

of the budget. As you know, that is ongoing. But we still have some 

clinics that are really now behind schedule. Bremerton is behind 

because the Navy decided not to pursue a joint clinic, and the 

budget request does not reflect that change. And there has to be 

some progress on opening the new clinic in the North Olympic Peninsula and addressing some of the staffing concerns. 

So I would just ask you if you could let me know back— you do 

not have to do it at this moment—where we are. We have to expedite those clinics, and they remain a top priority of ours. 

Secretary Shinseki. We will do that, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kaine? 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just two sort of compliments to finish off. 

First, the VA has five polytrauma centers around the United 

States where it is both care but also research about how to deal 

with these complex injuries we were describing earlier. One of 

them is in Richmond at the McGuire VA, and I was there about 

60 days ago, and very impressive, and I think that is, as I understand it, not just a VA effort but a VA–DOD effort to deal with 

these complex kinds of injuries that we are seeing. That kind of collaboration is to be encouraged. 

And, second, Mr. Secretary, in response to some questions of both 

Senator Sessions and Senator King, you were talking about work 

at the VA to help folks on training, job training programs that you 

have that are very specific to needs you have or skills that veterans 

have that probably ought to be dealt with in a very direct way. But 

you made a point that I think is a really good one, which is the 

right way to start to deal with veterans’ unemployment is not to 

start with veterans, but it is to start that vector of post-military 

employment while someone is in the military, whether it is through 

credentialing or other kinds of training. The first bill that I put 

in—and it is kind of related to my Armed Services portfolio—is the 

Troop Talent Act that is very much about credentialing, but about 

during the active-duty phase of somebody’s experience when they 

are picking up skills, why not have them get credit for the skills 

at their moment of maximum training, at the very moment that 

they obtain them? You know, there is good work we can do working 

with veterans to tackle unemployment issues, but if we go further 
273 

upstream and start to deal with this question while somebody is 

in active service, I think we will find that we can move the numbers on veterans’ unemployment in a much more significant way. 

And I think some of the programs that you have at the VA might 

offer us some instruction for how to do it earlier, and I look forward 

to working together with you on that. 

Senator SHINSEKI. I am happy to work with you on that, Senator. 

Great points. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Shinseki, thank you to you and your entire team for 

coming here today. And as I said before, a budget is a lot more 

than just numbers and spread sheets. It really is a reflection of our 

values and our priorities, and certainly one of our absolute highest 

priorities is caring for those who served and sacrificed for the Nation. 

So I really appreciate your coming here and this discussion and 

looking at how we are going to look at our budget in the future. 

Senator Sessions asked you a bit about what comes down the 

pike 10 years from now. We have to be looking at that as we have 

a large number of veterans returning, an aging veteran population. 

The challenges are not going away, and we cannot just budget by 

the moment. We really have to look at how this is impacting our 

future. So I very much appreciate you and your team for all your 

work. 

So as a reminder to all my colleagues, additional statements or 

questions are due for today’s hearing by 6:00 p.m., and I would ask, 

if there is no objection, that testimony for the record submitted by 

the Wounded Warrior Project be included in this record. 

[The prepared statement of the Wounded Warrior Project follows:] 
274 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD 

WOUNllEll WARRIOR PRO,IECT 

HEARING ON THE FY 2014 nUllGET: VETERANS PROGRAM 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE DUllGET 

U.S. SENATE 

APRIL 23, 2013 

Chahman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions and Members oflhe Committee: 

Thank you for inviting Wounded Wanior Project to submit our views on the President's YA 

budget for Fiscal Year 2014, and for your timely focus on this plan. 

W\VP welcomes the commitment to veteranR reaffinned in this budget, and deepJy appreciates 

the broad recognition it provides to the debt this country owes those who served and 

sacrificed. That recognition, manifest in funding increases at a time of fiscal constraint for 

important programs within the Department ,,[Yeterans Affairs signals an ongoing effort to stand 

by America's veterans. 

Nevertheless, one can rightly look deeper and ask - more than a decade into a war that continues 

to shatter bodies and minds ~. whether this budget truly meets the very profound needs 

experienced by many of our wounded warriors. This surely js an apt lens tlu·ough which the 

Committee can look. 

VA does (:crtainly have additional programmatic resource needs. Importantly, howevel"~ we sec 

this budget as falling Sh011 in some key areas - both with respect to its failure to make timely 

programmatic investments in strategically important areas} ill1d in maintaining a largely 

unchanging course in areas where we would have hoped for new and bolder vision. 

To illustrate the point, it is noteworthy thaI this budget asks Congress to make pennanent two tax 

credits to encourage employers to hire veterans. For many warriors, however, miHtaI}' careers 

were cut short by life-altering injuries, and the challenge of finding employment is compounded 

by the need to develop new skills, tools, training or education, even as they attempt to reDUTY * HONOR * COURAGE * COMMITMENT * INTEGRITY * COUNTRY * SERVICE 
275 

integrate into their communities and rebuild their lives. While the Post 9/11 GI Bill is an answer 

for some, many others need good counseling and support. VA's vocational rehabilitation and 

education program (VR&E) should be an answer, a key transitional pathway. VA has failed, 

however, to give this program the priority and resourc.e support needed for this generation of 

wounded warriors to get the kind and extent of help they need. For too long, for example, the 

size of counselors' caseloads has limited their ability to provide the extent of support needed, 

particularly for those with PTSD and traumatic brain injury. It is disappointing, therefore, to see 

that VR&E staffing levels under this budget remain flat, despite a projeeted increase in 

workload. But absent any plan to increase funding for this important program, we urge 

consideration of another approach to better ensure adequate support for wounded warriors 

establish a system of prioritization. Consistent with the system of prioritization already in law 

with regard to emollment in the V A health care system,l the vocational rehabilitation progranl 

could be structured to establish relative priorities, such that the most severely injured would have 

higher priority tor receiving needed rehabilitative services than a veteran with a substantially 

lower percentage of disability. 

Last year, adopting provisions on long-term TBI care that originated in legislation introduced by 

Senator Boozman and Congressman Tim Walz, this Committee approved and Congress enacted 

the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act. The BoozmanWalz provision requires that VA provide veterans suffering from TBI with the opportunity to 

maximize independence through community-based services such as supported employment and 

life-skills coaching. It further requires that rehabilitation focus not only on achieving functional 

gains but on sustaining them. This important provision was intended to remedy VA's failure to 

meet such basic expectations ofTBI rehabilitation. We see no indication in the fisoal plan for 

FY 2014, however, that VA is in any way budgeting to implement this important provision. 

In contrast, VA points with some pride to a significant increase in funding for mental health. 

While we applaud the commitment reflected in that budgeting decision, we do not see a 

commensurate basis for confidence that the fimding will have the decisive impaot for which one 

would hope. Nor do we see evidence of a clear strategic plan underlying the $7 billion mental 

health budget. Instead we see l'elatively little in the way of course-correction beyond a plan to 

increase funding. We see little in the budget to foster a belief, for example, that those warriors 

who need, but have been reluctant to seek, behavioral health care from VA will now visit VA 

facilities. Many warriors have begun only to drop out of -- treatment; the budget suggests 

nothing to win them back or to keep others from following that course. Qne resource that many 

of OUf wan-iors cite with approval is the Vet Center program. But despite the drawdown and the 

likelihood of greater nmnbers in need of help, the budget projects no growth in that program. 

The mental health challenges facing wounded waITiors alone would lead one to believe that V A 

should look beyond its own facilities and plan to work with the communities where our warriOl's 

live. But the budget is devoid of a real strategy for engaging communities, or even of a plan to 

increase substantially the nnmbers ofveterallS who would be afforded mental health care through 

fee or contract an-angements. We do, however, see two promising signs: the hiring and training 

'38 U.S. Code section 1705. 
276 

of veterans to provide peer-support services is a very encouraging step, as is the steady growth in 

tele-mental health services. These are dwarfed, however, by a seeming need to be "doing 

something," that translates into a plan simply to increase funding. 

In a similar vein, the budget proposes increases in fUnding in a number of high-visibility 

programmatic areas, several of keen importance to wounded warriors. To illustrate, the budget 

proposes increases in funding for prosthetics. What it does not do, however, is acknowledge the 

need to improve prosthetics care -- an area in which VA's leadership role has declined and where 

a vision for change has yet to be realized. 

Finally, we welcome the priority given VA's effort to remedy the long-festering compensation 

and pension claims backlog. Wounded warriors certainly suffer as the result of shortcomings in 

a system intended to provide timely disability compensation. We encounter too many warriors 

who after sustaining severe wounds, receive only limited military retired pay (often because of 

too-hurried military processing), and too often experience many months of severe flnancialneed 

while VA completes the process of adjudicating the warrior's claim. While we at WWP have 

provided monetary and other supports to individuals who find themselves in such straits, there 

should be no excuse for leaving combat-wounded warriors in limbo. It bears noting, however, 

that these problems are not exclusively of V A's making. While V A does "own" serious claimsadjudication problems, we should be cautious in believing that additional funding alone will 

produce an optimal system. (We recognize that V A has instituted some impol1ant streamlining 

efforts, though the promise in those efIOliS will take time to realize.) Not only are there 

"upstream" problems that require DoD resolution, but long experience persuades us that timely, 

effective claims-adjudication will continue to elude the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) 

until it effectively grapples with some underlying managerial problems. Indeed, in frmning the 

challenge numerically - viewing determinations of service-incurrence and extent of disability 

solely as work to be counted and sped through a system VBA risks cementing in place a 

system that does not necessarily serve either the veteran or its workforce well. These are not 

after all assembly-line "widgets," but determinations critical to the well-being of a wounded 

individual. Understandably, the singular focus on "moving claims" has bred morale problems 

among adjudication staff. W11i1e appreciating that VBA is redesigning systems and harnessing 

technology to eliminate a claims backlog, there is room as well tor a complementary focus - one 

aimed at instilling in leadership and management the goal of empowering employees to do good 

work, rather than instilling a fear of punishment for failing to meet numerical indicators. 

Leadership is a first step in establishing that much-needed cultural change. 

Thank you for considering our views. 
277 

Chairman MURRAY. With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
278 

Questions for the Record 

Senate Budget Committee 

Chairman Patty Murray 

April 23, 2013, Hearing on U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request 

for Fiscal Year 2014 

Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Responses 

Responses Provided to the Committee on August 12, 2013 

Submitted By 

The Honorable Kelly Ayotte 

BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS 

Question 2: According to your budget submission, in FY 2012, it took the VA an 

average of 866 days to resolve benefit appeals. Your goal is 625 for FY 2014 with an 

eventual goal of 400 days. Why does this take so long? What must be done to fix this? 

What measures do you have in place to ensure that VA reaches its very modest goal of 

625 days? Do you think 400 days is an appropriate target? What date has the 

department set to reach its 400 day target? 

Response: Veterans, dependents of Veterans, and Survivors of Veterans may choose 

to appeal all decisions regarding VA benefits. The VA appeals process is bifurcated, 

with most of the steps for processing an appeal occurring at the Veterans Benefits 

Administration (VBA) Regional Office (RO) level. If the matter is not resolved to the 

Veteran's satisfaction at the VBA level, the appeal may be transferred to the Board of 

Veterans' Appeals (BVA) for a final agency decision. In other words, BVA is 

responsible for rendering a final decision in a matter on appeal, but most of the appeals 

processing steps, which can be lengthy, take place at the V8A RO level. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2012, the average processing times for appeals at the VBA RO level 

(i.e., first stage of a VA appeal) were as follows: 270 days from Veterans' initiation of an 

appeal by filing a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) to VBA's issuance of a Statement of 

the Case, and 692 days from Veterans' perfection of an appeal by filing a Substantive 

Appeal (VA Form 9) to certification of the appeal by VBA to BVA. 

At the BVA level (i.e" second (final) stage of a VA appeal), the average processing time 

in FY 2012 was 251 days from BVA's physical receipt of the case to issuance of a BVA 

decision. Notably, this includes the Board's cycle time of 117 days. Cycle time 

measures the time from when an appeal is physically received at BVA until a decision is 

reached, excluding the time the case is with a Veterans Service Organization 

representative for preparation of written argument. 

In contrast, the Appeals Resolution Time (ART) is a joint measure (e.g., VBAlBVA) that 

represents the average length of time it takes the Department to process an appeal 

Page 1 of3 
279 

from the date a claimant files an NOD at VBA until a case is finally resolved, whether 

the appeal is resolved at the VBA RO level or at BVA. Thus, the ART includes many 

appeals that are resolved at the VBA level and never come to BVA for decision. Note 

also that the ART measures the time to a final resolution, such as an allowance, a 

denial, or a withdrawal of an appeal; this measure does not include remand deCisions, 

as a remanded appeal is not yet finally resolved. That said, many cases are remanded 

(I.e., sent back for further development) to the VBA RO (sometimes several times) 

before a final BVA decision is rendered. In this regard, it is important to note that the 

ART includes the average 445 days it takes for cases that are remanded to the VBA RO 

to be recertified to BVA; that is, the ART clock continues to run for the duration of the 

remand period until a final decision is issued. It is also important to note that, in 

FY 2012, BVA remanded approximately 46 percent of its cases. This high remand rate 

means that cases are in the system longer, and this is a contributing factor for an 

increased ART time. By law, unless BVA can allow an appeal in full, if there are actions 

that must be taken by VA to assist the Veteran in substantiating his or her claim (such 

as providing a new medical examination or obtaining copies of medical treatment 

records), BVA must remand (I.e., send the case back to VBA) to complete those 

actions, as BVA cannot complete those actions at its level. 

The ART target of 625 days for FY 2014 and the strategic target of 400 days as 

reflected in the budget submission are mutually set by VBA and BVA BVA recognizes 

that it and VBA unfortunately did not reach the FY 2012 ART target of 675 days. 

Appeals often represent the most complex cases, generally including multiple issues 

and theories of entitlement that adjudicators at the VBA and BVA leve! must conSider 

and address. Adjudicators at both levels must closely review all of the evidence of 

record, weigh it, and issue written decisions that adequately explain to the Veteran (or 

other appellant) why the decision was reached, to include proper citation to controlling 

legal authority. This is a labor-intensive process that often requires review of hundreds, 

and sometimes thousands, of pages of records. Another critical component that 

impacts both VBA and BVA is judicial review by the Federal courts, to inClude the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), Federal Circuit, and United 

States Supreme Court. As the final adjudicator in the appeals process within the 

Department, BVA not only has to craft deciSions that are understandable to Veterans 

and other appellants, but It must also issue thorough, comprehensive, and legally 

correct decisions that will withstand judicial scrutiny. While VBA and BVA strive to issue 

final appeals decisions as quickly as possible, the inherent nature of the work and 

attention required to adjudicate these cases, as well as the due process protections built 

into the system, necessarily mean that final resolution of appeals takes some time. The 

400-day strategic target is an aspirational goal, and VBA and BVA aim to reach it after 

FY 2015. 

80th VBA and BVA are engaged in efforts to increase efficiencies in the appeals 

process. In particular, in March 2012, VBA established the Appeals Design Team 

(ADT) to generate and implement innovative ideas to help decrease lengthy appellate 

processing times and increase appellate processing quality. One ADT proposal 

spawned a successful pilot program at the Houston Regional Office wherein claimants 

Page 2 00 
280 

who disagreed with a benefits decision were asked to use NODs on a standardized 

form, also known as a SNOD. The control time during the pilot for the SNOD form was 

Impressive, at only 7.8 days compared to 98.8 days for the non-pilot control time in 

Houston. In April 2013, the Office of Management and Budget approved the SNOD 

form, and BVA is working closely with V8A and the Office of General Counsel on ways 

to standardize the form to help improve efficiencies in appeals processing. In addition, 

BVA has increased video teleconference hearings, which allows BVA Judges to reduce 

travel for hearings, and, thus, remain in the office and leverage the down time to work 

cases when an appellant fails to appear for a hearing. VBA and BVA have also 

partnered on a Joint Training Initiative to reduce remands to the field and the resulting 

rework that is required when BVA remands to VBA. Additionally, BVA is pursuing a 

Lean Six Sigma study of the BVA decision-writing process to find efficiencies to 

increase decision output. BVA is leveraging technology to further streamline 

operations, to include use of a Virtual Docket that allows for efficient electronic 

management of BVA hearings, and virtualization of hearing transcripts and mail 

processes, thereby eliminating the delay caused by adding paper copies to claims 

folders. Finally, BVA has set forth a number of legislative proposals that seek to 

streamline the adjudicatory process. These include: (1) allowing BVA more flexibility In 

scheduling video teleconference hearings In order to minimize travel time and expenses 

related to conducting in-person hearings in the field; (2) reducing the time period to 

initiate an appeal with an NOD from 1 year to 180 days; (3) clarifying that a timely filed 

Substantive Appeal (VA Form 9) is a jurisdictional requirement for BVA review; 

(4) simplifying the content requirements of BVA decisions, making them more 

understandable to Veterans; and (5) changing Equal Access to Justice Act fee 

requirements to better focus attorney energy at CAVe on achieving improved results for 

Veterans. 

In addition to seeking the above-mentioned efficiencies, BVA is also aggressively hiring 

attorney staff to execute the recent $8 million additional funding provided to ensure that 

appeals are adjudicated in a timely manner. This additional staff will assist with 

maintaining and/or improving BVA's cycle time of 117 days, and a similar focus on 

appeals at VBA will likely be required for VBA and BVA to jOintly reach the 400-day 

strategic target. 

Page 3 of3 
281 

Questions for the Record 

Senate Budget Committee 

Chairman Patty Murray 

April 23, 2013, Hearing on U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request 

for Fiscal Year 2014 

Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Responses 

Responses Provided to the Committee on August 12,2013 

Submitted By 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Chairman 

OFFICE OF ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND CONSTRUCTION 

QUESTION 3: 6~ggisitjon Reform and Savings In these tight budgetary times, now 

more than ever the Department needs to be smart and strategic about how it does 

business. The President's budget projects $370 million in new acquisition savings. 

If successful, several initiatives, including strategic sourcing, will help VA be more 

efficient and achieve substantial savings. The Department's strategic sourcing 

initiative requires that VHA and the Office of Acquisition and Logistics work and 

collaborate together through the Strategic Acquisition Center. I understand this 

initiative has suffered repeated delays. 

a. What is the current status of the Department's strategic sourcing initiative? 

Response: VA has implemented a robust process for analyzing the Department's 

spending to identify potential strategic sourcing opportunities. As a result of this 

process, the Department has completed approximately 40 business cases outlining 

potential savings in various spend categories such as medical-surgical products, 

prosthetics, laboratory supplies, healthcare services, information technology, and 

facilities management. VA's Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and Office of 

Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction's (OALC) Strategic Acquisition Center (SAC) 

are actively pursuing seven new strategiC sourcing agreements derived from these 

business cases. 

VA has successfully entered into strategic arrangements for obtaining a broad spectrum 

of information technology (IT) products and services. VA is continuing to leverage 

existing strategiC sourcing arrangements in support of critical and high visibility mission 

areas such as pharmacy operations, medical-surgical prime vendor arrangements, 

consolidated high-tech medical equipment purchasing, medical referrals, hearing aids, 

and burial flag support for Veteran interments. 

In addition to VA's internal strategiC sourcing efforts, VA is also collaborating with 

various Federal agencies under the umbrella of the Federal Strategic Sourcing 

Page 1 of3 
282 

leadership Committee (SSlC). Current SSlC focus efforts are primarily targeted at 

leveraging Federal spend for various IT product and services. VA is taking the lead on 

proposing various Federal level medical-surgical strategic sourcing initiatives (e.g., 

hearing aids/batteries, wheelchairs, urinary catheters, IV pumps and supplies, etc.). VA 

is also a recognized Federal leader in terms of participation in existing Federal Strategic 

Sourcing Initiatives such as office supplies and small package delivery services. 

b. In 2010 Secretary Shinseki directed the Department to implement an 

Integrated Acquisition Model. What is the status of the lAM as a whole? 

Response: The overarching goal of the Integrated Acquisition Model (lAM) was to 

correct long-standing systemic contracting weaknesses in the Department. Specific 

lAM objectives were established to: ensure unity of effort; clearly define lines of 

authority and responsibility; improve procurement customer satisfaction; leverage 

purchasing power (spend) through improvements in standardization and strategic 

sourcing; improve compliance with procurement laws, regulations, and business rules; 

improve contracting workforce competencies; and improve data quality and 

transparency. Much has been achieved in 3 years. 

The Acting Chief Acquisition Officer has put in place significant governance, policy 

development, and acquisition support frameworks to achieve better acquisition 

outcomes. Improvements in execution are reflected by steady increases in key 

performance measures. For example, improvements have been achieved in contracting 

compliance, use of automated acquisition tools, competition in contracting, use of the 

electronic contract management system, and award of contracts on time. Our VA 

Acquisition Academy (VAAA) provides cost-effective, in-house training for our 

acquisition workforce professionals, including contracting speCialists, program 

managers, and contracting officer representatives. VA has a robust acquisition intern 

training program to train replacements for an aging acquisition workforce. OUf intern 

programs are designed to provide necessary training, education, and experience 

components to develop acquisition professionals with the skills and business acumen to 

develop quality business solutions at fair and reasonable prices. A recent Government 

Accountability Office report on acquisition workforce development recognized many 

VAAA best practices for consideration by other Federal agencies. Additionally, our 

contracting efforts with Service-Disabled and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses have 

far exceeded the Department's goals and we lead all other Federal agencies in this 

area. Additional activities include the following: 

• Development of new training and assessment approaches to improve the 

effectiveness of our legacy acquisition workforce. 

• Fostering a program management culture to improve program cost, schedule, 

and performance outcomes. 

• Establishing a VA Acquisition Corps. 

e Development of specialized contracting cadres at our Technology Acquisition 

Center to support IT program requirements and at our Strategic Acquisition 

Center to support medical-surgical program requirements. 

Page 2 of3 
283 

• Acquisition data quality initiatives to significantly improve VA's ability to manage 

risk and make smart, data-driven decisions. 

• Provide centralized commodity/item management services, improve 

standardization, and develop strategic sourcing solutions to better leverage 

healthcare spending. 

Whereas the lAM began as a discrete improvement initiative with a limited set of 

objectives and a fixed schedule, the effort has evolved into a more flexible, more 

comprehensive management approach to developing and synchronizing both long-term 

and short-term solutions for overcoming deficiencies in VA's acquisition 

community. This initiative has evolved into a process by which VA continuously 

prioritizes and oversees corrective actions to both strategic and operational/tactical 

acquisition challenges. 

c. Has the Department achieved its performance objectives through 

implementation of this integrated model? 

Response: As described above, many of the lAM's initial objectives have been 

accomplished; however, others, while improving, have yet to be fully realized. For 

example, efforts to improve standardization across the Department continue but are not 

proceeding as rapidly as originally anticipated, and internal customer service is not 

where we believe it should be. Significant efforts are underway to improve both areas 

to include maturing the commodity management infrastructure and educating 

acquisition and non-acquisition professionals on their responsibilities in the acquisition 

process. 

Page 30f 3 
284 

Questions for the Record 

Senate Budget Committee 

Chairman Patty Murray 

April 23, 2013, Hearing on U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request 

for Fiscal Year 2014 

Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Responses 

Responses Provided to the Committee on August 12, 2013 

Submitted By 

The Honorable Mark Warner 

OFRCE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

Question 4: I have suggested that the VA consider creating a formal partnership 

between the VA and William & Mary Law School that will enable the Puller Clinic to 

serve as national models of civic engagement, service to veterans, and collaboration 

with the VA. 

a. This has the potential to help decrease the backlog since tt1e legal clinic works 

with tt1e Veteran to submit a complete claims package witt1 all the supporting 

documentation, which reduces the time spent by VA claims processors 

spending time chasing down missing paperwork and forms. Is this something 

that Secretary Shinseki would be willing to explore? 

Response: VA appreciates the dedication of and contributions made by the Puller 

Clinic's faculty and students in aSSisting numerous Veterans with their claims for VA 

benefits. We have been in contact with the Clinic's faculty regarding their interest in 

establishing a national program of Veterans' claims assistance involving law schools 

throughout the country and the possibility of partnering with VA. VA would encourage 

the Clinic to pursue opportunities to expand the type of services it provides Veterans, 

especially in the area of assisting Veterans to file fully developed claims, which would 

help expedite processing of their claims and reduce the overall claims backlog. 

b. How can the VA facilitate a system where the Puller Clinic serves as a template 

for other law schools across the country who wants to establish legal services 

clinics to help our Veterans? 

Response: Although VA shares the Clinic's interest in having law schools serve 

Veterans nationwide and developing ways to reduce the claims backlog, there are some 

challenges that exist in partnering with an entity such as the Puller Clinic, For instance, 

to the extent the Clinic seeks partnership with VA so that VA can provide grant funds for 

legal services provided by law school clinics, VA lacks legal authority to provide funding 

for legal services to Veterans or to contract with an outside entity to provide legal 

services on our behalf. Furthermore, VA canna! use its appropriations to fund programs 

Page I of2 
285 

for which it lacks legal authority, In order to directly provide legal assistance to 

Veterans and/or provide financial assistance to legal services providers through new 

assistance programs or competitive grant programs, VA would need new statutory 

authority, VA, however, CQuid refer Veterans to law school cfinics such as the Puller 

Clinic in addition to recognized Veterans Service Organizations as a resource for claims 

assistance available without charge, VA will continue to welcome opportunities to 

communicate with the Clinic with regard to its efforts to provide assistance to Veterans, 

Page 2 of2 
286 

Questions for the Record 

Senate Budget Committee 

Chairman Patty Murray 

April 23, 2013, Hearing on U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request 

for Fiscal Year 2014 

Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Responses 

Responses Provided to the Committee on August 20,2013 

Submitted By 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Chairman 

And 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions 

Ranking Member 

OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING 

Question 2: LGBT Veterans All servicemembers, veterans, and their families, must 

be treated fairly and equally. Yet today, gay and lesbian servicemembers, veterans, 

and their spouses and families are denied equal benefits under the law. The 

Department has taken important steps towards ensuring that VA is a welcoming and 

safe environment for LGBT veterans and their families, including: 

- Instituting a standardized visitation policy so that a veteran's loved one can be 

at his or her bedside, 

s Extending burial rights to the domestic partner of a female veteran, and 

.. Creating the Office of Health Equity, to ensure the equitable delivery of health 

care to all veterans, 

The President's budget requests $911 million for VHA Central Office, which includes 

funding for the Office of Health Equity, 

c. Additionally, in light of the ongoing litigation surrounding the constitutionality of 

the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), it is important that the Department be 

prepared in the event the Supreme Court finds DOMA unconstitutional. What 

steps is the Department taking to ensure it is prepared to offer benefits and 

services to eligible same-sex spouses of veterans in the event DOMA is struck 

down? 

Response: On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court held that section 3 of DOMA 

violates the due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal 

government by discriminating against same-sex couples who are married under State 

law. 

Certain provisions in title 38, United States Code, define "spouse" and "surviving 

spouse" to refer only to a person of the opposite sex, See 38 U.S.C. § 101 (3) and (31). 

Page 1 of3 
287 

Under these provisions, a same-sex marriage recognized by a State would not confer 

spousal status for purposes of eligibility for VA benefits. Although the title 38 definitions 

of "spouse" and "surviving spouse" are similar to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) 

provisions at issue in United States v. Windsor, no court has yet held the title 38 

definitions to be unconstitutional. 

VA and the Department of Justice are working together to assess the impact of the 

Windsor decision on the continued constitutional viability of sections 101 (3) and (31) of 

title 38 and VA's obligations with respect to those statutes. Challenges to the 

constitutionality of the title 38 definitions of "spouse" and "surviving spouse" currently 

are pending before Federal courts in Cooper-Harris v. United States, No. 12-cv-887 

(C.D. Cal.); McLaughlin v. Panetta, No. 11-cv-11 905 (D. Mass.); and Cardona v. 

Shinseki, No. 11-3083 (Vet. App.). Senate bill S. 373, the Charlie Morgan Military 

Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2013, which VA testified in support of on June 12, 

2013 to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, would remove the requirement that 

a Veteran's "spouse" or "surviving spouse" be a person of the opposite sex. 

Should the title 38 spousal definitions be revised or determined to be unconstitutional, 

VA will be prepared to update its policies and systems in a timely manner and ensure 

that the delivery and quality of Veterans' benefits remain at the highest standards. Our 

commitment to Veterans and their families will continue to be our focus as VA 

implements any necessary changes to comply with applicable law and guidance. 

d. How will the Department be communicating potential changes to services and 

benefits to veterans if DOMA is ruled unconsUtutional? 

Response: If 38 U.S.C. § 101 (3) and (31) are repealed or ruled unconstitutional, VA 

would begin recognizing same-sex marriages that are valid under the law of the state 

where the parties resided at the time of the marriage or the law of the state where the 

parties resided when the right to benefits accrued. These changes would be 

communicated to Veterans and their families by VA's Office of Public and 

Intergovernmental Affairs as well as other entities across VA, including the Veterans 

Health Administration, National Cemetery Administration, and Veterans Benefits 

Administration through digital media platforms (e.g., Web, social media), news media, 

key stakeholders, Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), and state Veterans 

organizations. 

e. Please detail the Department's timeline for implementing the necessary changes 

in policy to provide services and benefits to veterans and their same-sex 

spouses if DOMA is struck down. 

Page 2 of3 
288 

Response: Presently, there are provisions in title 38 of the United States Code that 

limit the terms "spouse" and "surviving spouse" to mean persons of the opposite sex. 

On February 23,2012, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs informed Congress that 

"consistent with VA's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, VA will 

continue to apply and enforce section 3 of DOMA and 38 U.S.C. § 101 (3) and (31) 

unless and until Congress repeals those provisions or the judiciary renders a definitive 

verdict against their constitutionality." Should the title 38 provisions be repealed or 

determined to be unconstitutional, VA will build upon the work mentioned previously in 

our response to 2c and 2d to develop a proposed timeline for implementing necessary 

changes in policy. 

10. You mentioned at the hearing ongoing conversations with DoD regarding the VADoD Integrated Electronic Health Records (iEHR). How would you describe the 

working relationship you have with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel regarding this 

issue? Please provide me with an update on the progress you two have made 

regarding the VA-DoD iEHR. 

Response: Over the course of Secretary Shinseki's tenure, he has had strong and 

collaborative relationships with each Secretary of Defense. In 2010, Secretaries Gates 

and Shinseki initiated quarterly meetings. Since that time, Secretary Shinseki has met 

with his Department of Defense (000) counterparts 13 times. Since Secretary Hagel's 

confirmation, he and Secretary Shinseki have met once. They recently participated 

together in a Senate Appropriations Committee roundtable and have an ongoing 

dialogue. VA is committed to developing a single, joint, integrated electronic health 

record - one that is open in architecture and non-proprietary in design. VA looks 

forward to continuing our work with 000 with the ultimate goal of improving the way we 

care for all Servicemembers, Veterans, and their families. 

Pagd of3 
(289) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 

DEFENSE BUDGET REQUEST 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Murray, Wyden, Nelson, Whitehouse, Warner, 

Kaine, Sessions, Portman, Johnson, and Ayotte. 

Staff Present: Evan T. Schatz, Majority Staff Director; and Eric 

M. Ueland, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MURRAY 

Chairman MURRAY. Good morning, and welcome to the Senate 

Budget Committee hearing on the fiscal year 2014 budget request 

for the Department of Defense, and I want to thank Secretary 

Hagel, General Dempsey, and Under Secretary Hale for being here 

with us this morning. The President has requested $526.6 billion in funding for DOD, 

with one-third going to operations, one-third going to personnel 

costs, and the remaining third used for investments. The President 

has also requested an additional $79.4 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funding for DOD. 

While the base budget request is essentially flat-lined, the Department is in a complicated position. They are finally ending the 

war in Afghanistan; implementing a new national security strategy; executing the pivot to Asia; and preparing for a range of potential problems, including North Korea, Iran, Syria, and the 

ungoverned spaces and extreme poverty that breed conflict. All of 

this has to be done with limited resources while facing continued 

sequestration. 

Secretary Hagel, clearly you have a very difficult task in front of 

you. 

A wide range of options has been put forward by many different 

groups to help meet these strategic goals while dealing with the 

budget constraints. None of them are easy, but I look forward to 

discussing them today. And I am especially interested in the findings of your Strategic Choices and Management Review. 

I also want to highlight one of the Department’s challenges in 

particular. After ending the war in Iraq, we are also finally winding down the war in Afghanistan. As we close out these campaigns, 

it is appropriate to draw down the funding that will no longer be 
290 

needed. But this must be done responsibly, by finding the right balance between capabilities and capacity. At the same time, Congress 

needs to begin the process of modifying or repealing the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. 

Overall, I support the President’s commitment to that end. But 

this discussion is still in the early stages. We need to be sure that 

when we are ready to roll back the authorization, there is an appropriate and effective legal framework in place. 

The new laws must be flexible enough to deal with rapidly 

changing events and our continuing efforts to protect the country 

from terrorists and atypical threats, while pulling back authorities 

that are only appropriate during wartime. 

As we prepare for that discussion, I am very concerned about the 

effects sequestration is having now, and I am even more concerned 

about the long-term impact it will have if we cannot come together 

to replace it. 

Civilian defense employees are being furloughed. The Air Force 

has now grounded 31 squadrons, and by the end of the fiscal year, 

two-thirds of Navy ships and squadrons will not be combat ready. 

And the Marine Corps believes a little less than half its combat 

units will not be combat ready by the end of the year, which is 

troubling to hear from the Nation’s forces expected to respond to 

any situation at a second’s notice. This should not be difficult. 

Our colleague Senator McCain has called sequestration ‘‘devastating’’ to our military. 

Speaker Boehner has talked about how it would ‘‘hollow our military.’’ 

Democrats agree sequestration is a terrible way to cut defense 

spending the same way it is a terrible way to cut spending on education, health care, and other national investments. 

That is why the Senate budget takes a measured and fair approach to completely replace the sequester with a balanced mix of 

revenue and spending cuts. And it is why I believe one of our highest priorities right now should be coming together to get this done 

for the American people. 

We could be well on our way to a compromise budget resolution. 

It has now been 81 days since the Senate passed our budget resolution. Since then, Republican leadership in the Senate and a minority of Senators have held this process hostage. 

Let us be clear. Their obstructionism not only defies common 

sense, but it is dangerous. 

I just described some of the most serious ways sequestration 

threatens our national security, and I imagine we will hear more 

of that today. Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, we know 

these cuts will make it incredibly hard for you and our men and 

women in uniform to protect the country. 

That is why Democrats have gone to the floor of the Senate 12 

times now to ask consent to go to conference so we can move forward with fully replacing the sequester in order to protect our men 

and women in combat and our future readiness. We have been 

joined by Republicans like Senator McCain and Senator Collins, 

and many more have expressed public opposition to their leadership’s obstruction. But, unfortunately, each time we have been 

blocked. 
291 

We want to do the right thing—talk and debate the issues with 

our House counterparts openly and follow regular order. Republicans have spent years saying the biggest problem was the Senate 

not passing a budget. Now that we have passed one, they are running away from regular order as quickly as they can. 

And this is especially disappointing to me since Republican 

brinksmanship is how we ended up with sequestration in the first 

place. Continuing to manufacture crises is the only way to make 

the situation worse for the defense budget. Refusing to work together or compromise will force the Pentagon to deal with strict, 

across-the- board sequester cuts in future years, instead of the relative flexibility they would have in meeting lower spending limits 

under a budget and appropriations bills enacted through regular 

order. So I am hopeful that Republicans end their latest push toward brinksmanship and join us at the table in a budget conference under regular order. 

And I want to be clear; I join the President, Leader Reid, and 

others in this: We are not going to negotiate over the debt limit. 

The United States is not going to default on our debt, and we are 

not going to let Republicans play political games with the global 

economy. We are still trying to fix the problems that were caused 

the last time that was tried in 2011. We cannot allow it to happen 

again. 

To that end, the Senate budget resolution calls for $552 billion 

in discretionary defense spending in fiscal year 2014 and for $5.9 

trillion over 10 years. The resolution also includes several reserve 

funds that allow for additional funding so long as it is offset appropriately. The Senate amount is significantly higher than the sequester levels, as well as the major bipartisan budget plans like 

the Simpson-Bowles Commission. 

Now, after years of growth in the base defense budget—from 

$287.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $527.5 billion in fiscal year 

2013—these reductions in growth will be significant. But they can 

be accomplished hand in hand with our military strategy and our 

need to ensure readiness for the current and future threats. There 

are still options available to meet these spending targets, and I 

hope we can work together to budget for the Department of Defense, with a focus on real threats, real needs, and common sense. 

The Department needs to be reexamining how it can get the effects it needs as efficiently as possible, continue efforts to improve 

procurement to control costs and reduce waste, and work with Congress to determine how to balance force structure, modernization, 

readiness, and care for our service members and families. 

Most importantly, the Senate’s defense level is also part of an 

overall framework that would take a balanced, fair, and responsible 

approach to our budget by raising revenues, finding mandatory 

spending savings, and by cutting both defense and non-defense discretionary spending. 

On the other hand, the House approach I believe is the wrong 

way to go. 

In order to keep defense spending at the pre-sequester levels, 

Congressman Ryan’s plan slashes other key areas of the budget. 

For example, international affairs funding— which is a vital part 
292 

of our overall national security efforts—would be gutted under the 

House budget. 

Marine Corps Major General James Mattis recently testified, ‘‘If 

you do not fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy 

more ammunition, ultimately.’’ 

He is absolutely right, and I am very concerned that this type 

of unbalanced approach could have serious consequences. 

Aside from the budget differences, there are several policy areas 

we need to address. Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, I know 

you agree that the greatest strength of our military is the character 

and dedication of our men and women who wear the uniform. 

Our service members volunteer to face danger, to put their lives 

on the line, to protect our country and its people. But there are 

some dangers that cannot be accepted and none of our courageous 

service members should ever have to face. Sexual assault has no 

place in our military; it goes against everything our services stand 

for. 

It is absolutely unconscionable that a fellow service member, the 

person you trust to have your back and be there for you, would 

commit such a terrible crime. Worse is the prevalence of these 

crimes. The number of sexual assault cases has increased by more 

than a third since 2010. And of the estimated 26,000 cases in 2012, 

less than 3,000 service members reported these crimes. 

Of those who bravely came forward to report the abuse, an astounding 62 percent of them were retaliated against in one way or 

another. That is absolutely unacceptable. 

Equally troubling are the multiple reports of these crimes being 

committed by the very people who were responsible for preventing 

sexual assaults and helping victims. In fact, just last Saturday we 

learned the Army suspended the general in command of all Army 

forces in Japan over allegations that he failed in his duties to report and investigate a sexual assault. 

This is an appalling situation that seems to get worse by the day. 

We need a cultural overhaul. We need to create a system where the 

protection and safety of victims is unquestionable, a system where 

those who commit these crimes and those who allow for this behavior are punished. 

Secretary Hagel, you have taken some steps to help combat these 

terrible betrayals of trust, and we all really appreciate that. But it 

is also time for Congress to act on legislation to give victims the 

protections they deserve to seek justice and which gives the Pentagon the tools to deal with this growing crisis. 

I believe the solution starts with a dedicated legal counsel—specifically for victims—that is with them every step of the way 

through what is a deeply personal and painful process, which is exactly what Senator Ayotte, who is on this Committee, and I have 

proposed in bipartisan legislation. And I want to especially thank 

Senator Ayotte for being such an outstanding partner on this and 

for all she has done to push this bill forward. 

In addition to endorsements from important groups like the Service Women’s Action Network and the Military Officers’ Association, 

our bill now has 37 cosponsors and strong support from both parties, which should tell you we are doing the right thing. 
293 

Our bill is the Combatting Military Sexual Assault Act. It is aggressive and it is effective. It makes critical improvements to attack this unconscionable issue from several angles by empowering 

victims with special military lawyers to help guide them through 

the legal process; it prohibits sexual contact between instructors 

and trainees during basic training to make sure the terrible things 

we saw at places like Lackland Air Force Base and Aberdeen Proving Grounds will not happen again. 

And the bill also ensures members of the National Guard and 

Reserves will always have access to sexual assault response coordinators. And finally, it ensures sexual assault charges receive fair, 

thorough consideration, sending them to only the highest courtsmartial. This will ensure that no individual member of the chain 

of command can misuse their authority to deny justice and hurt 

the victim. 

The provisions of this bill were put together very carefully. I believe it works with the steps that you and the services are taking. 

It will be effective and will get to the heart of the sexual assault 

problem. This is the legislation that is workable and will make a 

difference. 

And, General Dempsey, I was pleased to see you give your support to the central provision of our bill—providing Special Victims’ 

Counsels to victims of sexual assault—during the SASC hearing 

last week, and I thank you for that. 

In addition to combating sexual assault, there is much work to 

be done in providing adequate mental health care to our service 

members and their families. 

And I am pleased to see in your testimony today that the Department’s fiscal year 2014 request would protect funding for mental 

health care. There are several different initiatives to expand access 

to care, including some being piloted in my home State of Washington. I look forward to hearing more from you about the effectiveness of those programs and which should be expanded to help more 

service members. 

One of the key initiatives that needs to stay on track is the DODwide review of mental health care which I asked Secretary Panetta 

to begin. A similar review by the Army has provided very important lessons, but I still have some concerns. And that is why completing the DOD-wide review to identify gaps in care and improvements must be made. Secretary Hagel, as we discussed yesterday, 

that review needs to be completed soon, and I look forward to hearing from you on the response to that. 

We also need to improve our understanding of suicide and efforts 

to prevent it. The Army recently released data showing there have 

already been 109 potential suicides this year—in the Army alone— 

compared to 49 Army casualties in Afghanistan. This is an absolute 

tragedy, not only because of how many we have had this year, but 

because each year the number of suicides goes up. 

Home towns should never be more lethal than the battlefield, 

and we have to be working to turn this around. 

Developing a seamless transition is another challenge that VA 

and DOD continue to face, though important progress has been 

made. This will be even more important as the war in Afghanistan 

now winds to a close and you begin to right-size our military forces. 
294 

I have worked with the Department to make the Transition Assistance Program mandatory. Along with a major overhaul of the curriculum, this has created a much more useful tool to assist service 

members leaving the military. I look forward to additional components and improvements that are coming. 

Other requirements to expand job opportunities and eliminate 

barriers to getting civilian licenses and credentials are key to combatting the unemployment rate for veterans which is still far too 

high. And I would like to hear from you about what you are doing 

to collaborate with our States and the private sector to bring our 

training and licensing requirements closer together. 

We have made a lot of progress working with employers to help 

them hire veterans, and I will continue to engage our private sector 

partners to help them understand the skills that veterans bring to 

the table and why they make some of the best employees. 

Helping our service members transition into education programs, 

good jobs, or starting small businesses does not just benefit the 

service member. It helps us grow our economy and the middle class 

and builds on the investments we have made in our newest veterans, as they continue to help our communities, our businesses, 

and their fellow veterans. 

I also want to continue working with you on the significant improvements needed in the Integrated Disability Evaluation System—IDES. In particular, this means developing an end-to-end 

technology solution to get service members through this process 

quickly and accurately. I wrote to Deputy Secretary Carter in June 

of last year calling for the Departments to develop a solution, but 

the goal is still a very long way off, and there are other steps we 

need to make to improve the process that we will work with VA 

on, such as ensuring they provide sufficient exams for the PEB decisions. 

I am also concerned about the effort to develop systems to allow 

communication between the VA and DOD’s medical records. 

Clearly the best option would have been a single joint electronic 

health record system that is open-source. This would have been the 

most effective solution; it would have revolutionized the market. 

But the Department has backed away from that goal, and I think 

everyone in this room is concerned you spent hundreds of millions 

of taxpayer dollars—and thousands of staff hours over the last few 

years—trying to create an integrated IT platform with the VA only 

to announce you were unable to find a solution. 

Now, I know there are significant questions about how to move 

forward, but I expect that you and Secretary Shinseki will clearly 

define a plan and ensure leadership remains behind this important 

project. The lack of seamless integration between our two largest 

Departments is one of the most critical areas to address in order 

to reduce costs, increase efficiencies, and make sure our service 

members and their families get the care they need and deserve. 

Overall, considering the serious budget challenges we face, now 

more than ever we must finally have effective collaboration between the Department of Defense and the VA. 

It is not easy to get the Government’s two largest bureaucracies 

to work together efficiently. This is a common theme in many of 

the areas that I just discussed. It will require your direct attention, 
295 

including evaluating whether the entities tasked with overseeing 

VA–DOD collaboration are effective. But with a former Deputy Administrator of VA as the Defense Secretary and with a former 

Chief of Staff of the Army now heading the VA, we should be well 

positioned to make progress. 

With that, thank you very much, all of you, for being here today 

and for your service to the country. 

And with that, I will turn it over to my Ranking Member, Senator Sessions, for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SESSIONS 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, the Chairman has got a lot for you to 

do, and we have a lot to do. 

I want to welcome Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey and 

Comptroller Hale to the Committee. Your work on behalf of national security efforts and our men and women in uniform that 

help provide our security is so much appreciated. We have the finest military the world has ever known. They are courageous and 

dedicated. They have responded to our call time and time and time 

again, multiple deployments away from their families, and they 

have responded with such fabulous dedication. 

In the past, I am not sure that would have happened. But it is 

happening today, and I think a lot of that is leadership, commitment, and dedication, and the quality of the people we have in our 

services. 

But we are facing challenges now. We will talk about the budget 

challenge today, and the Chairman has mentioned other issues 

that we will be talking about. 

The sexual assault problem is real. General Dempsey, I appreciated your frank testimony before the Committee last week, the 

Armed Services Committee, and I know we will have an additional 

hearing this afternoon, several hours on that very subject before 

the Armed Services Committee, because that crisis cannot continue. And I believe you were crystal clear you intend to make sure 

it does not. And, Secretary Hagel, I know you share that commitment. 

And I am also concerned about the suicide rate in the military, 

and I know it is a priority. It has been talked about for several 

years, and our top officers have discussed it, but we have not gotten to the bottom of that. And I know you are working on that. 

Madam Chair, I would like to take a moment, a personal moment, to express my appreciation to Marcus Peacock. You know he 

will be leaving us. He is my Staff Director, and he has just done 

such a fabulous job. I asked him to be the kind of leader that would 

work with your staff, and even though you and I can really tee it 

up sometimes on our different views, I believe our staffs have 

worked really well together, and I think Marcus deserves so much 

credit for that. He is a man of integrity and ability. He was at 

OMB, and I have just been so lucky to have him on my staff and 

want to personally say at this moment how much I appreciate you, 

Marcus. 

Chairman MURRAY. And, Senator Sessions, I echo those comments. Marcus, thank you for your tremendous service. 
296 

Senator SESSIONS. You just have people every now and then that 

you run into that love their country, put the service to their Nation 

first, and work hard at it constantly, and he is just one of those. 

And I am really excited that we will be able to add to our staff, 

as our Director, Eric Ueland, who is known all over the Senate as 

one of the finest Senate staffers we have had in the Senate in recent years, and we are blessed to have him on board, and I think 

you will enjoy working with him also. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Department of Defense comes to us at a very challenging time. With a diverse set 

of escalating global threats and a continued domestic fiscal crisis, 

it is more important than ever that we work together to make sure 

our military has the capacity and the sources to ensure the Nation 

continues as a positive force in the world. I know all of you believe 

in that. 

In evaluating the President’s budget, I found the most troubling 

aspect to be the treatment of how the sequestration part of the 

Budget Control Act is treated. For the second straight year, the impact of these sequestration reductions on our national defense 

spending have been hidden from the Congress and the public at 

large. 

Surely the President claims his budget replaces sequestration, 

but he fails to provide a plan that has any chance of passing in 

Congress. If there is one thing the Department of Defense does 

need now—and I believe you gentlemen would agree—it is a concrete plan, some certainty on how to provide for the defense in 

these difficult times. 

Unfortunately, uncertainty has become the hallmark characteristic of defense budgets in recent years. This is clearly seen in 

looking at the last four Department of Defense requests for 2014 

funding levels. In the fiscal year 2011 budget, the future year defense plan that you based your budget on and you projected to continue forecasted that we would spend $598 billion in fiscal year 

2014. 

In each subsequent budget submission, planned funding levels 

for fiscal year 2014 fell, culminating with your request this year for 

$527 billion, which is above the sequester number, as you know, 

significantly. That is a drop of $71 billion for DOD funding levels 

from what was projected just 4 years ago. 

There will be some who say spending at the Department of Defense contributed to our current budget problems and, therefore, 

deserves to be cut more than other parts of the budget. Well, that 

is wrong. We need to know some facts that I think are indisputable. Consider the following: 

Fifty years ago, the United States spent 46 percent of its budget 

on defense. Under the President’s budget, just 17 percent of Federal spending will go to defense. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 

have been charged with causing our deficits and putting us in an 

unsustainable debt course. But they only amount to 4 percent of 

our total Federal outlays since 2001. The wars, yes, were costly, in 

blood and treasure both. But it really only amounted to 4 percent 

of the Federal Government spending. In effect, it was $1.4 trillion 

for both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $36 trillion for all other 
297 

spending in the United States Government during that period of 

time. 

In the post-September 11th era, we spent an average of 4 percent 

of our GDP on defense, which is 3 percent lower than the postWorld War II average of 7 percent of GDP on defense. Under the 

President’s budget, we are projected to spend only 3 percent of our 

GDP on defense over the budget window. By fiscal year 2023, the 

last year of the President’s 10-year budget, defense spending as a 

percentage of GDP will hit an all-time post-World War II low of 2.4 

percent. 

Now, I am not saying we cannot manage our money better and 

keep our costs down, but the truth is it is not—the problem in our 

deficits are far deeper than the war, the wars, or the base defense 

budget. While DOD is still trying to cope with an initial $500 billion in 

cuts from the caps under the Budget Control Act, sequestration 

would cause another nearly $500 billion in cuts. And this is occurring while many of the fastest growing drivers of our debt on the 

non-defense side of the budget are held harmless from any cuts. 

Many of them have no cuts whatsoever. This disparity, we will see 

that sequestration causes our national defense spending on DOD to 

contract by 11 percent, and non-defense spending at the same time 

over the next 10 years will increase 44 percent. That is inflationadjusted 2012 dollars over the fiscal year 2014 2012 through 2023 

period. 

So, again, let me repeat that. Over this period of time, basically 

half of the cuts are falling on the defense budget, and that is only 

one-sixth of the Federal budget. The other five-sixths of the budget, 

many departments are having zero cuts, and have been increasing 

at far greater rates than the Defense Department. They will have 

an increase of 44 percent. 

So we cannot stand by and allow this unbalanced approach to remain the law of the land. There is too much at stake. Senator 

Hagel, General Dempsey, I want to ask you to reduce spending, be 

tighter with your management, do everything possible to be effective and lean and efficient. I do not hesitate to ask you to do that, 

and I think we can improve there. But I want to say to you, I do 

not think we should ask you to be in a position where the cuts are 

too fast and it hammers morale in the military and those who work 

for our Government in the military. We do not want to be hammering procurement systems that cause us to have penalties, 

delays driving up the cost per item because we could not fulfill the 

contract plan that we had to produce it at a more cost-effective 

rate. We have just got to be careful when we ask you to reduce 

spending that we are not asking you to do things that are unwise, 

drive up costs, and reduce readiness and capability. 

So we have a constitutional obligation to provide for the defense 

of this Nation of ours and a moral responsibility to pass a safe Nation on to our children. 

So I know that you are here and Congress has been confronting 

this openly, which I am glad to see we are, but at some point I 

hope you will also look up that number, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The President is the commander in chief of the United States 

military, and Congress has got certain matters that they can accept 
298 

and certain things they cannot accept. And we need some leadership from the President to understand that there are things that 

he is not going to get and things he has asked for in his budget 

are not going to happen. And we need to be able to work together 

to see if we cannot find other places where we can cut spending. 

Medicaid has been increasing over the last decade. There is no 

reduction in Medicaid. Food stamps have gone from $20 billion to 

$80 billion over the last decade. Four times it has gone up. Zero 

reductions in the sequester for food stamps. 

So I would just say there are places around here we need to be 

looking at, and we can save some money and spread the reductions 

around and call on all our agencies to tighten their belts, too. And 

I do not think international affairs spending is sacred—the State 

Department needs to its their belt, too. You go in to see the salaries they get and the expensive embassies that they are building 

around the world. They have to tighten their budget, too, and 

spread this around some. 

So I am concerned about it. It is hitting us right now because we 

are marking up the defense budget today and tomorrow. We are 

marking to an unrealistic number, I am afraid. And, Secretary 

Hagel, I know you have committed to giving us some information 

on how we could have more flexibility in the Defense Department 

and do a better job of confronting those challenges, and I hope you 

will do it. 

Consider me a friend, an ally. I believe that we can work with 

the President, I believe we can work with the Senate. But right 

now things are not going in a good direction. I do not see a plan 

right now to get us there. And, Madam Chair, I hope this hearing 

will help us make improvements. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

With that, we will turn it over to our witnesses today. I again 

want to thank all of you for taking time out of very busy schedules 

to come before us. Secretary Hagel, we will begin with you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHUCK HAGEL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ACCOMPANIED BY 

THE HONORABLE ROBERT HALE, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) 

Secretary Hagel. Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, 

distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President’s 2014 budget. 

I very much appreciate this Committee’s continued support of 

our men and women in uniform. As you have noted in your opening 

statements, some of the specific programs that you have focused 

on, led on, have been very important to getting started and sustained. 

As we discuss numbers, budgets, and strategic priorities, we will 

not lose sight of these men and women serving across the globe. 

As you all know, their well-being depends on the decisions we 

make here in Washington. And as you have noted, Madam Chairman, the President has requested $526.6 billion for the Department of Defense fiscal year 2014 base budget and $79.4 billion for 

Overseas Contingency Operations. 
299 

My written statement contains considerable detail on both budget requests. This morning, allow me to briefly focus on three areas 

before I take your questions: first, the continued budget challenges 

facing the Department in fiscal year 2013 as a result of sequestration: second, the Department’s fiscal year 2014 budget request; 

and, third, how the Department is preparing for future budget uncertainty and the prospect of further reduced resources. 

As you know, the Department has been forced to implement deep 

and abrupt cuts in the current fiscal year because of sequestration. 

According to the latest guidance from the Office of Management 

and Budget, the Department has cut $37 billion in spending 

through the remainder of this fiscal year. With our internal decision to shift the impact of sequestration away from those serving 

in harm’s way and force readiness, the cuts now fall heavily on 

DOD’s accounts that train and equip those who will deploy in the 

future. 

The Department is also experiencing higher wartime costs than 

expected. As a result of these factors, the Department is facing a 

shortfall of more than $30 billion in our operation and maintenance 

budget for fiscal year 2013. 

To deal with this shortfall, the Department has cut back sharply 

on facilities maintenance, instituted hiring freezes, cut overhead 

spending, reduced important but lower-priority programs, directed 

furloughs of nearly 700,000 civilian employees, and submitted a 

$9.6 billion reprogramming request to Congress. 

Given the scale of this shortfall, the reprogramming and other 

steps we have taken to cut non-essential spending are not enough. 

While we have protected spending to sustain the war effort and defend America’s vital strategic interests, the Department’s day-today activities will be significantly disrupted for the remainder of 

this fiscal year. Each of the military services has begun to significantly reduce training and maintenance of non-deployed operating 

forces. 

For example, the Army has stopped rotations at its key combat 

training centers for all but deploying units. More than a dozen 

combat coded Air Force squadrons either already have or will soon 

stop flying. And the Navy has curtailed deployments. 

To avoid even more significant reductions to military readiness, 

I directed furloughs of up to 11 days for most of the Department’s 

800,000 personnel. I made this decision very reluctantly. I made it 

reluctantly because I recognize the significant hardship this places 

on our civilian personnel across the country and their families. But 

the current budget environment is requiring very difficult decisions 

and options. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget continues to implement 

the $487 billion in spending reductions over 10 years agreed to in 

the Budget Control of 2011, as Senator Sessions noted. If the sequester-related provisions of the Budget Control Act are not 

changed, fiscal year 2014 funding for national defense programs 

will be subject to an additional $52 billion reduction in DOD funding. And if there is no changes, continued sequestration will result 

in roughly $500 billion in additional reductions to defense spending 

over the next 10 years. 
300 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget replaces sequestration 

and gives the Department the time and the flexibility—the time 

and flexibility—to plan and implement spending reductions wisely 

and responsibly, and we can do that wisely and responsibly. 

In particular, this budget enables the Department to support 

troops still at war in Afghanistan, protect readiness, modernize the 

military’s aging new weapons inventory in keeping with the President’s strategic guidance, and sustain the high quality of the allvolunteer force. 

This budget also continues the Department’s approach of the last 

couple of years of targeting growing costs in areas of support, overhead, acquisition, and pay and benefits. Over the next 5 years, DOD has identified $34 billion in new savings across these categories. This includes weapons program restructuring and terminations. They achieve $8.2 billion in savings. 

Slowdowns in military construction are also included, and reductions in other lower-priority programs. 

Our military compensation package preserves DOD’s world-class 

pay and benefits while putting our military on a more sustainable 

path for the future. It includes changes to the TRICARE program 

to bring the beneficiary’s cost share closer to the levels envisioned 

when the program was first implemented. 

The Department of Defense also must be able to eliminate excess 

infrastructure. The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget requests authorization for one round of base realignment and closure in 2015. 

Now, as we all know, BRAC is an imperfect process, and there 

are up-front costs, but in the long term, there are significant savings. The previous rounds of BRAC are saving $12 billion annually. 

We cannot justify funding unnecessary infrastructure when we are 

reducing our force structure. 

Since 2003, DOD has divested more than 100 foreign bases and 

operations, and we are on schedule to close or consolidate over 20 

more overseas operations. Although there are clearly opportunities 

to achieve significant savings by improving efficiency, consolidations, and reducing overhead, the scale of the current spending reductions will also require cuts and changes to military operations. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget request seeks to further align budget 

programs with the President’s defense strategic guidance while 

continuing to reduce the size of the ground forces and retire aging 

aircraft and ships. This budget invests in key elements of our defense strategy, including implementing our rebalance to the Asia 

Pacific region; maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear 

stockpile; increasing investment in cyber capabilities; and sustaining the growth of special operations. And this budget seeks to 

preserve a combat-ready force and sustain the high quality of an 

all-volunteer force. 

The fiscal year 2014 budget reflects DOD’s best efforts to match 

ends, ways, and means during a period of intense fiscal uncertainty. 

It is obvious that significant changes to the Department’s top-line 

spending would require significant changes to the budget plan. 

Consequently, I directed a Strategic Choices and Management 

Review in order to assess the potential impact of further reductions 

and then plan for those continued reductions if necessary. 
301 

I have received the initial internal results of the review, and I 

am now reviewing them, and I will continue to share those results 

with Congress. 

The Defense Department will continue find new ways to operate 

more affordably, efficiently, and effectively. However, as I have 

stated, continued cuts on the scale and timeline of sequestration 

would require significant reductions in core military capabilities 

and the scope of our activities around the world. 

The President’s fiscal year 2014 budget sustains our military 

strength in an environment of constrained resources, giving DOD 

the time and the flexibility to make the necessary reductions and 

adjustments over a 10-year time frame. 

Hard choices will have to be made over the next few years. In 

the past, many modest reforms to personnel and benefits along 

with efforts to reduce infrastructure and restructure acquisition 

programs were met with fierce political resistance, and they were 

never implemented. As you all know, we are now in a totally different fiscal environment. New realities are forcing us to more fully 

confront these tough and painful choices and to make the reforms 

necessary to put this Department on a path to sustain our military 

strength for the 21st century and meet new and complicated global 

threats. This will require the continued support and partnership of 

the Congress, and I look forward to your questions after General 

Dempsey’s statement. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Hagel follows:] 
302 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT ON THE FY 2014 BUDGET 

REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12,2013 

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, members of the committee, 

thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2014 budget 

request for the Department of Defense. 

Allow me to express my appreciation to this committee for its continued 

support of our men and women in uniform and our civilian workforce. They are 

doing tremendous work and making great sacrifices, along with their families, as 

they have for the more than 11 years our nation has been at war. Whether fighting 

in Afghanistan, patrolling the world's sea lanes, standing vigilant on the Korean 

peninSUla, supplying our troops around the world, or supporting civil authorities 

when natural disasters strike, they are advancing America's interests at home and 

abroad. Their dedication and professionalism are the foundation of our military 

strength. 

As we discuss numbers, budgets, and strategic priorities, we will not lose 

sight of these men and women serving across the globe. As you all know, their 

well-being depends on the decisions we make here in Washington. 

Fiscal and Strategic Context 

Today, the Department of Defense faces the significant chaJlenge of 

conducting long-term planning and budgeting at a time of considerable uncertainty 

- both in terms of the security challenges we face around the world and the levels 

of defense spending we can expect here at home, 

Even as the military emerges and recovers - from more than a decade of 

sustained conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, it confronts an array of complex threats 

of varying vintage and degrees of risk to the United States, to include: 

.. the persistence of violent e,xtremism throughout weak states and 

ungoverned spaces in the Middle East and North Africa; 

.. the proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials; 

.. the rise of new powers competing for influence; 

.. the risk of regional conflicts which could draw in the United States; 

.. faceless, nameless, silent and destructive cyberattacks. 
303 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

Meanwhile, the frenetic pace of technological change and the spread of 

advanced military technology to state and non-state actors pose an increasing 

challenge to America's military. 

This is the strategic environment facing the Department of Defense as it 

enters a third year of flat or declining budgets. The onset of these resource 

constraints has already led to significant and ongoing belt-tightening in military 

modernization, force structure, personnel costs, and overhead expenditures. It has 

also given us an opportunity to reshape the military and reform defense institutions 

to better reflect 21 st century realities, as I outlined in a speech in April at the 

National Defense University. 

The process began under the leadership of Secretary Gates, who canceled or 

cUltailed more than 30 modernization programs and trimmed overhead costs within 

the military services and across the defense enterprise. These efforts reduced the 

Department's topline by $78 billion over a five year period, as detailed in the 

Department's FY 2012 budget plan. 

The realignment continucd under Secretary Panetta, who worked closely 

with the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to craft new defense strategic 

guidance and a FY 2013 defense budget plan which reduced the Department's 

top line by $487 billion over the course of a decade. Even while restructuring the 

force to become smaller and leaner and once again targeting overhead savings, this 

budget made important investments in the new strategy - including rebalancing to 

Asia and increasing funding for critical capabilities such as cyber, special 

operations, global mobility, and unmanned systems. 

The President's request of $526.6 billion for the Department of De tense's 

base budget for FY 2014 continues to implement the President's Defense Strategic 

Guidance and enhances the Depm1ment's efforts at institutional reform. Most 

critically, it sustains the quality ofthe all-volunteer force and the care we provide 

our service members and their families, which underpins everything we do as an 

organization. The accompanying oca request tor $79.4 billion provides the 

resources to continue the responsible drawdown in Afghanistan and restore 

equipment damaged or worn out by more than a decade of war. 

DoD's base-budget request for FY 2014 does 110t reflect the effects of 

sequester cuts that would occur if the Budget Control Act (RCA) is not changed. 

However, the President's Rudget includes balanced deficit reduction proposals that 

are more than sufficient to allow Congress to meet BCA goals and then repeal 

sequester-related reductions. 
304 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

Challenges in FY 2013 

Before discussing the particulars of this budget request, however, allow me 

to address thc profound budget problems facing the Department in FY 2013 and 

beyond as a result of sequester because they have significantly disrupted 

operations for the current fiscal year and greatly complicated efforts to plan for the 

future. The Congress and the Department of Defense have a responsibility to find 

answers to these problems together because we have a shared responsibility to 

protect our national security. DoD is going to need the help of Congress to 

manage through this uncertainty. 

The FY 2013 DoD Appropriations bill enacted by the Congress in March 

addressed many urgent problems by allocating DoD funding more closely in line 

with the President's budget request, giving the Department authorities to start new 

programs, and allowing us to proceed with impOltant military construction 

projects. Nonetheless, the bill still left in place the deep and abrupt cuts associated 

with sequester - some $37 billion in spending reductions. With military pay and 

benefits exempt fTom the sequester, and our internal decision to shift the impact of 

sequestration away from those serving in harm's way, the cuts fall heavily on 

DoD's operations, maintenance and modernization accounts that we use to train 

and equip those who will deploy in the future. 

Furthermore, the military is experiencing higher wartime operating tempos, 

and higher transportation costs than expected when the budget request was 

formulated more than a year ago. As a result of all these factors, the Department is 

now facing a sbOlifall of more than $30 billion in our operation and maintenance 

(O&M) budget for FY 2013. 

The Department has been doing everything possible to reduce this shortfall 

while ensuring we can defend the nation, sustain wartime operations, and preserve 

DoD's most critical asset our world-class civilian and military personnel. To that 

end, we bave cut back sharply on facilities maintenance, instituted a hiring freeze, 

cut overhead and all non-essential spending, reduced many other important but 

lower-priority programs, and worked to shift funds from investment to O&M 

accounts. 

Still, these steps have not been enough to close the shortfall. While we have 

protected spending to sustain the war effOli and defend America's vital strategic 

interests, the Department's day-to-day activities will be significantly disrupted for 

the remainder of the fiscal year. Each of the military services has begun to 

significantly reduce training and maintenance of non-deployed operating forces -

steps that are having effects on military readiness. 

Specifically: 
305 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

.. The Army has stopped rotations at its key combat training centers for all 

but deploying units, By the end of the year, this and other training 

cutbacks will leave most non-deployed Army units at unacceptable 

readiness levels. 

.. The Air Force has or will soon stop all flying at more than a dozen 

combat coded squadrons. These units will soon no longer be ready to 

fight on short notice. 

.. The Navy has curtailed deployments, including the decision not to send a 

second carrier strike group to the Gulf. 

We have also recently submitted a $9.6 billion reprogramming request to 

Congress. Most ofthis reprogramming seeks pemlission to move unneeded 

military personnel funding, and non-executable or lower priority investment 

funding, into our O&M accounts that are experiencing the largest budget shortfalls. 

To avoid even more significant reductions to military readiness, and after 

extensive review of all options with the DoD's senior military and civilian 

leadership on how we address this budget crisis, I have decided to direct furloughs 

of up to 11 days for nearly 700,000 of the Department's civilian personnel. I have 

made this decision very reluctantly, because I know that the furloughs will 

adversely impact DoD operations. I also recognize the significant hardship this 

places on our civilian personnel across the country and their families. But the 

current budget is requiring difficult decisions and options. 

After required notifications, we will begin the furlough period on July 8 at 

the rate of one furlough day per week for most personneL We plan to continue 

these furloughs through the end of the Cement fiscal year. If our budgetary 

situation permits us to end furloughs early, I would strongly prefer to do so, That 

is a decision I will make later in the year. 

FY 2014 Budget Request 

Let me tum now to FY 2014. If the sequester-related provisions of the 

Budget Control Act of 20 11 are not changed, FY 2014 funding for national defense 

programs will be subject to a steeply reduced cap, which would cut DoD funding 

by roughly $52 billion further. And, if there is no action by the Congress, roughly 

$500 billion in reductions to defense spending would be required over the next ten 

years covered by the BeA. 

As an alternative, the President's budget proposes some $150 billion in 

additional defense savings (measured in terms of budget authority) over the next 

decade when compared with the budget plan submitted last year. These cuts are 

part of a balanced package of deficit reduction. Unlike sequester, these cuts 
306 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

largely occur in the years beyond FY 2018 - which gives the Department time to 

plan and implement the reductions wisely, and responsibly, anchored by the 

President's defense strategic guidance. 

The President's FY 2014 request reflects these changes. It continues to 

balance the compelling demands of supporting troops still at war in Afghanistan, 

protecting readiness, modernizing the military's aging weapons inventory in 

keeping with the president's strategic guidance, and sustaining the quality of the 

all-volunteer force. 

The requested funding of$79.4 billion for FY 2014 OCO provides funds to 

continue the responsible drawdown in Afghanistan and is lower than the roughly 

$89 billion enacted for FY 2013. The top-line budget request of$526.6 billion for 

base-budget funding FY 2014 is essentially flat compared to the President's 

request for FY 2013, and roughly in line with what both the House and Senate 

have passed in their FY 2014 budget resolutions. 

The following are the major components ofthe $526.6 billion base budget 

request for FY 2014: 

.. Military pay and benefits (including TRlCARE and retirement costs)-

$170.2 billion (32% of the total base budget); 

.. Operating costs (including $77.3 billion for civilian pay) - $180.1 billion 

(34%); 

.. Acquisitions and other investments (Procurement, research, development, 

test and evaluation, and new facilities construction) - $176.3 billion 

(33%) 

The base budget presented today, at its most basic level, consists of a series 

of choices that reinforce each of the following complementary goals: 

.. making more disciplined use of defense resources; 

.. implementing the President's defense strategic guidance; 

.. seeking to sustain the readiness and quality of the all-volunteer force; 

.. supporting troops deployed and fighting in Afghanistan. 

As I discuss each of these goals, I must note that, unfortunately, many of the 

reductions we are being forced to make in FY 2013 as a result of sequester run 

directly counter to the FY 2014 goals. 
307 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

1. Making more disciplined use of defense resources 

In developing the FY 2014 budget, the Department identified about $34 

billion in savings over the current Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), which 

covers FY 2014 to FY 2018. These savings were used to help pay the costs of 

implementing the new defense strategy and to accommodate budget reductions. 

These efforts continue the Department's approach ofthe last several years to 

first target growing costs in areas of support, overhead, acquisition, and pay and 

beneilts, before cutting military capabilities and force structure. 

Reducing Support Costs 

In orde.r to maintain balance and readiness, the Department of Defense mllst 

be able to eliminate excess infrastructure. Therefore, the President's FY 2014 

budget requests authorization for one round of Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) in 2015. While the commission would meet in 2015, the actual closing of 

any bases would involve a multiyear process that would not begin until 2016. 

BRAC is a comprehensive and fair tool that allows communities a role in reuse decisions for the property and provides redevelopment assistance. BRAC is an 

imperfect process, and there are up-front costs for BRAC, and this FYDP adds 

$2.4 billion to pay them, but in the long-term there are significant savings. The 

previous five rounds ofBRAC are now saving a total of$12 billion annually. 

We cannot justify funding unnecessary infrastructure when we are reducing 

force structure. Since 2003, DoD has divested more than 100 foreign bases and 

operations and we are on schedule to close or consolidate over 20 more overseas 

operations. 

We are also taking other important steps to cut back on support costs. We 

have begun a study of our Military Treatment Facilities, including many hospitals 

and clinics that are currently underutilized. By the end of this year we will have a 

plan in place that suggests how to reduce that underutilization while still providing 

high-quality medical care. This restructuring, coupled with a BRAC round and 

other changes, would pennit us to plan on a cut in our civilian workforce that will 

comply with Congressional direction. 

We are also continuing our successful efforts to hold down militmy health 

system costs. Due primarily to changes in payments to health care providers, our 

projected costs for FY 2014 are about four percent lower than those costs in FY 

2012, a significant turnaround compared to health care trends over the past decade. 

But costs will soon start to grow again. Therefore, we continue efforts to slow the 

growth of medical care costs through actions such as re-phasing military 

construction, making full use of past changes in provider costs, taking advantage of 
308 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

the slowing of growth in medical costs in the private sector, and modest changes in 

user fees and co-pays. 

Another important initiative is our effort to improve the Department's 

financial management and achieve auditable financial statements. We need 

auditable statements, both to improve the quality of our tinancial information and 

to reassure the public, and the Congress, that we are good stewards of public 

funds. We have a focused plan and are making progress. Our next goal is auditready budget statements by September 2014. We are working hard to achieve this 

goal, though the cunent budget turmoil is hampering our efforts significantly. I 

strongly support this initiative and will do everything I can to fulfill this 

commitment. 

These and many other changes led to total savings of about $34 billion in FY 

2014-2018, including $5.5 billion in FY 2014. However, we are concemed that 

these savings from more disciplined use of resources could be eroded by sequester, 

as we are forced to make inefficient choices that drive up costs. Today, for 

example, we are being forced to engage in shorter and less efficient contracts and 

cuts in unit buy sizes that will increase the unit costs of weapons. 

Restructuring and Terminations a/Weapons Programs 

In this budget, the Department has shifted priorities within its modemization 

portfolios and achieved $8.2 billion in savings from weapons program terminations 

and restructuring. For example, by revising the acquisition strategy for the Army's 

Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program, the Department will save over $2 billion 

in development costs. In other cases the Department proposes evolutionary 

approaches to develop new capabilities instead of relying on leap-ahead gains in 

technology. 

For example, the Department: 

• Realigned investment funding and restructured the SM-3 lIB interceptor - a 

high-risk, high-cost system to improve the capabilities of existing missile 

defense systems, resulting in savings of about $2.1 billion during the Future 

Year Defense Program (FYDP); 

• Cancelled the Precision Tracking Space Satellite system - another high-risk 

project - saving $1.9 billion during the FYDP; the Depanment invested a 

portion of these savings in technology upgrades to existing ground-based 

radars and sensors. 

To lessen the potential impact on local communities from the reductions in 

defense procurement, the Department is requesting an additional $36 million in 

support of the Defense Industry Adjustment program. 
309 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

The Department is continuing to take steps to tighten the contract tenus and 

reduce risk in our largest acquisition program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The 

FY 2014 budget request includes $8.4 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter. 

Military Pay and Benefits 

The costs of military pay and benefits are another significant driver of 

spending growth that must be addressed in the current fiscal environment. In this 

budget, the Department is submitting a new package of military compensation 

proposals that take into consideration Congressional concerns associated with 

those from FY 2013. These changes save about $1.4 billion in FY 2014 and a total 

of $12.8 billion in FY 2014-2018 

This package includes a modest slowing ofthe growth of military pay by 

implementing a one percent pay raise for service members in 2014. The 

Department is also seeking additional changes to the TRICARE program in the FY 

2014 budget to bring the beneficiary's cost share closer to the levels envisioned 

when the program was implemented paliicularly for working age retirees. Today 

military retirees contribute less than 11 percent of their total health care costs, 

compared to an average of27 percent when TRlCARE was first fully implemented 

in 1996. 

The proposed TRlCARE changes include: 

• For retirees, increases in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees, instituting an 

enrollment fee for TRlCARE StandardlExtra, and increasing StandardlExtra 

deductib1es. 

• Implementation of an enrollment fee for new TRlCARE-for-Life 

beneficiaries, while grandfathering in those who are Medicare-eligible at 

enactment. 

• Increases in phannacy co-pays and, where appropriate, mandatory use of 

mail order delivery of pharmaceuticals. 

• Indexing offees, deductibles, co-pays and the catastrophic cap to the growth 

in the alU1uai retiree cost-of-Iiving adjustment. 

Survivors of military members who died on active duty or medically retired 

members would be excluded from all TRICARE increases. Even after the 

proposed changes in fees, TRICARE will remain a generous benefit - as it should 

be. 

These adjustments to pay and benefits were among the most carefully 

considered and difficult choices in the budget. They were made with the strong 

support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Senior Enlisted Leadership, in recognition 

that in order to sustain these benefits over the long term without dramatically 
310 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

reducing the size or readiness of the force, these rising costs need to be brought 

under control. 

2. Implementing and deepening our commitment to the President's 

defense strategic guidance 

Spending reductions on the scale of the current drawdown cannot be 

implemented through improving efficiency and reducing overhead alone. Cuts and 

changes to capabilities - force structure and modernization programs - will also be 

required. The strategic guidance issued in January 2012 set the priorities and 

parameters that informed those choices, and the FY 2014 budget submission 

further implements and deepens program alignment to this strategic guidance. 

The new strategy calls for a smaller and leaner force. Last year we proposed 

reductions of about 100,000 in military end strength between FY 2012 and FY 

20 I 7. Most of those reductions occur in the ground forces and are consistent with 

a decision not to size U.S. ground forces to accomplish prolonged stability 

operations, while maintaining adequate capability should such activities again be 

required. By the end ofFY 2014 we will have completed almost two thirds of the 

drawdown of our ground forces, and the drawdown should be fully complete by 

FY 2017. 

Last year DoD submitted proposals for changes in Air Force and Navy force 

structure; some were rejected by Congress. We continue to believe, however, that 

these reductions are consistent with our defense strategy and the need to hold down 

costs. Therefore, DoD is resubmitting several proposals from its FY 2013 budget 

submission that were not supported by Congress, including the retirement of seven 

Aegis cruisers and two amphibious ships at the end ofFY 2014 when funds 

appropriated for their operation run out. Despite the growing importance of the 

Asia-Pacific - a mostly maritime theater - the high costs of maintaining these older 

ships relative to their capabilities argues strongly for their retirement. 

The FY 2014 budget continues implementation of the Air Force total force 

proposal included in the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. In 

response to state and congressional concerns about proposed reductions to the Air 

National Guard that DoD made in the original FY 20 J 3 budget, the Department 

added back 44 aircraft to the Guard, 30 aircraft to the Air Force Reserve, and is 

taking away 31 aircraft from the active Air Force. 

These shifts were forced primarily by political realities, not strategy or 

analysis. While this active-reserve compromise allows the Air Force to move 

forward with prior year retirements and transfers, and approved mission changes 

for many reserve units, it does require the Department to retain excess aircraft 

capacity. The Department's position continues to be that retaining excess air 
311 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

capacity in the reserve component is an unnecessary expenditure of government 

funds that detracts from more pressing military priorities outlined in the defense 

strategic guidance. 

Increased emphasis on the Asia-Pacific and Middle East represents another 

key tenet of the new defense strategic guidance. This budget continues to put a 

premium on rapidly deployable, self-sustaining forces - such as submarines, longrange bombers, and can-ier strike groups that can project power over great 

distance and carry out a variety of missions. 

This new strategy not only recognizes the changing character of the conflicts 

in which the U.S. must prevail, but also leverages new concepts of operation 

enabled by advances in space, cyberspace, special operations, global mobility, 

precision-strike, missile defense, and other capabilities. 

3. Seeking to sustain the readiness and quality of the all-volunteer force 

The high-quality of our all-volunteer force continues to be the foundation of 

our military strength. This budget seeks to ensure that our troops receive the 

training and equipment they need for military readiness, and the world-class 

support programs they and their families have earned. However, as in other areas 

of the budget, the steep and abrupt cuts caused by the FY 2013 sequester has 

hanned these programs. The remainder of this discussion outlines the goals of the 

FY 2014 budget, but they would be signif1cantly impacted if sequester-level cuts 

persist. 

Readiness Investments 

Even in the face of nat and declining defense top lines, this budget seeks to 

press ahead with the transition from a counterinsurgency-focused force to a torce 

ready and capable of operating across a full range of operations across the globe. 

The service budgets all fund initiatives that seek to return to full-spectrum training 

and preparation tor missions beyond current operations in Afghanistan. 

The Department continues its work to understand and quantifY readiness 

activities as we seek to maximize our preparedness for real-world missions. We do 

not yet know the costs of fixing the readiness of the force following the six months 

of sequester cuts to training in this fiscal year. Therefore these costs are not 

included in the FY 2014 budget. 

Family Support Programs 

The Department's budget submission makes clear that people are central to 

everything we do. While sequester cuts would unfortunately counter many of 
312 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

these initiatives, especially for our civilian workforce, the initiatives remain 

important statements ofthe intent in this budget. 

The Department continues to support key programs in FY 2014 that support 

service members and their families, spending $8.5 billion on initiatives that 

include: 

.. Transition Assistance and Veteran's Employment Assurance - the 

Department continues to support the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) 

to ensure every service member receives training, education, and credentials 

needed to successfully transition to the civilian workforce. 

.. Family Readiness - the Department continues to ensure that family support 

is a high priority by redesigning and boosting family support in a number of 

ways. 

The Department is also providing SUppOlt to our people with a number of 

other important initiatives, including: 

• Behavioral Health - the Department maintains funding for psychological 

health programs and expands those programs that are most effective, such as 

Embedded Behavioral Health, to provide improved access to care, improved 

continuity of care, and enhanced behavioral health provider communication. 

• Suicide Prevention - the Department continues to implement 

recommendations from the Suicide Prevention Task Force and act on other 

findings from think tanks, the National Action Alliance's National Suicide 

Prevention Strategy, lind DoD and Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) 

Integrated Mental Health Strategy (IMHS). 

Another area offocus has been Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. 

have no tolerance for sexual assault in the military. This is a terrible scourge in our 

military and it must end. It will end. We will fix it. I have directed a number of 

initiatives to advance DoD's efforts to prevent and respond to the crime of sexual 

assault, along five lines of effort: 

Accountability 

• I directed DoD's Acting General Counsel to propose to the Congress 

changes to Article 60 of the Unifonn Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that 

would eliminate the ability ofa convening authority to change findings in 

courts-martial, except for certain minor offenses. These changes would also 
313 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

require the convening authority to explain in writing any changes made to 

court-martial sentences, as well as any changes to findings involving minor 

offenses. These changes, if enacted, would help ensure that our military 

justice system works fairly, ensures due process, and is accountable. 

• I have also directed the Service Chiefs to develop methods to evaluate 

military commanders' performance in establishing command climates of 

dignity and respect and in incorporating sexual assault prevention and victim 

care principles in their commands. This includes providing commanders the 

results of their subordinate's annual command climate surveys in order to 

enhance accountability and improve insight in command climate at every 

level of the chain of command. 

• I have named a set of highly respected and experienced experts to serve on a 

panel called for in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 

2013. The panel will conduct an independent review and assessment of 

DOD's systems used to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate crimes 

involving adult sexual assault and related offenses. It will convene its first 

meeting no later than July 1st. I have spoken to the panel and asked it to 

accelerate its work and provide a tinal recommendation within 12 months. 

Preventioq 

• I have directed the complete and thorough review of credentials and 

qualifications for DoD's sexual assault victim advocates, coordinators, and 

recruiters. 

• I have directed DoD to improve the effectiveness of Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response (SAPR) programs in recruiting organizations. 

110 I have directed DoD component heads to direct comprehensive and regular 

visual inspections ofal! DoD workplaces to include military academies to 

ensure that our facilities promote an environment of dignity and respeet for 

all members and are free from materials that create a degrading or offensive 

work environment. 

Investigation 

• Consistent with the FY 2012 and FY 2013 National Defense Authorization 

Acts, DoD has established new policies to retain restricted and unrestricted 

reports for 50 years, al1d is developing policy for Special Victim Capability, 

which includes standards and training for prosecutors and investigators. 
314 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

Advocacy 

• DoD has implemented a sexual assault crisis intervention line, the DoD Safe 

Helpline, to give victims 2417 global access to crisis support staff, 

implemented an expedited transfer policy for victims requesting transfer to a 

new unit, and expanded emergency care and services to DoD civilians 

stationed abroad. 

• I have directed the Service Secretaries to implement methods to improve 

victim treatment by their peers, coworkers, and chains of command. Direct 

victim input will also be incorporated into these methods. 

• DoD has added sexual assault questions to DoD Command Climate Surveys 

and implemented policy to conduct assessments within 120 days for new 

commanders and annually thereafter, consistent with the FY 13 NDAA. 

• I have begun holding a weekly review and progress meeting on DoD's 

various sexual assault directives to ensure that they are bringing about real 

change. 

I receive weekly updates on the Department's prevention efforts in regularly 

scheduled weekly meetings. I also have an individual on my personal staff that I 

have tasked to oversee all of these directives and Department-wide efforts. 

Everyone in this department at every level of command will continue to 

work together every day to establish an environment of dignity and respect, where 

sexual assault is not tolerated, condoned or ignored, where there is clear 

accountability placed on all leaders at every level. The leadership of this 

department has no higher priority than the safety and welfare of our men and 

women in uniform, and that includes ensuring they are free from the threat of 

sexual harassment and sexual assault. I will continue as Secretary of Defense to 

prioritize the Department's effOlts to tum this problem around. 

4. Supporting troops deployed and fighting overseas 

The amendment to the FY 2014 President's budget includes $79.4 billion for 

Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Military operations in Afghanistan 

comprise a significant portion ofthe OCO request. Over the course of the year, 

American forces in Afghanistan are moving Into a support role as Afghan forces 

take the lead. By February 2014, half of our troops there will have returned home, 

and by December 2014, United States' combat operations in Afghanistan will have 

ended. Still, the United States will maintain a commitment to Afghanistan's 
315 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

sovereignty and security, and we will continue to equip, train, advise, and assist the 

Afghan National Forces; support economic development and governance efforts; 

and pursue a1 Qaeda and its affiliated groups. 

Of the total OCO request, $78.1 billion is for activities in support of 

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and $1.3 billion is for finalizing transition 

activities in Iraq. 

The Way Ahead: Strategic Choices and Management Review 

The FY 2014 budget is a retlection of DoD's best efforts to match ends, 

ways, and means during a period of intense fiscal uncertainty. It is a balanced plan 

that would address some of the Department's structural costs and internal budget 

imbalances while implementing the President's defense strategic guidance and 

keeping faith with our men and women in unifonn and their families. 

It is obvious that significant changes to the Department's top-line spending 

would require changes to this budget plan. The Department must be prepared for 

any additional reductions to the defense budget that might result from Congress 

and the Administration agreeing on a deficit reduction plan, and it must be 

prepared in the event that sequester-level cuts persist for another year or over the 

long-tenn. 

Consequently, earlier this year I directed a Strategic Choices and 

Management Review (SCMR) in order to assess the potential impact of further 

reductions up to the level of full sequester. The purpose of the SCMR is to reassess the basic assumptions that drive the Department's investment and force 

structure decisions and to search for additional management efficiencies. 

It is designed to help understand the challenges, articulate the risks, and look 

for opportunities for reform and efficiencies presented by resource constraints. 

Everything is on the table during this review - roles and missions, planning, 

business practices, force structure, personnel and compensation, acquisition and 

modernization investments, how we operate, and how we measure and maintain 

readiness. 

I have received the initial internal results of the SCMR and am reviewing 

them now. The results will inform our planning for FY 2014 as well as our FY 

2015 budget request, and will they be the foundation for the Quadrennial Defense 

Review due to Congress in February 2014. 

It is already clear to me that achieving significant additional budget savings 

without unacceptable risk to national security will require not just tweaking or 

chipping away at existing structures and practices but, if necessary, fashioning 

entirely new ones that better retlect 21 st century realities. And that will require the 

partnership of Congress. 
316 

AS PREPARED - EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY 

The FY 2014 budget and the ones before it have made hard choices. In 

many cases, modest reforms to personnel and benefits, along with efforts to reduce 

infrastructure and restructure acquisition programs, met fierce political resistance 

and were not implemented. 

We are now in a different fiscal environment dealing with new realities that 

will force us to more fully confront these tough and painful choices, and to make 

the refom1s we need to put this Department on a path to sustain our military 

strength for the 21 SI century. But in order to do that we will need t1exibility, time, 

and some budget certainty. 

We will also need to fund the military capabilities that are necessary for the 

complex security threats of the 21 51 century. I believe the President's budget does 

that. With the partnership of Congress, the Defense Department can continue to 

find new ways to operate more affordably, efficiently, and effectively. However, 

mUltiple reviews and analyses show that additional major cuts - especially those 

on the scale and timeline of sequestration - would require dramatic reductions in 

core military capabilities or the scope of our activities around the world. 

As the executive and legislative branches of govemment, we have a shared 

responsibility to ensure that we protect national security and America's strategic 

interests. Doing so requires that we make every decision on the basis of enduring 

national interests and make sure every policy is worthy ofthe service and sacrifice 

of our service members and their families. 

### 
317 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

General Dempsey. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL MARTIN E. DEMPSEY, USA, 

CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

General DEMPSEY. Thank you, Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you 

for this opportunity to discuss the budget proposal for fiscal year 

2014. 

This hearing comes during a period of extraordinary uncertainty. 

Risks to our Nation’s security are increasing, but the resources for 

and the readiness of our forces are decreasing. 

The will to win of our service men and women remains undaunted, but the means to prepare to win are becoming more uncertain by the day. 

This budget was purpose built to keep our Nation immune from 

coercion. It is a responsible investment in an unrivaled joint force 

that is ready with options for a dangerous and uncertain future. It 

supports our forward deployed operations, upholds funding for 

emerging capabilities like cyber, and it reduces the conventional resources, the conventional and nuclear forces that have proven so 

essential to our defense over time. 

Most importantly, it protects investment in our decisive advantage, which is, in fact, our people. It treats being the best led, the 

best trained, and the best equipped military as the non-negotiable 

imperative. It also makes sure that our wounded warriors and 

their families receive world-class care, family and medical services 

that are worthy of their service to the Nation. 

There are some things this budget does not do. It does not reflect 

the full sequestration amount; rather, it imposes less reduction and 

it gives us more time to implement new cuts. 

The consequences of full sequestration and its attendant risks to 

our national security will gain clarity in the weeks ahead. As you 

well know, the Senate asked us to provide our assessment of the 

impact on the joint force by the 1st of July. 

Nor does this budget account for the costs of restoring lost readiness. We do not yet know the full costs to recover from the readiness shortfalls that we have experienced this fiscal year. As expected, we continue to curtail or cancel training and exercises 

across all services for those units that are not preparing to deploy. 

As a result, we are less ready every day for unforeseen crises or 

contingency operations. In effect, we are foreclosing on options. 

And it is more expensive to become ready than it is to remain 

ready. This means that the costs to recover lost readiness will at 

some point compete with the costs of building the joint force we believe we need in 2020. 

As our military power becomes less sustainable, we become less 

credible. We risk breaking commitments and losing the confidence 

of partners and allies. We lose the confidence over our defense industrial base and, worst of all, potentially the confidence of our 

men and women in uniform and their families. 

Now, this outcome is not inevitable. Working together, we can 

uphold the readiness and the health of the force at an affordable 

cost. To do this, just as you said, Chairman, we need the certainty 
318 

of a predictable funding stream, a reliable top line. We also need 

the time to implement tradeoffs in force structure modernization 

and readiness, as well as compensation. And we need the full flexibility to keep the force in balance. We simply cannot afford to postpone essential reforms through compensation and health care. Both 

must be allowed to grow more gradually. 

We should stop pouring money into excess facilities and unwanted weapons systems. Real institutional reform is the only way 

to avoid repeating the mistakes of past drawdowns, and we do have 

a history of drawdowns. 

We have an opportunity this time—actually, we have an obligation with this and any future budget to restore confidence. We have 

it within us to stay strong as a global leader and a reliable partner. 

Thank you for all you have done on this Committee to support 

our men and women in uniform. I count on your continued support, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Dempsey follows:] 
319 

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE 

STATEMENT OF 

GENERAL MARTIN E. DEMPSEY, USA 

CHAIRMAN 

JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

BEFORE THE SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE 

FY14 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET 

JUNE 12,2013 

SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE 
320 

I. Introduction 

Chairman Murray, Ranking Member Sessions, and distinguished 

Committee Members, it is my privilege to update you on the state of the US 

Armed Forces and to comment on the President's budget proposal for fiscal 

year (FY) 2014. 

This year's posture testimony comes in the context of extraordinary 

uncertainty. Our Nation is going through an historic fiscal correction to restore 

the economic foundation of our power. As resources decline, risks to our 

national security interests rise. A more competitive security environment 

compounds these risks, increasing the probability and consequences of 

aggression. 

This context calls out for our leadership. We can and must find it within 

ourselves to stay strong as a global leader and reliable partner. We must 

restore lost readiness and continue to make responsible investments in our 

Nation's defense. 

II. Strategic Direction to the Joint Force 

A year ago, I established four priorities to help guide our Joint Force 

through this period of uncertainty. Our way forward must be rooted in a 

renewed commitment to th.e Profession of Anns. This means preserving an 

uncommon profession that is without equal in both its competence and its 

character. Along the way, we must keep faith with our Military Family. This 

means honoring the commitments we have made to our service members and 

their families. They deserve the future they sacrificed so much to secure. 

These two priorities serve as a source of strength for the Joint Force as 

we ach.ieve our national objectives in current conflicts. This means achieving our 

campaign objectives in Afghanistan while confronting aggression toward 

America and its allies in all its forms, wherever and whenever it arises. It also 

means helping to secure the flow of commerce in the global commons, building 

the capacity of our partners, providing humanitarian assistance, and 

maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent. 
321 

These three priorities enable us to understand and develop the Joint 

Force oj 2020. Our ability to build the force we will need tomorrow depends on 

the decisions we make today. This is a defining period in a defining year. 

Ensuring our future military is unrivaled and sustainable requires the right 

mix between current capacity and new capabilities. We must recapitalize 

current equipment where possible and modernize capabilities that preserve our 

decisive advantages. 

III. Joint Force Operations 

One thing has been certain over the last year - the Joint Force stood 

strong and responded to the Nation's calL After more than a decade of 

continual deployments and tough fighting, I remain humbled by the resilience 

and determination of our warriors. 

In the past year, our service men and women have simultaneously 

fought, transitioned, and redeployed from Afghanistan. Never before have we 

retrograded so much combat power and equipment while continuing combat 

operations. Our forces performed superbly, transitioning to Afghan security 

lead in areas comprising over 85% of the population. In the process, we 

redeployed over 30,000 US troops, closed over 600 bases, and preserved 

Coalition cohesion. We were challenged by "insider attacks," but responded 

the way professional militaries do. We assessed and adapted. We reaffirmed 

our partnerships and moved forward jointly with more stringent force 

protection and vetting procedures. 

Transition continues. In the weeks ahead, the Afghanistan National 

Security Forces will assume operational lead across all of Afghanistan. This 

milestone represents an important achievement on the Lisbon roadmap, 

reaffirmed at the Chicago Summit in 2012. At the same time, the International 

Security Assistance Force will transition primarily to training and advising. We 

are also working with NATO and the Afghan government on options for an 

enduring presence beyond 2014 to reinforce Afghan security and maintain 

pressure on transnational terrorists. 
322 

When I testified last year, the effects of the November 2011 border 

incident with Pakistan were still fresh, and tensions were as high as any time 

since the Osama bin Laden raid. Measured, but steady civilian-military 

engagement with Pakistani leadership led to the reopening of the Ground Lines 

of Communication in July 2012. We are graduaJly rebuilding our relationship 

- as reflected in the recent signing of a tripartite border document to 

standardize complementary cross-border operations and 1Nill continue to do 

so with Pakistan's new leadership following its historic election last month. 

The Joint Force has been vigilant well beyond South Asia and around the 

world. We continue to help deter aggression and counter the increasingly bold 

provocations from North Korea and Iran. We are supporting Syria's neighbors 

in their efforts to contain spillover violence while providing assistance to help 

with refugees. And, we are rcady with options if military force is called for 

and can be used effectively to secure US national interests in Syria without 

making the situation worse. 

Along with our interagency partners, we are also postured to detect, 

deter, and defeat cyber-attacks against government and critical infrastructure 

targets. We are part of interagency and multinational efforts to counter 

transnational crime. And, we remain relentless in our pursuit of al-Qa'ida and 

other violent extremist organizations, directly and tl1rough our partners. This 

includes al-Qa'ida-Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen and, working with 

French and African partners, al-Qa'ida in the Islamic Magreb (AQIM). 

Finally, in the context of a "new normal" where the diffusion of power 

fuels insecurity and unrest - we continue to support reform across the Middle 

East and North Africa through military-to-military exercises, exchanges, and 

security assistance. We are also adjusting global force posture to reflect these 

risks in the context of our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. 

IV. Our Joint Force Today 

We have an experienced, combat-tested force. Never has our nation 

sustained such a lengthy period of war solely through the service of an All-
323 

Volunteer military, which proudly celebrates its 40-year anniversary July 1 st, 

2013. Our warriors' will to win is undaunted, but the means to prepare to win 

are becoming uncertain. Military readiness is at risk due to the convergence of 

several budget factors. These same factors compound risk to the wellness of 

the Joint Force and our Military Family. As I testified in April, we need the 

help of our elected leaders to gain budget certainty, time, and flexibility. 

Few have borne more of war's burden than our Military Fa:m:ily. For 

twelve relentless years, our service men and women have answered our 

Nation's call with unsurpassed courage and skill. Many have fallen or been 

grievously wounded in the service of our Country. We honor them most by 

caring for their families and for those who have come home with wounds seen 

and unseen. 

We are unfailing in our praise for the sacrifices of our warriors in battle. 

But for so many of our veterans, returning home is a new type of frontline in 

their struggle. We cannot cut comers on their healthcare. We must continue 

to invest in world-class treatments for mental health issues, traumatic brain 

injury, and combat stress. Stigma and barriers to seeking mental health 

services must be reduced. 

Suicide is a tragic consequence for far too many. As a Nation, we have a 

shared responsibility to address this urgent issue with the same devotion we 

have shown to protecting the lives of our forces while in combat. The 

Department is working closely with our interagency partners and the White 

House to increase our understanding of the factors leading to suicide and how 

to best leverage care networks to keep our Veterans alive. 

The risks inherent to military service must not include the risk of sexual 

assault. We cannot allow sexual assault to undermine the cohesion, discipline, 

and trust that gives us strength. Therefore, working closely with the Secretary 

of Defense and Congress, we are examining the best ways to leverage additional 

education, training, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We are 

exploring every option, and we are open to every idea, tl'lat will help eliminate 

this crime from our ranks. As I testified last week, we are acting swiftly and 
324 

deliberately to accelerate institutional change to better protect victims, to 

prevent and respond to predatory and high-risk behaviors, and to ensure a 

professional work environment while at the same time preserving the right of 

the accused. We will not shrink from our legal and moral obligations to treat 

each other with dignity and respect. 

Future success relies on opening our ranks to all of America's talent. 

The Joint Chiefs and I have supported the expansion of service opportunities 

for women. This decision better aligns our policies with our experience in war, 

and it serves to strengthen the Joint Force. Consistent with the law, we also 

extended some benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of service members. 

We are implementing both initiatives deliberately across all Services to ensure 

we uphold essential standards, guard against potential risks, and avoid 

creating new inequities for other members of the Joint Force. 

Keeping faith with our Military Family will take a mutual commitment 

from fellow veterans and a grateful Nation. The next few years will define how 

we, as a Nation, view the 9/11 generation of veterans. America's future AllVolunteer force is watching. 

They are also watching as we inflict risk on ourselves. With $487 billion 

in planned reductions already reflected in the Department's FY 2013 budget, 

sequestration's additional cuts jeopardize readiness not only this year, but also 

for many years to come. We cannot fail to resource the war we are still 

fighting. At the same time, we cannot compromise on readiness in the face of 

an uncertain and dangerous future. Our Joint Force must begin to reconnect 

with family while resetting and refitting war-torn equipment. It must retrain on 

the full-spectrum skills that have atrophied while developing new skills 

required for emerging threats. There are no shortcuts to a strong national 

defense. 

When budget uncertainty is combined with the mechanism and 

magnitude of sequestration, the consequences lead to a security gap -

vulnerability against future threats to our national security interests. And, as 

our military power becomes less sustainable, it becomes less credible. We risk 
325 

breaking commitments to our partners and allies, our defense industrial base, 

and our men and women in uniform and their families. 

This outcome is not inevitable. We can maintain the readiness and 

health of the force at an affordable cost, although this gets increasingly harder 

to do as uncertainty persists. But, we need help from our elected leaders to 

keep the force in balance and avert the strategic errors of past drawdowns. To 

this end, the Joint Chiefs and I continue to request your support for certainty, 

time, and flexibility. 

Most importantly, we need long-term budget certainty - a steady, 

predictable funding stream. While the passage of the FY 2013 Appropriations 

Act provided relief from the Continuing Resolution, uncertainty over the FY 

2014 topline budget and the full effects of FY 2013 sequestration remains. 

Last month, we submitted an amendment to the FY 2014 President's budget 

that includes $79.4 billion for overseas contingency operations (OCO) to 

support Operation ENDURING FREEDOM mostly in Afghanistan - as well as 

finalizing the transition in Iraq. We also submitted a reprogramming request 

designed to offset our most critical FY 2013 shortfalls, especially in wartime 

funding. We appreciate your expedited review and support of both requests, 

which will bring important near-term budget certainty and help reduce our 

most urgent OCO shortfalls. 

Additionally, we need the time to deliberately evaluate trade-offs in force 

structure, lTIodernization, compensation, and readiness to keep the Force in 

balance. We do not yet know the full FY 2013 impact in these areas as we 

make key decisions about FY 2014 and beyond. Finally, we continue to seek 

the full flexibility to keep the force in balance. Budget reductions of this 

magnitude require more than just transfer authority and follow-on 

reprogramming authority. Evelything must be on the table military and 

civilian force reductions; basing and facilities; pay and compensation; and the 

mix among active, Reserve, and National Guard units. 

There are no easy solutions, and no way to avoid sacrifices and risks as 

we work together to make the hard choices. But, the FY 2014 budget proposal 
326 

helps us rebalance and strengthen readiness through these hard but necessary 

choices. It enables us to lower manpower costs, reduce unneeded 

infrastructure, and shed ineffective acquisition programs while maintaining 

support for the responsible drawdown of our military presence in Afghanistan. 

It provides an equitable and practical 2014 military pay raise of one-percent 

while protecting important education, counseling, and wounded warrior 

programs. Proposed infrastructure reductions include a request for BRAe 

authorization in FY 2015, although any closures would take multiple years and 

not begin until 2016. We simply cannot afford to keep infrastructure and 

weapons we do not need without getting the reforms we do need. 

V. A Joint Force for 2020 

The budget decisions we are making now will indicate whether we view 

our future Joint Force as an investment or an expense. 

America is unmatched in its ability to employ power in defense of 

national interests, but we have little margin for error. An unforeseen crisis, or 

a contingency operation, could generate requirements that exceed the capacity 

of our immediately available forces. We are able to deter threats, assure 

partners, and defeat adversaries when we do so from a position of strength. 

We remain strong - and our Nation is secure - because we treat being the best 

led, trained, and equipped force as a non-negotiable imperative. 

The secret to sustaining our strength with this or any future budget is 

simple - preserve investment in readiness, prioritize investment in people, and 

protect investment in decisive capabilities. Now, several months since the 

Joint Chiefs expressed deep concern about a readiness crisis, we continue to 

curtail or cancel training and exercises across all Services for units not about 

to deploy. The costs of recovering lost readiness are going up by the day. 

Inevitably, recovery in the years to come will compete with the costs of building 

Joint Force 2020. 

It is our people that make us the most capable military in the world. 

They are our best hedge against threats to our homeland and interests abroad. 
327 

By 2020, we will require even greater technical talent in our ranks. But, 

developing technological skill must occur in concert with leader and character 

development. We must resist the temptation to scale back on education, 

including languages and cultural knowledge. Military service must continue to 

be our Nation's preeminent leadership experience. It is more important than 

ever to get the most from the potential and performance of every service 

member. 

Investing in people is not just about their development and readiness. It 

is also about the commitment we make to their families. Unsustainable costs 

and smaller budgets mean we must examine every warrior and family support 

program to make sure we are getting the best return on our investment. 

We need to reform pay and compensation to reduce costs while making 

sure we recruit and retain the best America has to offer. We must also balance 

our commitment to provide quality, accessible health care with better 

management and essential reform to get escalating costs under control. The 

FY 2014 budget would help control rising health care costs by initiating a 

restructuring of medical facilities to make them more efficient, without 

sacrificing quality or continuity of care, and by proposing fee adjustments that 

exempt disabled retirees, survivors of service members who died on active duty, 

and their family members. The Department of Defense is also working with 

Veterans Affairs to find efficiencies across health care systems. 

As we work to get the people right, we must also sustain our investment 

in decisive capabilities. The FY 2014 budget continues to fund long-term 

capabilities that sustain our edge against resourceful and innovative enemies, 

while maintaining critical investments in science and technology, and research 

and deVelopment programs. 

Emerging capabilities, once on the margins, must move to the forefront 

and be fully integrated with our general purpose forces. Special Operations 

Forces, for example, have played an increasingly consequential role over the 

past ten years. We have expanded their ranks considerably during this 
328 

timeframe, and now we must continue to improve the quality of their personnel 

and capabilities. 

Closely linked are our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 

capabilities - from sensors to analysts. We will continue to rely on proven 

systems designed for the low threat environments of Iraq and Afghanistan. At 

the same time, we must also develop and field sensors designed to penetrate 

and survive in high-threat areas. They will expand our ability to access and 

assess hard-to-reach targets. 

This budget also sustains our investment in cyber, in part by expanding 

the cyber forces led by the U.S. Cyber Command. Despite significant 

investment and progress in the past year, the threat continues to outpace us, 

placing the Nation at risk. The FY 2014 budget increases funding for cyber 

security information sharing, but we need legislation to allow the private sector 

and U.S. interagency to share real-time cyber threat information - within a 

framework of privacy and civil liberty safeguards. In parallel, we must 

establish and adopt standards for protecting critical infrastructure. 

The development and integration of these emerging capabilities will by no 

means amount to all that is new in Joint Force 2020. They must be integrated 

with our foundational and impressive conventional force capabilities. The FY 

2014 budget protects several areas where reinvestment in existing systemssuch as the C-130, F-16, and the Army's Stryker combat vehicle sustains our 

competitive advantage. All are backed by our asymmetric advantages in longrange strike, global mobility, logistics, space, and undersea warfare. And, they 

must be connected with a secure, mobile, and collaborative command and 

control network. 

This combination of increasingly powerful network capabilities and agile 

units at the tactical edge is a powerfUl complement to leadership at every 

echelon. It provides the basis to project both discrete and overwhelming power 

across mUltiple domains. It gives policymakers and commanders alike a greater 

degree of flexibility in how they pursue objectives. 
329 

As we set priorities and implement reductions, we must rely more on -

and invest more in - our other instruments of national power to help 

underwrite global security. Fewer defense dollars only adds to the importance 

of relationships among defense, diplomacy, and development. When the 

political and economic foundations of our bilateral relationships are under 

stress, our military-to-military ties can serve as a model of professionalism and 

restraint for foreign militaries, and often help provide a channel for continued 

dialogue. Advancing American interests not only requires integration across 

all instruments of national power, but it also requires that our international 

partners accept a greater share of the risk and responsibility. Some are more 

ready and willing to do that than others. 

VI. Conclusion 

Although I am confident the Joint Force today can marshal resources for 

any specific contingency, our goal is to be able to offer military options that 

restore and maintain readiness While putting us national security on a 

sustainable path to 2020 and beyond. To do this, we must recruit and retain 

the most talented people. We must invest in their competence and chal'acter 

so they can leverage emerging and existing capabilities in our defense. It is an 

investment our predecessors made in decades past. We must do the same. 

Our consistent first line of defense has been and always will be our 

people. They are our greatest strength. We will rely on our war-tested leaders 

to think and innovate as we navigate the challenges and opportunities that lie 

ahead. We need to seize the moment to think differently and to be different. 

But, we cannot do it alone. We need the help of our elected officials to give us 

the certainty, time, and flexibility to make change. Otherwise, the cuts that 

have already diminished our readiness will only get deeper, and the risks we 

will have to accept in the years to come will only increase. 

We can and must stay strong in the face of declining budgets and rising 

risk. We must have the courage to make the difficult choices about our 

investments, about our people, and about our way of war. The Secretary's 
330 

Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR) is helping to identify 

options and opportunities as we move forward in partnership with Congress. 

We have been down this road before. We can lead through this 

uncertainty and manage the transition to a more secure and prosperous 

future. I know your Nation's military leaders are ready - as is every single 

Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, and Coastguardsman - to give their last breath 

to defend America and her allies. 

Please accept my thanks to this Committee and Congress for all you have 

done to support our men and women in uniform. Together, we serve our 

Nation. 
331 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

With that, we will turn to our questions, and, Secretary Hagel, 

let me begin with you. You asked for more time before cuts take 

place and certainty when it comes to the defense budget. The Senate budget that we passed here provides both. It actually starts by 

eliminating sequestration and replacing it with a balanced mix of 

savings and revenue and spending, including defense, and ensures 

that those savings in defense do not begin until fiscal year 2015, 

which will give the Department the time you have asked for to 

plan appropriately. The Senate budget plan reduced defense spending by about $250 billion over 10 years. That is about half of the roughly $500 billion 

in cuts and sequestration. And by replacing the sequestration and 

ending this budgeting by crisis that we are doing, it provides certainty on the funding levels for DOD for the next 10 years. 

Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, because 

we have not been able to go to conference, that is actually ensuring 

that we are going to have another round of sequestration on us 

very quickly, which will again be across-the-board, indiscriminate 

cuts from DOD funding in fiscal year 2014. And, frankly, I see that 

as a plan for failure. 

So I think the most important thing we can do right now for the 

long-term good of our military is to follow regular order, go to conference, and then pass a compromise budget that fully replaces sequestration, and I really would like to do that if we can have the 

ability to do it. But I wanted to ask you today if you could comment 

on the long-term budget and the need for that that replaces the sequester and how that will affect your ability to plan and execute 

your national security strategy. 

Secretary Hagel. Thank you for the general and broad question, 

because it does frame everything. It frames our ability to respond 

to the responsibilities we have for our national security well into 

the future. 

I think much of what General Dempsey’s testimony was about 

really focused on this. When we have the inability to plan and have 

no certainty from month to month, year to year, as to what our 

possibilities are for contracts, for acquisitions, for technology, for 

research, the technological advantage that we have in the air and 

the superiority we have at sea, the training, the readiness, all of 

these are affected by the lack of certainty for planning. 

The chiefs say to me, when I have spent a lot of time with them, 

as the Chairman has over the last 3 months going through the review, ‘‘If you can give me any clarity on what kind of resources I 

have, I can build you an army with some degree of certainty, and 

I can build you a force structure that will match our strategic interests and our strategic guidance as to not only enhancing but preserving our national security interests around the world.’’ 

I cannot give them that, and when I cannot give them that, then 

we have to continually go back and adjust and adapt, and we are 

then forced to do some of the things that you have noted, as Senator Sessions did, as I did in my testimony, furloughs for people, 

a good example of that. You are not building a skill set in your civilian employment when that threat of employment is there, 

whether they are going to be not only furloughed but maybe RIF’d. 
332 

This gets into contractors. We often hear—and I suspect it will 

come up here—‘‘Well, why do you use contractors?’’ Well, mainly 

why anybody uses contractors is because there is a specific skill set 

that you may not have in-house, and that is more expensive. So 

you are building nothing for the future because you are essentially 

using your readiness not only in employment and the military and 

planning for the future, just to protect the immediacy of unwinding 

a war in Afghanistan or the immediacy of our force structure and 

the priorities of our readiness. 

So I know that is a long answer, but it does—everything I have 

said, it fits into, folds into your overall question. That is why time 

and flexibility are absolutely key here. If we have the flexibility 

and the time to bring this down, we can do that. That is manageable. And there are a lot of things that we should be doing, we can 

be doing to be more efficient and still protect the interests of this 

country and still be the most effective fighting force. But where we 

are essentially is when you are talking about the kind of abrupt 

cuts without slowing the growth, then what you are really bottom 

line saying is that you are going to cut your combat power. And in 

the end, combat power and the readiness and everything that fits 

into that is the one core asset that you must preserve and continually enhance for the future, whether it is cyber or anything else. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. And I need to turn it over to Senator 

Sessions, but let me ask you specifically. Obviously the President 

had hoped that we would not have sequester in effect for 2014, so 

that is not included in your budget request. I know, General, you 

mentioned the Strategic Choices and Management Review that you 

expect to have out in a few short weeks. Is there anything that you 

are finding right now that you are going to face that you could 

share with us that would help us understand just for 2014, if we 

do not move forward and replace the sequester, what we will be 

facing? 

Secretary Hagel. The reason that I directed a Strategic Choice 

and Management Review 3 months ago was, as I said in my comment, my opening statement, to prepare for what may eventually 

be a continued uncertainty of our resources. And so we asked all 

of our senior leadership to be involved and participate, as they did. 

We have our nine combatant commanders coming in for a 2-day 

conference this week. They have been involved. But the point is, to 

answer your question, that we have done this in order to project 

out as to what kind of limitations and planning that we are going 

to have to do to protect our defense capabilities based on, as your 

original question, the uncertainty of these budget issues. 

As to the review and the results, as I said in my statement, I 

am looking at those; General Dempsey is looking at those. We are 

reviewing those. This was not intended to be a set of recommendations; rather, it was intended to be a set of choices based on these 

different possibilities and these different scenarios. 

Chairman MURRAY. You would not want us to have this happen. 

You are planning for it. We will see what that is going to be in a 

few short weeks. My goal is to get us to conference and solve this 

so we can replace sequestration. I think that is critically important. 

But I think we are going to all have to be eyes open when you 

produce that report in a few weeks. 
333 

General? 

General DEMPSEY. If I could add, Senator, by way of context, 

Senator Sessions mentioned that when we did our future-year defense plan 4 years ago, fiscal year 2014 was to be funded at $598 

billion. If you count sequestration, it goes to $474 billion. So the 

way to think about sequestration is not that it is the deepest cut 

we have ever experienced in our history. We have had deeper cuts. 

But it is by far the steepest. And when the cut is steep, we limit 

the places we can go to get the money, because a lot of this money 

is unavailable in the short term. We can make long-term institutional reform, but you cannot sweep it up in the near term. That 

is the problem we are having. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. I very much appreciate it. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

General Dempsey, I believe that is correct. It is pretty obvious 

when you look at it that is too rapid a reduction. So I guess you 

are saying there may be more savings that we could effectuate over 

time, but doing it on such a short-term basis requires damaging decisions to be made. 

Just briefly, Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, this $9.6 billion reprogramming requiest, as I understand it, we came out 

under the funding needs for OCO, the Overseas Contingency Operations, by about $9.6 billion. And I have been surprised to find 

out—and I understand—that you are having to take that out of the 

base defense budget. 

Now, we all need to know there are two funding sources here: 

the base budget and overseas contingency operations. War costs are 

coming down in an independent way. Are you being asked to fund 

the shortfall in the war costs out of your base defense budget in 

addition to the other cuts that have fallen on the Defense Department? 

Secretary Hagel. Let me just make a general comment, and then 

I will ask the Comptroller to answer specifically the numbers questions. 

As you said, Senator Sessions, we have two budgets, different 

reasons. You accurately noted that we are $10 billion below last 

year’s fiscal year 2013 request. Those numbers will continue to 

come down, and eventually we will, I hope, be able to phase out 

that process. But it is essentially to pay for war efforts, as you 

know. And when I was in the Senate—and I was actually on this 

Committee for 4 years—we financed our two wars essentially out 

of emergency supplemental appropriations. And that is where a lot 

of this started. 

As has been noted, I think at least in my statement— and the 

Comptroller can address this—the additional costs as we reset and 

unwind and transition from Afghanistan have been significantly 

more. It costs an awful lot of money to get your people out, do it 

responsibly, get your equipment out, which we have an astounding 

amount of equipment in Afghanistan to do it right. It is a dangerous area. It is much more complicated than just moving down 

through the desert in Iraq to the port and then ship it out. It is 

different. 
334 

So that is another part of the OCO funding, but I just wanted 

to give you that maybe general sense of this, and then ask the 

Comptroller to go into more detail. Thank you. 

Mr. HALE. Senator Sessions, we are funding the OCO shortfall 

in two ways. Part of it is by moving money around within OCO, 

delaying, for example, equipment that we would have bought to replace equipment damaged in Afghanistan, and out of our base 

budget. And you are correct, some of it is coming out of the base 

budget. I do not have in my head the exact split, but a substantial 

part is coming out of the base budget. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, to that extent, I mean, the whole war, 

the $1.4 trillion over the last 10 years or so that we have used on 

the war efforts have been emergency spending. And the base defense budget has been paid for under the budget accounts of the 

United States. So it seems to me—have you considered asking for 

a supplemental to avoid—additional cuts to the base budget. hese 

cuts are in addition, it seems to me, to the $52 billion you have to 

talk about FY 2014 for because you have to find more savings, and 

then those savings could have been used next year to pay for other 

cuts. Now they have to be used to fund war costs that we have normally been funding through supplementals. 

Mr. HALE. Just let me give you the numbers. About $4 billion out 

of the base budget. The rest is— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would be interested in discussing that. 

But the difficulty we have, colleagues, on the sequester, sequester 

is part and parcel of the Budget Control Act that was passed in August of 2011. We raised the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion. We promised 

to reduce the growth of spending by $2.1 trillion over 10 years, and 

there were no tax increases in that. We did have an agreement 

that a committee would work on how to spread those cuts around 

to consider if they could not reform our entitlements. And the Committee could have proposed tax increases if they chose. But the law 

that passed was to reduce spending by $2.1 trillion, unwisely, as 

it turns out, on how the cuts were to fall, and they were too much 

on defense. But that is what passed. 

And so I think there is a strong feeling in Congress that we 

have—it will be very corrosive of public integrity and the integrity 

of Congress to waltz in now and say less than 2 years later, about 

2 years later, we are going to give up and forget what we said we 

were going to do when the going gets a little tough. So what should 

happen is we should look at this government, see how much more 

the Defense Department can handle over time in reducing spending, and look for ways to find other savings in our Government and 

stay on track. 

We just had a $600 billion increase in taxes in January. I do not 

suppose any of that was used to fix this problem. 

Now, Secretary Hagel, you stand behind the President’s defense 

request proposal for 2014 and the out-year budgetary levels that 

accompany that proposal? 

Secretary Hagel. Yes. As I said in my opening statement, Senator, that budget is a budget that sustains all of national security 

interests and protects those interests, keeps a strong, viable funding source, and continues to make the kind of adjustments and reductions that we need over the next 10 years. 
335 

Senator SESSIONS. So the plan that would cut $130 billion more 

than the President’s request would still allow you to meet the strategic requirements that you believe the Nation must meet? 

Secretary Hagel. I think we could manage with that additional cut on top of the President’s $150 billion. But as I have said and 

the Chairman said—and the Chairman should respond to this as 

well—make no mistake, when you are taking those kind of numbers out of a budget, there will be adjustments to that budget. And 

that means adjustments to the strategic interests and how we implement those programs to protect those strategic interests. 

I do not know, General Dempsey. You may want to respond. 

General DEMPSEY. This review that the Secretary has led allows 

us to see the impact of not only the President’s fiscal year 2014 

submission but also the Senate’s plan, and then full sequestration. 

And it does pose a series of choices which become pretty difficult. 

When you add up the 487 that we were tasked to reduce, the Defense Department, by the Budget Control Act and then add the 500 

to it—and we did some things with Secretary Gates in terms of efficiencies—it comes out to about $1.2 trillion. $1.2 trillion leaves a 

mark on the United States armed forces that would make it—we 

have not made this actual—we have not decided that it would 

make our current strategy infeasible, but it would put it at great 

risk and could make it infeasible. 

Senator SESSIONS. When do you expect that report to be available for Congress? 

Secretary Hagel. Well, as I said, the initial results have been 

completed. I have them. I am going through them. As I also noted, 

it is not a set of recommendations. It is a set of choices. Essentially, simply, it is what the Chairman just noted. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we really need recommendations. 

Secretary Hagel. Well, we will have recommendations for, obviously, our internal use, but as I also noted, we will be sharing this 

with the committees as to where we are going. We have to, because 

this is also going to guide 2015 budget requests and how we play 

this out for going into 2014. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much, and I know we have 

both gone over. Our witnesses have to leave at 12:15, I believe, to 

go to the House, so we are going to try and keep everybody on 

track here as best as we can. 

Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I welcome our 

guests. I just want to highlight two points before questions. 

First, let me commend you, Madam Chair, and the Senator from 

New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte, on your great work with respect to 

the sexual assault issue. This has gone on and on. This scourge has 

been debated for it seems like longer than—a longer running debate than the Trojan War. I very much support your leadership in 

this regard to get this rooted out finally. 

Point number two, Senator Murray has stressed how important 

it is to have a bipartisan conference on the budget. This is a view 

that I very much share, and what is striking is outside the Senate—outside the Senate—security and economic thinkers, our leading thinkers of both political parties, say this is exactly the time 

for a long- term strategy. That is what a budget conference would 
336 

provide us the ability to do, is to look at the 10-year window to 

tackle these issues. Senator Sessions makes the point with respect 

to health costs. Senator, I am laying out a Medicare reform proposal tomorrow. Other colleagues have as well. We should have the 

kind of bipartisan conference on the budget that Senator Murray 

talks about. I see Senator Portman and others are making the case 

of how important it is we tackle these issues in the long term, and 

I commend them. 

Let me ask you, General Dempsey—and, Secretary Hagel, we enjoyed working together on the Intelligence Committee—the first 

question about the contractors. What is striking is the inability to 

really hone in on the numbers so that we can get a sense of how 

to tackle this issue. 

Comptroller Hale, last February, you estimated that in terms of 

contractors, your calculation was that we had about 300,000. According to a GAO analysis that was published last month, there 

were over 710,000 full-time contractors working for the Department. 

So let us start with you, General Dempsey, on this point. How 

do you explain the discrepancy in the numbers? And how are you 

and your colleagues going to get us the accurate figures so we can 

get on top of this issue? 

General DEMPSEY. Well, actually when you get eventually over to 

Mr. Hale, I think we have accurate numbers. I do not know how— 

Senator WYDEN. Well, no. We have right now— 

General DEMPSEY. I think your 700,000 number is accurate. 

Senator WYDEN. So what Comptroller Hale said last February, 

when he estimated—when he said it was 300,000, that was not accurate? 

General DEMPSEY. Well, he is right there. 

Senator WYDEN. Okay. Let us get him in. 

Mr. HALE. There are different definitions, Senator Wyden. I was 

referring to the contractors where we have better data that are 

funded through what is called operation and maintenance. The best 

numbers we have for all our service contractors, about 700,000. 

The number is—we gave that to GAO. 

Let me just say it is not as easy— 

Senator WYDEN. Well, on that point, then get me in writing the 

difference between the types of contractors. 

Mr. HALE. Okay. I will do that. It is not as easy as it sounds. 

When you do a fixed-price contract, the contractor has no obligation 

to tell you how many people have to be doing the job. They just 

do it, and if they do it right, they get paid. So we are actually going 

and modifying all our contracts—at some cost to the Government, 

I might add—and requiring they provide that data. So you will 

have more accurate information, but at some cost. 

Meanwhile, we are doing the best estimates we can, and I think 

700,000 is close for service contractors. Now, there are people working on weapons that would add to that number. 

Senator WYDEN. In writing, the difference between the various 

contractors. 

Mr. HALE. Got it. 

Senator WYDEN. Let me ask one other question of you, General 

Dempsey. On the C–23 Sherpa aircraft—these are the big planes, 
337 

the big cargo planes used in Sandy for delivering individuals, 

cargo—the message from the Congress has been, ‘‘Do not get rid of 

them. Do not divest them.’’ The Army’s response has been to order 

the Sherpas flown to Oklahoma to be boxed up and then I guess 

they are going to be divested. It is almost like the Army is saying, 

‘‘If you will not let us divest them, we will not let the Guard fly 

them.’’ 

Now, we have a lot of us here in the Congress— again, both political parties—who strongly support the role of the Guard, and 

these planes that were used in Hurricane Sandy and our State, and 

we are looking in the West particularly at horrendous fires this upcoming summer. This would be a chance to help the Guards’ critical domestic missions. I do not know how we are going to help 

those critical domestic missions by parking the planes in a hangar. 

So what is your take on this? And what ought to be done? 

General DEMPSEY. Well, Senator, the C–27—and this has been 

the subject of a great deal of analysis in terms of its cost, operating 

cost, and its utility. And the Army-Air Force cooperation was actually quite encouraging in the sense that the gap, if you will, as you 

have described it, with the retirement or the divestiture of the C– 

27 can be covered by the C–130. 

Now, you know, there are some who disagree with that analysis, 

but if it has not been laid out for you, we can certainly— 

Senator WYDEN. Well, that may well be. Let me wrap up with 

this, Madam Chair. Why are they in the hangars? Here we have 

what all sides have said is a significant number of aircraft. They 

are in the hangars. We want the Guard, whose work we support 

and admire, to have the tools. Why are they sitting in the hangars? 

General DEMPSEY. Well, the Guard will have the tools, sir, but— 

Senator WYDEN. But, still, the question is: Why are they in the 

hangars? 

General DEMPSEY. Well, because it costs money to operate them. 

They are not operated for free. 

Senator WYDEN. About as good a value as we can get in this 

country. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Speaking of sitting in a hangar, General Dempsey, I would like 

to talk a little bit about Commander’s In-Extremis Forces (CIFs). 

It is my understanding that these are units of 40 special operations 

individuals that are basically there for rapid response, rapid deployment. Is that correct? 

General DEMPSEY. Yes, it is one of several capabilities like that. 

Senator JOHNSON. And we have one of those in Europe, C–110, 

it is called the European Commander’s In-Extremis Forces 

(EUCOM)? 

General DEMPSEY. Each combatant commander has one. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. There was a report on April 30th filed 

by Adam Housley that the EUCOM CIF was not at their homebase in Europe but actually deployed on a training exercise in Croatia. Is that correct? 

General DEMPSEY. Are you talking about last September? 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes, during Benghazi. 
338 

General DEMPSEY. It was on a training mission in Bosnia, right. 

Senator JOHNSON. On the night of the terrorist attack in 

Benghazi, correct? 

General DEMPSEY. That is correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. What is the time to deployment of those 

forces? What is their standing order? 

General DEMPSEY. Their response times are ratcheted up and 

down based on the threat. They can be anywhere from n plus 1, 

notification plus 1, which means they are sitting on the tarmac, up 

through about n plus 6, depending on the threat. 

Senator JOHNSON. Now, according to Adam Housley, through a 

whistleblower, that individual stated that force could have been in 

Benghazi 3–1/2 hours, 4 to 6 hours, somewhere in that time frame. 

Is that correct? Were they at that stage of readiness? 

General DEMPSEY. No, I would not agree to that timeline. The 

travel time alone would have been more than that, and that is if 

they were sitting on the tarmac. 

Senator JOHNSON. Was the command of EUCOM CIF transferred 

during the Benghazi attack from European Command to 

AFRICOM? 

General DEMPSEY. There was a point at which the CIF was 

transitioned over to AFRICOM, yes, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. At what point was that transferred? 

General DEMPSEY. It occurred, as I recall now, during the night 

of September 11th. 

Senator JOHNSON. Can you give me any kind of timeframe on 

that? Do you know exactly when it— 

General DEMPSEY. No, not from memory. I can certainly take 

that— 

Senator JOHNSON. Yeah, I would certainly like to find that out. 

Was that unit ever deployed anywhere? 

General DEMPSEY. Anywhere after the Benghazi attack? 

Senator JOHNSON. During the Benghazi attack, during that 12- 

to 24-hour period. Did they leave Croatia? 

General DEMPSEY. They were told to begin preparations to leave 

Croatia and to return to their normal operating base in Stuttgart. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. So, again, have you checked into specifically what their time to deploy orders were at that moment? 

General DEMPSEY. Yes, not only for that particular element, but 

for fleet antiterrorism support teams. For all of the various response forces, we do have that timeline available. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. So, again, what I want to know is what 

was their standing order time to deployment at the moment of the 

Benghazi attack? Was it T plus 1 or T plus 2? What was their 

standing order? 

General DEMPSEY. Well, given that they were on training event, 

it was probably at n plus 6, but let me take it for the record. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. 

Senator JOHNSON. During our Foreign Relations Committee 

hearing on Benghazi, a number of people made the comment that 

the State Department simply did not have the funds to provide the 

security. Is it true that the Defense Department was providing security in Benghazi? 
339 

General DEMPSEY. There were six individuals under Department 

of Defense authority in Benghazi. 

Senator JOHNSON. And the State Department does not pay for 

that, correct? 

General DEMPSEY. That is correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. Did the State Department, did Secretary Clinton ever contact the Department of Defense asking for additional 

security because she was getting requests from individuals in Libya 

for additional security? 

General DEMPSEY. I do not know if she contacted the Department. I was not contacted. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Can you check that for me for the 

record? 

General DEMPSEY. Sure. 

Senator JOHNSON. Had Secretary Clinton or somebody from the 

Department of State contacted the Defense Department, would you 

have provided security in Benghazi? 

General DEMPSEY. We routinely respond to Department of State 

requests for support. 

Senator JOHNSON. And what they were really requesting, the 

people on the ground there, was not particularly a large deployment, correct? They were talking maybe about 16 security individuals? 

General DEMPSEY. At one time we had 16 there, that is correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. In your opinion, had we had just a 

minimal force, armed force of trained defense military individuals 

in the compound in Benghazi, would that attack have ever occurred? 

General DEMPSEY. I have—I cannot speculate about that hypothetical because literally it is hypothetical. I mean, whether the— 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, it is true the minimum number of special operations individuals repelled the attack then. When they 

came from the annex to the consulate, they basically repelled the 

attack, correct? 

General DEMPSEY. Well, it was from the consulate to the annex, 

but the— 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, the first time it was from the annex to 

the consulate, right? 

General DEMPSEY. The first event occurred at the consulate to— 

Senator JOHNSON. Right, and then we had special ops folks or, 

you know, contractors come from the annex to the consulate— 

General DEMPSEY. That is correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. —to repel the attack. 

General DEMPSEY. To recover, that is right—well, to recover the 

individuals who had been attacked. 

Senator JOHNSON. So I think the assumption would be if we had 

maybe four time full—16, which means four people full-time guards 

at that consulate, probably that attack never would have occurred. 

General DEMPSEY. Well, if you are asking me would additional 

security forces have made a difference in any number of ways, the 

answer is yes, of course. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Well, thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Yes, Senator Kaine. 
340 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to cede 

a couple of seconds at the start for Senator Wyden to finish up an 

inquiry. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much. 

General Dempsey, our Guard says it is, in fact, the C- 23s that 

are in the hangars now, and they have been ordered to move C– 

23s there. So that is still the question, and if you could get back 

to me, I would appreciate it. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to 

the witnesses. Thanks for your service in a time of danger. I just 

was thinking this morning, you have been OPTEMPO in war for 

12 years, you, the military in the United States. That is longer 

than the Revolutionary War. That is longer than the Vietnam War. 

That is longer than any period of OPTEMPO warfighting in the 

history of this country. So I am going to start with a thank you. 

And then I am going to say thank you for serving in a time of uncertainty. Both your written testimony and your oral testimony, 

Secretary Hagel, ‘‘Today the Department of Defense faces the significant challenge of conducting long-term planning and budgeting 

at a time of considerable uncertainty...’’; and, General Dempsey, 

‘‘This year’s posture testimony comes in the context of extraordinary uncertainty.’’ And when I read the testimony and heard it, 

it kind of struck me. You guys are good diplomats. You mentioned 

uncertainty as if it was a hurricane or something. It is Congress. 

It is not a hurricane. It is not an uncertainty like we do not know 

what is going to happen. You are dealing with a Congress that will 

not give you a budget, that will not give you a number. You might 

like the number. You might not like the number. But you are dealing with a Congress, the first of the three co-equal branches, that 

will not give you a budget around which you can plan the defense 

of this Nation. 

So I appreciate the euphemisms in the testimony, and I think 

that is probably wise to do if you are sitting on that side of the 

Committee room. But that is what we are dealing with here. We 

are with a Congress that will not give you certainty, will not do its 

job. It is only Congress that can appropriate money, and Congress 

is not doing the job. It is just outrageous. And we sat through so 

many hearings, Madam Chair, whether it is in this Committee or 

on the Armed Services Committee, and we have had these same 

conversations for the last number of months, and we have, you 

know, kind of wanted to beat up on people on this side of the aisle 

when it is us, it is Congress that is not doing what needs to be 

done. 

I am going to go to the floor at a little bit after noon, and I am 

going to make the 13th motion, Madam Chair, to put a budget that 

we passed in this Committee and then passed on the Senate floor 

into conference with the House. We passed it on the 23rd of March 

after a full Committee process where we had numerous amendments here and then a full process on the Senate floor, where we 

had numerous amendments there. 

We passed it after hearing over and over again that the Senate 

would not pass a budget. And we passed one. And yet we are not 

allowed because of procedural rules in the Senate and, frankly, a 
341 

desire, I think, by the House, we are not allowed to initiate a budget conference to try to give you the certainty that you need, the certainty that our Nation needs. 

So, you know, I start really my thoughts with this sense of gratitude for service in a time of 12 years of war, but also service where 

you are facing an uncertainty that is completely under the control 

of the people who sit in this room and sit on this Capitol. And the 

fact that we are not giving it to you, that you can, you know, come 

here still with the spirit of equanimity, I applaud you for it. 

To a couple of questions. Furloughs are of great concern to me 

in Virginia. So many DOD civilians have been furloughed. Furloughs to me are kind of a short-term strategy. If you have to do 

a steep cut in the way you used it, General Dempsey, ‘‘steep cut’’ 

furloughs, it is not really a long-term strategy. The longer-term 

strategy is, well, you know, if we finally get a budget number and 

it is a tight budget number, then, you know, everything is not 

worth everything else, you do not do across-the-board furloughs. 

Talk a little bit, if you can—and I know July 1 is really the date 

for sharing with Congress your sense, but talk a little bit about furloughs as a long-term strategy, whether you would tend to use 

them or whether you would probably set that aside as you do with 

long-term challenges. And then I have one last question. 

Secretary Hagel. Senator, thank you. Well, furloughs is not a 

strategy, as you have appropriately noted. It is a reaction. It is 

triage. It is a reality. And that is exactly, as I noted in my statement, why I was forced to make a decision after many weeks of review by the Comptroller and his staff—and all the chiefs, by the 

way— and all our senior uniform were involved in this. No one 

wanted to do this, Senator. But I had then a choice to make to go 

further in cutting into our readiness around the world, and I could 

not do that. And so, yes, it is the worst way to have to respond to 

anything, but it was a necessity, and we all came to the same conclusion. 

The last point I would make, uncertainty, which I have talked 

about, you have all talked about. With this cloud of uncertainty 

continuing to hang over all of us, these kinds of issues, furloughs, 

all go with that for our workforce, are going to be something we 

are going to continue to live with. It is very unfair to these people. 

It is unfair to this country to have—to be put in that kind of a situation and then still ask these people to make the contributions they 

are and the sacrifices they are for this country. 

Senator KAINE. Madam Chair, could I take 30 more seconds? 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. We do have a hard stop at 12:15. 

Senator KAINE. I will take it off record. I will take it off record. 

Chairman MURRAY. I appreciate it very much. 

Senator Ayotte. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much. Let me just thank the 

Chairman. I am very pleased that the bill that we have offered providing special victims counsel to victims of military sexual assault, 

I want to thank Chairman Dempsey and Secretary Hagel for supporting our efforts, and right now it is in the mark, and I will make 

sure that it continues in there. 

Chairman MURRAY. Great. Thank you. 
342 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you for your leadership on this. I have 

really enjoyed working with you, and this is such an important 

issue for our military. 

I wanted to ask Chairman Dempsey, in follow-up to what Senator Johnson just asked you about the attack on the consulate in 

Benghazi, something that I have wanted to know an answer to, 

which is that on February 7th you testified before the Senate 

Armed Services Committee, and you were asked a question by Senator Graham, and he asked you whether General Ham had issued 

a stand-down order to the military personnel in Tripoli or elsewhere who were preparing to go to assist those in Benghazi. 

Then we heard before the House Oversight Committee that Mr. 

Hicks, who was the former Deputy Chief of Mission, said that Colonel Gibson, who was on the ground in Tripoli, did receive a standdown order, and so, General Dempsey, I have not had an opportunity to follow up with you based on the February 7th testimony. 

Mr. Hicks testified that he believed this stand-down order came 

from AFRICOM or Special Operations Command in Africa. 

General Dempsey, can you help me understand who issued the 

stand-down order and what happened there, why the special forces 

that wanted to go with, I understand it, under Colonel Gibson in 

Tripoli were told not to go and who gave them that order, from 

there they wanted to go and help in Benghazi on that night? 

General DEMPSEY. Yes, thanks, Senator. Based on that testimony, I went back and— 

Senator AYOTTE. I had a feeling you would. That is why I wanted 

to— 

General DEMPSEY. Yes, of course. And there were two different 

groups of—there were six people, not all working for the same command. Two of them were working with Joint Special Operations 

Command. They were collocated with another agency of Government in Tripoli. And four were working under the direct line of authority of Special Operations Command Europe—or AFRICOM, 

AFSOC. And it was the four you are speaking about. The other two 

went. The other four, by the time they contacted their command 

center in Stuttgart, they were told that the individuals in Benghazi 

were on the way back and that they would be better used at the 

Tripoli airport because one of them was a medic, that they would 

be better used to receive the casualties coming back from Benghazi, 

and that if they had gone, they would have simply passed each 

other in the air. And that is the answer I received. 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay. So— 

General DEMPSEY. So they were not told to stand down. A standdown means do not do anything. They were told to—that the mission they were asked to perform was not in Benghazi but was at 

Tripoli airport. 

Senator AYOTTE. Can I ask you, General, they had requested to 

go, though. 

General DEMPSEY. That is correct. 

Senator AYOTTE. They asked to go to support what was happening in Benghazi from Tripoli, correct? 

General DEMPSEY. That is correct. 

Senator AYOTTE. And they were told, from what you are saying, 

not to go because of the timing— 
343 

General DEMPSEY. Because of timing and that they would be— 

they would contribute more by going to the Tripoli airport to meet 

the casualties upon return. 

Senator AYOTTE. I do not know if you know the answer to this 

today, but if you do not, can you get back to me on it? Can you 

tell me when they made the request and what the timing was of 

that request and when they were told to stay in Tripoli? I would 

appreciate a follow-up on that. 

General DEMPSEY. Yes, I will. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you very much. 

Senator AYOTTE. I wanted to ask both Secretary Hagel and as 

well as you, General Dempsey, about the situation with al Qaeda 

in the Arabian Peninsula. I saw a May 2013 letter from General 

Holder talking about the AQAP being the most dangerous regional 

affiliate of al Qaeda and a group that has committed numerous terrorist attacks overseas. Would you tell me, what is the—how dangerous is this group? 

General DEMPSEY. I think that that characterization of them is 

actually accurate. They are dangerous for two reasons. One is their 

aspiration to attack the homeland and Europe, which puts them— 

which makes them unique in many of the other affiliates. Many of 

the other al Qaeda affiliates are more local and regional. This one 

has global aspirations. 

Senator AYOTTE. Where are they located? 

General DEMPSEY. Well, they are generally located in southeast 

Yemen, generally. 

Senator AYOTTE. Yemen? And what is the security situation in 

Yemen right now? 

General DEMPSEY. Better than it has been in a very long time, 

but still relatively unstable. President Hadi has partnered with us 

in helping build up the Yemeni security forces. 

Senator AYOTTE. But does he have full control of the country? 

General DEMPSEY. No, he does not have full control of the country. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. And what about the prison break situation? There have been multiple prison breaks, even going—I mean, 

there were like six of them, the last one in 2011. Does he have any 

more security over that situation? 

General DEMPSEY. As I said, Senator, the situation is improved 

since President Hadi became the head of state. He has changed 

leaders in some of the Republican Guard units. But it would not 

be possible for me to declare that it is a stable environment. 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay. I thank you. I appreciate all of you being 

here. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Later today, in the Armed Services Committee, we are going to 

consider a sense of Congress that I assume most people will agree 

with, Mr. Secretary, the sense of the Congress that commanding officers are responsible for establishing a command climate in which 

sexual assault allegations are properly managed and fairly evaluated and a victim can report criminal activity, including sexual assault, without fear of retaliation, including ostracism and group 

pressure from other members of the command. 
344 

Mr. Secretary, I am given to believe that a survey was conducted 

among victims, and 50 percent of the victims say that if they report 

the assault, they do not think it does any good. Are you aware of 

that survey? General Dempsey is shaking his head yes. Is that correct, General? 

General DEMPSEY. It is. 

Senator NELSON. Okay. Then my question to you, Mr. Secretary, 

is: Do you think that by removing the chain of command in order 

to prosecute sexual assault in the military, will that give the incentive for the victim—will that give more incentive for the victims to 

come forward? 

Senator HATCH. Senator, thank you. First, let me respond to your 

first point about the resolution that you think will be presented in 

the markup. I would fully support every word of that, obviously. 

Senator NELSON. I am sure that will be unanimous. 

Secretary Hagel. As to your question, I have said first we need 

to look at every option, every possibility, which we are. As you 

know, there are 26 pieces of legislation on this. And we are listening to people, chiefs, panels, a litany, pages of things that we are 

doing and started doing the last 3 months. Not enough. We have 

to do more. But some things have to change. I think we all accept 

that. 

Now, to your specific question, I have also said that anything we 

do, anything the Congress does, it needs to be done very thoughtfully, because there will be consequences to anything that comes 

out of this as to how we handle this in the future. I do not personally believe that you can eliminate the command structure in the 

military from this process, because it is the culture, it is the institution, it is the people within that institution that have to fix the 

problem. And that is the culture, the people are the culture. So I 

do not know how you disconnect that from the accountability of 

command. 

Now, as I said, we need to change some things. We can do things 

much better. We will have to. But I think we have to be very careful when we talk about thinking the command structure out of this 

process. 

Senator NELSON. Certainly it has been pointed out that cultural 

changes such as integration in the military, such as don’t ask, don’t 

tell, that the command structure was absolutely essential. In this 

case, we are talking about the reporting of a crime. Do you see a 

distinction there as to why the command structure should still be 

in place? 

Secretary Hagel. Well, first, I think we all accept it is a crime, 

and it needs to be treated as a crime. The things that Senator Murray and others have been doing on victims’ rights, special counsel, 

all the things that are going forward need to be done. We should 

have done them. We have not, but we will. All that has to be done. 

Now, to your question, I do not think you can fix the problem, 

Senator, or have accountability within the structure of the military 

without the command involved in that. And I have believed, like 

in everything in life, accountability matters. You hold us each accountable. You are accountable, I am accountable, the general is 

accountable. And that is where I think we have had a disconnect 

on—not all of it. It is cultural. There are a lot of things involved 
345 

here. But if you do not hold people accountable, then you are not 

going to fix the problem. You can pass all the laws you want, and 

that is not going to work. So that would be my response to your 

question. 

Senator NELSON. Madam Chairman, since you want to move 

along, I will submit for the record an additional question on a different subject having to do, as we leave Afghanistan, is there 

equipment that we can leave there that will help Afghanistan society more readily be able to support themselves. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. T 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. Secretary Hagel, 

welcome back to your old haunts. It is a delight to have you here. 

On the same subject that Senator Nelson was asking about, I am 

a believer that at some point you should just bring in the FBI and 

the Department of Justice and treat a rape like a rape and throw 

people in prison. But short of that, the Department of Justice has 

an Office on Violence Against Women, and it has an Office on Victims of Crime, both of which have considerable experience. I was 

a U.S. Attorney. I think highly of those offices. Do you have plans 

to engage with those offices to improve the type of services that are 

provided in the military and sexual assault situations? 

Secretary Hagel. The answer is yes. We are doing those things. 

We are taking the initiatives internally that we need to do. A number of things we have already begun. A number of legislative proposals will be and are being put forward, as you know, that need 

to be, I think, accomplished as well. So the short answer is yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And to a completely different topic, and 

then probably well beyond this budget year, but I think it is a 

budget issue this Committee may be facing for a while. The American military has an increasingly robust and increasingly frequent 

role in responding to international emergencies—tsunamis, earthquakes, famines, floods, and so forth. How significant a component 

do you see that being in the future of the military budget? Do you 

see that we should be expecting significant increases in that area? 

And from a strategic policy point of view, how would you evaluate 

that use of our American military in terms of building international good will and projecting American values? 

Secretary Hagel. It is, I think, a critically important part of our 

foreign policy, clearly in our national interest. We, as you suggest, 

have had over the years significant capacity to help countries during these disasters. We have very recent examples certainly within 

our own country, the National Guard—the Reserves and National 

Guard in particular had the resources to do that. We should respond and we will continue to respond. 

As to the budget, yes, those kinds of programs will continue. 

They need to continue. It is clearly in our interest around the 

world, and it is humanitarian. Where we can help, we will continue 

to help. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But beyond the humanitarian value, you 

see that it is part of the strategic value that the military provides 

America in its relationship with foreign nations? 

Secretary Hagel. Well, it is part of it. Our charge, our objective, 

our mission, our responsibility, is the national security of this coun-
346 

try first. But that unfolds into many areas of how we do that. 

When you are making friends around the world, when you are developing partners and allies, you are developing the next generation of global citizens who see America helping them. I would say 

that cuts right directly to the national interest and security of our 

country, and we can do that, and we have been doing that. We do 

it better probably than anybody does, the military. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It certainly is, I think, a point of pride 

that we can take as Americans how well we can deliver necessary 

humanitarian resources in the wake of a catastrophe, almost anywhere on the planet. There is nobody who matches us in that 

strength. 

Lastly, on cybersecurity, we are continuing to try to find a way 

forward to develop a bipartisan bill here in the Senate in the wake 

of the President’s Executive order, which I think was both a necessary and a correct step, but not a sufficient step because of the 

inherent limitations that attend an Executive order as opposed to 

full-blown congressional legislation. 

Could you comment for a moment on where you see that theater 

of operations for the military and for the country? I would note 

that General Alexander has asserted—who I have the highest regard for, by the way, has asserted that he believes that the United 

States is on the losing end of the biggest transfer of wealth in the 

history of humankind as a result of cyber intrusions—not necessarily military ones, industrial espionage, but where do you see 

your role going forward on that? 

Secretary Hagel. First, I recall our days together on the Intelligence Committee when we worked on this issue, and it has not 

gotten any less complicated, to your point. 

As to our role, you may have noted that we have requested a significant increase in our cyber capacity in this budget, and we have 

continued to do that for the obvious reasons. I have said many 

times, Senator—I said it when I was in the Senate and out of the 

Senate—that I think cyber represents as great a threat to this 

country as any one thing, and there are a lot of threats—nuclear 

threats, weapons of mass destruction. But for the reasons you know 

and everybody who knows anything about this understand why I 

say that. 

So this is an area that we have obviously cyber command responsibility for. General Alexander I think is on the Hill today, this 

afternoon, and as you know, he is dual hatted in his capacity as 

NSA Director as well as cyber command. 

The Defense Department has essentially most of the assets here, 

as you know. This is an interagency issue, as everyone knows, 

where Homeland Security has a significant amount of the authority. How then do you not only just interagency—which I think is 

going along pretty well, but the bigger issues, the privacy issue, the 

business issues, and what I understand really led to the breakdown 

in your efforts here on the Hill and trying to find compromise legislation last December, that yet needs to be bolted together. 

But we have a very significant part of this, but we have jurisdictional limitations, too, as to what we can do and what we cannot 

do. Our main responsibility is to protect our national security as 

defined by defense establishment, Government and so on interests. 
347 

But, again, as you know, when you veer out in the private sector 

and how far you can go, what legal authorities you have, what laws 

govern that are, I think, the large area of some contested debate. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank all the gentlemen at the table for 

their services. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman MURRAY. I appreciate that, and I know out of respect 

of your time, you have asked to be able to have a moment before 

you head to the House, so I appreciate all of you and your testimony today. I apologize to any Senators, Senator Kaine, for not 

getting their final question in. But Senators can submit additional 

statements or questions by 6:00 p.m. today, and we would ask that 

all of you get then back as quickly as possible. And, again, thank 

you very much for your service and for appearing before this Committee today. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Hagel. Thank you. 

General DEMPSEY. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
348 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-OOI 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Ayotte 

Witness: SeeDef Hagel 

Question: #1 

Rosoboronexport Cooperation with DCAA 

Ouestion: Has Rosoboronexport fully cooperated with the Defense Contract Audit 

Agency (DCAA)? 

Answer: DCAA was asked to review the pricing of Mi-17 helicopters procured under an 

Army contract. DCAA's audit objective was to review sales information for similarly-equipped 

Mi-17 helicopters sold by Rosoboronexport to determine if the price paid by the Anny was 

comparable to prices charged by Rosoboronexport to other customers. Accordingly, DCAA 

made numerous requests for pricing information to Rosoboronexport. Due to the way the 

contract was structured, Rosoboroncxport was not required to allow DCAA access to its pricing 

information. In response to DCAA requests, Rosoboronexport declined to provide any pricing 

infom1ation. 
349 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-002 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Ayotte 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #2 

S-300 Missiles 

Question: Has Rosoboronexport transferred S-300 missiles to Syria? If Russia delivers 

the S-300 missile systems, would they pose a threat to our aircraft if the decision were made to 

establish a no fly zone over Syria? Could the S-300s pose a significant threat to Israeli aircraft if 

Israel felt compelled to strike in Syria to protect their interests and prevent Hezbollah from 

gaining access to dangerous weapons? 

Answer: Deleted. 
350 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OJ-OOJ 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 20 14 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Ayotte 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #3 

MiG-29 Fighter 

Ouestion: Has Rosoboronexport transferred MiG-29 fighter aircraft to Syria? Would 

MiG-29M1M2 fighter aircraft pose a threat to U.S. F-15, F-16 and F-18 aircraft? Would the 

presence of additional MiG-29M/M2 aircraft in Syria increase the risk to pilots or change 

commander's decisions, ifthe U,S. pursued a No-Fly Zone over Syria? 

Answer: Deleted. 
351 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-004 

Senate Budget Conunittee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Ayotte 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #4 

Mi-17 Unit Cost and Contract Price 

Question: How many Mi-17 helicopters has the United State purchased from Rosoboronexport? 

What has been the unit cost per Mi-17 purchased? What was the total expense to the U.S.? Are 

there are there any future contracts to purchase additional Ml-17 helicopters? What is the 

contract unit cost per Mi-177 What is the total contract price to the U.S.? 

~: The U.S. Army contracted for 63 military Mi-17V-5 helicopters through 

Rosoboronexport. As of July 16,2013,21 military Mi-17V-5s were delivered to Afghanistan. 

An additional 12 Mi-17V-5s are scheduled for delivery to Afghanistan during FY 2013, and the 

remaining 30 are scheduled (0 be delivered in FY 2014. 

Cost Breakdown for Rosoboronexport Contract: 

Fiscal Year __ Q.\!a",n""(",,ityJ.,' __ 

20]2 21 

2013 12 

2014 30 

Unit Price 

$16,400,000 

$17,062,553 

$18,250,308 

Total Ai"rc",r",att,-,' ___ ~T,-,o",t""al,--V-,-",al,-"u",e_ 

$344,400,000 $375,051,442 

$204,750,636 $204,750,636 

$547,509,240 $572,180,894 

Note: Tota! Contract Value includes the cost for Aircraft, Initial Spares Package, and Engineering Services_ 

There are no future contracts planned to purchase additional Mi-17 helicopters from 

Rosoboronexport. All helicopters priced above are on Anny contract W58ROZ-II-C-0072. 
352 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-005 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Baldwin 

Witness: SecDef Hagel 

Question: #5 

Tactical Wheeled Vehicles (Oshkosh, Wisconsin) 

Ouestion: Thank you for your testimony today in front of the Budget Committee. 

would greatly appreciate receiving answers to a few additional questions for the record that I 

have listed below. I am glad we are drawing down from over a decade of war in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. However, beyond this withdrawal, sequestration appears as well to be forcing an 

additional drawdown of funding for otherwise-desired, or even essential military equipment, 

such as vehicles. As you noted in your prepared remarks, "With military pay and benefits 

exempt from the sequester, and our internal decision to shift the impact of sequestration away 

from those serving in harm's way, the cuts fall heavily on Department of Defense's (DoD's) 

operations, maintenance and modernization accounts that we use to train and equip those who 

will deploy in the future." 

In particular in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, we produce the tactical wheeled vehicles. The steep 

drop in DoD orders for these trucks is creating layoffs in the Wisconsin manufacturing sector 

and has imposed negative ripple effects for small businesses and workers' jobs throughout the 

region. Therefore I request a response to the following questions: 

I. How much ofa role is sequestration playing in DoD's decision to cut short orders for 

the tactical wheeled vehicles, from companies like Oshkosh? 

2. DoD recently submitted a "reprogramming request" to Congress. The request asks 

permission to transfer funds, previously designated for purchasing Oshkosh vehicles, tor other 

purposes. How much is this request driven by sequestration? 

3. In what ways could these cuts, which hurt Wisconsin jobs and could actually increase 

costs to the ta,xpayer in the long run, also hlUt the ability of DoD to respond quickly to emerging 

and unforeseen U.S. military needs? 

I. 1. The sequestration reduction to tactical wheeled vehicles totals $48 million, 

spread across FY 2011- FY 2013 funding, and is expected to have only minor impacts on 

affected programs. However, most Oshkosh produced vehicles, such as the Family of 

Medium Tactical Vehicles, the Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles and the Palletized Load 

System Extended Service Program, were spared sequestration reductions. 
353 

2, The Department recently submitted a $9.6 billion reprogramming request to offset 

shortfalls in OCO flmding driven by the fact the operating tempo exceeds the level anticipated in 

the FY 2013 budget and emergent high priority needs. 

Significant offsets in investment programs were proposed to finance these readiness 

shortfalls, including $1.0 billion in tactical wheeled vehicle procurement ($740 million in FY 

2013 OCO funding and $257 million in FY 2013 base funding). To date, theDefense 

committees have accepted only $26 million of the proposed tactical wheeled vehicle reductions. 

Because combat operations are drawing down, the Department assesses that the near-tenn risk 

associated with the proposed reductions is acceptable to maintain higher priority operational 

readiness, particularly with regard to those efforts funded in FY 2013 OCO (e,g., Mine Resistant 

Ambush Protected (MRAP) Modifications and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle 

(HMMWV) Recapitalization). 

3. The tactical wheeled vehicle portfolio, even wit11 the proposed reductions, is adequate 

to meet the Department's anticipated operational requirements. The drawdown from combat 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is the predominant reason for the reduction in tactical 

wheeled vehicle procurement in FY 2014. 
354 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-01-006 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Coons 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #6 

Force Structure in Budget Scenarios 

Question: I understand the Department of Defense is engaged in planning for multiple 

future budgets, depending on Congressional decisions made in the next few months. Please 

describe what a smaller military might look like in some of those small budget scenarios, as well 

as what missions it would and would not be abJe to carry out in order to provide a better idea of 

what Defense paradigms Americans have to choose from. 

Answer: The Department stands committed to the FYJ 4 President's Budget submitted to 

Congress as the best plan to meet U.S, national security requirements. Given the current state of 

legislation, DoD is planning fOf potential budget levels in FY15 that it may face; however, no 

decisions have yet been made. To reach the approximately $52B in rumuul cuts required by the 

Budget Control Act of FY 2011 the Department would have to do the following: 

Aggressively pursue efficiencies, including retiring lower-priority f()fCeS early 

Obtain Congress' assistance in slowing the gro\\1h in military pay and benefits, including 

changes the Department asked for in the past, but were rejected 

Acquire Congress' approval on a new Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

Reduce the size of both military and civilian forces 

Slow modernization plans 

The Department would seek to minimize the adverse impacts to readiness, but it is already 

starting from a low point after the significant adverse effects caused by the FY 2013 sequester. 

Details of the analysis are still premature, but the Department will be retining them over the next 

six months, and it will used to shape the President's Budget submission for FY15. 
355 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-OO? 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Coons 

Witness: SecDefHagcl 

Question: #7 

Future Procurement 

Ouestion: As you budget for future procurement, should we expect marc large-buy, 

multi-mission systems like the Joint Strike Fighter or the Littoral Combat Ship that have 

experienced significant cost overruns and program delays yet hold out the promise of great 

versatility and effectiveness, or do you anticipate a return to more limited scope platforms that 

can nevertheless be fielded more quickly and in greater numbers? 

Answer: The complexity and scope of future procurement makes a general answer 

difficult. There are many criteria to consider in deciding procurement strategy. Requirements to 

procure weapons systems are based upon detalh;d threat assessments and the corresponding 

capabilities needed to defend the United States. The procurement strategy is also a function of 

the operationaJ pJans that will be employed to meet these known or predicted threats. As the 

threats are characterized, capabilities are prioritized to best meet the needs of the warfighter. A 

procurement strategy must strike a balance between filling capability gaps, meeting the need for 

modernization of aging assets and maintaining fiscal responsibility to the taxpayer. The 

Department continuously reviews procurement requirements in support of national strategies. 

The issues raised will be considered through the annual Program Budget Review process. 
356 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-Ol-008 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Enzi 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #8 

Triad 

Question: I'm pleased to see the PreSident's budget request adequately funds the 

sustainment of the nuclear triad; however, I am concerned about the request in your budget 

specifically dealing with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In April, you testified 

before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees discussing your office's request for 

funds to perform an environmental impact statement (EIS) relating to an ICBM wing. We still 

have not heard an adequate explanation as to why the study is needed. I understand we need to 

get to New START levels, but New START does not require shutting down a missile wing. Can 

you elaborate more on the purpose of the ElS study? Is it looking at closing down an entire 

ICBM 'lVing? Are you looking at the other two legs of the triad for this study as well? This 

study only causes more fear that the Department is preparing unilateral reductions in nuclear 

forces beyond the requirements of New START. Unilateral reductions to the triad and 

specifically the ICBM force will not yield strategic or fiscal benefits. ICBMs are the nation's 

most cost-eftective strategic asset. This is a good example of a program with minimal costcutting potential that is vital to our national secUlity. Would you agree that the ICBM force has 

continuously demonstrated it is a cost-effective component of our strategic triad? 

Answer: I agree that the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force is a valuable and 

cost-effective leg of the Triad. At the same time, DoD must prepare for potential reductions in 

the ICBM force in order to meet New START Treaty limits. The fiscal year (FY) 2014 

President's budget request includes funding for the envirorunental impact statement (ElS) 

associated with potential Treaty-related reductions. Because the possibility offulure base 

realignments and closures, DoD believes it is prudent and cost-effective to complete a broader 

EIS than that nceded to meet the minima! requirements under the New START Treaty. The EIS 

will address the effects of eliminating ICBMs andior launchers at each of tbe three operational 

ICBM bases. These studies will support a fully-informed decision by FY 2015 on the reductions 

in U.S. forces needed to meet New START Treaty limits. If a decision is made to eliminate 

ICBMs andior launchers, studying all squadrons at the three ICBM bases will help ensure a full 

and fair decision-making process. Furthermore, by conducting the EIS now, DoD hopes to 

promote cost savings and prevent EIS redundancies in the future. The Department is also 

engaged in preliminary engineering studies that are necessary to support decisions eliminating or 

converting bombers and submarine launch tubes. 
357 

CHARRTS No,: SBC-Ol-009 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Enzi 

Witness: SecDef Hagel 

Question: #9 

New START Force Structure 

Question: Officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense testified before the 

other body earlier this spring, and indicated that the decision on what the New START force 

structure will look like will be made before the end ofthe calendar year-·J know the Air Force is 

engaged in anum ber of studies that will allow the Department to implement whatever option the 

Administration may choose, Would you be willing to detail some of those options? 

Answer: I would prefer not to speculate on the options that the President could be 

evaluating. There are various options under consideration involving different combinations of 

eliminating or converting submarine launch tubes, bombers, and intercontinental ballistic missile 

(ICBM) silos, I am confident that whatever decision the President makes will preserve the Triad 

and retain a credible nuclear deterrent 
358 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-OlO 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Enz! 

Witness: SecDef Hagel 

Question: #10 

Triad 

Ouestion: OUf balanced triad that includes an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) 

force thal is always ready and on watch, the submarine force that is very difficult to detect and 

target, and a flexible bomber force that can generate in crisis has successfully protected the 

nation for many decades. Are you satisfied that the Department is sufficiently focused on 

sustaining the stability provided by a balanced triad? Are you committed to modernizing all 

three legs of the triad? 

~: Yes. Sustaining the mix of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarinelaunched ballistic missiles, and nuclear-capable heavy bombers is essential to U.S. national 

security interests, and the Department of Defense remains committed to modernizing all three 

legs of the Triad. 
359 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-Ol-Oll 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: llme 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Enzi 

Witness: SecDef Hagel 

Question: #11 

Nuclear Warheads and Strategic Delivery Vehicles (SDV s) 

Question: On page 20 of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), it states; "The NPR 

conducted detailed analysis to determine and appropriate limit on nuclear warheads and strategic 

delivery vehicles (SDVs). After detem1ining that the United States should retain a nuclear Triad 

under New START, the NPR went on to assess the appropriate force structure for each Triad leg, 

namely the required numbers of strategic nuclear submarines (SSBNs) and submarine-launched 

ballistic missiles (SLBMs), intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and nuclear-capable 

heavy bombers." It went on to say the analysis focused on meeting four requirements: 

Supporting strategic stability through an assured second-strike capability; 

Retaining sufficient force structure in each leg to allow the ability ·to hedge 

effectively by shifting weight from on triad leg to another in necessary due to 

unexpected technological problems Of operational vulnerabilities; 

Retaining a margin above the minimum required nuclear force structure for the 

possible addition of non-nuclear prompt-global strike capabilities (conventionally 

anned ICBMs or SLBMs) that would be accountable under the Treaty; and 

Maintaining the needed capabilities over the next several decades or more, including 

retaining a sufficient cadre of trained military and civilian personnel and adequate 

infrastructure. 

It appears your first requirement pre-supposes our deterrence policy has been weakened to the 

point that we now must place additional emphasis on essentially the SSBN leg of the triad, which 

costs more to sustain than our land based ICBM force, without the same deterrent value. 

Is there any specific reason why the Humber one requirement is not to sustain our current 

deterrence capability? What has changed that would cause us to choose to alterffulther reduce 

specific platforms and/or number of warheads to end strength less than agreed upon in the New 

START treaty? 

Answer: I support the President's objectives to reduce the number of nuclear weapons 

and their role in national security policy and to create the conditions that will allow others to join 

with us in this process. As the President already stated, reductions to U.S. nuclear forces beyond 

those in the New START Treaty are possible while still ensuring the security of the United States 

and its Allies ,md partners. Such reductions would be consistent with both Article VI of the 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and with the conclusions of the 2010 Nuclear Postmc Review 

(NPR). 
360 

CHARRTS No.: SBC·01·012 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12, 2013 

Subject: The President's Fisca! Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Enzi 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #12 

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Force 

Question: Given the Air Force Global Strike Commander' page 5 testimony to the 

House Armed Services Committee Strategic Forces Subcommittee stating: "Of the three legs of 

the strategic nuclear triad, the ICBMs are the most responsive to national leadership. 

Continuously on alert and deployed in 450 widely dispersed locations, the size and 

characteristics of the overall Minuteman !II force presents any potential adversary with an almost 

insurmountable challenge should they contemplate attacking the United States. Because an 

adversary cannot disarm the ICBM force without nearly exhausting their own forces in the 

process, and at the same time, leaving themselves vulnerable to our sea·launched ballistic 

missiles and bombers, they have no incentive to strike in the first place. In this case, numbers do 

matter. The ICBM contributes immeasurably to both deterrence and stability in a crisis." 

And again on 21 January 2010 on page 14 of his testimony to the Senate Arm.ed Services 

Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on 17 March 2010 " ... the intercontinental ballistic 

missile in my view is extraordinarily important to the triad and to our overall defense posture. 

And without saying a specific number, I think numbers really do matter. By presenting a 

potential adversary with a fairly large, complex target set that he would have to deal with should 

he contemplate attacking the United States, it •• having a large number of ICBMs literally forces 

any adversary to exhaust his entire force in an attempt to defeat it or disan11 it. And in the 

process, if he does that, then he's still faced with the other two elements or components of the 

triad, the manned bomber and the ., and the sea launch ballistic missile, which will provide for 

continuing delen-ence aft.er that attempt. So I think that's extraordinarily,· extraordinarily 

important. The other point is the ICBM is perhaps the most responsive of all elements of the 

triad, because it is land based. It's located in the continental United States. There are multiple 

and redundant communication paths to the .- to the launch control centers .• so a very responsive 

system. And by touting the strengths of the ICBM, I continue to be a champion for the manned 

bomber, as you would expect the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command to be, but 

also for the sea launch ballistic missile because of its tremendous survivability and power that it 

also brings to the deten-ent and assurance equation. " 

Is it logical to conclude, given the commander's assessment, the NPR will only de-mirv the 

ICBM force and retain the number of deployed weapons and launchers at 450? And iffor some 

reason the analysis refen-ed to in the body of the NPR has come to the conclusion there should he 

something less than 450 ICBM weapons deployed, the United States will continue to retain all 

450 launchers? 
361 

~: The intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force is a vital leg of the Triad 

and will remain so in the foreseeable future. The President's budget for fiscal year (FY) 20]4 

supports the CUlTen! force of 450 ICBMs, and the "de-mirv" process as directed in the 2010 

Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The Department of Defense (000) will maintain the 

Minuteman III ICBM fleet in service until 2030. Furthermore, 000 recently began a GroundBased Strategic DetelTent Analysis of Alternatives to study the full range of concepts to 

recapitalize the land-based leg of the Triad. However, the United States must make reductions in 

the number of strategic delivery vehicles and warheads in order to meet the limits of the New 

ST ART Treaty. The bulk of reductions required to meet the Treaty's central limits will come 

from the conversion or elimination of systems that no longer have a nuclear mission while the 

remaining reductions will occur when the Department defines a new strategic force structmc. 

000 is currently assessing the appropriate force structure to meet the New START Treaty limits, 

and those decisions will be made by FY 2015. In the case oflCBMs, the Department established 

planning guidance that could retain up to 420 ICBMs. 
362 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-Ol-OJ3 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Enzi 

Witness: SecDefHageJ 

Question: #13 

Energy SuppJy Reliability 

Ouestion: Energy supply reliability (especially fuel supply reliability) is extremely 

impOltant to both our energy security and national security. The President's budget continues to 

essentially ignore not only one of our nation's most abundant domestic energy resources, but also 

our most reliable and virtually uninterruptable source of energy - coal. Past research conducted 

by DOE and 000 showed the viability of converting coal to a variety of fuels - includingjet 

fuels. 

Is not the reliability alone of this domestic energy supply sufficiently important to make coal-tojet fuels a key component of the military's energy portfolio? Are you integrating this fuel source 

into your energy pottfolio? If not, why not? 

Have you recently met with DOE's National Technology Lab (NETL) to review the current 

status of the technology in this area and about possible strategies for moving forward in this 

area? Ifnot, why notry 

Part of having a strong defense is making sw-e our military has a flexible, reliable fuel supply. 

Relying on the nation's 240-year coal supply, coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel can be delivered through 

existing pipelines and is readily useable today in existing markets, including for military uses. 

Would you agree that efforts by Congress to limit the DoD's options for using alternative fuels, 

sllch as CTL, have made our nation's military Jess energy secure and more dependent on 

imported oil? 

Answer; As one of the world's largest consumers of petroleum, the Department of 

Defense (000) in interested in the long-term diversification offucl supplies. That is why 000 

qualified and certified a number of alternative liquid fuels for military use. As the Department 

considers a variety of alternative fueJs, the ptimary goal is to ensure operational military 

readiness, improve baltlespace etTectiveness, and further flexibility of military operations 

through the ability to use multiple, reliable fuel sources for worldwide operations. 

The investigated fuel alternatives include those based on coal, produced by the Fischer Tropsch 

conversion process, and blended 50/50 with petroleum-derived fuels. As part of the certification 

process, military aircraft, naval ships, and Army ground equipment were run for hundreds of 

hours on these Fischer Tropseh fuel blends. 

For DoD to specifically contract for any altemative fuel in bulk, including coal-to-liquids fuels, 

they must be compliant with section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of2007. 
363 

To be compliant, they must have a life-cycle greenhouse gas footprint equal or less tJl(lJ1 

petroleum fuels, In addition, all fuels, including coal-to-liquids, must be cost competitive with 

traditional fuels, except in the case of fuels purchased for research and testing, which are 

typically purchased in small amounts, 

Current processes for coal-to-jet fuels are not domestically cost-competitive or less greenhouse 

gas intense than petroleum fuels, To address these challenges, DoD is working closely with the 

Department of Energy (DOE) on alternative fuels and is conducting joint research on coal-based 

fuels. with DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory, 000 is also aware of DOE's current 

effol1s to use biomass and carbon capture and sequestration to reduce the greenhouse gas 

footprint of coal-to-liquid fuels. DoD's recent investigations related to alternative fuels focused 

on bio-based fuels due to their low carbon footprint, which makes it easier to meet the 

requirements of section 526, Because section 526 provides 000 a useful baseline as it develops 

the fuels of the future and has not constrained us, 000 supports the current law. 
364 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-014 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's FiscaL Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Enzi 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #14 

Military Retirement and Health Care Benefits 

Ouestion: This budget proposal introduces readjustments of military retirement and 

health care benefits. I have heard many concerns about the increased burdens on our military 

men and women, and potential effects on recruitment and retention of an all-voLunteer force. 

Will the increase in TRlCARE fees be enough for a long-term solution to the increasing costs of 

this program? Does the Administration intend to make clear that any proposal to changes in 

benefits must include a grandfathering provision? 

Answer: Increases in the TRlCARE Prime enrollment fees for working age retirees and 

adjustments to retail and mail order pharmacy co-pays are important sleps to managing costs, but 

there are many other actions lhe Department is taking as well to manage long ternl health care 

costs. Some examples include: 

• The Department is creating a Defense Health Agency (DHA) with an initial operating 

capability of October 1, 2013. The intent of the Agency is to achieve greater integration of 

our direct and purchased c,1.re systems, assure medical readiness, improve employee health, 

enhance the experience of care, and lower health care costs. The creation of nine shared 

services (including facilities, logistics, heaJtb plan, and information technology) and six 

enhanced Multi-Service Market areas (eMSMs) are expected to generate savings and 

improve performance. 

• In 2008, with the support of Congress, the Department championed changes in law (know11 

as Federal Ceiling Price) that require pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide the 

Department discounts for drugs provided to TRlCARE beneficiaries through retail network 

pharmacies. Federal Ceiling Price discounts for drugs are at Least 24 percent less than the 

average manufacturer's price for its non-Federal customers, and the Department is now 

projecting savings of over $l,5 billion annually in drug costs. 

II In 2009, by aligning its payments with Medicare rates (known as the Outpatient Prospective 

Payment System), the Department instituted changes in the way it reimburses private 

hospitals for outpatient services provided to TRICARE. When fully implemented, these 

changes will save the Department over $900 million annually. 

To tUrther reduce costs, the Department is changing the way it buys medical products, by 

leveraging the bulk buying power of the military health system. A series ofstratcgic price 

reduction initiatives are being implemented, saving the Department on average, $60 million 

atillually. 

These are a handfi.d of cost saving and efficiency improving initiatives that the Department is 
365 

pursuing in addition to seeking reasonable changes to the benefit. By following a holistic 

approach to addressing the rising costs of health care, the military health benefit will continue to 

be a rich reward for those who have served our eountry so well. 

With respect to "grandfathering" proposed benefit changes, it's important to note that they do not 

contain such a grand fathering provision. However, safeguards are built in that protect the most 

vulnerable beneficiaries from proposed changes in cost-shares. Service members, and their 

families, who are medically retired from active service and families of service members who 

died on active duty are exempt This multi-pronged effort continues to invest in health and 

health care and shares responsibility for managing costs. 
366 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-OIS 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: .hme 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Enzi 

Witness; SecDefHagel 

Question; #15 

Number of Civilian Furlough Days 

Ouestion: Last month, the Department directed defense managers to prepare to furlough 

most civilian employees for up to 11 days. Thcse furloughs will impact about 85 percent of the 

workforce, or 652,000 workers. What is the estimated saving associated with these furloughs') 

How were exemptions detelmined for portions of the workforce? Do you currently predict 

having to increase or decrease the number of furlough days? 

Answer: The Department estimates the furlough will achieve approximately $2.1 billion 

in savings if 11 days of the furlough are executed. 

The categorical exemptions were determined through a deliberative process assessing the legal 

commitments for the Department, potential impact on civilians deployed to combat zones, and 

consideration for life, safety, and property for the military members and civilians in the 

Department Civilian positions that were funded from non-Defense sources or that would not 

create a savings to the Department were excluded as welL Additionally, the Military Services 

submitted specific requests for exceptions, such as the Department of the Navy Shipyard workers 

which would adversely impact mission readiness if the employees were to be furloughed. 

The number of furlough days is predicated upon the Department's FY 2013 operating budget 

shortfalls due to sequestration and in order to meet critical wartime requirements. The 

Department has taken many steps to close this shortfall including sharp cuts in facilities 

maintenance, hiring freezes, and layoffs oftemporary employees. DoD also asked Congress to 

let us reprogrammoney from our investment accounts into operating accounts. The ability to 

reprogram could reduce the number of furlough days needed to cover the operating budget 

shortfalls. 
367 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-016 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Enzi 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #16 

BRAe 

Ouestion: The budget requests an additional rowld ofBRAC in 2015 to eliminate excess 

infrastructure and includes $2.4 billion to cover implementation costs. Last year, GAO found the 

BRAC implementation costs for the last round of closures grew to about $35 billion, exceeding 

the initial 2005 estimate of $25 billion by 67 percent. How would the proposed 2015 BRAC 

round be different than the 2005 experiences? Do you foresee the possibility that a 2015 BRAC 

could cost more than you cUlTently estimate? 

~: If the Department receives authority to conduct a Base Realignment and 

Closure (BRAC) round, the underlying assumption is that the scope in terms of cost and savings 

will be similar to that of the 1993 and 1995 rOW1ds (lower costs and savings with quicker 

payback and a focus on efficiency). The 1993 and 1995 rounds cost an average of$9.4 billion in 

today's dollars and saved $2.4 billion annually in today's dollars. The payback was quick 

because savings accumulated during implementation ($9,1 billion) nearly equaled costs. 

While the BRAC 2005 round cost $35 billion, and resulted in cost growth above its $21 billion 

projection, the Government Accountability Office validated the savings of approximately $4 

billion annually. However, that leaves considerable time before savings overtake costs. 

The Department cam10t afford another $35 billion BRAC round. However, the key factor that 

drove the cost of the last BRAC round was the willingness to accept recommendations that were 

not designed to save money. Nearly half of the recommendations from the last round were 

focused on taking advantage of opportunities that were only available under BRAC, to move 

forces and functions to where they made sense, even if doing so would not save much money. 

They were pursued because the realignment itself was the determining factor, This 

"Transfomlation BRAC" cost almost $30 billion and resulted in a small proportion of the savings 

from the last round, but it allowed the Department to improve the distribution of its forces with 

its infrastructure in a way that is extraordinarily difficult outside of a BRAC round. It was an 

opportunity that the Department seized when budgets were higher. 

The remaining recommendations made under BRAe 2005 paid back in less than 7 years, even 

after experiencing cost growth. These "Efficiency BRAe" recommendations cost only an 

estimated $6 billion with an annual payback of approximately $3 billion. This part ofBRAC 

2005 paid for itself speedily and will produce savings for the Department in perpetuity. In other 

words, a BRAC round that is focused on efficiency recommendations can succeed and makes 

eminent sense in today's fiscal climate. 
368 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-Ol-021 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Ycar 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Murray 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #21 

Active Versus Reserve Forces 

Ouestion: There has been recent discussion about using more reserve component units 

in order to retain some additional personnel, but also to save money. Pall of the discussion was 

the early release of a draft report on this topic which was required by the 2012 defense 

authorization bill. After it was released, the Pentagon said it did not stand by the report. 

What are the Depaltment's views on the proper mix of active an.d reserve forces, both in terms of 

cost efficiency as well as readiness? Please provide the Committee with a copy of the final Cost 

Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) report on active versus reserve costing being 

undertaken pursuant to section 1080A ofthe 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NOAA). 

~: The draft report that was leaked to the press was not fact-checked, edited, 

coordinated with stakeholders, or seen by the Department's leadership. In circumventing the 

review process, the leaked material does not reflect DoD's official position. Additionally, the 

summary of the study reported in the press was distolted. 

The results of the report, however, are neither startling nor controversial. Active 

Component (AC) and Reserve Component (RC) units are not equal, since the AC is a full time 

force alld the RC is a part-time force. RC W1itS cost less than AC, but typically have a lower 

level of readiness and can sustain a lower peacetime operational tempo; RC units nonnally 

receive less annual training, require more advanced warning to act, and need more time to adapt 

to changing demands. AC units cost more than RC, but have a higher level of readiness and can 

sustain a higher peacetime operational tempo; in general, these forces receive more allnual 

training, require little advanced warning to act, and are able to adapt more quickly to changing 

demands. AC forces normally fill key roles involving forward stationing (e.g., forces in Korea), 

sustained high readiness (e.g., nuclear alert forces), and large unit collective skills needed early 

in a conflict (e.g., Almy Armored Brigade Combat Teams). 

The report identifies the cost of pay and benefits as a primary difference between AC and 

RC forces. There is no surprise that part-time (RC) manpower costs less than full-time (AC) 

manpower. Differences in manpower cost decrease rapidly with more frequent use ofRC 

personnel. On an annual basis, a reservist in part-time (dwell) status is far less expensive than an 

AC service member; the cost for a drilling reservist is about 15 percent that of an active service 

member. However, once the reservist is brought on active duty, the costs are roughly the same; 

the cost of an activated reservist is about 80 to 95 percent that of an active service memher, 

depending on rank and the extent of compensation elements included in the cost comparison. 
369 

The report also looked at unit cost, which is a combination of personnel cost and unit 

training costs. Again, part-time RC units typicaJ1y maintain a lower level of readiness than 

active units-though this varies greatly by unit type. An RC unit in dwell costs 20 to 50 percent 

that of an AC unit, with higher cost units having higher readiness than lower cost units; once 

activated, the costs quickly grow to parity. 

The report is in its final stages of coordination within the Department. Once the review 

process is completed, DoD wi!! deliver the report to the Congress. In the interim, the 

Department would be pleased to present a briefing summarizing the report to members of 

Congress or stafTwho are interested. To date, the Department has shown the briefing to SASe 

staff members and to a member of Senator Leahy's staff. . 
370 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-O]-022 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator MlUTay 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #22 

Deferring Needs 

Question: There is concern that steps which have been taken to lessen the effects of 

sequestration this year may create a larger problem down the road, especially if sequestration is 

allowed to continue. Some acquisitions can be put off, and some equipment can be used longer 

than originally planned. But postponing maintenance on ships, or replacing equipment does not 

eliminate the need for those improvements. The same is true for investments that are necessary 

in providing for the care or our servicemembers or quality of life for their families. How are you 

balancing these needs to prevent the Department from developing left with either a large backlog 

or unusable equipment? 

Answer: There is a general consensus that sequestration introduces inefficiencies in 

everything the Department does. Reducing procurement quantities below economic production 

rates, delaying maintenance on weapons and facilities, and deferring certain family suppor1 

activities, is both wasteful and unproductive. Tn the face of this challenge, the Department is 

attempting to re-balance its priorities while still at war, which makes it particularly demanding. 

The Department is focused on ensuring that deployed forces are 100 percent supported, while 

preserving the funding for critical readiness activities. Unf0l1unalely, this forced the Department 

to temporarily reduce non-war costs and certain activities and overhead functions. Some of these 

reductions and deferments has fallen most severely on training, facility maintenance, and the 

Department's civilian personnel. These deferred costs will have to be restored in the future 

unless the Nation is willing to assume greater military risk, which I believe to be unacceptable in 

loday's national security envirorunent. Notwithstanding, 1 am committed to work closely with 

military leaders and members of Congress to minimize the long-tenn impact of sequestration and 

ensure that we do not have to sequester funds again. 
371 

CHARRTS No.: SBe·OJ·On 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator MUlTay 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #23 

Integrated Electronic Health Record 

Ouestion: As servicemembers leave the military, VA and DoD must provide 

coordinated health care and timely claims processing. An end-to-end information solution is 

essential to these efforts. Until the Departments backed away from their goal, the initiative to 

jointly develop a single, integrated, electronic health record was considered a cornerstone of this 

solution. What steps are being 'taken to ensure accountability and oversight ofthe Interagency 

Program Office and the electronic health records program? How can VA and DoD work 

together more effectively to ensure interoperability of the Departments' health records? 

Answer: Secretary Shinseki and I are both committed to the goal of providing 

seamlessly interoperable healthcare data interchange between the Departments of Defense (DoD) 

and Veterans Aftairs (VA). Additionally, my restructuring of the DoD's healthcare software 

modernization effort, as described in the May 21,2013, memorandum, is intended to refocus 

efforts on achieving near-tenD interoperability while separately pursuing a competitive 

acquisition process to satisfy Do D clinical software modernization needs. Acquisition oversight 

for both efforts will fall under the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics. The Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness will remain the 

overall lead for coordination on healthcare with Veterans Affairs. 

Providing high quality healtheare for current Service members, their dependents, and ow' 

Veterans is among (lUI' Nation's highest priorities. The Departments of Defense (DoD) and 

Veterans Affairs (VA) are committed to fulfilling that responsibility. The two departments are 

committed to ensuring high quality care and continuity of care as Service members' transition to 

Veteran status. These commitments are enabled by the seamless transfer of electronic health 

data between DoD and V A. 

To meet our obligation, we are managing towards two distinct objectives: the first 

objective is focused on the seanliess transfer of standardized data between DoD and V A, 

building on the efforts of the last 10 years that have resulted in the current sharing of millions of 

electronic data elements. In support of this foundational phase, we have accomplished the 

following through joint DOD-V A collaboration on the integrated Electronic Health Record 

(iEHR): 

• 

Clinical Capabilities: Established an enduring and robust relationship between our 

clinical communities in the Interagency Clinical Infonnatics Board (ICIB) that 

defines our common clinical care capability needs. 

Data Standardization: Where national standards do not exist, V A has adopted the 

DoD Health Data Dictionary (HDD) t'Or clinical data, 
372 

Data Mapping: We have mapped clinical data in seven of the most used data 

domains to national standards and the HOD, and are starting on the path to mapping 

the rest of the 40 additional domains. 

Data Centers: V A has agreed to use 000 data centers to host a large fraction of V A's 

healthcare data in order to facilitate a single data structure. Twelve VA medical 

centers are presently supported out of DoD data centers and we are on track to 

complete this consolidation in 2015. 

Identity Management: V A has adopted the DoD identifier as the identifier the two 

agencies will use to uniquely identify veterans. 

Data Access for Clinical Care: We are deploying ajoint viewer that displays both 

Do 0 and VA data in a single screen. The viewer is currently at nine sites and it is 

proving invaluable to clinicians treating our severely wounded Service members 

transitioning care from DoD treatment facilities to VA po!ytrauma centers. 

V A and DoD will continue to cooperatively pursue standards-based interoperability 

and create seamless integration of DoD and VA electronic health record data in more 

than 25 clinic<ll domains and have this data available to clinicians. 

The second objective is to modernize the software systems supporting both organizations. 

Our objective is to provide health care delivery systems with the teclmology tools necessary to 

sustain and enhance healthcare delivery. Both V A and DoD have identified the need to update 

their respective healthcare management systems, replacing or enhancing existing legacy systems 

to give clinicians and patients the best healthcare software support, including state-of-the-art 

clinical decision support and analytics. 

DoD is in the process of developing a competitive acquisition to replace its Armed 

Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHL TA) at the best possible 

value. VistA based systems, including the enhanced VA system, will be considered as 

a viable alternative during the DoD acquisition process. 

V A, with its large installed base, trained workforce, and in-house IT staff, is 

enhancing its healthcare management system based on an evolved Veterans Health 

Information Systems and Teclmology Architecture (VistA). 

Our goal remains to achieve seamless integrated electronic health data exchange based on 

standards and open architecture design principles. DoD and V A will continue to work closely 

together in achieving these objectives and to meet the President's vision of health care data that 

can move seamlessly among VA, DoD, and commercial healthcare providers. We are currently 

collaborating and working together to update the Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) and other 

documentation to accurately reflect these objectives. 
373 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-024 

Senate Budget Committee 

Healing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator MUlTay 

Witness: SecDef Hagel 

Question: #24 

Incremental Funding 

Question: As the Department's budget comes under pressure from sequestration, 

incremental funding is increasingly being used to fund expensive procurement programs. This 

method of funding spreads the costs of these very expensive programs over many years, rather 

than fully funding them. This method of funding leads to a lack of transparency in the full costs 

of programs, creates liabilities for current and future budgets, makes the Depattmenl's budget 

less flexible, and ultimately ties the hands of Congress because funds are obligated before 

Congress has authorized the program. Incrementally funding our acquisition programs, as you 

probably will agree, is not ideal. Is the Department taking steps to curb incremental funding? 

Are there any plans to move back to use of full funding? Are there platlS to expand incremental 

funding for any other procurement progratlls within the Department? 

Answer: I share you concern about not fully-funding procurement programs, a practice 

which has been slowly growing during the past several tlscal years. Some individuals, both in 

the Department of Defense and in Congress, have acquiesced to the idea that incremental 

funding makes equipment and weapons more affordable. Unfortunately, the truth is quite the 

opposite, Incremental funding is a product of undisciplined programming and budgeting, which 

defers funding requirements to future years, and constrains funding options to both the 

Department and future Congresses. The misconceived argument that it allows the Department to 

buy more equipment completely ignores the fact that incrementally-funded procurement efforts 

introduce progranmlatic risk to acquisition programs and, in the long run, higher costs. 

I acknowledge that certain programs, such as aircraft carriers costing upward of $12 billion may 

force the Congress and the Department to consider an incremental approach. But this 

incremental strategy should be limited, and constrained to a select number of a high priority and 

expensive weapons that take several years to build. I look forward to working with Congress to 

buy what we can afford, and not be fooled by budgeting gimmicks that hide the real cost of 

acquisition prograll1s. 
374 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-025 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Murray 

Witness: SeeDef Hagel 

Question: #25 

Improper Payments 

Question: A recent GAO report highlighted that DoD made nearly $1.1 billion dollars in 

improper payments in 20 [ r while also failing to implement key provisions of the Improper 

Payments Information Aet of2002, the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 

2010, and Office of Management and Budget requirements for fiscal year 2011. GAO also 

found that DoD's financial report was neither reliable nor statistically valid because of longstanding and pervasive financial management weaknesses and deficiencies. The claims made in 

this report are troubling especially in a time when DoD cmmot afford to lose nearly $1 billion a 

year because of improper payments. 

How will the Department change its current operations to ensure that improper payments are 

significantly reduced 01' eliminated? How will the Department ensure that its financial reports 

m'e reliable and that finaneial management issues are addressed? 

Answer: To address your first question, the Department of Defense (DoD) is also 

concerned about the annual estimate of improper payments. It is important to understand that the 

nearly $1.1 billion the Government Accountability Office (GAO) cites in its report, GAO-l3-

227, "DoD Financial Management: Significant Improvements Needed in Efforts to Address 

Improper Payment Requirements," dated May 13,2013, represents both underpayments and 

overpayments. During the timeframe of this report (Fiscal Year (FY) 2011), the estimated 

anl0unt of overpayments was $683.1 million and the estimated amount of underpayments was 

$456.4 million. Further, a billion dollars was not lost. Instead, most underpayments were later 

disbursed correctly, and the overpayments were recaptured or placed into collection. In the 

FY 2012 DoD Agency Financial Report (AFR), the Department reported $882 million in 

overpayments and underpayments, a 20 percent reduction from the FY 20 I J total. 

Since the time period reviewed by GAO, DoD has implemented several improvements to 

our improper payments progrmn: 

• The Defense Finanee and Accounting Service (DF AS) now uses statistically valid 

sampling to produce improper payment estimates for annual AfR inclusion. 

• Starting with FY 2012 AfR reporting, all program results are based on statistically 

valid sampling methodologies approved by the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and that meet the guidmlce requirements ofOMB Circular A-123, 

Appendix C. 
375 

• The DF AS, TRICARE Management Activity, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are 

participating in the Do Not Pay program, required by the Improper Payments 

Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of2012. The Department of the 

Treasury (Treasury) portal allows these agencies to ensure payments are not made to 

deceased persons or to commercial entities that are currently debarred or suspended 

from federal contracti ng. 

• The DFAS Debt Management operation implemented a centralized offset program in 

December 2011 that provides the opportunity to automatically offset a pending 

invoice from a vendor or contractor that was overpaid in a previous transaction. If no 

pending invoice is available after 61 days, a debt is automatically transferred to the 

Treasury for collection. 

• All disbursing Components use prepayment controls to prevent improper payments. 

The DF AS tool, Business Activity Monitoring, is constantly enhanced through logic 

changes based on regular analysis of why improper payments still slip through the 

system edits. 

The Department's Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) initiative 

addresses your second question. The Department is committed to achieving audit readiness on 

the Schedule of Budgetary Activity by September 30, 2014, and on the full financial statements 

by September 30,2017. Achieving audit readiness means the Department will have improved 

financial practices, processes, and systems, and strengthened internal controls so that the 

financial infonuation used to manage the Department is accurate and reliable. More progress 

was made in the past 4 years than in the preceding 18 years since the passage of the Chief 

Financial Officers Act of 1990. Attaining FIAR goals~-audit ready budgetary execution in 

FY 2015 and beginning full scope audits by FY 201 a-will also reinforce public confidence in 

the Department's ability to safeguard against improper payments program and in its overall 

stewardship ofta.xpayer dollars. 
376 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-Ol-026 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12, 2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Murray 

Witness: SeeDef Hagel 

Question: #26 

Duplicative or Poor Performing Programs 

Ouestion: The Department is undergoing some serious acquisition reform efforts and 

continuing to make progress in ensuring that we procure our weapons in a cost-effective and 

timely manner. Aside from those programs listed in the President's terminations and reductions 

report, what duplicative programs has the Department eliminated since 2011 and how will poor 

performing programs be improved, restructured, or cut going forward? 

~: The Department did not eliminate any purely duplicative Acquisition Category 

I (A CAT I) programs aside from those listed in the President's 2011 report on Terminations, 

Reductions, and Savings. I Other ACAT I programs were eliminated since then, but for reasons 

other than duplication. 

Addressing problem programs requires a range of approaches. For example, the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics launched earlier this year Better Buying 

Power (BBP) 2.0, a continuation of the Betler Buying Power initiative first introduced in 2010. 

BBP 2.0 represents the Department's commitment to continuous process improvement in the 

defense acquisition system with the following goals: achieving affordable programs, controlling 

costs throughout the product lifecycle, incentivizing productivity and im10vation in industry and 

government, eliminating unproductive processes and bureaucracy, promoting effective 

competition, improving tradecraft in the acquisition of services, and improving the 

professionalism of the total acquisition workforce. Poorly-perfonning programs are being 

improved through a renewed emphasis on acquisition fundamentals, improved situational 

awareness, better risk and incentives management, streamlined decision making, and 

empowering the workforce and its leaders to think through and apply the best approach to each 

challenge. Programs are restnlctured on a case-by-case basis for such reasons as to address 

issues or to improve the coordination with other programs. Programs are also bcing given cost 

constraints for both production and sustainment to drive the tradeoffs necessary to keep Defense 

programs within affordable limits. Programs that are no longer affordable will be terminated in 

ways that work to extract value while minimizing cost. 

I The only purely duplicative ACAT I program eliminated since 20 I J was the F-136 Engine. It was to be an 

alternative second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and it was listed in the President's 2011 report. 
377 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-On 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Murray 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #27 

Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration 

Ouestion: The Department recently announced that projects to address encroachment at 

Joint Base Lewis-McChord and Eglin Air Force Base were selected as winners of the Readiness 

and Environmental Protection Integration (REP!) Challenge. The two projects leveraged $5.25 

million of REP 1 program funds with $25 million in non-REP! program funding to protect over 

23,000 acres in the vicinity of those two installations to combat encroachment. Could additional 

funding for more REP] challenge projects result in similar outcomes at other installations and 

assist in getting "ahead of the curve" in protecting those installations from encroachment in the 

context of the greater training intensity associated with a return training for full spectrum 

operations? 

Answer: TIle FY 2013 REPI Challenge was designed to encourage innovative 

approaches and identify new sources of partner funding in order to both accelerate the timing and 

expand the scale of efforts to protect the Nation's vital test and training installations, ranges, and 

associated airspace from encroachment. In FY 2013, proposals meeting the stringent criteria for 

the REPI Challenge were received for projects that would protect vital missions from 

encroachment at 19 installations in 16 states. Those proposals identified over $117 million in 

new partner funding and identified over] 5 8,000 acres where landowners indicated their 

willingness to participate in the REP! program. With the funds set aside for the 2013 Challenge, 

two projects were selected. Those two projects, Joint Base Lewis-McChord and Eglin Air Force 

Base, leveraged $5.25 million of REPl program funds with $25 million in non-DoD partner 

funding to protect over 23,000 acres in the vicinity of those two installations to sustain their 

missions. The REP! Program in general, and the REPI Challenge in particular, advance 

innovative, cost-shared prntnerships that deliver belter value to the taxpayer in protecting 

essential training, testing, and operational capabilities for the Warfighter. Tbe REP! Program 

consistently obligates its funding. In the FY 2014 Presidential budget, the Department requested 

$50.4M which balances fiscal realities with the need to protect installations from encroachment. 
378 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-028 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12, 2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator MUlTay 

Witness: SecDef Hagel 

Question: #28 

Training frequency 

Question: Secretary Hagel's written testimony highlighted tbe need, even in a fiscally 

constrained environment, to support a "return to fbli spectrum training and preparation for 

missions beyond CUlTent operations in Afghanistan." Will a return to full spectrum training 

involve an increase in tbe frequency, scope, and scale of readiness training at 000 installations 

and ranges in tbe United States? Would such an increase make the impacts of encroachment on 

those installations and ranges a matter of even more concern than it is in today's training 

environment? 

~: Yes. Full spectrum training empbasizes combined arms, and force-on-force 

training, which increases the scope and scale of training. This type oftraining results in more 

noise and increase challenges from incompatible development. 

With the drawdo\\tu in Afghanistan, there will also be an increase in home station training adding 

to tbe scale of training on DoD installations. As sucb, the Deprutment anticipates greater 

competition for training land, ranges, and airspace, which may be exacerbated by existing 

encroachment restrictions and incompatible development. 

These are not new challenges for the Department. Since 2002, the Department has been 

proactively identifying ways to avoid, or at least mitigate, encroachment challenges through the 

Sustainable Ranges Initiative. As part oftha! program, DoD actively engages with states, 

communities, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders in developing cooperative 

solutions to promote compatible development and protect access to the ranges, sea, and airspace 

used to train the Force. The Department will continue to be proactive ill addressing encroachment 

challenges in the future. 
379 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-029 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12, 2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 20] 4 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Murray 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #29 

Strategic Choices and Management Review 

Question: A May 29, 2013, memorandum written by Deputy Secretary of Defense 

Carter stated that "we will produce a White Paper that documents the options we considered and 

their implications for both management and strategy." Understanding that the Strategic Choices 

and Management Review (SCMR) is not a refutation of the President's Budget Request, but 

rather a strategic planning document to consider all eventualities, the Conul1ittee is deeply 

concerned about the potential effects of further sequestration. In order to facilitate the 

Committee's responsibility to properly budget for national defense, please provide the 

Committee a copy of the white paper described in the memorandum, and please keep the 

Committee fully apprised oflhe findings or recommendations of the SCMR. 

Answer: The SCMR did not produce a White Paper as detailed in the May 29, 2013 

memorandum. That said, the Department is prepared to share findings with Congress in the 

coming months. 

As you wrote, the SCMR is not a refutation of the President's FY 2014 Budget Request. 

The Department stands committed to the President's Budget Request as the best plan to meet 

U.S. national security requirements. In fact, the SCMR demonstrated that, out of all the budget 

scenarios under consideration, only the President's budget enables DoD to meet the tenets of the 

Defense Strategic Guidance. 

The sequestration-level caps will break parts of the strategy. Sequester is irrational, 

mindless, and damaging. The $37 billion in FY 2013 sequestration cuts are having a damaging 

impact on readiness, which limits the nation'S military options for responding to crises. 

Sequestration is already creating a legacy of limited defense to protect U.S. national security. 

The Department will still have an obligation to defend the country and maintain global 

responsibilities. And, in the long term, it will preserve the best possible force to do so. But 

sequestration-level caps will limit what the Department can do--now and in the future. 
380 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-032 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12, 2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Toomey 

Witness: SecDcfHageJ 

Question: #32 

Strategic Choices and Management Review 

Ouestion: As the sponsor of legislation to combat sexual assault in the Depat1ment of 

Veterans Affairs, I am greatly alatmed by recent reports about the soaring incidence of sexual 

assaults in DoD. I would appreciate your clarification of an apparent inconsistency in your 

department's approach to the issue. My information is that you have recommended removing the 

power of commanders to overturn convictions, runid recent cases in which commanders have 

done so without explanation. But the service chiefs staunchly oppose taking away the power of 

commanders to decide which cases get prosecuted. As you know, the latter is a provision in 

recently introduced Senate legislation. How do you explain this seeming inconsistency? 

~: I proposed that Congress limit but not remove the authority of convening 

authorities to disapprove findings of guilty after court-martial convictions, while retaining their 

authority to approve or mitigate sentences. The Joint Chiefs supported my proposal. 

The proposal you address would remove commanders from being convening authorities. This is 

a fundrunentally different issue than a convening authority's role after a court-martial conviction. 

It was this proposaJ to remove commanders from being convening authorities that the Joint 

Chiefs opposed. I have asked the Response Systems Panel, an independent advisory committee 

that I established pursuant to section 576 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2013, to include an assessment of the commander's role in the military justice process and 

to expedite their report to me by completing its review in one year. I look forward to reviewing 

the Panel's report, and to working with Congress as we seek every way possible to eliminate 

sexual assault from the military. 
381 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-Ol-033 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Toomey 

Witness: SecDef Hagel 

Question: #33 

Sexual Assault 

Question: General Dempsey stated that there are "inadequate protections" to prevent 

convicted sex offenders from serving in the military. What are the current measures, if any, to 

prevent this and planned measures to fix the problem going forward? 

~: The Department of Defense (DoD) policy prohibiting tbe enlistment or 

commissioning of any individual convicted of a felony sex-related offense bas been in place 

since July 2009. Since implementation of that policy, no waivers were approved for these 

offenses, nor am I aware of any applicant being accessed with a knowl1 felony sex-related 

offense. 

During the screening process, any information identifying a felony conviction for sexual assault 

or other sex related crimes is an automatic disqualification for military service, without 

exception. The following screening practices are used to provide the best possible information to 

determine an applicant's fitness to serve. 

Recmiters question every recruit and obtain documentation about basic qualifications 

(e.g., education level, police involvement, family status, and work history.) 

Applicants are required to answer questions about any problems with law enforcement 

agencies, arrests, charges, citations, parole or probation, and detention. 

Applicants undergo a background investigation (NACLC National Agency Check, 

Local Check, with Credit). The NACLC includes local police checks, FBI fingerprint 

checks, and national and local data base searches for arrests and other police 

involvement. 

• The Military Entrance Processing Stations then check the infomlation the recruiters 

obtain and address any problems or issues. 

• During the medical history and physical exam, the recruits must disclose tamily or 

emotional problems, psychiatric history, or dmg and alcohol use. 

• The Standard Form 86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, which every 

recmit must complete as part of the background screening, includes questions about any 

legal infraction regardless of outcome. 
382 

• Those entering through the Delayed Entry Program (the majority of recruits) are 

interviewed again and undergo a recheck of qualifications just before entrance on to 

active duty. 

The DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Directive 6495.01 (reissued 23 

January 2012) is equally clear on the prohibition of moral waivers. It states that the "[ejnlistment 

or commissioning of personnel in the Military Services shall be prohibited and no waivers are 

allowed when the person has a qualifying conviction for a crime of sexual assault." 

The "qualifying conviction" definition includes juvenile adjudications, which goes beyond the 

NDAA FY 2013 (§523) language. A "qualifying conviction" is defined as a "State or Federal 

conviction, or a finding of guilty in a juvenile adjudication, for a felony crime of sexual assault 

and any general or special court-martial conviction for a Unifoffilcd Code Of Military Justice 

(UeMJ) offense, which otherwise meets the elements of a crime of sexual assault, even though 

not classified as a felony or misdemeanor within the UeMJ. In addition, any offense that 

requires registration as a sex offender is a qualifying conviction." 

Given the current policies and prohibitions that are in place and t.he thorough screening processes 

that are used, it is extremely unlikely that a person with a qualifYing conviction would be able to 

join loday's military. However, the databases that we rely on to identify possible sex offenders 

are only as good as the input provided by states and local law enforcement agencies. In light of 

this fact, the Department will continue to look for new and illllovative ways to identifY potential 

sex offenders and to bar them from becoming members of loday's military. 
383 

CHARRTS No,: SBC·Ol·034 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Warner 

Witness: SeeDef Hagel 

Question: #34 

Military Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (MWPEA) 

Question: As Congress works to eliminate the epidemic of sexual assaults in the 

military, we need to ensure those who come forward to report that something is wrong are not 

further victimized by retaliation. Whistleblowers help guard the federal government against 

waste, fraud, and abuse, and protections for military whistleblowers are the weakest in the 

federal system. I recently introduced the Military Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act 

(MWPEA) which provides service members with a means to seek relief from reprisals and to 

hold subjects accountable. Do you support the provisions in the Whistleblower Protection Act 

and how would you best implement these provisions to ensure that whistle blowers are not further 

victimized by retaliation? 

Answer: I support appropriate protections tor all whistleblowers, military and civilian; 

because I believe that whistleblowers provide valuable assistance to leadership in helping ensure 

that the Department of Defense performs its nmctions efficiently and effectively. Reprisals 

against whistleblowers subvert the whistleblower program; those engaging in reprisal actions 

should be held appropriately accountable; whistleblowers who are victims of reprisal should 

have access to appropriate remedies. I fully support the purpose of the Military Whistleblowers 

Protection Enhancement Act, and look forward to working with you to enact legislation that 

improves the current whistleblower protection program. 
384 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-035 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Warner 

Witness: SeeDef Hagel 

Question: #35 

Strategic Choices and Management Review 

Question: 000 has completed the Strategic Choices and Management Review (SCMR), 

an exercise that looked at cutting DoD's budget at three levels - $100 billion, $300 billion and 

$500 billion over the next decade. Which option provides the best baJance in temlS of both 

reducing spending and preserving capability? 

Answer: The Department stands committed to the President's Budget for FY14 that was 

submitted to Congress as the best plan to meet U.S. national security requirements. Also, it is 

important to understand that the SCMR is not a set of reconunended actions under various 000 

topline assumptions-it is a set of options for consideration. After there has been a thorough 

review of the results of the SCMR, the Secretary of Defense will share them with the President to 

give him a sense of the choices that would have to be made if the 000 topline remains 

sequestered beyond FY13. 

The Department's capabilities will be increasingly impacted as the level of funding is reduced. 

000 will have to choose which missions it will no longer be abJe to afford to do, in-line with 

U.S. national security needs. 
385 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-01-036 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

SUbject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Warner 

Witness; SecDefHagel 

Question: #36 

OHIO Class Replacement Funding 

Question: Although numerous studies have validated the requirement for the Ohio class 

replacement submarine, the CUITent ship building budget does not provide enough funding for the 

required number of submarines. Are you considering funding the Ohio class replacement 

through the DoD strategic accounts as a way to pay for this critical system? What would be the 

impact of a delay in the Ohio class replacement? 

A.!lli!£r: The Navy will procure the lead ship ofthe OHIO Replacement SSBN in 

FY 2021 and remains committed to procuring 12 ships to replace the cun-ent class of14 OHIO 

SSBNs to fulfill the sea-based leg of the national strategic delen-ent requirement. 

At this point in time, the Department intends to fund the procurement of the OHIO Replacement 

SSBN from Navy shipbuilding accounts and not through DoD strategic accounts. 

The consequence ofa further delay in the procurement ofthe·OHlO Replacement program is that 

it will delay delivery of the new submarine units while the current OHIO SSBN will 

decommission on a fixed schedule. This would reduce the total SSBN force structure below that 

required to provide 10 operational SSBNs during the 2031-2042 transition period from the OHIO 

Class to the OHIO Replacement and will prevent meeting the U.S. Strategic Conunand at-sea 

req uiremcnts. 
386 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OJ-037 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June [2,2013 

SUbject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Warner 

Witness: SecDefHagel 

Question: #37 

DoD Educator Furloughs 

Question: Although the Department of Defense has taken significant etIort to reduce the 

number offiu'lough days for DoD civilians, these furloughs will have a disproportionate impact 

on Virginia, as 88,000 hardworking people will have to take a pay cut in Virginia. I still believe 

that we should not apply furloughs to the entire DoD work force. In particular, I still have 

concerns about the decision to include DoD educators in the pool of civilians subject to 

furloughs. Do you believe a mandated furlough across all DoD agencies is the right approach? 

How much will be saved as a result of furloughs and will you consider reducing furloughs below 

11 days? Do you still intend to close DoD schools this fall one day per week? Does that break 

faith with military families, especially those who are deployed to combat zones? 

~: There is no doubt that furloughs will hurt our employees; the furlough will also 

adversely affect our defense communities; the furlough will cause inefficiencies in our 

operations, and will erode our strength. However, the Department is also seriously concerned 

with the adverse effects on readiness caused by cutbacks in training and maintenance. The 

reductions in readiness will endanger the lives of service men and women if contingencies occur, 

forcing inadequately trained forces into action 10 defend the Nation. The Department continues 

to attempt to identify ways to reduce the number offurlough days without further degrading 

readiness, but today there are no such solutions. The current estimate of savings form an II-day 

furlough is $2.0 billion. As I stated in my May 14,2013 memo, if the budgetary situation 

pernlits us to end filrloughs early, I strongly prefer to do so. 

As a result of the proposed furlough, DoD schools may close for up to 5 days of instructional 

time at the beginning of the new school year. The focus of the Department of Defense Education 

Activity (DoDEA)'s furlough planning is to minimize as much instructional loss as possible. 

DoDEA will continue to meet all grade level and subject area educational standards, while 

sustaining a full-year of academic credit for School Year 2013-2014, 

The decision to include DoDEA educators in the furlough does not break faith with military 

fan1ilies. Military families recognize that to preserve vital support to warfighters DoD is forced 

to make many difficult decisions concerning furlough, and the consequences reach across the 

entire Department. 
387 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-038 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12, 2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Whitehouse 

Witness: SeeDef Hagel 

Question: #38 

Cybersecurity 

Ouestion: Does the Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request submitted by the 

Administration assume that the Department of Defense will take on any cyberseeurity tasks or 

responsibilities cun'ently held by the Department of Homeland Security? Please explain the 

reasoning behind such an assumption or the reason that such an assumption is not reflected in the 

request. 

Answer: No, the Department's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense budget request does not 

assume taking on any cybersecurity tasks or responsibilities cun-entiy held by the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). DHS is responsible tor a distinct and very important cybersecurity 

mission, and the Department of Defense (DoD) depends upon DHS to be a capable, close partner 

in support of national cybersecurity efforts. The Department's budget request reflects the 

requirements associated with DoD responsibilities and reflects the Department's share of those 

cybersecurity activities or tasks that are shared with DHS, 
388 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OJ-031 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Sessions 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

Question: #31 

Strategic Choices and Management Review 

Question: During your testimony today, you stated that the Department of Defense's 

budget, if you include the full impact of sequestration, would be cut by about $1.2 trillion. This 

number also includes Secretary Gates' efficiency initiatives and the initial cuts from the Budget 

Control Act 0[2011. Could you please provide a table that shows the level and source of these 

cuts, as well as define your initial baseline for measuring these cuts? 

Answer: Secretary Gates submitted proposed over $100 billion in savings in FY 11-16. 

These reductions were achieved through a combination of program reductions and compensation 

and organization reform. 

The Budget Control Act of20! I reduced the Department's toptine by $487 billion in 

FY12-21 from the PBI2 baseline. Informed by this reduction, the Department adopted a new 

Deiense Strategy that: 

• created a force that is smaller and leaner, but also agile, ready, flexible, and 

technologically advanced, 

• rebalanced our global posture toward Asia-Pacific/Middle East, 

built innovative partnerships and strengthen alliances, and 

• protected and prioritized investments in new capabilities. 

Sequestration, if implemented fully, would reduce the Department's topline by roughly 

an additional $500 billion and be deeply destructive to national security, likely requiring a 

significant change in the new defense strategy. Secretary Hagel's Strategic Choices and 

Management Review (SCMR) is assessing the potential impact of further reductions and 

planning for those continued reductions, if necessary. 

In all, these reductions come out to nearly $1.2 trillion in reduced DoD buying power, 

leaving a significant mark on the United States armed forces. The attached table shows the 

estimated level of these cuts and the applicable baselines. 
389 

Then-year Dollars in Billions 

mr"I"" FY15 FY16 FYl7 fY18 FY19 FV20 FV21 FY12-21 

FY11 Budget 564 5 605 623 642 --- --- -.. -- -- --. 

Gates Efficiencies -11 -25 -31 --- --- --- ... --- -IOO 

FY12 Budget 553 59B 611 622 633 644 656 661 6,141 

ctCuts -23 -52 -55 -54 -54 -52 -50~ -487 

YB Budget 531 i 525 534 546 556 567 579 592 60S 618 5653 

Delta PB14 to FY 13 -1 3 -7 -5 -5 -7 -10 -IS -18 -22 -88 

PB14 Request 530 528 521 541 551 560 569 571 587 596 5,565 

Sequestration --- -37 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -37 

Delta to Discretionary Spending Limit --- --- -52 -52 -52 -48 -45 -41 -37 ·33 -361 

Numbers may not add due to rounding 
390 

Hearing Date: Jun 12,2013 

Hearing: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Wyden 

Insert: (Page 54, Line 21) 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

File Name: SBC-OJ-002-IFR 

(The information follows): 

The Commander's In-Extremis Force (CIF), at the time located in Croatia conducting training, 

was ordered to move on 12 Sep 2012 at 0028 Easter European Time to Sigonella, Italy and 

subsequently to Souda Bay or whatever location was most advantageous to support missions. It 

was at this time the shared EUCOMJAFICOM CIF was "transferred" to AFRICOM control. 
391 

Hearing Date: Jun 12,2013 

Hearing: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Johnson 

Insert: (page 55, Line 21) 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

File Name: SBC-OI-003-IFR 

(The information follows): 

rDeletedl 
392 

Hearing Date: J un 12, 2013 

Hearing: The President's Fiscal Year 20 14 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Ayotte 

Insert: (Page 67, Line 9) 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

File Name: SBC·Ot-004-IFR 

(The information follows): 

The exact time of the communications between LTC Gibson and SOCAFRICA's Joint 

Operations Center regarding LTC Gibson's proposed movement to Benghazi the morning of 

September 12, 2012 cannot be determined. The Department's best estimate is that it occurred 

between the completion of the US Embassy in Tripoli evacuation at approximately OSOO Eastern 

European Time (EET), and the departure of the Libyan C-130 destined for Benghazi which LTC 

Gibson and the three other 000 personnel (including a special forces medic) wished to board. 

Due to night flight restrictions on the Libyan C-l30 crew, it is estimated the aircraft depatied 

between 0600 and 0630 EET. 

Though the rationale for remaining in Tripoli was not communicated to LTC Gibson that 

morning, he accepted and followed the order to remain in place. The decision by SOCAFRICA 

to order LTC Gibson to remain in Tripoli was based on the following known facts at the time: 

(1) Social media indicated an attack on the US Embassy ,in Tripoli could be imminent. 

This report led to the evacuation of embassy staffa! dawn on September 12th. 

Because there were only a handful of diplomatic security personnel and local 

nationals to protect embassy staff, LTC Gibson and his team were ordered to remain 

in place to assist in providing security. 

(2) SOCAFRICA was aware that all US personnel in Benghazi were accounted for and 

would soon be enroute to Tripoli. For this purpose, SOCAFRICA determined LTC 

Gibson and his team would be most etTective in Tripoli to provide assistance to 

wounded personnel arriving from Benghazi. The decision proved crucial in that LTC 

Gibson's medic was instrumental in saving the life of one of the wounded from 

Benghazi. Had the four traveled to Benghazi, they would have been ineffective to 

provide any assistance to anyone. By the time the Libyan C-IJO arrived in Benghazi, 

the flight with all remaining American personnel had already departed for Tripoli. 

For event sequence context, it must be noted that once the remains of Ambassador Chris 

Stevens were identified at approximately 0300 EET, all US personnel in Benghazi were 

accounted for. At this point, the mission shifted from a potential hostage rescue mission to an 

evacuation mission. All US personnel were evacuated from Benghazi at 1000 EEl', within 12.5 

hours of the initiation of the attack. 
393 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-017 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Johnson 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

Question: # 17 

Question: You testified that the command ofthe U.S. European Command Commander's 

In-Extremis Force (ClF) was transferred from EUCOM to AFRICOM at some point on the night 

ofSep!. 11,2012. At what time, exactly, did the transfer take place? 

Answer: The Commander's In-Extremis Force (CIF), at the time located in Croatia 

conducting training, was ordered to move on 12 Sep 2012 at 0028 Eastern European Time to 

Sigonella, Italy and subsequently to Souda Bay or whatever location was most advantageous to 

support missions. It was at this time the shared EUCOM/AFICOM CIF was "transferred" to 

AFRICOM control. 
394 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-O 1-018 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Johnson 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

Question: #18 

Question: You testified that the EUCOM CIF, while training, was told Sept. j I, 2012 to 

begin preparations to leave Croatia and to return to their normal operating base in Stuttgart. At 

what time, exactly, was the unit given this order? Were any notifications or orders given to the 

CIF before their return to Stuttgart? Please include the timeline for all notifications, including 

standby and deployment orders given to the unit on Sept. 11-12 and for the seven days before 

and after that. 

Answer: The EUCOM Commander's In-Extremis Force (CIF) was order to move to 

Sigonella, Italy and subsequently to Souda Bay, or whatever location was most advantageous to 

support missions, on 12 Sep 2012 at 0028 Eastern European Time. 

A CIF operates under standing orders to maintain readiness at all times for contingency 

operations. The seven days before the incident, the shared EUCOMI AFRICOM elF maintained 

its standard alert posture. Within the first two and half hours of the attacks, the shared 

EUCOM/AFRICOM CIF was transferred to CDRUSAFRICOM authority and continues to 

maintain an elevated posture. 
395 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-0]-019 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Johnson 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

Question: #19 

Question: What was the notification time of EUCOM CIF on Sept. 1 J, 2012, and for the 

seven days before that and the seven days after - notification plus what, please? If the time 

changed during that 14-day period, please specifY the N-plus times before and after the changes, 

and when the change took place, 

Answer: [deleted] 
396 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-020 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Johnson 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

Question: 1120 

Question: Did the State Department or Secretary Clinton ever contact the Department of 

Defense asking for additional security because she was getting requests from individuals in 

. Libya? If so, when? Please specify all requests in 2012, including any on Sept. lIar 12, as to the 

type of request, the date and time, and the response that was given. 

Ans\ver: Our support to U.S. Embassy Tripoli had been on-going since Sep 2011. Per 

Department of State request, a Site Security Team (SST) was deployed for 120 days and was 

subsequently extended twice in response to State's request. The second extension request 

occurred on March 5, 2012. The Secretary of Defense approved this request on March 23, 2012 

and the SST was extended for an additional 120 days. The second extended mission was 

completed on August 3, 2012. The Department of Defense did not receive further requests from 

the State Department. During the 11 months of Department of Defense support to Department of 

State, we only received requests to provide securily at the US Embassy in Tripoli, not the 

conslilate in Benghazi. 

In reaction to the attacks on September 11,2012, the shared EUCOM/AFRICOM 

Commander's In-Extremis Force (CIF) was ordered to move on 12 Sep 2012 at 0028 Eastern 

European Time to Sigonella, Italy and subsequently to Souda Bay or whatever location was most 

advantageous to support missions. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense ordered one Fleet 

Anti-Terrorism Team (FAST) Platoon to Benghazi and one FAST to Tripoli. On 12 Sep 2012 

one FAST deployed to Tripoli and the other to SOllda Bay, Crete, to posture for response to 

additional regional unrest. 
397 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-030 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Y car 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Nelson 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

Question: #30 

Strategic Choices and Management Review 

Question: Please describe the types and quantity of equipment, shelters, portable 

buildings, generators, and other non-military specific property usable by the Afghan populace, 

and any plans to leave this in Afghanistan. Please provide a business case description if these 

actions are performed. 

Answer: The majority of U.S. military equipment in Afghanistan is being redeployed to 

fulfill enduring requirements. It is cost prohibitive to retrograde and reset non,military specific 

items that are not part of the Service's force structure. 

The Department offers foreign excess persona! property (FEPP) to the Government orthe 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GlRoA) for substantial benefits pursuant to 40 U.S.c. Chapter 

7. Since January 2012, the Department has transferred over 200,000 items to GIRoA with a fair 

market value of$28 million. The transportation cost to return these items to CONUS would 

have been $464 million, resulting in a net cost avoidance of$436 million (see attachment) 

Examples of equipment transferred include: 

o Air Conditioners 

o Generators 

o Storage Containers 

o Laundry equipment 

o Barriers 

o Forklifts 

o Water and fuel tanks 

o Tents 

o Cafeteria Equipment (e.g., coolers, freezers) 

o Base operating support equipment 
398 

CHARRTS No.: SSC-OI-031 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Sessions 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

Question: #31 

Strategic Choices and Management Review 

Question: During your testimony today, you stated that the Department of Defense's 

budget, if you include the full impact of seq'ueslration, would be cut by about $1.2 trillion. This 

number also includes Secretary Gates' etliciency initiatives and the initial cuts trom the Budget 

Control Act of201!. Could you please provide a table that shows the level and source of these 

cuts, as well as define your initial baseline for measuring these cuts? 

Answer: Secretary Gates submitted proposed over $1 00 billion in savings in FYII-J6. 

These reductions were achieved through a combination of program reductions and compensation 

and organization reform. 

The Budget Control Act 0[2011 reduced the Department's toplinc by $487 billion in 

FY12-21 from the PBl2 baseline. Informed by this reduction, the Department adopted a new 

Defense Strategy that: 

• created a force that is smaller and leancr, but also agile, ready, flexible, and 

technologically advanced, 

• rebalanced our global posture toward Asia-PacificlMiddle East, 

• built innovative partnerships and strengthen alliances, and 

• protected and prioritized investments in new capabilities. 

Sequestration, if implemented fully, would reduce the Department's topline by roughly 

an additional $500 billion and be deeply destructive to national security, likely requiring a 

significant change in the new defense strategy. Secretary Hagel's Strategic Choices and 

Management Review (SCMR) is assessing the potential impact offurther reductions and 

planning for those continued reductions, if necessary. 

In aI!, these reductions come out to nearly $1.2 trillion in reduced DoD buying power, 

leaving a significant mark on the United States armed forces. The attached table shows the 

estimated level of these cuts and the applicable baselines. 
399 

Then·year Dollars in Billions 

FYl2 FYl3 FYi4 fYl5 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY12·21 

FYll Budget 564 585 605 /i23 642 --- --- --- -- --- --- IGates Efficiencies ·11 -14 ·19 -25 -31 --- --- -- --- --- -lOa 

IFY12 Budget 553 571 58/i 598 611 622 633 644 656 667 6,141 

Budget Control Ad Cuts -23 -45 -53 -52 -55 -54 -54 -52 -50 ·50 -487 

FY13 Budget 531 525 534 546 556 567 579 59:l 605 618 5653 

Delta P814 to FY 13 -1 3 -7 -5 -5 ·7 -10 -15 ·18 ·22 -88 

PS14 Request 530 528 527 541 551 560 569 577 587 596 5,565 

Sequestration --. 1·37 .. - .._- --- -.- --- --- --- ._- -37 

Delta to Discretionary Spending Umit --- --- -52 -52 -52 -48 -45 -41 -37 -33 -361 

Numbers may not add due to roundmg 
400 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-OI7 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: JUne 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Johnson 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

Question: #17 

Question: You testified that the command ofthe U.S. European Command Commander'S 

In-Extremis Force (CIF) was transferred from EUCOM to AFRICOM at some point on the night 

of Sept. 11,2012. At what time, exactly, did the transfer take place? 

Answer: The Commander's In-Extremis Force (CIF), at the time located in Croatia 

conducting training, was ordered to move on 12 Sep 2012 at 0028 Eastern European Time to 

Sigonella, Italy and subsequently to Souda Bay or whatever location was most advantageous to 

support missions. It was at this time the shared EUCOM/AFRICOM CIF was "transferred" to 

AFR!COM control. 
401 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-OIS 

Senate Budget Committee 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Johnson 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

Question: #18 

Question: You testified that the EUCOM CIF, while training, was told Sept. 11,2012 to 

begin preparations to leave Croatia and to return to their normal operating base in Stuttgart. At 

what time, exactly, was the unit given this order? Were any notifications or orders given to the 

CIF before their return to Stuttgart'? Please include the timeline for all notifications, including 

standby and deployment orders given to the unit on Sept 11-12 and lor the seven days belore 

and after that 

Answer: The EUCOM Commander's In-Extremis Force (ClF) was ordered to move to 

Sigonelia, Italy and subsequently to Souda Bay, or whatever location was most advantageous to 

support missions, on 12 Sep 2012 at 0028 Eastern European Time. 

A elF operates under standing orders to maintain readiness at all times for contingency 

operations. The seven days beTore the incident, the shared ElJCOM/AFRICOM CIF maintained 

its standard alert posture. Within the first two and half hours of the attacks, the shared 

EUCOM/AFRICOM CIF was transferred to CDRUSAFRICOM authority and continues to 

maintain an elevated posture, 
402 

CHARRTS No.: SBC-OI-020 

Se.nate. Budget Committe.e 

Hearing Date: June 12,2013 

Subject: The President's Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Budget Request 

Member: Senator Johnson 

Witness: GEN Dempsey 

Question: #20 

Question: Did the State Department or Secretary Clinton ever contact the Department of 

Defense asking for additional security because she was getting requests from individuals in 

Libya? If so, when? Please specify all requests in 2012, including any 011 Sept 11 or J 2, as to the 

type of request, the date and time, and the response that was given. 

Answer: Our support to U.S. Embassy Tripoli had been on-going since Sep 201 L Per 

Department of State request, a Site Security Team (SST) was deployed for 120 days and was 

subsequently extended twice in response to State's request The second extension request 

occurred on March 5, 2012. The Secretary of Defense approved this request on March 23,2012 

and the SST was extended for an additional 120 days. The second extended mission was 

completed on August 3, 20] 2. The Department of Defense did not receive further requests from 

the State Department. During the I! months of Department of Defense support to Department of 

Slate, we only received requests to provide security at the US Embassy in Tripoli, not the 

consulate in Benghazi. 

In reaction to the attacks on September 11,2012, the shared EUCOM/AFRICOM 

Commander's In-Extremis Force (CIF) was ordered to move on 12 Sep 2012 at 0028 Eastern 

European Time to S igonetla, Italy and subsequently to Souda Bay or whatever location was most 

advantageous to support missions, Additionally, the Secretary of Defense ordered one Fleet 

Anti-Terrorism Team (FAST) Platoon to Benghazi and one FAST to Tripoli. On 12 Sep 2012 

one FAST deployed to Tripoli and the other to Souda Bay, Crete, to posture for response to 

Hclditional regional unrest. 
(403) 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2014 

EDUCATION BUDGET REQUEST 

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in Room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patty Murray, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Murray, Wyden, Nelson, Stabenow, 

Whitehouse, Kaine, Crapo, Johnson, and Ayotte. 

Staff Present: Evan T. Schatz, Majority Staff Director; and Eric 

M. Ueland, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MURRAY 

Chairman MURRAY. Good morning. This hearing will now come 

to order, and I want to thank Senator Johnson, who is standing in 

today for our Ranking Member, Senator Sessions, and all of our 

colleagues who are joining us for this hearing today, as well as the 

members of the public and those who are watching online. 

I also want to thank our witness today, Secretary of the Department of Education, Arne Duncan, for being here to testify and answer our questions. We really appreciate your participation today. 

The specific of today’s hearing is to discuss the President’s Fiscal 

Year 2014 Education Budget Request, but I am hoping the conversation will be broader than that, because our students and our 

families are facing some very serious challenges today and those 

challenges are going to get worse, not better, if we fail to act. 

Now, when I worked with my colleagues here on this committee 

to write the Senate budget that passed just a little more than two 

months ago, one of our highest priorities was investing in programs 

that would pay off for our country over the long term and ensuring 

the United States continues to lead in so many sectors for years to 

come. We thought it was important to protect our economic recovery and work to create jobs today, of course, and we certainly all 

agree we need to work together to tackle our long-term fiscal challenges. 

But we were also very focused on looking beyond the current crisis and making sure that we are building a strong foundation for 

long-term and broad-based economic growth, because as any business owner will tell you, no matter how challenging the current environment is, you never want to cut the investments that will allow 

you to compete and prosper once that crisis ends. And as any farm-
404 

er will tell you, no matter what happens, you never want to eat 

your seed corn. 

I have heard a lot from my Republican colleagues over the past 

few weeks, who want to spend time now debating what our fiscal 

challenges are over not just the 10-year window, but for the years 

beyond, as well. They think the 10-year window does not show the 

full scope of our challenges and want to focus on our problems decades from now. 

And I certainly agree, we should all be working together to tackle 

our long-term budget challenges. They are real and they will not 

go away if we just ignore them. But I do not think working together on our 30-year problems means that we should ignore our 

30-day problems, and I do not think it means we should not be 

working right now in a bipartisan budget conference so that we can 

do everything possible to bridge the divide between the House and 

Senate budgets, to replace sequestration in a fair and responsible 

way, to return our budget process to regular order and give the 

American people some confidence that their Government can operate without lurching from crisis to crisis. 

I also hope that anyone focused on our 30-year fiscal challenges 

would also be concerned about our other 30-year challenges. Are we 

going to be a Nation that continues to lead the global economy 30 

years from now? Will the children of today, who will be the workforce of 30 years from now, have the education and training they 

need to fill the jobs our businesses will be creating in 2043? Are 

we going to be able to compete with countries like China and Brazil 

and India that are making serious investments and major commitments to educating scientists and engineers? That is the kind of 30- 

year thinking I think we should be doing, too, and that is what so 

much of what we are going to be discussing today is all about. 

Investments in education, from early childhood programs 

through college, are some of the smartest the Federal Government 

can make. According to a study done at the University of Chicago 

by Nobel Prize winner Dr. James Heckman, high-quality early 

childhood education programs have a 7 to 10 percent rate of return 

through better educational outcomes. 

We also know that those with a high school diploma or less are 

more likely to be unemployed, to be among the long-term unemployed, and to earn substantially less than their counterparts. And 

according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, workers with a college 

degree can expect to make about a million dollars more over the 

course of their careers than those with just a high school diploma. 

Among our Nation’s manufacturers, 82 percent report a moderate 

to serious skills gap in their skilled positions. Seventy-four percent 

say that this skills gap has negatively impacted their business, and 

70 percent expect it to get worse. McKinsey Global Institute estimates that the U.S. will need to produce roughly a million more 

postsecondary degrees by 2020, 40 percent more than today, to ensure we have the skilled workers that our economy needs. Tony 

Carnevale, the Director of the Georgetown University Center on 

Education and the Workforce, who testified, actually, before this 

committee back in February, estimated that by 2018, nearly twothirds of U.S. jobs will require some education or training beyond 

a high school diploma. 
405 

So, we have a lot of work to do when it comes to making sure 

our students and our workers are getting the education and training they need. But, unfortunately, our current path is taking us in 

the wrong direction. Sequestration, which was never intended to 

take effect and was written into the bipartisan Budget Control Act 

to bring both sides together to the table to compromise, is starting 

to hit children and students hardest in communities across our 

country. These children and students did not cause the debt and 

deficit challenges we are focused on addressing, but under sequestration, they bear one of the largest impacts of this cut. 

I saw this firsthand myself in a recent visit to a Seattle pre-kindergarten classroom. After I had an opportunity to read a story to 

the students at Denise Louie Education Center, I sat down and had 

a conversation with the staff about the $130,000 that had been cut 

from their center’s budget this year due to sequestration and how 

that was going to affect the low-income children that they serve. 

They told me that to manage the cuts so far, the already cashstrapped center had to eliminate two full weeks of their preschool 

program that so many of our local parents depend on while they 

are at work. They have had to eliminate a classroom. They have 

cut slots for children. And they have let staff go. They are fighting 

to serve as many children as they can, but they told me it is only 

going to get harder if these sequestration cuts continue. 

This story is being told thousands of times over in communities 

all across this country. Hundreds of thousands of children will lose 

access to Head Start programs if sequestration continues. 

We also know these automatic cuts will be very harmful in our 

school districts, particularly those with high populations of low-income, military, and Native American children. Cuts to Title I and 

IDEA and Impact Aid are going to lead to teacher layoffs and reduce supports and services for these children who we know are 

among the most vulnerable. 

For those reasons and many more, the Senate budget fully replaces sequestration with an equal mix of responsible spending 

cuts and new revenue from those who can afford it the most and 

it does not unfairly hurt the families we need to invest in. I know 

that the President’s budget proposal replaces sequestration, as 

well, and I am going to keep working with Republicans and Democrats to replace those automatic cuts that hit both defense and nondefense spending in a way that does not place the entire burden 

on the backs of seniors and families. 

Now, the House Republican budget took a very different approach. Their budget makes no attempt to replace sequestration in 

a balanced or fair way. It does not call on the wealthiest Americans 

or biggest corporations to pay a penny more towards their fair 

share. And it simply ignores the BCA caps on the defense side, 

which would lead to another round of sequestration in fiscal year 

2014 if it was ever enacted. Instead, House Republicans shift the 

entire burden of the cuts onto our children and our families and 

our communities. Their recently released spending levels for education programs came in at 18.6 percent below sequestration levels. 

That would mean bigger cuts—much bigger cuts—to Title I, to 

IDEA, to Impact Aid, to Pell Grants, the very core programs that 

support education in our country, and it would mean we could not 
406 

even consider new investments in our students to make sure they 

can compete in the global economy. The House Appropriations 

Committee has been clear. They do not think those numbers are 

actually workable, and they are right. They are not. 

So I am looking forward to discussing this further today and I 

am certainly going to keep fighting to make sure we are moving 

our students and our schools forward, not backward. And I am also 

interested in hearing more about the Administration’s other education priorities today. Of course, ensuring access to early childhood education has been a longstanding priority of mine, so I was 

very heartened to hear the President speak about early learning in 

his State of the Union, and I was very glad to see such an emphasis on birth-through-5 learning opportunities in both your budget, 

Secretary Duncan, as well as in the HHS budget. I am looking forward to working with you to make all of our children in our country have access to pre-kindergarten, which we know is such an important step to ensuring the academic success of all of our young 

people. 

As we all know, our college students and their families are up 

against a critical deadline, as well, July 1, coming very fast at us. 

The current fixed interest rate on Stafford Federal subsidized loans 

will double to 6.8 percent unless we here in Congress take action. 

That does not make sense to me, and it needs to be stopped. Students are taking on more and more debt and struggling to pay it 

back today. So the last thing we should do is make it even harder 

for them. 

So I, personally, strongly support extending the current interest 

rate cap on these loans to make sure students are protected when 

interest rates rise, and I am going to keep fighting for that in the 

coming weeks and I hope Congress can work now on a bipartisan 

basis to help keep interest rates low for our college students. This 

is a short-term solution, of course, and we need to keep working 

to make sure our higher education system is working for students 

and for businesses that depend on it to graduate workers ready to 

fill our 21st century jobs. 

I am certainly interested in hearing more of your thoughts on 

this issue, Secretary Duncan, as well as the other policies in your 

budget that impact our students and families. 

As we all know, the budget debate here in Washington, D.C. is 

often centered around abstract numbers and far too often ends up 

being mired in partisanship and budget games. But what should 

not be controversial or partisan is the idea that we should be investing in our students and making sure our country is positioned 

to compete and win in the 21st century economy. That is what this 

hearing is about today, and that is what I am working toward as 

I continue urging Republicans to join us in a budget conference 

that they have spent years saying they wanted and work with us 

on a budget deal to put our country on a responsible path this year, 

next year, and for years to come. 

With that, I will turn it over to Senator Johnson for his opening 

statement. 
407 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for calling 

this hearing. It is obviously very important. I want to welcome the 

witnesses and thank you for coming to give us your testimony and 

answer questions, Secretary Duncan and Mr. Skelly. 

You know, there is no doubt about it that we all know that education is really key. I think we share that same goal, that we want 

to make sure that our children are armed with the tools to lead a 

successful and productive life. You know, when I meet with students, I frequently cite the three things that if you either do or 

avoid doing, you will have a pretty good chance to lead a successful 

life. 

The first one of those is really to make sure you graduate from 

high school, at least. You know, getting as much education beyond 

that is going to dramatically increase your chances of being successful in life. And then, of course, do not do drugs. And do not 

have a baby out of wedlock. Get married first. If you just basically 

follow those three rules, you have a very high probability of leading 

a successful life; so education, obviously, is important. 

Madam Chair, I am glad you talked about the 30-year budget 

window because I think that is going to be a relevant discussion. 

I hope maybe at some point in time we can hold a hearing, sooner 

rather than later, on that. The reason, certainly, somebody like me 

is concerned about that, the numbers in the budget, is because if 

we do not get our debt and deficit under control, if interest rates 

spike just to a 30-year average, the last 30-year average, about 1.5 

percent, or 5.3 percent, we could add $600 billion per year in terms 

of interest expense. I mean, talk about crowding out valuable 

spending on things like education. That is one good way of doing 

it. 

What I would like to do, and I just found out, I was going to 

stand in for our Ranking Member yesterday, so I did not have 

much time—I really put my staff through the wringer, and I appreciate the Secretary reaching out and finding out what we would 

like to talk about—I would like to throw just a few facts and figures on the board here, just to lay out in terms of what we spend, 

what we do invest, and we have been investing heavily in education. 

From a business perspective, if you are going through any kind 

of budget process, you want to know the numbers and you want to 

have the measured results. One thing I found out just in this very 

quick exercise of the last day or so, it is very hard to come up with 

the measured results. This seems to be one area that people have 

not been particularly really interested in getting detailed measurements over a long period of time, but we certainly can measure 

some spending. 

So I have the first chart on here talking about what we have 

spent overall, and I have used my starting point as really when we 

established the Department of Education on the Federal level, 

1978. And then we are using 2011 numbers because those are the 

ones that were available. And these are all, by the way, adjusted 

for inflation. So K through 12 in 1978, we were spending about 

$321 billion, again, in 2011 dollars. Today, we are spending $700 

billion per year. That is a 118 percent increase. 
408 

And, by the way, let me just back up to stipulate that from 1980 

until the year 2011, our population has increased about 38 percent. 

So you would expect spending to go up 38 percent. We have increased spending 118percent. 

In terms of college, we have gone from $175 billion of spending 

up to $483 billion per year. That is a 176 percent increase. 

So in terms of total education spending on an annual basis, we 

have gone, in inflation-adjusted dollars, from $496 billion per year 

to almost $1.2 trillion per year. Again, put that number in perspective. That is eight percent of our economy. 

So, again, we all think education is very important, but we are 

investing in it. We are spending money. More than 10 percent of 

our entire economy is what we put in education. The question is, 

are we getting the results? 

Just real quick in terms of spending per student, K through 12, 

1978, we were spending about $7,300 per student. Now, we are 

spending about $13,000 per student. That is a 79 percent increase. 

In terms of college spending, $14,822 in 1978. Today, we are spending $21,857. That is a 48 percent increase. 

In terms of college aid, we have gone from 1978, spending about 

$4,500 per student up to close to $15,000 per student as tuition 

rates have basically done the same thing, from about $4,600 per 

year to a little under $14,000. So student aid has certainly kept up 

with the increase in tuition. 

But, again, you take a look at those percentage changes, way 

above the percent increase in terms of population. 

The next slide. So what has all that spending got us in terms of 

results? You know, the NAEP score in terms of reading in 1978 

was 285. Today, it is at 286. That is a 0.4 percent increase improvement. The NAEP score in terms of math went from 300 to 

306. That is a 2percent increase. 

In other metrics, kind of late-breaking, in terms of world 

rankings, I have seen a number of different studies. In 2009, Program for International Student Assessment ranked the U.S. 14th 

in reading, 17th in science, 25th in math. In 2012, a Pearson study, 

the Economist Intelligence Unit said, in general, we rank 17th. So, 

unfortunately, we are, at best, in the middle of the pack in terms 

of world rankings. That is not very good. 

And you mentioned student loans. In 1978, again, in inflation-adjusted dollars, our children were indebted to the tune of about $304 

billion in 2011 dollars. Today, that number is about $1 trillion. In 

other words, we have enticed our children to take on massive 

amounts of student debt, and unfortunately, a Northeastern University study, I think came out last year, found that 50 percent of 

recent college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed 

in their field. We are not doing a very good job in terms of directing 

our kids into the types of fields that employers actually value. 

Another statistic that I think is interesting is the number of 

years to complete a 4-year college degree. I do not have the hard 

number on this, but I know in Wisconsin, talking to educators, they 

were saying it is about 5-1/2 years. I have heard the national average is 6 years to complete a 4-year B.A. I mean, we have to understand what is going on there. 
409 

Next graph. One of the projects that I had undertaken is sort of 

a then and now study of what do we spend and how does it compare against inflation. And one of the points I want to make is in 

a free market competitive society, we have realized enormous productivity gains in the free market economy. So, in other words, inflation-adjusted spending per household for appliances has actually 

declined 64 percent. For clothing, it has declined 57 percent. Food, 

it has declined 32 percent. Again, that is because consumers, individuals, are going in a free market competitive environment, and 

as a result of that competition, productivity gains have been tremendous. 

Unfortunately, in things like education, which is basically paid 

for by the government, we have seen a 195 percent increase, basically, a doubling—a more than doubling of spending. And, again, 

it is due to government spending as opposed to individuals. 

Last slide. This is one I use in my PowerPoints all the time, talking about the annual cost of college. Back in the 1960s, on average, 

it cost a little over $1,000 for room, board, and tuition for an average college. Had that figure grown just by the rate of inflation, 

today, college students would be spending about $7,400 per year, 

room, board, and tuition. In fact, they are spending close to 

$18,000. So the cost of one year in college has risen at 2.4 times 

the rate of inflation. 

Just to kind of conclude my remarks, I mean, that is the question 

I have. I mean, what is so different about what we are spending 

on education that its costs have risen by 2.4 times the rate of inflation? Those are some serious questions we need to ask as we are 

talking about investing more. Now, the President is proposing 

spending money on early childhood development. We have to really 

take a look at what we have spent and what have been the results, 

and that is what, hopefully, we will get to at the bottom of this 

hearing. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your 

passion on these issues and for coming today to testify before the 

committee. You can go ahead with your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Secretary Duncan. Thank you so much, and good morning, 

Madam Chairman and members of this committee. I am pleased to 

be here today to talk with you about President Obama’s vision for 

investing in education in ways that ensure a quality opportunity 

for every child and that deliver a strong return on investment, or 

ROI, for the taxpayers’ dollar. 

As you walk through this conversation, I am going to ask you to 

think about a 4-year-old little girl, because this is not just about 

programs and accounts and budgets. It is about the consequences 

of the choices we make for real families and real children, yours 

and mine. It is not about cheap words and empty sayings. It is 

about the values we choose to live by. 

This little girl is named Tokyo. She is four years old and she 

lives in Takoma Park, Maryland. I met her a few months ago. Her 

mom is currently studying under a Pell Grant to become a music 
410 

teacher. And Tokyo is lucky. She has had a great experience in preschool and she already reads at a third grade level. She is ahead 

of the game right now. Every one of our babies deserves a system 

that starts them strong and supports them at every step, and unfortunately, as all of you know, that is not the reality for anywhere 

near enough of our Nation’s young children. 

I hope we can all agree that improving our education outcomes 

is a vital national interest. The decisions we make will have a 

major impact on our economy, on our country’s economic competitiveness, and on that 4-year-old little girl’s chances of having the 

good life she deserves as part of a thriving middle class. That is 

a core American value. But right now, frankly, it is in some danger. 

You already know that we have lost our place as the global leader in college completion, that today, we rank about 14th. That is 

no badge of honor. Collectively, we should be ashamed. 

Here is another indicator that should concern us. Let us look at 

what is happening in employment for our Nation’s young adults. In 

2000, we were doing better than France, Britain, Japan, Germany, 

and Canada. But by 2011, we were doing worse than all of them. 

Why? David Leonhardt, the Pulitzer Prize winning economics writer, said, and I quote, ‘‘The United States has lost its once large 

lead in producing college graduates, and education remains the 

most successful job strategy in a globalized technology-heavy economy.’’ And that is why we have been working so hard to improve 

opportunities for every child to again make the United States the 

global leader in college completion. Fourteenth is simply not good 

enough. 

We have been working for 4 years to raise standards, to improve 

teaching and learning, establish strong systems for technology and 

data, fix our Nation’s most broken schools, and make college more 

affordable and accessible, and we have made some real progress. 

Accountability matters. Results matter. Metrics might not tell the 

whole story, but they do not lie, either. 

Let me walk through where we are at today. Our Nation’s high 

school graduation rates are at their highest level in almost three 

decades, in 30 years. That is a major, major step in the right direction, because as all of you know, today, if you drop out of high 

school, you are basically condemned to a life of poverty and social 

failure. This work is that serious and the stakes today are that 

high. 

That improvement is due, in part, to meaningful progress in fixing our Nation’s lowest performing schools. Today, there are 

700,000 fewer students attending chronically failing high schools 

than when President Obama was elected. We have a long, long way 

still to go, but the trends are absolutely going in the right direction. 

We have 9.4 million low-income students who are now attending 

college on Pell Grants. That is an increase of over 50 percent. We 

have seen a major jump in students attending college, especially a 

student from the minority community. African American students, 

38 percent are attending today versus just 30 percent in 2000. For 

Hispanic students, today, it is up to 32 percent attending college 

compared to 22 percent in 2000. 
411 

And we are beginning to see the payoff. As you may have seen 

in the news last week, the proportion of young people with college 

degrees has hit a new high. In 1995, a quarter of American young 

people had a Bachelor’s degree. Now, it is a third. And women and 

minorities are a big part of this change. That is great news, but 

it does not make us the global leader. Our competitors have not 

been resting. We still have a long, long way to go, and our collective challenge is to get better faster despite the tough economic 

times. Our children, our communities, and our country cannot wait. 

We are doing everything we can to help States unleash pent-up 

energy for innovation and reform and move away from the old broken system of No Child Left Behind. Thirty-seven States and D.C. 

are already approved for ESEA flexibility, with ten other States 

looking for approval, and we are continuing to work with them. 

But for all the progress, we know there is still so much work 

ahead of us. Too many kids, especially low-income kids and minorities, are not receiving the education they need to reach their middle-class dreams, and let us look at the numbers. Fully 96 percent 

of kids from the highest-income group complete high school, while 

only 63 percent of those from the lowest-income quartile do. And 

when we look at who graduates from college, the income gap is 

staggering. Fewer than one in ten of our low-income children graduate from college. That hurts us as a country, in jobs, in international competitiveness, and what it means for the lives of kids 

in poverty. 

What is the most important single thing we can do in education 

to change these outcomes? I am convinced it is to invest in preschool. Madam Chairwoman, you already know all of this. As a 

former preschool teacher of 7 years and a school board member 

who fought so hard to rescue preschool programs in Washington 

State, you have literally lived this. But give me a couple minutes 

to try and lay it out for your friends and colleagues here. 

On average—on average—children from low-income families 

start kindergarten at 5 years old in the fall. The average child from 

a disadvantaged community starts kindergarten 12 to 14 months 

behind their peers in language development and pre-reading skills. 

That is morally unacceptable and it is educationally unsound, and 

we know how to fix it. 

As you quoted, Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckman 

says this is one of the few public investments with no trade-off, because the return on investment, the ROI, on preschool is so high. 

In the second sentence there, he says, and I quote, ‘‘It reduces’’— 

this investment ‘‘reduces the inequality associated both with the 

accident of birth and, at the same time, raises the productivity of 

society at large.’’ 

But to date, we are simply not serious about preschool in this 

country. Other countries are out-innovating and out-investing us in 

this space. The United States today ranks 28th among 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develpment—OECD 

countries in the enrollment of 4-year-olds in early learning. And 

maybe that is not surprising. The United States ranks 25th among 

OECD countries in public funding for early learning. If we expect 

to compete effectively in a global economy, we have to invest in 

what matters most. 
412 

President Obama’s Preschool for All proposal can be a game 

changer in expanding access and improving quality for the children 

and families who need it the most. It is a major investment to tackle a major issue. 

Think about that 4-year-old girl. Whether she is from Henrico 

County, Virginia, or Middletown, Ohio, or Montgomery, Alabama, 

she deserves a supportive word-rich environment. She may not 

have the home life that can pick up the academic slack, but she 

deserves access to preschool. 

Our business leaders understand what is at stake here. People 

like James Zimmerman, the former CEO of Macy’s, and John Pepper, former CEO of Proctor and Gamble and head of the Board at 

Disney, have said, and I quote, ‘‘Universally available pre-kindergarten is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do.’’ 

Other countries have realized this. China reportedly has set a goal 

of giving 70 percent of all children three years of pre-kindergarten 

education. And we have hundreds of both CEOs and military leaders who have signed letters urging us collectively to work together 

and to invest. 

Why is this the smart thing to do? Because of ROI, return on investment. James Heckman found that for every dollar we invest in 

preschool, every single dollar returns seven dollars. About four dollars from that dividend comes from increased earnings, increased 

tax payments from greater productivity, and decreased public assistance. The remainder, almost three dollars, comes from reduced 

costs, reduced costs of crime, cops, and jails. We simply should ask 

ourselves, preschools or prisons? Where do we want to invest? 

What do we value, and what do we stand for? 

Some folks would prefer that we not fund early learning with a 

cigarette tax, and if you have other, better ideas about how we 

should fund this opportunity for our young people, I am absolutely 

happy to have that conversation. But we have to invest. 

Today, less than three in ten, less than 30 percent of 4-year-olds 

have access to high-quality pre-K. The status quo is not good 

enough. This is fundamentally a question of investment. We cannot 

do this by wishing it or by magic. We are talking about a million 

of our Nation’s babies who will finally get a leg up and a chance. 

One- point-one million 4-year-olds who have been left out. We cannot solve this problem for free. We have to invest. 

And many States are already making serious investments here, 

States like Oregon and Georgia and New Jersey and Washington. 

They realize the impact here and they are leading the way. Governors from both parties, Republicans and Democrats, are showing 

courage and vision here. They need a partner with us here in 

Washington. 

Affordable early learning is the most important thing we can do 

in education to help strengthen families. But I can also tell you 

what does not help. What does not help is incoherent cuts to programs serving our most vulnerable students. 

Sequestration, as you talked about, Madam Chairwoman, continues to hurt low-income and special needs students, young families counting on Head Start programs, the children of military families, and communities whose schools rely on Impact Aid. Why is 

any of this okay? Why do we have the political will to fix lines in 
413 

airports but not to invest in vulnerable children and families? That 

simply makes no sense to me whatsoever. 

We also need your help to keep interest rates low on student 

loans, which will require your action before July 1 to prevent rates 

from doubling. We know you share that concern and want to keep 

working with you to find an approach that will help keep college 

affordable for students and families now and in the future. 

By the same token, to make college more accessible, we have dramatically simplified paperwork to make it easier for families to 

gain access to Federal student aid, and the result will be even more 

high-needs students attending college, many actually being the 

first in their families to achieve that dream. 

In K-to-12, ESEA flexibility has provided crucial space for innovation and systemwide improvement, the best help we can give 

States until you collectively reauthorize and fix ESEA. Under 

ESEA flexibility, we are seeing States show real courage, raising 

standards, refining systems of support and accountability for 

schools, and holding more schools accountable for the learning of 

students with special needs. 

We have also acted to improve services for students with special 

needs. During our Administration, we have requested hundreds of 

millions of dollars in increased funding in addition to the unprecedented $11 billion provided under the Recovery Act, including significant improvements at the preschool level. 

We are also focused on the needs of students in rural communities. Many of our 2014 competitive grant proposals will include 

criteria or priorities specifically targeting rural communities, and 

we welcome the input of Congress as we work to ensure that all 

of our competitive grant programs give strong opportunity to rural 

schools and students. We want to see every community in America 

have excellent educational opportunities. 

What that improved opportunity adds up to is a return on investment for our economy and for our families. According to a recent 

Brookings study, the benefits of a college degree can be compared 

to an investment that returns 15.2 percent a year. 

We know that the engine of our economy in a globally competitive environment is having the best-educated workforce in the 

world, and we know that giving every child an opportunity is the 

right thing to do. It is who we are as a country. 

Thank you so much. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Duncan follows:] 
414 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Statement by 

Arne Dunclln 

Secretary of Education 

on the 

U.S. Department ofEdllcation Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request 

June 18, 2013 

Good morning Chainnan and Members of the Committee. I'm pleased to be here today 

to talk with YOll about President Obama's priorities and plans for the Department of Education, 

particularly as they relate to the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for education. 

This morning I'll sketch out some impOliant progress made in the President's first term, 

highlight some of the urgent educational challenges that remain, and briefly describe key 

elements of the President's educ.ation 20 14 Budget, including the President's plan to 

dramatically improve our return on investment (ROJ) in education through the Preschool for All 

initiative. 

The overall message here is that education is not just another expense in the Federal 

budget---it's an investment. In fact, it is one of the most critical investments in the future that 

we, as a Nation, can make. America cannot win the race for the future without investing in 

education-it's that simple. 

As the Members of this Committee well know, budgets entail value choices. They reflect 

the aspirations of our citizens and leaders. And J am glad to say that, for the most part, Federal 

education tunding has enjoyed bipartisan support, even in tough times. And in this time of fiscal 

challenges, it is important to work for what President Obama calls "smarter governmen1," We 

don't always live up to this goal in Washington. But I've yet to meet a lawmaker who has stated 

a preference for dumber government. 

Unforhmately, sequestration, with its indiscriminate cuts to education, the military, and 

other critical public investments, is just that: dumb government. 

You won't see our high-performing competitors funding education by sequester. In a 

knowledge-based, globally-competitive economy, our competitors are determined to invest in 

education. They want to accelerate their progress, not cut back on public education. 

South Korea's investment in education, as a percentage ofGDP, increased by nearly a 

third trom 2000 to 2009, whereas our investment, as a percentage of GDP, increased by just 

6 percent. Education spending as a percentage ofGDP rose at more than twice the U.S, rate in 

many other countries as weI! during the last decade, including Australia (up 15 percent), 

Denmark (18 percent), and the Netherlands (21 percent). 
415 

Today, the U.S. is one of only four Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development - OBeD - countries where students in low-income schools have to cope with 

higher student-to-teacher ratios than their peers in more advantaged schools. 

But the question is not just whether we should continue to invest in education, but how 

can we make smarter investments in education? How can our education system become more 

productive? One way to answer these questions is to look at the return on investment in our 

education policies. 

Progress During Pr'esident Obama's First Term 

During the President's first tcnu, the Administration worked hand-in-hand with the 

Congress to make critical new investments in education. We launched new programs like Race 

to the Top and Promise Neighborhoods, redesigned the School Improvement Grants (SIG) 

program, and dramatically expanded the Pell Grant financial aid program for low-income 

students. A key goal was to challenge the status quo where it had become unproductive. 

We also wanted to build on a development that none of the experts foresaw, the decision 

by 46 Slates, plus the District of Columbia, to come together to design and adopt the Common 

Core standards. For the first time, almost every State is supporting higher standards that show if 

students are truly college- and career-ready-whether they are from i'v!ississippi or 

Massachusetts, This was a sharp change from what we saw in the 4 years trom 2005 to 2009, 

when 19 Slates actually lowered their academic standards for students. We can thank 

courageous State leadership for slopping this dummying down of standards. 

Today, we are starting to see the payoff of those first-term investments and setting higher 

expectations for our students. In 2010, the on-time high school graduation rate hit its highest 

level in 3 decades. In 2008, Jess than two-thirds of Hispanic students graduated on time from 

high school. Today, about three in four Hispanic high school students graduate with their class. 

Because the graduation rate of Latino students rose from 2008 to 2011, an additional 

164,000 Latino students graduated on time, That is 164,000 people with a better chance of 

getting a good job, owning their own home, and supporting a family. 

On-time graduation rates for African-American students are up, too. In 2008, only about 

three in five black students graduated from high school on time. Today, two in three do so, 

resulting in an additional 83,000 African-American students graduating on time in 201 I. 

These gains are due in part to a sharp drop in the number of high school dropout 

factories-sehools where fewer than 60 percent of ninth graders graduate 4 years later, Since 

2008, the number of high school dropout factories has dropped by almost 20 percent, from about 

1,750 high schools to roughly 1,425 high schools. 

For our families, that means nearly 700,000 fewer teenagers are trapped in those high 

schools today than in 2008. That is a big step in the right direction. 
416 

In higher education, we're seeing substantial increases in college enrollment, too, 

especially for Hispanic students. More than half-a-miIlion additional Hispanic students--about 

550,000 in all--are enrolled in college today than were enrolled in 2008. That is 550,000 more 

people who are getting their shot at the American dream and the opportunity to thrive in a 

globally competitive world. And overall, the number of Pel] Grant recipients has increased more 

than 50 percent, from 6.2 million in 2008 to more than 9 million 3 years later. That is the biggest 

expansion of educational opportunity in higher education since the Gl Bill. 

In a knowledge-based economy, the ROT for many of the strategies the Administration 

has pursued is huge. We believe our efforts to support and strengthen the teaching profession 

through improved teacher evaluation, better professional development, and the RESPECT 

initiative will pay large, long-term dividends for our children and our communities. 

Economists at Harvard and Columbia have documented that having a good teacher rather 

than an ineffective one can increase the lifetime earnings of a class of students by over $260,000. 

Multiply that by the number of classes a teacher would instruct over the course of her career, and 

it is clear that even a single good teacher can have a multi-million dollar eilect on the economy. 

The ROI for attending college is huge, too, with the average college graduate eaming 

$2.3 million during his or her lifetime, or about $1 million more than the $1.3 million in lifetime 

eamings for an individual with just a high school diploma. And unlike when I and many 

members of the Committee were growing up, there are no good-paying jobs for high school 

dropouts. 

The ROlon High-Quality Early Learning 

In developing the President's 2014 budget request for education, this emphasis on ROJ 

led us to ask, what is the smartest use of our education dollars? The answer, I believe, is that 

high-quality early learning is the best education investment we can make in our children, our 

communities, and our country. As President Obama has said, "if you are looking for a good 

hang for your educational buck, high-quality preschool is the place to look. 

In the near-term, high-quality preschool reduces placements in special education. It 

reduces grade retention. It boosts graduation rates. In the long-tenn, high-quality preschool both 

increases the odds of holding ajob and decreases crime and teen pregnancy. 

Nobel laureate James Heckman recently examined evidence from a rigorous, longitudinal 

evaluation of the Perry Preschool project and found that this high-quality preschool program 

retumed seven to twelve dollars for everyone dollar it invested. A longitudinal study of the 

Chicago Child Parent Centers also found an ROJ of seven to one. 

States like Oklahoma and Georgia know about these data and are leading the way in 

creating universal preschool programs. In fact, nUmcrous States led by GOP governorsincluding Alabama and Michigan-are investing in quality and expanding coverage to more 

4-year-olds. 
417 

Not only are States investing in high-quality preschool, voters are approving sales tax and 

property tax increases to fund preschool initiatives. Last November, voters in San Antonio, 

Denver, and St. Paul, MitUJesota, approved tax increases to support preschool programs in their 

communities. 

Voters and parents understand that in today's global economy, ensuring access to highquality preschool is no! a luxury but a necessity. They understand that investing in high-quality 

preschool is a win-win proposition, with a big economic return. And they understand that we 

have to stop playing catch-up in education. We have to level the playing field for young 

children, so everyone can begin kindergarten at the same starting line. 

The Theory of Action for the President's Preschool Plan 

Our focus on ROI is a key justification for President Obama's groundbrcaking preschool 

proposal. Preschool for All would invest $75 billion in mandatory funding over 10 years to 

create a new Federal-State partnership that would enable Slates to provide universal high-quality 

preschool for 4-year olds from low- and moderate-income families, up to 200 percent of the 

poverty line. Preschool for All also would provide incentives for States to serve additional 

children from middle-class families. In addition, a $750 million discretionary request for 

Preschool Development Grants would help build State capacity to implement the high-quality 

preschool programs required by Preschool for All. 

Contrary to what you may have heard, the President's plan would not be a new Federal 

entitlement program. States would use Federal funds to create or expand high-quality preschool 

programs in partnership with local school-based and community providers. States would provide 

an increasing match for the progranl, and every cent of the $75 billion provided by the Federal 

Government over the next 10 years would be paid for by increases in taxes on cigarettes and 

tobacco products. 

Ow- theory of action in expanding high-quality preschool is going to be the same as it was 

in the first term for initiatives like Race to the Top, with a strong emphasis on supporting and 

prutnering with States, incentivizing innovation, and identifying what works to strengthen 

education and accelerate achievement. That means that at the Federal level, we should be tight 

on ends but loose on means. The Depaltment should set a high bar for quality in preschool 

programs. But it should leave it up to State and local leaders to choose the best means for 

reaching that bar. 

Under the President's plan, States would be required to meet quality benchmarks linked 

to better outcomes for children-like having high-quality State-level standards for early learning, 

qualified and well-compensated teachers in ,Ill preschool classrooms, and a plan to implement 

comprehensive assessment and data systems. 

The urgent need today for greater access to high-quality preschool for children from lowand moderate-income families is not really in dispute. Fewer than 3 in 10 4-year-olds today are 

enrolled in high-quality preschool programs. And we know that, on average, children from low-
418 

income families start kindergarten 12 to 14 months behind their peers in language development 

and pre-reading, 

Despite these data, the United Stales ranks 25th out ofthe 29 member nations of the 

OECD in public spending on early leaming as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GOP), 

and 28th among OECD nations in the enrollment of 4-year-olds in early learning, The Czech 

Republic and Chile devote more government spending to early learning, as do Iceland and ltaly, 

Other Priorities in the President's 2014 Request for the Department of Education 

These preschool proposals are part ofan overall request of$71.2 billion in discretionary 

appropriations for the Department of Education in fiscal year 2014, an increase of$3, 1 billion, or 

4.5 percent, over the fiscal year 2012 leveL 

In addition to early learning, this request is focused on strengthening K-12 education, 

making our schools safer and creating positive learning environments, supporting careefreadiness for all, improving affordability and quality in postsecondary education, and supporting 

the Administration's Ladders of Opportunity initiative for high-poverty communities, 

Strengthening K-I2 Education 

The 2014 request provides essential funding for traditional State fonnula grant programs 

that are the foundation of Federal support for State and local efforts to ensure that all students 

meet college- and career-ready standards, including a $14,5 billion request for the Title I Grants 

to Local Educational Agencies program and $11.6 billion for the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act Grants to States program, At the same time, we would continue our emphasis on 

creating meaningful incentives to leverage more effective use of Federal education fWlding in 

key areas such as putting a great teacher in every classroom and a great leader in every school; 

building local capacity to support successful school turnarounds; and improving teacher 

preparation and classroom instruction in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM), 

Reforming Federal Support for Effective STEM Education 

The Administration is proposing a comprehensive reorganization of Federal STEM 

education programs as pa11. of a Governmentwide realignment that would reorganize or 

restructure 116 progranls across 13 agencies, 

Reforming Federal support to support an effective, cohesive national STEM education 

strategy is a top Administration priority, Scientists and engineers are key innovators in our 

society, They play an essential role in developing new industries and opportunities that create 

jobs and spur economic growth, Our Nation depends on an innovation economy, and America's 

capacity to build and create should never be limited by a shortage of taient in the STEM fields, 

At the core of this strategy for improving K-12 STEM education is a $150 million request 

for STEM Innovation Networks, which would support creating partnerships among school 

districts, institutions of higher education, research institutions, museums, community partners, 
419 

and business and industry. These networks would develop comprehensive plans for identifying, 

developing, testing, and scaling up evidence-based practices to provide rich STEM learning 

opportunities in participating local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools. They also would 

work to leverage better and more effective use of the wide range of STEM education resources 

available from Federal, State, local, and plivate entities, including federally supported science 

mission agencies. 

Other key elements of the Department's STEM request include $80 million for STEM 

Teacher Pathways to support the President's goal of developing 100,000 new effective STEM 

teachers by recruiting, training, and placing talented recent college graduates and mid-career 

professionals in the STEM fields in high-need schools; and $35 million to establish a new STEM 

Master Teacher Corps, which would identify teacher leaders in STEM fields who would take on 

leadership and mentorship roles in their schools and communities aimed at improving STEM 

instruction and helping students excel in math and science. 

More Effective Teachers and School Leaders 

Consistent with the Administration's proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the President's Budget would provide $2.5 billion for 

Effective Teachers and Leaders State Grants (0 provide flexible, fOlmula-based support for 

States and LEAs that commit to improving their teacher and principal evaluation systems and to 

ensuring that low-income and minority students have equitable access to teachers and principals 

who are effective at raising student achievement. We also would renew our request for a 

25 percent national activities set-aside totaling nearly $617 million that would allow the 

Department to build evidence on how best to recruit, prepare, and support effective te<lchers and 

school leaders arld to invest in efforts to enhance the teaching and leadership professions. 

In addition, the budget includes $400 million for the reauthorized Teacher and Leader 

Innovation Fund, an increase of $100 million over 2012, to help States and LEAs improve the 

effectiveness of teachers and leaders in high-need LEAs and schools, in particular by creating the 

conditions to identify, recrLlit, prepare, SUpPDlt, retain, and advance effective and highly effective 

teachers, principals, and school leadership teams in those schools. We also are asking for 

$98 million to support a redesigned School Leadership Program that would more than triple the 

Federal investment in training for principals. This proposal would promote evidence-based 

professional development for CLlrrent school leaders aimed at strengthening essential leadership 

skills-such as evaluating and providing feedback to teachers, analyzing student data, 

developing school leadership teams, and creating a positive school climate. 

Supporting School Turnarounds and Data-Based Innovation 

We would expand oUl' commitment to helping States and school c1istlicts turn around 

their lowest-performing schools through a $659 million request for the reautholized School 

Turnaround Grants (STG) program. The request includes an increase of$125 million that would 

be used tor competitive awards to help school districts build their capacity to implement 

effective interventions in persistently lowest-achieving schools Dr priority schools, and to sustain 

progress in schools that have successfully completed a 3-year STG project. In addition, the 
420 

Department could use up to $25 million of these funds to build district capacity by expanding the 

School Turnaround AmeriCorps initiative, a new partnership with the Corporation for National 

and Community Service that places AmeriCorps members in low-performing schools to support 

their school turnaround efforts. 

The request also would strengthen K-12 education through a $215 million proposal for 

Investing in Innovation (13), an increase of $66 million, to expand support for using an evidencebased approach to test new ideas, validate what works, and scale up the most effective refonns. 

Up to $65 million would be available for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Education 

(ARPA-ED), an initiative modeled on similar entities at the Departments of Defense and Energy 

that would aggressively pursue technological breakthroughs with the potentia] to dramatically 

improve the effectiveness and productivity of teaching and leaming. And an $85 million request 

for statewide longitudinal data systems (SLDS) would provide an increase of$47 million to 

support the development of P-20 reports and tools to inform policy-making at the State and local 

levels, as well as the development ofin-house analytic capacity for States and schoo! districts. 

Supporting Cal'eer-Readiness for All 

To out-innovate and out-compete the rest of the world, secondary schools and 

postsecondary institutions need to strengthen the links in our education system to better support 

career training and skills. The President's 2014 Budget seeks to promote career-readiness for all, 

in large part through a $1.1 billion request for a reauthorized Carl D. Perkins Career and 

Technical Education (CTE) program. The reauthorized CTE program would strengthen 

alignment among secondary and postsecondary CTE progran1s and business and industry, and 

create a better accountabi Iity system for improving academic outcomes, technical skills, and 

employability outcomes. 

We also are proposing $300 million for a new High School Redesign program, which 

would support partnerships of school districts, employers, and postsecondary institutions that 

would redesign high schools in innovative ways to ensure that all students graduate from high 

school with (I) college credit, earned through dual enrollment, Advanced Placement courses, or 

other postsecondary learning opportunities; and (2) career-related experiences or competencies, 

obtained through organized internships and mentorships, structured work-based learning, and 

other related experiences. 

In addition, we are asking for $42 million to fund a demonstration and evaluation of Dual 

Enrollment programs. This proposal would establish or expand dual enrollment programs, 

aligned with career pathways and local workforce needs, which offer high school and adult 

students the opportunity to earn college credits while enrolled in a high school or QED program. 

Research has shown that pal1icipation in dual-entollment programs is linked to increased high 

school graduation, higher rates of college enrollment and persistence, and higher college credit 

accrual rates. 
421 

Affordability and Quality in Postsecondary Education 

The 2014 request continues to support the President's ambitious goal that America will 

once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. The urgent 

and growing need for higher education reflected in the 2020 goal comes at a time when paying 

for college is a challenge for many American families. As a consequence, the President's budget 

proposes comprehensive reforms to increase affordability and quality in higher education, 

including $1 billion for a new Race to the Top-College Affordability and Completion 

competition. That competition would drive change in State higher education policies and 

practices to improve college access, affordability, completion, and quality. The request also 

includes $260 million for a First in the World fund, modeled after the Investing in l!1Jlovation 

(i3) program, which would make compe!iti ve awards to encourage i!1Jlovation in higher 

education to tackle and improve college completion rates, increase the productivity of higher 

education, build evidence of what works, and scale up proven strategies. Funding would also 

support validation systems for competency-based learning, which has the potential to improve 

completion rates, and Pay For Success awards to programs that can demonstrate good outcomes 

for students. 

In addition to promoting systemic reforms in higher education, the President's 2014 

request includes student aid proposals that would make college more affordable, including 

linking student loan interest rates 10 market rates and preventing a scheduled July 1,2013, 

doubling of Subsidized Stafford Loan rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. The President's 

budget would expand repayment options to ensure that loan repayments for all student borrowers 

do not exceed 10 percent of a borrower's discretionary income, and significantly increase aid 

available \IIlde!' the Campus-Based Aid programs. For example, the request includes a 

$150 million increase for the Work-Study program as part ofan effort to double participation 

over 5 years, as well as reforms to the Perkins Loans program that would expand loan volume by 

some eight and one-halftimes, up to $8.5 billion, while making Perkins Loans available at up to 

an additional 2,700 college campuses. 

Building Ladders of Opportunity-and Promise Zones 

The President's 2014 Budget for education would help directly address the growing 

concern that too many communities in America-urban, rural, and, increasingly, suburbansuffer from the negative effects of concentrated poverty, including developmental delays among 

young children, poor educational outcomes, high rates of crime and incarceration, health 

problems, and low employment. One new strategy for addressing the challenges of concentrated 

poverty is the Promise Zones initiative, which will revitalize high-poverty communities across 

the country by attracting private investment, increasing affordable housing, improving 

educational opportunities, providing tax incentives for hiring workers and investing in the Zones, 

and assisting local leaders in navigating Federal programs and cutting through red tape. 

This interagency effort will explore opportunities to make better use of all available 

resources-Federal, State, and local-to address the negative effects of concentrated poverty, 

The President's budget would support Promise Zones through significant requests in his 

signature place-based programs, including $300 million for the Department of Education's 
422 

Promise Neighborhoods, a $400 million request for the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development's Choice Neighborhoods program, and $35 million for the Department of Justice's 

Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Grants program, in addition to tax incentives to promote 

investment and economic growth. 

Making Schools Safer 

In January of2013, President Obama released his plan to reduce gun violence, make 

schools safer, and increase access to mental health services. The 2014 request supports this 

plan's common-sense proposals with new investments designed to improve school emergency 

plans, create positive school climates, and counter the effects of pervasive violence on students. 

For example, we are asking for $30 million in one-time emergency management planning grants 

to States to help their LEAs develop, implement, and improve emergency management plans 

designed to enahle districts and schools to prepare for, prevent and mitigate, respond to, and 

recover from emergencies and crisis events. 

The request also includes $50 million for School Climate Transformation Grants, to be 

coordinated \,ith related proposals at the Departments of Justice and Health and Human 

Services. These grants would help create positive school climates that support effective 

education for all students through the use of evidence-based behavioral practices. Funds would 

be used to scale up a multi-tiered, decision-making framework that has been shown to reduce 

problem behaviors, decrease bullying and peer-victimization, improve the perception of school 

as a safe setting, and increase academic perfonnance in reading and math. In addition, 

$25 million for Project Prevent grants would help school districts in communities with pervasive 

violence break the cycle of violence through the provision of menta) health services to students 

sutTering from trauma or anxiety (including PTSD), conflict resolution programs, and other 

school-based strategies to prevent future violence. 

I want to close by talking briefly ahout school safety and gun violence. This issue is very 

personal for me. Frankly, it's something that has haunted me from the time I was a little boy, 

growing up on the South Side of Chicago. 

r grew up playing basketball on the streets in many of Chicago's inner-city communities. 

I had older teenagers who looked out for me and who helped protect me. Far too many of them 

ended up being shot and killed. After graduating from college and playing bal! overseas, I came 

back to Chicago to run an "I Have a Dream" program for a class of sixth graders. One of my 

first memories was of one of our young men, Terriance Wright, whose teenage brother was shot 

one afternoon. 

Going to that fhneral, and trying to help that family through that process, was brutal. We 

have far too many parents hurying their children---that is not the natural order of life. When I 

Jed the Chicago Public Schools, we lost one child due to gun violence every 2 weeks. That is a 

staggering rate of loss. In Chicago, we took steps that no puhlic school system should ever have 

to take. We created burial funds for families that couldn't afford to bury their children. 
423 

10 

On my wall in my office in Chicago, I kept a picture that one of our teenagers had drawn 

for me. It was a picture of him as a fireman. And the caption that he wrote to go along with it 

was: "If I grow up, ! want to be a fireman." That's a deep statement about this young man's 

world. Think about what it means that so many of our youth today think about "IfI grow up," 

not "When, I grow up." 

Everything we are preaching to young people about going to college, building careers, 

detening gratifkation, and planning for the future, is all undennined when a child is afraid they 

will get caught up in the craziness of gun violence. We need all our children, whether it is in 

Newtown, Connecticut, the South Side of Chicago, or Aurora, Colorado, to think of themselves 

in terms of "when I grow up." 

Conclusion 

The need for investment in education is urgent. And I say to the committee, whether you 

are Republican or Democrat, our children and our country cannot wait. We cannot postpone 

providing every child with a world-class education. 

llook forward to working with you to develop and implement a fiscal year 20] 4 Budget 

for education that reflects the needs of our children and our Nation, And I would be happy to 

take any questions now that you may have. 
424 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Let me start out with sequestration. I am very concerned and 

have said repeatedly that this managing our country by crisis to 

crisis is really hurting families across the country and sequestration is particularly damaging, as I talked about in my opening 

statement. We replaced sequestration in the budget that the Senate passed. As I said, it was never intended to take place. We did 

invest in education and research and development and in infrastructure that are priorities that will help our country remain competitive in the future. But I am very concerned about this sequester 

and its impact right now on children and middle-class families, as 

well as, by the way, the 2014 House spending bill, which is, on the 

Labor, Health, and Human Services side, shockingly low. 

I wanted to ask you, as we start out here, can you give us some 

sense of what you are hearing from States and school districts and 

colleges about the impact of the current and the actually future sequester cuts, as well? 

Secretary Duncan. Well, let me just show you a couple of headlines from papers around the country in the past couple days. 

Spending cuts taking hard toll on Head Start. Sequester closing 

home base Head Start programs. Sequester impacting Head Start. 

So almost every day from across the country, we are seeing real 

stories of real kids being hit—of job losses, programs ending early. 

Let me just walk you through the numbers. Sequester leads to 

a cut in IDEA Part B spending for children with special needs, 

$598 million. Those kids are all coming back to school this fall. 

They are not disappearing. Title I, poor kids, $725 million. Workstudy, people working hard to try and pay their way through college, $49 million. And one I think people do not fully understand, 

the name is Impact Aid. Impact Aid is $60 million. Impact Aid 

funds those communities that do not have a property tax base. 

Those communities are generally Native American Reservations, 

children who desperately need a better education, and children of 

military families around military bases. And the fact that we allow 

these children’s parents to go overseas and lose their lives fighting 

for our freedom and then give them an inferior education, again, 

is mind boggling to me. It is absolutely staggering. So why we 

allow these kinds of things to happen—we are not living our values. 

Chairman MURRAY. And I, as a former school board 

member, know that those people back in Washington, D.C. make 

these big line cuts, but you sitting there in your community have 

to face a lot of parents who, with tears in their eyes, who are not 

getting what they need for their kids. So this is big. 

And the 2014 House spending levels which will be on top of sequestration, can you talk about that? 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. So sequestration, the short math is a 5 

percent cut, and I gave you those numbers. The House budget is 

a 19 percent additional cuts on top of that. So the math there 

would be $2.5 billion less for Title I, poor children; $2 billion less 

for IDEA Part B children with special needs; $4.5 billion less for 

Pell Grants, so, again, do we want more people having access to 

college or less? Do we want a more educated workforce or a less 

educated workforce? One-point-five billion less for Head Start; and 
425 

$200 million less for Impact Aid, for military families and Indian 

kids. 

And let me just be really clear. I spend more of my time looking 

at our international competitors, because jobs are going to go to the 

country with the best educated workforce. I think it is really important that we try and keep these jobs in this country. Other nations, 

our competitors, are not managing their education strategy via sequester. They are out-educating, they are out-investing, they are 

out-innovating. South Korea, by every measure, is out-educating 

us, is probably the world’s leader in college graduation rates. In the 

past decade, they have increased their education spending by about 

a third. We have increased by about 6 percent. 

So other countries are not sitting passively by while we continue 

to be dysfunctional here. They have long-term commitments to 

doing the right thing for their children and for their country, and 

I just think, right now, we are poorly serving not just our children, 

but our Nation’s economic competitiveness because of the— 

Chairman MURRAY. And where we are going to be 30 years from 

now. 

Secretary Duncan. —because of the dysfunction here. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. But let me ask you about interest 

rates. I am really concerned about the impact on families today. I 

listened to Senator Johnson’s opening statement. Actually, State 

support for higher education has been on a 20-year decline in this 

country, and tuition and fees have gone up above inflation rates, 

and those increased costs are being directly impacted—impacting 

our students and their families. 

The same thing with interest rates. We both talked about it. Two 

weeks from now, the student loan interest rate is going up. Can 

you talk a little bit about what that is going to mean to our families today? 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. Well, this is happening at a time, again, 

when we are desperately trying to increase college enrollment rates 

and college completion rates, and again, we are 14th in the world, 

and the President has challenged us to be first in the world. I think 

that is a really important accountability measure for me and my 

team. Can we help lead the country to being first in the world in 

college graduation rates again? Anything we do to make college 

less affordable, less accessible, is a step in the wrong direction. 

And Congress has an opportunity to work in a bipartisan way to 

fix this and not have student interest rates get worse. Again, we 

want to improve things. All this is doing is trying not to make 

things worse. 

Chairman MURRAY. And can you explain the Administration’s opposition to the House bill and the rate increase that it represents 

for low- and middle-income families. 

Secretary Duncan. So, again, it is so important that we put in 

place a fix. Now, I would personally prefer a longer-term fix. I am 

open to a shorter-term fix. What I am not open to is doing nothing. 

And so we can—you know, lots of folks are engaged here, Democrat, Republican, House, Senate, so I am actually hopeful we can 

get this done. We all need to compromise. We all need to come to 

the middle. But inaction would lead to a doubling of rates to 6.8 

percent and that is untenable. 
426 

Chairman MURRAY. And your opposition to the House bill, can 

you— 

Secretary Duncan. There are parts, and there again, people are 

making a good faith effort. There are parts in there that make 

sense, but we do not want to balance the budget on the backs of 

young people and so we think this should be budget neutral. This 

should not be used to reduce the deficit. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. I appreciate that. And I agree. We 

need to look at the cost of higher education and all the impacts on 

that. But in the meantime, right now, we need to keep the interest 

rates low and look at the longer-term proposals— 

Secretary Duncan. That is the least we can do. Again, this is 

not—if we get this done, this is not a Profile in Courage. This 

should be low-hanging fruit that we just get done together and 

move on to the next tougher challenge and the next tougher challenge. If we cannot get this done, that is a really sad statement. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Senator JOHNSON. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Let me go back to my last slide there. I do not have to put it 

up, but the basic point, had the cost of college just grown by the 

rate of inflation, it would be 2.4 times lower than it is today. So, 

Mr. Secretary, what explanation do you have that the cost of college has increased to 2.4 times the rate of inflation over that time 

period? 

Secretary Duncan. Well, I do not think you or I or anyone here 

wants to defend the increasing costs of college. So what we have 

proposed in our budget is a billion-dollar investment, a race to the 

top— 

Senator JOHNSON. But, Mr. Secretary, we have invested. I mean, 

my point being, my earlier slide when I was talking about the modest spending in 2011 dollars, whether it is K through 12 up 2.4 

times, college up 2.8 times— 

Secretary Duncan. No, I have the question. Let me—give me a 

chance to answer. 

Senator JOHNSON. Sure. 

Secretary Duncan. So, there are a couple of explanations. First 

of all, and not to justify raising the cost, part of the increased costs 

are actually that more people are going to college. So part of that 

is a good thing. 

Senator JOHNSON. No, this is per student spending. 

Secretary Duncan. Okay. Then, again, what we are proposing is 

a race to the top for higher education to change behavior. And let 

me tell you, this is complicated, so give me one second on this. This 

has to be about shared responsibility. 

So we need States to invest in higher education. In tough economic times, 40 States cut funding to higher education, and then 

costs go up there. Forty States did not cut funding to prisons. 

Again, it is really interesting to me how people make those choices. 

And we also want to incentivize universities to keep their tuition 

down and increase the efficiency. And so we need to move everybody— the Federal level, State level, universities—to do the right 

thing, to increase productivity, to use technology in different 
427 

ways—I think technology can be very helpful here—and to make 

sure we are keeping costs down and increasing completion rates. 

Senator JOHNSON. But, we have thrown money at the problem. 

I mean, when you are increasing spending at 2.4 times what we 

were spending—again, these are inflation- adjusted dollars. So we 

are spending 2.4 times, at a minimum, in education today than we 

were 30 years ago, and we have not gotten the results. So we have 

been throwing money at the problem. I mean, when you are spending 2.4 times and the costs rise at 2.4 times the rate of inflation, 

do you kind of correlate those two facts, that we are throwing 

money at it— 

Secretary Duncan. I think, again— 

Senator JOHNSON. —and does that possibly increase the costs? 

Secretary Duncan. —there is a complexity here that you have to 

get past the sound bites. We need to be able to look at a couple 

of different things. 

Senator JOHNSON. No, you are trying to get past the numbers. 

Secretary Duncan. No, I am not. Not at all, Senator. I have been 

a very strong proponent of challenging universities to keep their 

tuition down. There is no— 

Senator JOHNSON. But this is beyond universities. I mean, this 

is just our education system itself. 

Secretary Duncan. No, you are talking about higher education. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, in this one. But, I mean, in general, the 

cost per student is higher. 

Secretary Duncan. Well, let me—let us stay on higher education 

for a minute and then we can talk K-to-12. So on higher education, 

I am right with you, that we need to challenge universities to keep 

tuition down, to make sure they are becoming more efficient by 

using technology in different ways. You have seen some places 

start to break through. There have been very few incentives to do 

that. 

The conversation I would like to have is interesting to me. We 

have undoubtedly the best system of higher education in the world. 

It is also a very inefficient marketplace. Young people with 7,000 

choices do not always pick the best choice, and so now we use some 

transparency to help people make better choices, and now we want 

to incentivize universities to do the right thing. We produce a 

scorecard, as you know, to try and give transparency and help people make better choices. So I— 

Senator JOHNSON. So you are asking for a Federal Government 

solution. What I tried to do in my one slide there, is show that 

where the government controls the spending, the cost of education 

has risen dramatically. We have not had the productivity gains. 

Where consumers, individual consumers make those choices, we 

have had huge productivity gains over the last 30 or 40 or 50 

years. So— 

Secretary Duncan. Again, I— 

Senator JOHNSON. —again, your solution is more government 

spending, which everybody calls investment. 

Let me ask you one other potential problem. Since, particularly, 

the 1960s, we have had the formation of and the rise of public sector unions. Do you think that in any way, shape, or form has contributed to the rising costs of education? 
428 

Secretary Duncan. I do not know the correlation there. It is interesting. I look at outcomes. I look at results for children. And if 

you look at two of the highest performing States in the country by 

every measure, one is Massachusetts, one is Maryland. Both actually have fairly strong unions. You look at some other States that 

have very weak unions in their States and student performance is 

much lower. So I think it is really interesting that some people like 

to say this contributes to that. But if you look across the nation, 

some of our highest performing States actually are fairly strong 

union States. 

Senator JOHNSON. When you take a look at per student spending—we talked about global rankings—I have a couple figures, and 

that is part of the problem is you have different studies. But in 

prep material by the Budget Committee here, they are showing 

about $11,000 per K through 12 student. I have about $13,000. The 

OECD average is about $8,200 there. So we spend more than our 

global competitors and our results are quite a bit less, are they 

not? 

Secretary Duncan. No, that is accurate. Let me just take it one 

step further. Again, I spend a lot of time looking at these international comparisons. So two things are true. On a per pupil basis, 

relative to other OECD industrialized countries, we do spend more. 

Where we are nearly at the bottom internationally is we spend 

much less on our most disadvantaged kids and they are much more 

generous in their investment in the kids who need the most help. 

Senator JOHNSON. Just a quick question. Around the world, how 

many other education systems are unionized? 

Secretary Duncan. I do not have the number off the top of my 

head. Many. Many. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Duncan. Just quickly on that, we actually do an international conference each year. We bring in the highest performing 

and the most rapidly improving nations from around the world, 

and we bring in my counterparts, the secretaries of education, and 

we bring in the union leaders from that country and figure out how 

we can all work together and sort of get past the traditional animosity and in a collaborative manner get better results for kids. 

There have been some fascinating international meetings. This has 

never happened before. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator STABENOW. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I 

thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

First, let me just follow up on the conversation you just had. 

When you are comparing to other countries, are those countries— 

the comparisons you are making are in public funding, correct? 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. They are making public investments. 

Secretary Duncan. Right, and we also—again, all these—the important comparisons to make, many other countries have much less 

diversity than we do. Many other countries have much less inequities— 

Senator STABENOW. Correct. 

Secretary Duncan. —in terms of income, income gaps, yes. 
429 

Senator STABENOW. Well, the reason I am raising it, when China 

is doing it, they are not doing it through private for-profit entities. 

This is public funding. 

Secretary Duncan. This is absolutely— 

Senator STABENOW. So everybody else in the world understands— 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. —there is a public function that we are all 

benefitting from— 

Secretary Duncan. Again— 

Senator STABENOW. We are the only ones debating whether or 

not somebody should make a profit off of something that is important to everybody— 

Secretary Duncan. So, South Korea, which leads the world right 

now in education in many indicators, has increased its public funding for public education by about a third in the past decade. They 

see it as an investment in— 

Senator STABENOW. As an investment. So this is something— 

Secretary Duncan. —in their economic competitiveness. 

Senator STABENOW. Yes. I think that is just an important thing. 

We seem to be the only ones—you know, I find it interesting—first 

of all, thank you for your and the President’s dedication on the 

early childhood education effort. There is no question that we need 

to give children a better start in the beginning. There is no question that the strength of our country has been our ability to outeducate and out-innovate the competition, and we make things and 

grow things, and you put that all together, that created the great 

American middle class— 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. —which is shrinking at this point as we are 

having fewer investments in those things, while everybody else 

around the world says, we want to be like America. So they are 

doing what we used to do and we are now having this debate about 

whether or not the public sector should be a part of this great effort to be globally competitive. Nobody else in the world has that 

debate but us right now. 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. But let me ask you, when we—we see on the 

one hand the need on early childhood, and then we see what is 

happening to students and student loans and there is no question 

about it that our young people are coming out of college with thousands, tens of thousands, in some professions and some degrees, 

hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. You could buy a big new 

house in Michigan for the debt that many of our medical students 

are coming out with, or other graduate degrees, and it puts them 

under a huge situation and, frankly, relates to whether or not they 

choose to go into primary care or a specialty so they can afford to 

get out of debt. So a lot of choices being made based on how do I 

get out of debt. 

So I just want to go back to this question that is in front of us 

on July 1, because for me—I mean, would you agree that the goal 

has to be that student interest rates should not increase costs for 

students short term or long term, because part of what we are seeing in the proposals that are coming forward is they sound good in 
430 

the short run, but there is no cap. And then you look long term and 

it is worse for students. 

Secretary Duncan. So— 

Senator STABENOW. So, would you not agree, we need to look at 

the short term in solving the problem, and make sure that when 

we get done, that the next generation you are talking about is not 

in worse shape because of the long-term solution? 

Secretary Duncan. Yes, but again, I think this is the minimum 

goal. What we are trying to do here— 

Senator STABENOW. Absolutely. 

Secretary Duncan. —is not make the problem worse— 

Senator STABENOW. This is the minimum, not make it worse. 

Secretary Duncan. I want to make college more accessible, more 

affordable, make sure more people from disadvantaged backgrounds have access, make sure people do not have tremendous 

debt at the back end— 

Senator STABENOW. Absolutely. 

Secretary Duncan. So this is a minimum step in the right direction that we need to have the political will to work together and 

figure out. 

Senator STABENOW. So the minimum is just do not do harm, keep 

the rates— 

Secretary Duncan. Do not make things—do not make it— 

Senator STABENOW. Do not make— 

Secretary Duncan. Do not make a bad problem worse. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. So, July 1, we need to keep the interest rates where they are, and then deal with a number of things 

that have come up that I think are really important for us to look 

at. Major banks get a better deal on interest rates to the discount 

rate than college students. Now, I understand people can debate 

that, sort of, risk levels and so, but there is something to think 

about here when we look at who is getting the better deal on interest rates in this country and where our long-term interests are. 

And when we look at the fact that the total debt load for students 

right now is over a trillion dollars and where that money could be 

going, if, in fact— 

Secretary Duncan. It is a big number— 

Senator STABENOW. It is a big number. 

Secretary Duncan. This actually is an interesting sort of public 

sector-private sector debate. One thing we did, which you might not 

agree with, Senator Johnson, which I am actually really proud of, 

is that we stopped subsidizing banks that are making loans, saving 

about $68 billion. We used $28 billion for deficit reduction and used 

$40 billion to increase Pell Grants. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. 

Secretary Duncan. That additional funding helped us to go from 

6 million Pell recipients to 9.6 million. So it is just interesting how 

we can try and get to the right answer. Again, wildly controversial 

here in Washington. I thought it made a lot of sense around the 

country. The fact that we have had a more than 50 percent increase in Pell Grant recipients, that is a pretty big deal. 

Senator STABENOW. Right. And, Madam Chair, just in—I know 

my time is up. Let me just say that as we go forward on a final 

solution, I know you share my concern that we not end up—we are 
431 

talking about deficit reduction, which is a good thing, when we took 

the subsidy from the banks. 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. 

Senator STABENOW. But we do not want to tax students with 

more debt in order to go to deficit reduction as a country. That 

makes absolutely no sense to do, and so I look forward to working 

with you on that. 

Secretary Duncan. And I will say that I have had bipartisan interest in—bipartisan commitment to that idea, the Republicans 

and Democrats who agree that that is not the right way to balance 

the budget. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator AYOTTE. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here, I wanted to ask you 

about the student loan issue that certainly other Senators and Senator Stabenow have just touched upon, which is, as we all know, 

if we do not act by July 1, the new interest rate for subsidized Stafford loans will double to 6.8 percent. 

And it just strikes me, as I see where we are right now, that the 

proposal of the Senate Republicans is not that far off from where 

the President is on this issue, and the President and Senate Republicans have put forth proposals that are market-based that lock 

in rates for the life of the loan. So I guess I wanted to ask you, 

and also to address all borrowers, which I think is really important. We cannot just carve out—let us have some certainty for all 

borrowers and really affordable loans for all borrowers. 

So where are we on this? I firmly believe this is an area where 

we can come up with a bipartisan agreement. When I see what the 

President has, when I see what Republicans are putting forth, 

where are the discussions on this and can we move this forward 

so that we are not waiting until the last minute on July 1, so that 

we can resolve this for the American people? 

Secretary Duncan. I would love that. Congress seems to only act 

in the 11th hour, so if we could set a new precedent here, that 

would be fantastic. But, again, I am like you. I am hopeful, and 

people think I am crazy or naive. I think, again, the White House, 

Republicans in the House, Republicans in the Senate, Democrats in 

the House, Democrats in the Senate, everyone is engaged. Every 

single one of you is asking about this— 

Senator AYOTTE. And I do not think we are that far off. 

Secretary Duncan. I think there are some differences, but I think 

they are resolvable. And, again, we all have to compromise—it’s 

how a democracy works. 

Senator AYOTTE. Right. 

Secretary Duncan. We all have to compromise. We all have to 

come to the middle. But I am very hopeful that this can get done. 

Senator AYOTTE. So, have you been engaged in any discussions 

on this? 

Secretary Duncan. I am talking to people every single day. 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay. Well, I am hopeful that we can get this 

done, too, and when I look at what the President has put forth, 

when I look at certainly what Senate Republicans have put forth, 
432 

I think there is a way to resolve this on a bipartisan basis for the 

obviously, the students and the parents in this country. 

So I thank you on that and wanted to ask you about the issue 

of—there was a quote that troubled me, and someone may have already asked you about this, but in an interview last week, you 

mentioned that schools are going to play a role in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. I believe it was a statement you 

made to Politico, and you said that, quote, ‘‘we actually have a 

team here that is sort of helping on ACA implementation.’’ Can you 

tell me what you meant by that in terms of— 

Secretary Duncan. Sure. 

Senator AYOTTE. —the Department’s involvement in ACA implementation? 

Secretary Duncan. If schools have questions, if districts have 

questions, we have one or two people who are there to help provide 

answers. 

Senator AYOTTE. But are you dedicating special staff? Is there an 

education piece that is being brought in the schools on the Affordable Care Act? 

Secretary Duncan. I would not say that. One piece in the Affordable Care Act that I thought was very encouraging was an investment in school-based health care clinics. So that is not through our 

Department. That is through HHS, which we have tried to partner 

with—Secretary Sebelius has been a great partner in lots of ways 

to increase the number of schools with school-based health care 

clinics. 

Senator AYOTTE. Will your Department be involved in disseminating or requiring schools to disseminate information about the 

Affordable Care Act? 

Secretary Duncan. We have not done anything like that. 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay. Are there any plans to do that? 

Secretary Duncan. Not that I am aware of. 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay. 

Secretary Duncan. Again, we just want to be a resource, and if 

people have questions, we want to be available to try and answer 

them. 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay. So what your answer was, that you are 

just being a resource, it is not that the Department of Education 

is taking a role, a particular role in the Affordable Care Act? 

Secretary Duncan. We want to be a resource. 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay. You know, obviously, the concern I have 

is that, certainly, to the extent it is an issue of allowing children 

to know that they can stay on their parents’ insurance until age 

26, I understand that as a piece. But to make the Department of 

Education have any role in disseminating information about it 

troubles me in terms of even how we would fund that, given your 

main function. So that is why I raised the issue. 

Secretary Duncan. No, that is a fair question, and I think there 

is no conflict there. But, to be clear, I have been very clear in many 

graduation speeches, letting young graduates know that they could 

stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, I can— 

Secretary Duncan. I have to say, it is one of the biggest applause 

lines I get. 
433 

Senator AYOTTE. I can understand that. 

Let me ask you, Secretary, about the STEM education piece— 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. and I know I do not have a lot of time left, but 

this is an area which I think is very important for the country, for 

us to move forward. But in 2010, GAO found a massive amount of 

duplication, 13 agencies spending over $3 billion on 209 STEM programs and a degree of overlap in 83 percent of these programs. So 

they recommended that it be guided by a robust strategic plan. 

Where are we in terms of using taxpayer dollars more efficiently 

to get a better outcome in the STEM education area? 

Secretary Duncan. This is extremely important. A lot of that conversation is where are the jobs of the future, and we all know so 

many of the high-wage, high-skilled jobs of the future are in the 

STEM fields, and we have significant unfilled jobs today with employers who are looking for skills that we are not providing. So this 

is one I take very seriously. 

The President has challenged us and challenged the entire Administration to coordinate. We want to invest, and we are going to 

do a much better job working with our sister agencies across the 

Administration. We want to invest in a couple of different areas. 

We have found movement where we provide some funding, but 

where there is local skin in the game, private sector business community, higher education, K-to- 12, we find where we leverage investments, there is a huge amount of movement. And so we want 

to invest in what we call STEM Innovation Networks, Innovation 

Hubs around the country, see who wants to work there. 

We want to create a STEM Master Teacher Corps. So many of 

our children start to turn off to the STEM areas not in high school, 

but in the fourth and fifth and sixth grades, where they have 

teachers who are not comfortable and confident with the content 

knowledge. And so we, as a country, have to get much better in 

this area and we are committed to doing everything we can to provide leadership, not just in the Department of Education, but Administration-wide, to support this effort. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. I thank you for being here and I 

will have a couple of follow-ups for the record. Thank you. 

Secretary Duncan. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Kaine. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Secretary Duncan, for being here. 

I would like to have that last chart that Senator Johnson had 

back up, if I could, showing inflation-adjusted cost of tuition over 

time, if you could find that chart. There we go. 

Secretary Duncan, you made a point in connection with this 

chart that I want to drill down on, because I think it is very important, about two solutions. I do not view the big red number at the 

end as an indication that government has just been throwing 

money at it. I do view it as calling for a couple of potential reforms. 

If you look at the chart from 1964 to 1988, it did not change that 

much, the actual dollar, an inflation-adjusted number, and 1988 

was not that far off. It looks like the huge change was between 

1988 and 2010, and I can just tell you, from my experience as Governor, you made a point that is very right. The amount of State 
434 

support for higher education in many States has been on a very 

flat path and in some States actually a declining path, and if you 

actually— 

Secretary Duncan. Forty States declined. 

Senator KAINE. Forty States. And if you look at between the late 

1980s, when sentencing, mandatory minimums, three strikes you 

are out started to hit, the growth in State funding for prisons and 

incarceration dramatically exceeded the growth in State funding 

for higher education. So in Virginia, for example, you go to University of Virginia—UVA, you go to the college of William and Mary, 

the percentage of the school’s budget that is State general fund 

support has declined very dramatically. When State funding declines, tuition goes up— 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. 

Senator KAINE. —and that has been a huge factor in tuition increases. And I say this as a Governor. 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. 

Senator KAINE. I have some complicity in this. We were dealing 

with a very difficult budget situation and it made it hard for us to 

fund higher education to the degree that we wanted. 

So the red number that is growing is not just, well, government 

has been throwing money at the problem. To the contrary, tuitions 

often go up because State governments, for a variety of reasons, 

many of them legitimate financial issues, have had a hard time 

funding higher education. So that is one issue. So keep pressure on 

States to fund. 

But you did mention the second one, as well. We have to keep 

pressure on universities to control costs. I mean, I think we all 

have the experience of going to universities and seeing how they 

often compete with each other based on the quality of the gym and 

the dining room and all kinds of facilities that are not necessarily 

curricular. 

And to the same degree that this Administration, I think, has 

done good work on requiring for-profit colleges, you want Pell 

Grant monies, you want Stafford loan monies, show us that you 

have a graduation rate, show us that you have post-graduation employability statistics, we ought to have the same discussion with 

some carrots but also with some sticks with the entire higher education community, public, private, and nonprofit. You want Pell 

Grants? You want Stafford loans? Show us that you are doing 

things to control the costs. 

Part of it is a lack of cost control in the university community, 

public and private. But part of it is declining State support, not 

throwing money at a problem, it is that we are taking money out 

of higher education at the State levels. 

Secretary Duncan. So you have lived this and you understand 

this at a really intuitive level. So I agree with everything that you 

said. I would love to see a chart over—for every State, you get 

some money, so we would have to do it for every State over the 

past 20 or 30 years, State spending on higher education versus 

State spending on incarceration. That would be a fascinating chart 

to look at. 

Senator KAINE. I know exactly what that chart would look like. 
435 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. In some States, it is—the contrast is 

staggering. So, again, what do we value? Where do we want to put 

scarce taxpayer dollars? What is important to us growing a vibrant 

and thriving middle class? Is it locking more people up or is it educating them? 

We have to challenge—again, this is about shared responsibility, 

so we have to challenge States to do the right thing and we have 

to challenge universities to do the right thing. Most of our funding—the vast majority of our funding has been on inputs, on access. Very little is on outcomes, your point about, you know, Pell 

and other things- - 

Senator KAINE. Right. 

Secretary Duncan. —and we are spending lots of time thinking 

about what we could do differently there. 

But, again, I go back both in the early learning space and in the 

K-to-12 space. We are seeing some pretty transformational change 

in part due to race to the top opportunities. 

Senator KAINE. Mm-hmm. 

Secretary Duncan. We have not had a race to the top type competition in the higher education space, and that is what we are proposing— 

Senator KAINE. Good. 

Secretary Duncan. —in this year’s budget, to, again, incentivize 

three things: To incentivize States to invest; to incentivize universities to keep costs down; and to incentivize universities to build 

cultures of completion. 

The final thing I will say, quickly, is that when I— 

Senator KAINE. Because I have one more quick question, and I 

have— 

Secretary Duncan. Sorry. Sorry. I will be quiet. Go ahead. 

Senator KAINE. Let me do this. I do not know whether this is a 

terminology question or a policy question, when I hear discussions 

of college completion, college graduation rates, U.S., State, or compared to international norms. I always wonder about the fantastic 

graduates of the Newport News Shipbuilding Apprentice Academy, 

who often have a high school degree, or maybe they have been in 

the military, or sometimes they have a Master’s degree and they 

want to go back and learn how to be a shipbuilder and welder. And 

they are tremendously trained and they have great jobs and they 

make great livings for their families, but I worry that we do not 

count them, and if we do not count them or talk about them and 

as we focus on our educational programming, we have too narrow 

a view of what higher education is. 

You have done a great job, I think, of making sure that community colleges are always at the table when we are talking about college completion, but I do not think we are yet doing a good enough 

job of really explaining, incentivizing, funding, and planning the 

right way for post-high school education to include career and technical offerings that are not offered on a college campus, because 

those are some of the best-paid jobs in Virginia and some of the 

best workers building the largest manufactured items on earth, but 

I do not know that they get counted in the college completion statistics. 
436 

Secretary Duncan. So, again, I think you and I see the world 

very similarly. So I always try and talk about college and careers, 

college and careers, and for me, the goal is to have everyone graduate from high school prepared for some form of learning beyond 

that—4-year universities, 2-year community colleges, trade, technical, and vocational training. And we should count all that. We 

value all that. We have— 

Senator KAINE. But do we count that in our, you know, as we 

measure college graduation or as the international norms measure 

college completion and they rank us 14th in the world, are they 

measuring people who do not go to community college? They do not 

go to a for-profit college, they do not go to a traditional 4-year college, but they get a welding certificate from the Newport News 

Shipbuilding Academy. 

Secretary Duncan. That is not measured in college completion 

rates and it is an important indicator— 

Senator KAINE. Yes. 

Secretary Duncan. —and it is a separate—part of what we are 

proposing is to do a lot more of this at the high school level, to have 

a high school level redesign in order to have a much greater emphasis on career and technical education, and vocational education, 

or whatever you want to call it. Some schools do an amazing, amazing job with this. Not enough do. 

Senator KAINE. It is something I would like to work on. Thanks. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Duncan. Good to see you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We have just been through the education 

bill on the HELP Committee and there was a considerable discussion about the burden that the Department of Education imposes 

on State and local communities, and I would like to give you a 

chance to answer some questions about that. 

Let us start with the simplest one, which is how many FTEs does 

the budget you have proposed for the Department of Education 

support, Federal FTEs? 

Secretary Duncan. Forty-two-hundred full-time equivalent positions. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Forty-two-hundred. People brought— 

Secretary Duncan. For the record, we are one of the smallest 

Federal agencies, just to put that out there. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. People brought books this thick to the 

hearing that were their binders for filings that had to be made to 

the Department of Education. Have you done any formalized studies, or has GAO or anybody done any formalized studies to quantify 

the externalized costs that your programs impose on State and 

local communities, and if so, when, and what are the results of 

those studies? 

Secretary Duncan. Well, beyond studies, what we have actually 

tried to do is provide flexibility. We thought so much of No Child 

Left Behind—NCLB— was broken, was onerous, was top-down 

from Washington, and we have had 37 States, including your home 

State, and another ten coming apply for flexibility. Frankly, we 
437 

wanted Congress to fix No Child Left Behind. Congress has been 

pretty broken. So we were lucky enough to have the flexibility to 

provide waivers and much greater flexibility, and we are seeing 37 

States, again, across the political spectrum, jump at this. And we 

are working with an additional ten States, so it is virtually every 

State in the country. 

So, I want to be clear. We are not just looking at this. We are 

actually taking concrete action that seems to be universally appreciated. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well— 

Secretary Duncan. And let me also say— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. —there are two different things. 

Secretary Duncan. Okay. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. One is the sort of handcuffs that No Child 

Left Behind put on school districts. The waivers that you have 

granted have allowed more flexibility, have allowed them to escape 

the handcuffs, have allowed them to teach much more to the child 

rather than to the test and so forth. So that has been good from 

a policy point of view, but it may or may not make it easier for 

them to cope with the pure, sheer administrative burden of reporting and compliance and waiver application and grant Administration and all of that stuff. 

And if you have not ever done a kind of comprehensive study of 

how much of that cost gets externalized to States and to cities, I 

would like to ask you to work with us on figuring out a way we 

could get that done. It has a general component, which is if it is 

too high, then it is a waste of effort and it is taking away from 

kids. And it has a focus component, because small school districts, 

like those in Rhode Island, and rural school districts and people 

who do not have an enormous amount of bureaucratic infrastructure to cope with Federal requirements, are put at a disadvantage 

in terms of how they deal with those responsibilities. 

Secretary Duncan. It is— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Also, there is a bias, as well as a burden, 

that is potentially put in there. And I think it is worth attending 

to and finding out what the story is because, otherwise, we are 

going to keep seeing these big binders being brought in to hearings. 

They will be anecdotal concerns, but we will not really have solid 

evidence. And you are telling me, I think, that we do not really 

have solid evidence, right? 

Secretary Duncan. We have done some work and we can always 

do more. I think it is a very real point. You hit on both of them. 

You do not want to waste people’s time and you do not want to 

make it impossible for a small district or a rural district to access 

resources. So none of that is in the public’s best interest. 

So it is fascinating. When I travel, I always—everywhere I go, I 

ask people, tell us where we are being redundant, tell us where we 

are being duplicative. The last thing I want to do is waste your 

time. I have been on the other end of this stuff. I have lived this. 

So whatever came out of your hearing, whatever concrete evidence—it may be anecdotal, like this report, you asked for three 

times. Or, this is one piece of paper rather than 50. Whatever concrete evidence came out of that, I would love to hear that and I 

would love you to hold me personally accountable for looking into 
438 

that and figuring out where we can reduce burden. I have zero interest in making people spend time on bureaucracy rather than 

teaching kids to read and keeping them in school. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My last question is about Pell Grants, 

which we take very seriously in Rhode Island. We have a lot of loyalty to Senator Pell. When those things kicked off, they paid about 

70 percent of regular State college education. Now, it is closer to 

30 percent. 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The Republican budget in the House 

would flatline it for the 10-year budget period, as I understand it. 

What is your plan and what impact would the difference between 

where the Republicans budget it and where you would budget it, 

what impact does that have in the real world for lives? 

Secretary Duncan. Well, again, I think all of us, regardless of our 

politics or ideology, I think, and I desperately hope, we want to 

have the best educated workforce in the world. We want to have 

the highest percent of college graduates. And there is a study that 

came out just yesterday from the Council on Foreign Relations. I 

encourage all of you to look at this, college degree attainment. We 

are third amongst 55- to 64-year-olds, so older folks. But we are 

13th amongst 25- to 34-year-olds. So we are losing ground here. We 

are not maintaining. We are not stagnating. We are actually going 

south relative to other countries. 

So anything that makes college more affordable, more accessible, 

I am for. Anything that makes college less affordable, less accessible, I think we cut off our nose to spite our face. 

And, just quickly, my staff just handed me a note—under the 

flexibility we have done, they actually did do a study. We estimate 

a reduction in burden of over three million hours with a cost savings of approximately $50 million for SEAs and LEAs. So not that 

we cannot do more, not that we should not do more, but this is we 

something that we are thinking about very, very seriously. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. For the record, Madam Chair, can I get 

the—afterwards, if you can get me a citation to that study or a 

copy of it. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Duncan, I do not get to see you often because of committee assignments, but when I read your comments, particularly 

on education issues, the way you link opportunity and accountability, I think, makes a lot of sense and ought to be our philosophical underpinnings in this area. 

Also, I want to take note of the fact that constituents often ask 

whether I have had to guard you in any basketball game with the 

President, and I have said, thank goodness, no, because he is talented and I was too small— 

Chairman MURRAY. I do not get that question. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. Well, I was too small, and I made up for it by 

being slow, neither of which are challenges for the Secretary. 

Here is my question, Mr. Secretary, and it deals with the question of higher education and the question of what our policy is 

going to be in the future. Historically, we have said our focus will 
439 

be on access and trying to make sure we get students in the door. 

And I do not take a back seat, and I know you do not, in terms 

of access, Pell Grants and Stafford loans at affordable rates. 

But it seems to me we are now moving in the direction of adding 

another component, and that is value. That is what the Administration has sought to do in The Collefe Scorecard. That is, as you 

know, what is behind the legislation with Senator Rubio, the bipartisan bill, the Student Right To Know Before You Go Act. And I 

think we both want to make sure that we can get information out 

about graduation rates and debt levels and remedial education, and 

my reason for bringing it up is the question of how it is going to 

be possible to get what students are likely to earn when they get 

a degree from a particular school. And I have students ask me 

about this constantly. They do not want this to be the only measure of their education, but they want it to be one measure. 

Now, on the issue of employment and earnings, the scorecard, 

and we just looked at it, is basically left blank, and I know this is 

a very difficult area to address administratively, and that is because of the existing Congressional ban on the unit record type system. 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. 

Senator WYDEN. So, Senator Rubio and I worked with a variety 

of colleagues and experts, privacy experts, education experts, but 

what is your thinking in terms of how we can particularly find a 

way—because I think Senators of all political philosophies want to 

work with the Administration on this—how can we figure out a 

way to get that information out in a usable fashion? I think our 

bill is one. It is not the only possible way, but particularly because 

I think the Administration bumped up against the Congressional 

ban with respect to unit records, how do you see tackling this? 

Secretary Duncan. So, let me just back up for a second. 

Senator WYDEN. Yes. 

Secretary Duncan. Your basic premise is exactly right, that, yes, 

we want to encourage access and opportunity. We desperately have 

to do that. But for me, the goal is not to have more kids enter college. The goal is to have a lot more complete college. And, collectively, we have not had enough either incentives or disincentives, 

carrots and sticks, to change behavior there. We talked about time 

to completion and other things. We have a lot of hard work to do. 

I just so appreciate your leadership. I appreciate you working in 

a bipartisan way. What we tried to do last year is, on a voluntary 

basis, produce a Scorecard. All we can do on a voluntary basis is 

do that. If Congress acts, then we have a chance to do something. 

We hope to add earnings to the Scorecard later this year, and we 

all need to collectively find this right balance. It is critically important that we maintain individuals’ privacy and have all those safeguards there, but at the same time have much greater transparency. 

And I said earlier, before you were here, that it is so interesting 

to me that we have unquestionably the best system of higher education in the world, 7,000 choices, for profit, nonprofit, public, private, 4-year, and 2-year institutions, but we have a very inefficient 

marketplace. We have young people choosing the wrong schools for 

the wrong reasons. It is because the process is so overwhelming. So 
440 

whatever we can do to provide transparency, I am a big believer 

that that helps to change behavior. 

The last thing I will say, quickly, is when I led the Chicago Public Schools, we tracked college completion rates for our grads very 

closely. We saw young people with identical scores, identical Grade 

Point Averages—GPAs, going to two different schools, some graduating students at 80 percent and some graduating students at 25 

percent. The difference was staggering. And so we, frankly, started 

to steer kids towards certain institutions of higher education and, 

frankly, away from others. And I think we need to have a much 

more informed population. And again, the goal is not to go. The 

goal is to walk out with a diploma at the back end. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, those are points well made, and I think 

what I would like to do is have our staff follow up with yours. They 

have been very helpful. Because I think that the challenge, particularly administratively, is you bump up against this flood, you know, 

Congressional ban, and then there are some questions about what 

you can collect and what you can publish, and is it short term or 

is it long term. We can get this done. 

I appreciate the approach the Administration is talking about, 

and this, in my view, Mr. Secretary, would be a transformation of 

Federal education policy. It will keep our historic focus on access, 

and that is something that we should never budge an inch away 

from. But I think adding value, as you and the President want to 

do, makes a lot of sense, and I look forward to working with you. 

Secretary Duncan. Thank you for your leadership. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Duncan. Good to see you. 

Senator NELSON. I am at a loss to understand why the Administration is proposing to cut STEM funds in half and to reorganize 

it through the Department of Education, National Science Foundation, and the Smithsonian. I have seen STEM work so well, STEM 

funds through an agency, such as NASA, where peer review funds 

are going on a specific NASA mission, and yet that is being cut out 

in the Administration’s proposal. So why do you think this reorganization is going to help us get, at the end of the day, where we 

all want to get to, which is the emphasis, of course, on the STEM 

education? 

Secretary Duncan. So, I do not think we are looking to cut STEM 

budgets in half at all. So I think that is not correct, and I will just 

walk through potential increases we are looking for: STEM Innovation Networks, $150 million; STEM Master Teacher Corps, $35 million; STEM Teacher Pathways Program, $80 million; Effective 

Teaching and Learning, $150 million. But, let me be clear. What 

we are trying to do is better coordinate across the Administration, 

and it is a desperately important investment. I think there have 

been lots of pockets of excellence, one-offs. I do not think we have 

done enough to incentivize local communities to have buy-in. Charlie Bolton is a great friend. He is doing an amazing job. 

We want to all work together, you know, without ego and without bureaucracy in silos and that is the only goal here. My interest 

is seeing a lot more students have access to teachers who love the 
441 

STEM fields. My interest is to have a lot more young people who 

choose to major in the STEM areas when they go to college. And 

as you know, so many people go to college wanting to major in it 

and then they wash out because they are not prepared. 

So that is—I think we all have the same long-term goals. We can 

sort of walk through how we do it. But, I do the President has challenged us to help provide some leadership across the Administration so that we are all not operating in our silos but are working 

together to try and make sure young people are prepared for where 

so many of the jobs of the future are going to be. 

Senator NELSON. I will just mention in passing that since you 

are a great student of history and educational history, you know 

what happened to this country when we had these extraordinary 

‘‘gee whiz’’ successes in the great space race back in the late 1950s 

and the early 1960s. And I would hope that as we get our space 

program cranked up again and that we start to see some of the 

‘‘gee whiz’’ things pursuing the goal that the President has laid out, 

which is to go to Mars, that that might bring a lot more young people into these fields of high technology, which clearly happened 

during the 1960s. 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. No, I would be happy to follow up in any 

way, and again, we have a real shortage of math and science teachers in this country, which I think if we do not fundamentally address that, we will never produce the students that we need long 

term. Not everyone agrees with me on this, but I have publicly proposed that we pay math and science teachers more money to work 

in disadvantaged communities and in rural communities and the 

inner city. We have had a couple decades’ shortage and I do not 

want to just admire the problem. I want to do something about it. 

Senator NELSON. On another subject, and this will be my final 

question, why do you not just state for the record for the committee, if we had the continuation of the sequester, what impact 

that that would have on student aid programs. 

Secretary Duncan. So, again, this is just the sequester that I will 

address, and the House budget is much worse, which we talked 

about earlier. But the impact of the sequester— 

Senator NELSON. Think of both, then. 

Secretary Duncan. The impact of the sequester is a $598 million cut for IDEA Part B, children with special needs; a $725 million 

cut for poor children, Title I; a $49 million for Work-Study, young 

people working hard to get through college and graduate; and for 

Impact Aid, children of military families, Native American children, who rely heavily, disproportionately on our Federal funding, 

a $60 million cut. So that is the sequester. 

With the House budget, which is an additional 19 percent cut on 

top of the 5 percent sequester cut, those numbers get even more 

devastating: A $2.5 billion cut for Title I for poor kids; a $2 billion 

cut for IDEA, children with special needs; $4.5 billion less for Pell 

Grants; $1.5 billion less for Head Start, and we talked extensively 

about how important it is to get our babies off to a great start from 

ages zero to 5; and finally, $200 million less for children of military 

families and children on Native American reservations. 

Senator NELSON. That speaks for itself. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 
442 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, as you know, I have been passionate about early 

childhood education forever. It is what got me involved in politics 

and continues to keep me going. I was thrilled when the President 

talked about the importance of investing in early learning in his 

State of the Union address and glad to see the new investments in 

children from birth through 5 in both your budget and the HHS 

budget. Those investments echo what we put in place in our budget 

a few months ago, and it is a priority that I know we share. 

I was out talking to a kindergarten teacher just a few weeks ago 

who told me that 80 percent of the kids do not come to her classroom in the fall with any kind of pre-K education, which means 

that she says I have so many kids who do not know how to turn 

a page when they open their book, do not know how to hold the 

scissors or a pencil. The disparity is just incredible, and how far 

she has to bring those kids to catch them up to where they need 

to be. So, to me, this is absolutely imperative. 

And I know you have been traveling around the country talking 

to both Democratic and Republican Governors about their support 

for this and I wanted you to talk a little bit about why the—what 

the Governors are saying to you, why this is so important. 

Secretary Duncan. Yes. Well, again, I just think, going forward, 

your personal leadership and passion and insightfulness on this is 

going to be so helpful. I think a lot about—I have never had a job 

before where I know I am going to get fired. I have a time-limited 

span here, 3 years, 6 months, whatever it might be. And I think 

a lot about what are not the 15 things I can do, but what are the 

two or three most important things I can do to help the country 

while I am here. 

And, arguably, at the top of the list would be dramatically expanding access for our babies to high-quality early childhood education, that it is the great equalizer. And I just keep saying, education, we have to get out of the catch-up business and get our children starting kindergarten on a more level playing field. 

And, again, the return on investment—ROI, the economic reality—this is not just some feel good thing. The ROI on this is pretty staggering, seven-to-one. How many of your investments in the 

stock market are getting seven-to-one? Pretty good deal. Pretty 

good deal. 

And for all the dysfunction here in Washington, again, I am actually hopeful, because you have Republican and Democratic Governors who are investing very heavily. I mean, these are still tough 

economic times. These are not easy decisions. But you can go to 

Michigan and Alabama and Mississippi, you go to Massachusetts, 

you know, a million places I can talk about, Nevada, where people 

are really— Washington, your state—where Governors in tough 

times are investing because they get it. They get the ROI. 

What is so interesting to me is that all of them invest—virtually 

every single one of them still has long waiting lists. There is tremendous unmet need. And people sort of say, well, just let the Governors do it. Again, today, less than three in ten, less than 30 percent of our 4-year-olds have access to high-quality early childhood 

education. 
443 

So if we want to get just a tiny bit better, I want to be transformational here. I want to change the course of these kids’ lives 

forever and for our country. And so to do that, yes, we need Governors’ leadership and tremendous bipartisan support. The majority of Governors in their State of the State speeches talked about 

this. Many of these Governors are investing, they are not just talking about it. They are putting skin in the game. But they are not 

getting to where they need to go, and Michigan recently, Georgia 

recently, is oing some good things, but still has an 8,000-kid waiting list, so is not even close— 

Chairman MURRAY. Right, and not to mention the fact, the mobility of kids, if we just have kids moving around the country, as 

we do today, and you have kids coming from States that do not invest in it, it is a national issue. 

Secretary Duncan. The final thing I will say is just again to emphasize why your leadership is so important. Two- and three- and 

4-year-olds do not vote. They do not have Political Action Committee—PACs. They do not have lobbyists. Far too many politicians 

are wired to think short-term. This is the ultimate long-term play. 

We will not see the full dividends for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, 50 years. 

But with vision and foresight and leadership like yours, I think we 

have a chance to change our country for the next couple decades 

here and I am going to do everything I can to make sure we provide those opportunities. 

Chairman MURRAY. And, finally, what do you see happening 

internationally? If we are cutting all of these programs back 

through sequestration and not doing the right thing, what are 

other countries doing? 

Secretary Duncan. Well, again, this is a Council on Foreign Relations report yesterday, so hot off the press. It shows the U.S. ranks 

first in high school degree attainment for our 55- to 64-year-olds, 

our folks moving towards retirement, but we are tenth among 25- 

to 34-year-olds. 

Chairman MURRAY. So what does that do for our competitiveness? 

Secretary Duncan. Where are the jobs going to go? Are the jobs 

going to go to where we are less educated or more educated? Jobs 

can go anywhere in a globally competitive economy. That is high 

school. College degrees, we are third amongst 55- to 64-year-olds, 

but 13th among 24- to 34- year-olds. 

And so this is—yes, it is about education, but it is about so much 

more than education. It is about fighting to have a strong and vital 

middle class. It is about keeping great jobs, high-wage, high-skilled 

jobs in this country. And employers are going to go to where the 

most educated workforce is, and I hope to goodness it is here, but 

they will go to China, India, or South Korea or Singapore or wherever it might be where they can get an educated workforce, and the 

middle class— 

Chairman MURRAY. So, the investment that we make today is 

absolutely critical 10, 20, 30 years from now. 

Secretary Duncan. Absolutely. And if we do not change direction, 

I worry about where our country is going. This is not—the status 

quo is not good enough. We should be ashamed that we are not 

leading the world in these things. And we have rested on our lau-
444 

rels for far too long. We have become complacent and other countries have simply passed us by, and then we wonder why we struggle economically. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator JOHNSON. Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I just have to challenge the notion that we are not spending 

enough on education. I do not think it is a spending problem. But, 

again, to reiterate what I was saying before, in total in 2011—I do 

not have the exact numbers for 2012 or 2013—we spent basically 

$1.2 trillion educating our kids. That is eight percent of our economy. You can compare that, again, in inflation-adjusted dollars, to 

1978, where we spent $496 billion, again, inflation-adjusted. So 

that is 2.4 times the level of funding into education. It is not a matter of how much money we are spending. I mean, do you dispute 

that basic funding level? 

Secretary Duncan. I think that— 

Senator JOHNSON. I mean, it is very easy to say, well, so now 

compared to last year when we were spending a lot of money, we 

are going to spend a little bit less, but we are pouring money into 

education. By the way, we put men on the moon spending a whole 

lot less on education and we actually had pretty good science and 

math programs back then. 

Secretary Duncan. So, Senator, I have never advocated for investing in the status quo. Everything we have done, we have tried 

to drive a vision of reform and make some very tough calls, and 

early childhood space is not about access. It is about high quality. 

K-to-12 is about increasing graduation rates. Higher education is 

about increasing graduating rates. But I think if we share—we can 

debate how we get there, but if you agree with me that being 14th 

in the world in college graduation rates is unacceptable, of having 

a high school graduation rate below so many countries, if we agree 

that is unacceptable, what I would love to do is have a conversation 

about how we get better outcomes— 

Senator JOHNSON. Sure. 

Secretary Duncan. —and how we help keep those jobs in this 

country. 

Senator JOHNSON. I think our educational outcomes are totally 

unacceptable. But, again, it is not a problem of money. 

Secretary Duncan. Well, let me— 

Senator JOHNSON. Again, we have been pouring money into it. 

Secretary Duncan. Hold it. You keep saying—let me just challenge you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes. 

Secretary Duncan. On the early childhood space, if less than 

three in ten 4-year-olds have access to high-quality pre-K, if our 

goal is to get a million more children ready for kindergarten when 

they enter, I do not have a cheap way to do it. It is an investment. 

This means— 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, maybe we have to reallocate, reprioritize 

spending, then. You know, one of the things I was trying to point 

out in my charts is, coming from the private sector, you look at 

anything else, almost anything else in the private competitive sector, there have been huge productivity gains. And in education, 
445 

with computers, we should have huge productivity gains, but we do 

not. We are spending more per pupil and we are getting terrible 

results. I mean, what is the answer for that? It is not throwing 

more money at it. 

Secretary Duncan. Well, again, so there is a level of complexity. 

I just want to try and get you beneath the talking points. And so— 

Senator JOHNSON. It is not—no, this is not talking points. I was 

heavily involved in the education system and I am looking at it as 

an accountant. We are spending a lot of money per pupil— 

Secretary Duncan. So— 

Senator JOHNSON. —and we are not getting the results. That is 

not a talking point. That is a fact. 

Secretary Duncan. So what we are trying to do, technology can 

be a huge game changer, and you may have seen— 

Senator JOHNSON. But it has been around for 10 years and has 

not been a game changer. 

Secretary Duncan. I agree with you, so we agree on the problem. 

The question is how we get there. Part of the challenge is lack of 

broadband access in many of our communities, and we have talked 

about dramatically increasing broadband access. Technology education moves far too slow. Technology has changed how we do business. It has changed how we interact— 

Senator JOHNSON. I will say, government-run programs, government-funded programs run way too slow. 

Let us talk about early childhood development before I run out 

of time here. GAO conducted a study on duplicative programs. 

There were 45 early learning and childhood programs. And then 

the Department of Health and Human Services in 2012 issued a 

study about the Head Start preschool program and found it had little to no impact on the cognitive, socio-emotional, or parenting 

practices of participants by the time they reached the third grade. 

How do you respond to that? Again, we are looking at, hey, let us 

pour more money into it— 

Secretary Duncan. No— 

Senator JOHNSON. If what we have does not work, why would we 

want to pour more in? 

Secretary Duncan. Very simple. There are lots of studies, and we 

can give them to you, that show city after city, State after State, 

where we have seen big benefits. About 20 percent—what that 

study measured, again, you have to look at the detail. That study 

evaluated children who had access to Head Start, not who actually 

attended Head Start. And about 20 percent of the kids in that 

study never actually attended Head Start. 

So, yes, we need high quality. For the first time ever, and I give 

her great credit, Kathleen Sebelius is making Head Start programs 

recompete, and if they are not getting results, they have to come 

back in or they will be cut. But, again, look below the headlines. 

If the study looked at 20 percent of kids who had access but did 

not attend, just pause for a second. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. But let me conclude here, again. Again, 

I am all for education. I understand it is absolutely vital. But the 

other reason I am looking at a 30-year budget window is when we 

are trapped in a 10-year budget window, we are grossly underestimating the real problem here. 
446 

So you take a look at the first decade and it is maybe a $6 or $7 trillion deficit. You project that out, and the numbers we are 

coming up with—they are preliminary, but they have been reported, so I will say they—we are talking about over 30 years, $72 

to $107 trillion deficit from the Federal Government. That is a 

huge problem, and unless we start addressing it—and if our solution to all these other problems is just throw more money at 

them— 

Secretary Duncan. No— 

Senator JOHNSON. —more money that we simply do not have— 

Secretary Duncan. I think we have to—and maybe you will 

agree, maybe you will disagree—I think we have to walk and chew 

gum at the same time. Look what we did in reforming student 

loans. We saved $68 billion. We took $40 billion to increase access 

to Pell Grants. We did that without going back to taxpayers for a 

nickel. Do you think that is good government? 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, again, I am happy to prioritize spending, 

and I am happy to work with you to prioritize that spending. But 

again, you do need some general understanding of the huge problem we are facing and we cannot just keep throwing more money 

at the problem. We have to actually start looking at how much we 

have spent and measure the results and realize, well, if that has 

not been working, we have to look at some other program. 

Secretary Duncan. I one hundred percent agree, and again, I 

want you to look at high school graduation rates, college graduation rates. We are measuring this every single day. We are looking 

at differences in achievement gaps. If we are not seeing progress, 

I would be having a very different conversation. We have a long 

way to go, but you are seeing movement in the right direction. And, 

again, never pushing to invest in the status quo, trying to drive a 

vision of reform. 

But, again, I go to James Heckman, who is much smarter than 

I, Nobel Prize winning economist. He tells me we get a seven-toone investment. You are a very astute businessman. I think we 

need to listen. I think we need to pay attention. 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, let me just say, I truly appreciate your 

efforts and your dedication to the problem. I really do, so thank 

you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Duncan. Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Whitehouse, did you have any additional questions? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. No. 

Chairman MURRAY. Well, Mr. Secretary, I really appreciate your 

coming today. I really believe that we have to make the investments that we need to make today so that ten, 20, 30 years out 

from now, we have a strong, viable workforce and a country that 

is strong competitively and those investments that we make are 

really why we have focused so hard on this. That is what you do 

every single day, and I just want you to know how much I appreciate this discussion and look forward to working with you on this. 

So thank you very much for that, and I want to thank all of our 

colleagues who participated today. The record will be open for any 

additional questions, due by 6:00 p.m. today. 
447 

And, again, Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. 

Secretary Duncan. Thanks for the opportunity. 

Chairman MURRAY. The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 

Question 1; 

Lawrence H. Summers 

Senate Budget Committee Responses 

June 18,2013 

Senator Murray 

Question: "l~ny of my colleagues have said that deep spending cuts willicad to stronger ec()nomlc 

gro\'oth. fn fac1~ they argue that the rca~()n \ve Men 11 growing [aster is bect:tUse we- are spending too much 

right now, As SllPP0ri for this argurntnt~ they point 10 acadcrnit" studies by Harvard eCDnomi~t$ and the 

!:vIP. 

Thi~ is (~ontrary to v,"hat I understand rnainstrcam economic theory to S.(l},_ \Vhile (he e~t)nnm) j-; S,1iJ! 

weak, funher ~ontracti()n in governmt!nt spending would seem to he f1 drag on gw\.vth. I understand your 

recenl work has shown that the bang-for-the buck of r"cal pol;e;c, ;s actually much higher when the 

economy is \'\eak, a'S it b rh.)\"', 

Could you comment on this argument for "c\pansionary austerity"'? The idea that lhe more we cut !he 

fastet our economy \vi!! grow, 

RESPONSE: As your question suggests, fiscal policy likely has a greater impact 

in environments like the present, where we have substantial slack in the economy 

and very low interest rates. Under other circumstances, it is possible that 

reductions in government spending could lead to economic expansion. However, 

these "other circumstances," involving high capital costs and potential for export 

growth to a strong world economy, are distinct from the circumstances we are in 

today. 

IMF researchers concur with this opinion and they now believe that observers have 

underestimated the size of fiscalmultip!iers, in the current environment.. By 

underestimating the flscalmultiplier, observers have also underestimated how 

damaging austerity is to an economy, at a time like the present. In the IMP's World 

Economic Outlook (October 2012), Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard notes that 

"TIle main finding, based on data for 28 economies, is that the multipliers used in 

generating growth forecasts have been systematically too low since the start of the 

Great Recession ... This finding is consistent with research suggesting that in 

today's environment of substantial economic slack, monetary policy constrained 

by the zero lower bound, and synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous 

economies, multipliers may be well above 1." 
462 

Question 1: 

Lawrence H. Summers 

Senate Budget Committee Responses 

June 18,2013 

Senator Coons 

I'm concemed about the long-term unemployed. Economic data shows that shorHem1 

unemployment (those who have been unemployed for 14 weeks or less) is down ncar the levels 

observed in the 199! and 200 I recoveries. However, those unemployed for 27 weeks or more is 

still very high. As of the end of April, 4.4 million Americans, or 37 percent of the unemployed. 

had been without ajob for 27 weeks or longer. 

Can you describe austerity's impact 00 the long-term unemployed'! 

Additionally, what policy measures w(Juld make the most impact in reducing the rate of longterm unemployment? 

RESPONSE: I share your concern about the long-tenn unemployed. The relevant 

scholarship make,~ clear that the longer a person has been unemployed, the more 

difficult time he/she has fmding a new job. This is the source of the hysteresis 

effect I referenced in my testimony, and this is just one of tile reasons why 

measures to promote demand and accelerate recovery are important not only for 

the short run, but also for the long run. A number of experiments have been 

perfom1ed to test unemployment insurance as a tool to promote reemployment. 

These experiments should be carefully evaluated, and consideration should be 

given to unemployment insurance reform to promote reemployment. There is also 

a case for careful consideration of tax credits along the lines ofthe payroll tax 

break for new hires proposed by Senator Schumer and Senator Hatch in 2010 to 

provide employers an incentive to hire the long-tenn unemployed. 
463 

Senator Coons 

Question 2: 

'Yfanufacturing is critically important in the United States. The sector makes up 12% of our 

economy, while providing high quality jobs. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 2000 to 2009,6 million factory jobs were lost 

in the United Slates. Over the last three years, we've seen a rebound, 1.vith the US adding more 

than 500,000. Yet, government spending is slowing the recovery in manufacturing. This week. 

the lnslitule for Supply Management's factory index fell to 49, its lowest level since 2009. A 

level of 49 indicates a cO!1tractionary phase for the sector. 

According to Bloomberg News and several analysts, the low level is the result of slow corporate 

spending and government spending cutbacks. 

Can you comment on the impact of austerity on manufacturing? 

Additionally, what types of' policy measures wouid promote continued recovery in 

manufacturing? 

RESPONSE: In any economy, the performance of manufacturing is sensitive to 

the overall perfOimance of the economy. Hence, measures that impede economic 

growth are likely to also impede the manufacturing sector, 

I believe the core policy measures that would promote continued recovery in 

manufacturing are policies that promote US competitiveness. As such, a case can 

be made for corporate tax refom1 and measures that promote innovation such as 

increased federal support for R&D. Additionally, policies that support low cost 

energy such as those that encourage the development of renew abIes and fossil fuel 

resources, as well as measures to increase the skills of our workforce (by 

improving primary and secondary education, increasing access to higher education 

and working to ease the transition from school to work) would augment our 

nation's competitiveness and consequently benefit the manufacturing sector. 
464 

Senator Coons 

Question 3: 

The rest of the world is catching up to the United States in private sector investment in research 

and development. We know that investing in R&D boosts productivity and can lead to the 

creation of new products, services, and sectors. Yet, federal support of private sector R&D 

should be improved. 

RESPONSE: We need to make the R&D credit pennanent and simplier. 

Moreover, according to the GAO, over half of the credit goes to finns with $1 

billion or more in receipts. Meanwhile, the most innovative startups are shut out of 

the R&D credit (because they lack an income tax liability). This creates a big 

policy gap: according to the Kauffman Foundation, startups create the most net 

new jobs in the United States. 

Could you comment on the importance of the research and development credit? 

Additionally, could you comment on the importance of making the credit 

accessible to highly irIDovative, early-stage companies? 

I support the continuation of the R&D tax credit. However, as you note, there is 

room for improvement with respect to federal support of private sector R&D, 

particularly given the abuse of the credit by some finns looking to reduce their tax 

liabilities. I would favor the exploration of provisions which would extend the 

ability to carry fOl'W'ard unused R&D credits as a way of helping early stage 

companies. How'ever, I believe it is important to be prudent when extending the 

R&D credit to avoid certain kinds of abuses where the credit is taken in cases that 

do not relate to the research and development of new products. 
465 

Senator Coons 

Question 4: 

It's been more than 70 days since the Senate passed our budget, but we still need to 

reconcile it with the House of Representatives' budget for it to become a forceful 

resolution a budget resolution - that drives the decisions of the Congress. It is 

important that we do that because it has been several months since sequestration 

began. All of US, as Senators, are hearing from our home states the very real, very 

human impact of these across-the-board spending Cllts that have begun to really 

bite. 

The sequester exists because of a lack of political will to come together, to resolve 

a fundamentally different vision between the Senate and the House enacted in Ollr 

respective budgets. This sequester exists because we haven't come together, 

across the House and the Senate, in the way that for zoo years or more this 

Congress has done, when we pass a bill and when the House passes a bill, it's 

supposed to go to conference for reconciliation, resolution, and ultimately passage. 

Dr. Summers, in your experience in the executive branch, can you comment on 

whether you've seen something like this before? 

Additionally, can you comment on the sequester's dampening of impact economic 

growth? 

RESPONSE: The CRO has estimated that the sequester will reduce the GDP 

growth rate in calendar year 2013 by 0.6 percentage points. As I described in my 

prepared remarks, the negative impact ofthe sequester on economic growth 

substantially offsets the sequester's attempt to lower the debt/GDP ratio through 

two channels: first, by reducing the GDP growth rate, the sequester reduces the 

denominator of the debtlGDP ratio. Second, lower GDP during 2013 means lower 

tax revenue, which increases the budget deficit. When we account for these 

spillover effects, the CBO estimates imply that, the sequester will likely have a 

negligible effect on our debtlGDP ratio, at the end of the day, while causing 

imposing significant human costs. 

The CRO estimate seems to be a reasonable assessment of the impact of the 

sequester on aggregate growth. Beyond this aggregate impact, there are clearly 
466 

troubling sectoral impacts, like the impact on Head Start, on national security 

spending, and on programs like Meals on Wheels. I very much hope that it is 

possible to move to a more rational approach to containing detlcits. Containing 

deficits is important to our country's future; however, I do not believe the 

sequester is the best means to achieve this end. 
467 

Question 1: 

Lawrence H. Summers 

Senate Budget Committee Responses 

June 18,2013 

Senator Sessions 

Or. Summers. your recent article in the Washington Post says that Austerity 

would hurt U.S. jobs and economic growth. While you admit that deficit 

financing is not sustainable you say that, " ... the effects of contractionary 

fiscal policies might actually increase debt burdens because of their 

negative economic impacts." You however fail to distinguish between 

public growth and private growth. Further. you fail to distinguish between 

the type of contraciionary policy, increasing taxes versus reducing 

spending. Do you feel that these two choices yield different results? 

Dr. Valerie Ramey says that while increased government spending 

increases employment but "virtually all of the effect is through an increase 

in government employment, not private employment." and that private 

spending likely falls as government spending increases. This argument is 

bolstered through her research and the work done by other economists. 

Can increases in government spending cause crowding out of both private 

investment and private empfoyment? Leading to depressed economic 

activity in the short term and causing increased debt hindering long term 

growth. 

RESPONSE: These are much debated matters among economists where the 

empirical evidence can be read in different ways. Professor Ramey is a respected 

scholar who has done important work. However, I read the evidence differently 

than she does. Because of differences in initial conditions across different countries 

and different US regions, there are surely differential impacts of government 

spending and taxation. However, the nature of these differences depends on the 

precise fonn of expenditure policy and taxation policy. I regard the CBO's 

estimate of the effect of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act as being 

broadly reasonable, The CBO found that for calendar year 2012, the American 

Reinvestment and Recovery Act "raised real GDP by between 0.1 percent and 0.8 

percent" and "increased the number of people employed by between 0.2 million 

and 1.1 million." 
468 

Senator Sessions 

Question 2: 

Economists have debated the effect of the government multiplier and if the 

mUltiplier is less than one because of the effect of government spending on private 

investment, specifically crowding it out. Economists agree that sound fiscal 

balances and restraint of government spending are advantageous in the long run. 

However, it is often argued that government spending is beneficial in the shOlt run. 

How beneficial government spending is in the short run is the question. Do you 

believe that crowding out exists and that private investment can be hindered by 

excessive government spending in the short run? 

And, If you feel that the government multiplier is greater than 1, despite crowding 

out, at what point do we stop sacrificing the long term in favor of the short term? 

RESPONSE: The importance of crowding out depends on whether or not interest 

rates have risen significantly. There is no evidence that, given the current liquidity 

trap circumstances, government spending has had a significant impact in raising 

capital costs and crowding out investment. My prepared testimony describes the 

difference between the current economic environment and other environments like 

in 1993, where crowding out is inlportant. Today's environment is distinctly 

different from that ofthe 19905. Today, high levels of unemployment, low levels 

of job vacancies and deflationary pressures all indicate that the level of output is 

not constrained by the economy's capacity, but instead by the level of demand. 

IMF researchers now believe that observers have underestimated the size of fiscal 

mUltipliers, in the current environment. By underestimating the fiscal multiplier, 

observers have also underestimated how damaging austerity is to an economy, at a 

time like the present. In the IMPs World Economic Outlook (October 2012), 

Chief Economist Olivier Blanchard notes that "The main finding, based on data for 

28 economies, is that the multipliers used in generating growth forecasts have been 

systematically too low since the start of the Great Recession ... This finding is 

consistent with research suggesting that in today's environment of substantial 

economic slack, monetary policy constrained by the zero lower bound, and 

synchronized fiscal adjustment across numerous economies, multipliers may be 

well above 1." 
469 

Senator Sessions 

Question 6: 

Critics have suggested that austerity in Europe has not worked. Their argument is 

that many European countries have entered (or prolonged) a recession after 

engaging in austerity measures. 

Based on past testimony, it seems that the type of fiscal consolidation determines 

how a country will weather austerity. What types offiscal consolidation are going 

on right now in Europe? And what might we expect from those consolidation 

efforts moving forward? Do you feel that a change in the structure of their 

austerity measures may yield different results? 

RESPONSE: It is difficult to generalize across Europe. But, in general, in 

environments vvith very low interest rates and excess capacity (like Europe today), 

I would expect that either tax increases or spending cuts are likely to be 

contractionary. The exact impact will vary across countries. As seen in the figures 

of my prepared testimony, more austerity is associated with worse economic 

outcomes. This general pattern has been confirmed by other researchers, including 

the IMF, using alternate methodologies. 
470 

Senator Sessions 

Question 7: 

When the UK began their austerity program they initially rolled out higher tax cuts 

before they instituted significant spending reform. By their own admission they 

feel they should have instituted spending reform first and limited the size of tax 

increases. Further, IMF economists have shown that nations that raise taxes suffer 

twice as much than nations that cut spending. Do you believe that this lesson is 

one that should be considered for the United States? 

RESPONSE: It is always desirable to have lower rather than higher marginal tax 

rates, all else equaL However, in a demand-constrained economy like that of the 

UK, I believe that the primary issue is the level of aggregate demand. In 

circumstances like those the UK currently faces, either tax increases or spending 

cuts reduce aggregate demand. 

The IMF does study the difference between cutting expenditure and increasing tax 

revenue. In particular, IMF researchers note that "it appears that the diffetence in 

monetary policy responses accounts for much, though probably not all, of the 

difference in output perfonnance" (IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2010). 

However, today, interest rates are extraordinarily low. Hence, the IMF's 

conclusion suggests that, in today's environment, the t\.vo types of austerity may 

not be that different (in their negative impact on economic growth). 
471 

Lawrence H. Summers 

Senate Budget Committee Responses 

.June 18,2013 

Senator Wyden 

RESPONSE; Thank you for the opportunity to discuss potential programs to 

promote growth of our nation's economy. As I described in my prepared remarks, 

a 1 percent increase in the growth rate of GDP maintained for 10 years would 

reduce cumulative deticits by more than $3 trillion. Hence, I agree on the 

importance of economic grmvth. 

As also discussed in my prepared testimony, I agree tax reform has substantial 

potential benefitq. Furthermore, if we can identify specific special interest 

subsidies that should be scaled back, supporting middle class families through 

increasing the standard deduction and reducing the marginal tax rate are proposals 

that merit further study. 

Additionally, a sustained commitment to intrastructure investment, improving our 

primary and secondary school systems and increasing access to higher education, 

and promoting exports by reducing trade barriers with other countries and 

enforcing our trade laws are examples of other policies that will help stimulate 

economic growth. 

A number of factors make now an especially good time to fe-invest in America's 

future. Not only can the government borrow at extraordinarily low interest rates, 

there is also substantial excess capacity in the economy. Re-investment in our 

public infrastructure and schools can help spur economic growth, raise future 

productive capacity, reduce unemployment (particularly amongst construction 

workers), and lower future deficits. 
472 

Question 1: 

Lnwrence H. Summers 

Senate Budget Committee Responses 

June 18, 2013 

Senator King 

fhcrc is a deur need for immediate federal investment in America's aging infrastructure 

networks. In your testimony, you $ugg.;stcd that Congress take advantage of current Jow interest 

rates to fund medium and long-term projects, stich as sustained federal investment in 

infrastructure, that would reduce future debt burdcns, /\Iong 'with low interest rat0 levels, what 

other iaclors create today' s low opportunity cost for federal invcstmcm in infrastructure? 

RESPONSE: As mentioned in my written testimony, I too believe the moment is 

ripe for investment in American infrastructure, Since this investment would reduce 

our future infrastructure obligations today, we should take advantage of this 

opportunity, especially given the very low level of interest rates. In addition to low 

capital costs, the relatively high rates of unemployment (particularly among the 

less-skilled and those in construction) and the low materials cost associated with 

economic slack make investment in infrastructure attractive at this time. A major 

effort to upgrade our nation's infrastructure can help spur economic growth, raise 

future productive capacity, reduce unemployment, and lower future deficits, 
473 

Senator King 

Question 2: 

In loday's hearing. YOLI proposed that lawmakers should consider embarking on a 10 year 

program of renewed investment in lnlhlSlrU(;turc. with the understanding that the revenues to pay 

for it would kick in a\ some point that was "macro-economically appropriate." Please elaborate 

on what macroeconomic triggers you believe would provide appropriate thresholds and how you 

believe this propos(ll could gcncrulC sustained federal investment in our nation'$ infrastructure 

networks. 

RESPONSE: A ten-year program of renewed investment in infrastmcture would 

by definition represent a sustained investment commitment. Appropriate 

macroeconomic triggers would likely involve some combination of the 

unemployment rate, inflation rates, and perhaps the level of medium-term interest 

rates. Triggers built on variables like these would be appropriate and further 

rigorous study can aid in estimating the specific numerical threshold. 
474 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATTY MURRAY 

STUDENT LOAN DEBT 

Question. Cumulative student loan debt exceeds $1 trillion and is more than 

credit card debt. According to the New York Federal reserve, student loan debt balances 

continue to grow and delinquencies are rising. 

Reports from the Center for American Progress have highlighted that borrowers 

are unable to re-finance and take advantage of low interest rates and the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau has outlined the domino effects high student loan debt has on 

the broader economy. 

Aside from income-based repayment, which applies only to Federal loans, is there 

an)1hing more that can be done to address student loan debt? 

Answer. In an effort to help students and their families make more educated 

decisions about planning and paying for college, the Department produced several tools 

and resources. The following tools and resources include repayment information, such as 

Income-Based Repayment-IBR. 

Repayment Estimator 

When a user signs in, the Repayment Estimator automatically retrieves Federal 

student loan information available in the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). 

The user is able to view and compare the repayment amount under each of the repayment 

plans. Options allow comparisons of all aspects of the repayment plans. Graphics take 

information beyond numbers to present at a glance comparisons between monthly 

payment amounts, total amounts paid, and total interest paid based on each plan. 

Financial Awareness CounselilJg Too! (FACT} 

In June 2012, the Department introduced the Financial Awareness Counseling 

Tool to provide students with tlnancial management basics, information about their 

current loan debt, and estimates for student loan debt levels after graduation. The tool 

offers five interactive tutorials covering topics ranging from managing a budget to 

avoiding default. Students are able to access their individual loan history and receive 

personal feedback that can help them better understand their financial obligations. Since 

the launch of the tool las! year, FACT has been accessed nearly 1.8 million times. 

Entrance and Exit Counseling 

In March 20J 3, the existing entrance and exit counseling tools were re-vamped to 

have the sanle look and feel as the Financial Awareness Counseling Tool-FACT. 

Beyond the required functions, the entrance and exist counseling tool also helps create 

financial awareness. The exit counseling tool now provides a borrower with the ability to 

select their repayment plan, which is then sent to the borrower's servicer. The Department 

expanded the Repayment Estimator to include all income-driven repayment plans. This 

tool can be accessed in entrance and exit counseling, as well as with FACT. Borrowers 

can access all the counseling tools and calculators on the StudentLoan.gov website, 

which is the san1e site where borrowers can complete promissory notes, view disclosure 

statements, and apply for a PLUS loan. 
475 

StudentAid.gov 

In July 2012, the Department introduced StudentAid.gov, a consolidated website 

that provides straightforward and easy-to-understand information about plamling and 

paying for college. Available in English and Spanish and fully accessible on smartphones 

and tablets, the website combines content and interactive tools from several websites and 

features instructional videos and into graphics to help answer frequent questions about 

financial aid. Topics covered on the site include: how to prepare for postsecondary 

education; an explanation of the various types of student aid available (such as loans, 

grants, scholarships, and work-study jobs), who is eligible to receive loans and grants, 

how to apply, and how to manage student loans after leaving school. 

INCOME-BASED REP A YMENT PROGRAMS 

Question. What is the Administration doing to educate borrowers about ineomebased repayment (IBR) programs? 

Answer. To help inform borrowers about their repayment options, the 

Department recently transitioned the IBR Application into a new Income-Driven 

Repayment (!DR) e-application to feature not only lBR, but also Income-Contingent 

Repayment and Pay As You Earn. The new !DR application contains a built-in 

repayment amount estimator to help borrowers see the difference in monthly payments 

for the different lDR plans. The !DR application was implemented in December 2012. 

We have had 463,198 applications submitted since inception. 

Additionally, the Department conducted an online outreach campaign to highlight 

repayment options to current college students, recent graduates, and borrowers in MayJune 2013 (to coincide with graduations). The campaign included outreach on Facebook, 

Twitter, YouTube, Linkedln, and other websites, particularly those accessed from mobile 

and tablet devices. The campaign resulted in approximately 122 million audience 

impressions and more than 354,000 clicks, which drove users directly to Federal Student 

Aid repayment tools and resources. 

As a result of these and other tools developed by the Department, over the past 

year the number of Direct Loan borrowers in the lBR program has more than tripled from 

approximately 280,000 in June 2012, to over 900,000 today. 

STANDARD REP A YMENT PROGRAMS 

Question. In some instances, isn't standard repayment betier for the student than 

paying more interest on the loan? 

Answer. The selection of the best repayment option is based on the borrower's 

objectives and determined by several factors including current income, the terms of the 

loan(s), interest rate(s), current balance, and others. The Department encourages 

borrowers who have the ability to meet their financial obligations to do so. The sooner a 

borrower can pay off their loan, the less interest they are likely to pay. 
476 

Borrowers have access to several tools developed by the Department, including 

the repayment comparison calculator (at http://studentaid.ed.gov/repayloans/understand/plans/standard/comparison-calculator) to determine what their monthly 

11l1d total l'epayment amounts will be, and what the expected length of repayment would 

be under various repayment plans based on their circumstances. 

STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES - VARIABLE RATE STUDENT LOAN 

PROPOSAL 

Question. The President's budget proposed an uncapped variable rate student loan 

based on 10-year Treasury notes plus additional percentages for Subsidized (0.93%), 

Unsubsidized (2.93%) and PLUS loans (3.93%). 

Previously, when we have had variable student loan interest rates, those rates have 

been based on 91-day Treasury rates plus an additional percentage. Why did the 

Administration decide to base your variable interest rate proposal on la-year Treasury 

notes? 

Answer. The la-year Treasury rate was selected because it is more representative 

of the results achieved fi'om the yield curve the Department uses to estimate Government 

bon-owing for the purposes of discounting loan subsidy. 

PAY AS YOU EARN REPAYMENT PLAN 

Question As part of your interest rate proposal, you recommend expanding a 

form of student loan debt repayment called Pay As You Earn to all borrowers. Wouldn't 

your proposal include older loans already in repayment? 

Answer. Yes, our proposal would allow all borrowers currently in repayment 

who qualified for partial financial hardship to select the Pay As You Earn repa}lnent 

plan. We anticipate that the overwhelming majority of borrowers already in repayment 

that opt to switch to Pay As You Eam would be borrowers currently in the Income-Based 

Repayment plan. 

LOAN DEFAULT RATES 

Question. Don't these Pay As You Earn loans have lower default rates when 

compared to more recently disbursed loans? 

Answer. While the economic downturn has led to increased default rates for 

borrowers in all stages of repayment, asstuning the economy recovers as expected, we do 

not anticipate that lifetime default rates would increase substantially for more recently 

disbursed loans in any repayment program, including Pay As You Earn. 

VARIABLE RATE STUDENT LOAN PROPOSAL AND INTEREST RATE CAP 

Question. Does this really replace a cap on interest rates? 
477 

Answer. Enrolling in Pay As You Earn, or any similar repayment plan, where a 

borrower's income is taken into account, protects borrowers from being overburdened 

with loan debt. This really is a more meaningful step to limiting loan debt burden than 

setting a cap on interest rates. Interest rate caps tend to be set at an arbitrary figure; even 

if they are selected after much research and debate, they still are not effective at 

addressing the specific circumstances of many borrowers. Income-based repayment plans 

such as Pay As You Earn are able to provide for borrowers, at an individual level, 

repayment terms compatible with their outstanding loan balances, discretionary income, 

and other persona! factors. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR RON WYDEN 

THE COLLEGE SCORECARD EMPLOYMENT AND EAR~INGS DATA 

Question. The President's budget clearly prioritizes getting students and families 

better information on postsecondary education outcome metrics to guide their decision 

making, and, the President's College Scorecard is testament to this priority. However, in 

the area of employment and earnings, the Scorecard is basically left blank. What are the 

Administration's plans for filling in this section? Specifically: are there plans to collect 

and publish wage data at the program level, and, if so, when; for how many years after 

graduation will data be collected (e.g. will it only be short term or would it be longer 

term, for example, 5-10 years, post-graduation); what data source will be used and how 

will they be connected; and, how does the Administration plan to do this in a way that 

doesn't violate the existing congressional ban on a unit record type system? 

Answer. The Department has been working to make infOimation about the 

earnings of former students available for the College Scorecard. We are continuing to 

work on this and hope to have that data available within the next kw months. Making 

this data available will not only help students think about where to attend college, but 

also help them make responsible student loan borrowing decisions. In addition, 

throughout this process, the Department is cognizant of the congressional ban on a unit 

record type system and is exploring ways to make this data available without violating 

the ban. The process of producing this data is still in the formative and deliberative stage. 

The Department will be happy to discuss earnings data in more detail upon its release. 

PAY FOR SUCCESS INDICATORS 

Question. The aim of Pay for Success is to provide students with alternate 

pathways for high-quality, low-cost higher education with providers being reimbursed for 

costs only if students succeed. 

The budget indicates that demonstrated competencies, passage of fieldappropriate licensing tests, and job placement are possible indicators of Sllccess. Can you 

provide additional details on this proposal; for exanlple, how will these indicators be 

determined? 
478 

Answer. The Administration's 2014 Budget Request includes $260 million for a 

First in the World (FITW) Fund, which would provide up to $75 million to 1) support 

projects to develop validation systems that identify competencies, assessments, and 

curricula for specific fields and 2) make performance-based awards using the Pay for 

Success (PFS) model, to reward non-accredited providers of free 2-year degrees that can 

demonstrate that their interventions yielded successful outcomes. 

An applicant seeking Pay for Success awards under this initiative would propose, 

subject to departmental approval, the specific measure(s) that would be used to verify 

whether or not its intervention was successful. 

TRANSPARENCY OF PAY FOR SUCCESS INDICATORS 

Question. Will the agreed-upon indicators be transparent? 

Answer. Yes, the indicators and methodology used to measure the Pay for 

Success provider's performance would be transparent to, and agreed-upon by, both the 

applicant and the Department. 

VERIFICATION OF PAY FOR SUCCESS INDICATORS 

Question. How will the Pay for Success outcomes be verified? 

Answer. An independent assessor would verify that the intervention was 

successful using a methodology that is transparent to both the Pay for Success provider 

and the Department. 

APPLICATION OF PAY FOR SUCCESS FINDINGS 

Question. How would findings from this experiment on an outcomes-focused 

delivery model inform the broader conversation around higher education quality beyond 

just 2-year degrees? 

Answer. The Administration believes that the First in the World (FITW) 

initiative, which would advance competency-based learning through the establishment of 

validation systems and enable thousands of students to complete free 2-year degrees 

while minimizing the risk to the Federal Government, has enormous potential to inform 

the higher education quality conversation. 

POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR COLLEGE 

COMPLETION AND STUDENT DEBT 

Question. We are all too familiar with skyrocketing debt and increasing default 

levels. The Federal Government invests hundreds of billions in dollars in helping students 

go to college, but too many students don't complete college and end up buried in debt. 

What responsibility do institutions have for these issues? 

Answer. The Administration has made affordability and quality in postsecondary 

education a priority in this year's President's Budget. However, we also know that these 
479 

priorities are part of a shared responsibility between the Department, institutions, States, 

and students. Because of this shared responsibility to educate students, we encourage 

institutions to show, and would like to reward those that demonstrate, this commitment. 

Through our campus-based aid proposal, institutions that are able to engage in innovation 

to this end - such as by getting students, particularly those from low-income 

backgrounds into their institutions, through to graduation and into careers - would see a 

greater Federal investment for their success. 

Additionally, we believe that this type of proposal, as well as other efforts we've 

made to create more transparency in postsecondary education (for instance, the 

publication of cohort default rates, and other ever-more-easily accessible institution-level 

data), wi!! help spur institutions into taking action to determine why certain students 

aren't completing, find ways to prevent that, and develop more and better tools for 

understanding and managing college costs. 

LINKING FEDERAL FINANCIAL AID TO INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATION 

OUTCOMES 

Question. Should we consider tying some of the hundreds of billions of dollars in 

Federal financial aid to .institutional outcomes? 

Answer. The 2014 President's Budget proposed a similar reform, which we 

believe would help make college more affordable and institutional funding more 

transparent. In this proposal, campus-based aid would be targeted to institutions that 

provide quality education at a reasonable price. Institutions that would be successful 

under this new formula would be those that offer relatively lower tuition and/or restrain 

tuition growth, and those that offer high quality education and training to prepare their 

graduates for jobs and their responsibility to repay their student loan obligations. It is 

important the Federa! Government maintain its investment in students, but it does not 

make sense to kcep investing in those institutions that continually fail to meet their 

obligations to students. We are happy to further discuss this proposal with Congress in 

either the contcxt of the 2014 appropriations process or the Higher Education Act 

reamhorization. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ANGUS KING, JR. 

UNFUNDED FEDKRAL MANDATES - IDEA AND TITLE I 

Question. In this time of diminished revenues and contracting State budgets, 

every dollar counts. The Federal Government has never followed through on its 

commitment to fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) at 40% 

(indeed, it has never exceeded 19%). As a former governor, these unfunded mandates are 

frustrating. What is the Administration doing to maintain or enhance the Federal 

Government's commitment to programs like IDEA and Title I? 

Answer. We have maintained strong continued support for key "foundational" 

Federal education fonnula grant programs, such as Title I and Special Education Grants 
480 

to States, while at the same time investing new resources in competitive grants to spur 

innovation by States and districts aimed, in part, at helping to leverage more effective use 

of Federal formula grant funds. We do not agree, however, with the characterization of 

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies and IDEA Part B Grants to States as 

"unfunded mandates;" rather, these programs provide significant Federal SUppOli for 

State and local efforts to carry out their responsibilities, typically defined in State law, for 

meeting the educational needs of all children. The requirements that accompany these 

programs are aimed primarily at ensuring that funds are spent consistent with the intent of 

Congress ,md at protecting taxpayer funds from fraud, waste, and abuse. 

The sequester, of course, has made it much more difficult to maintain our 

commitment to key formula gran! programs like Title I and IDEA, which is why the 

President's 2014 Budget Request assumes that the sequester will be reversed as part of a 

eomprehensive, long-term deficit reduction agreement that balances spending cuts and 

new revenues. We fully agree that "every dollar counts," especially when it comes to key 

investments like education, and we remain determined to restore essential funding for 

Federal education programs by reversing the sequester. 

RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS FUNDING ALLOCATIONS 

Question. Under President Obama's tenure, the Department of Education has 

shifted focus significantly towards utilizing competitive grants for awarding discretionary 

funding. While competitive grants may work well for urban areas and larger school 

districts, I am worried that rural schools are getting left behind, as they do not have the 

adequate personnel and resources to pursue these grants. What does the Administration 

anticipate specinc allocations of funding to be that would go to rural school districts? 

Answer. The Administration is not proposing specific set-asides of rural funding 

in its competitive reform programs, but we recognize that more than half of all school 

districts and about one-third of all public schools are located in rural areas, many of 

which have unique needs and face unique challenges. Consequently, we have worked 

hard, and with considerable success, to ensure that such districts and schools have a fair 

oppotiunity to compete for Federal education funds. Under the Race to the Top-District 

competition, for example, the Department has included an absolute priority for rural 

districts to help ensure that students from locales of all sizes are served by the program. 

We also allowed consortia of districts to apply, which was helpful to rural districts, since 

they often have difficulty competing on their own. Nearly half of the districts that \von 

Race to the Top-District funds are ruraL 

In the Early Learning Challenge competitions, we awarded grants to many States 

with large nlral populations, such as Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Minnesota, 

Ohio, Kentucky and Louisiana. In our FY 2013 competition for the Early Learning 

Challenge program, we are encouraging applicants to serve nlral areas through a 

definition of "children with high needs" that includes children who reside in high-poverty 

rural areas and through the inclusion of selection criteria that allow the Department to 

fund applicants that propose to serve rural States and commlmities. 
481 

Under the Promise Neighborhoods program, we established an absolute priority 

for applicants that propose to serve at least one rural commlmity. The Investing in 

111I10vation (i3) competition also has an absolute priority that focuses on students in rural 

communities. As a result, rural entities have been well represented among the grantees in 

both of these programs. 

Rural schools have been weJl represented under the School Improvement Grants 

(SIG) competition as welL In FY 2009, rural schools constituted 20% of SIG-eligible 

schools, but were more than 23% of the schools that received awards. In FY 2010, 17.5% 

of SIG-eligible schools were rural while 19% ofSIG awards went to rural schools. 

STATE MATCHING REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC PRESCHOOL 

PROGRAMS 

Question. Maine has a State funding formula which provides subsidy for public 

preschool programs beginning in the second year of the program implementation. Does 

this new subsidy funding meet the Seeretary's intention that a State will have "new" funds 

to match the Federal funding for public presehools programs? 

Answer. We would need more detail on how the Maine funding formula works in 

order to make a final determination, but, in general, the matching requirement proposed 

for Preschool for All would require increased investment by States in response to 

Preschool for All, and not existing subsidies. 

RACE TO THE TOP-EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE GRANTS 

Question. Does the Secretary anticipate having a specific allocation that would 

go to rural states for Race to the Top-Early Leaming Challenge grants? 

Answer. No, our FY 2013 Early Learning Challenge competition does not 

include a specific sct-aside for lUral States. Instead, we are encouraging applicants to 

serve rural areas through (1) a definition of "children with high needs" that includes 

children who reside in high-poverty rural areas and (2) selection criteria that allow the 

Department to fund applicants that propose to serve rural States and communities. 

QUESTION SllBMITTED BY SENATOR KELLY AYOTTE 

GAO STUDY OF DUPLICATIVE FEDER.c\L STEM PROGRAMS 

Question. Secretary Duncan, especialIy in today's global economy, the 

importance of a quality education calUlot be understated. In order to remain globally 

competitive, the United States must have a world-class education system and we must 

increase the ability of our students to exeel in the fields of science, technology, education, 

and mathematics or STEM. 

A focus on STEM is important to our country's future. That's why I found a report 

from the Govemment Accountability Office (GAO) on STEM programs to be especially 

troubling. The GAO found that, in fiscal year 2010, 13 agencies spent over $3 billion on 
482 

209 STEM programs-and GAO identified some degree of overlap in 83% of these 

programs. GAO stated that, "agencies' limited use of performance measures and 

evaluations may hamper their ability to assess the effectiveness of their individual 

programs as well as the overall STEM education effort." The Agency recommended that 

STEM programs be guided by a "robust strategic plan." 

We owe it to our children to use taxpayer dollars in as effective a manner as 

possible. Specifically, what actions, steps, or efforts are being undertaken by the 

Department of Education to consolidate not only duplicative STEM programs, but also 

teacher quality programs and other Federal programs identitled by GAO as duplicative, 

so that taxpayer dollars flow to help our kids, rather than feed a complicated maze of 

programs that offer duplicative or fragmented services? 

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REORGANIZE FEDERAL STEM PROGRAMS 

Answer. President Obama shares your concern over the fragmented and largely 

ineffective Federal investment in STEM education, and his FY 2014 Budget Request 

includes a wide-ranging proposal that specifically responds to the issues highlighted by 

the GAO report. In particular, the President's proposal would reorganize or restructure 

114 programs across 13 agencies as part of a comprehensive effort to improve the 

delivery and impact of Federal investments in science and technology, engineering and 

mathematics (STEM) education, The goal is to eliminate the patchwork of STEM 

education programs that have proliferated in Federal agencies over time and 

simultaneously increase the impact of Federal investments in high priority areas, 

including K -12 instruction and informal education activities. 

At the Department of Education, this proposal focuses on more effective 

investment in elementary and secondary STEM education through a $265 million 

investmcnt in a new, coordinated STEM Innovation initiative that includes three 

components: $150 million for STEM Innovation Networks involving consortia of school 

districts, institutions of higher education, research institutions, museums, community 

partners, and business and industry that would develop comprehensive plans for 

identifying, developing, testing, and scaling up evidence-based practices to provide rich 

STEM learning opportunities in participating LEAs and schools; $80 million for STEM 

Teacher Pathways, which would support the President's goal of developing 100,000 new 

effective STEM teachers through competitive grants for recruiting, training, and placing 

talented recent college graduates and mid-career professionals in the STEM tlelds in 

high-need schools; and, $35 million to establish a new STEM Master Teacher Corps 

comprised of teachers who would be selected based on their expertise, leadership, and 

service in improving teaching and lemlling in STEM subjects and who would make a 

multi-year commitment to build a community of teaching practice focused on helping 

students excel in math and science. 
483 

Æ