S. HRG. 113–230 

NOMINATION OF HONORABLE SYLVIA 

MATHEWS BURWELL, OF WEST VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

April 10, 2013—NOMINATION OF HONORABLE SYLVIA MATHEWS 

BURWELL, OF WEST VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE 

OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget 
NOMINATION OF HONORABLE SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, OF WEST VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF 

THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
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

85–903pdf 2013

S. HRG. 113–230 

NOMINATION OF HONORABLE SYLVIA 

MATHEWS BURWELL, OF WEST VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

April 10, 2013—NOMINATION OF HONORABLE SYLVIA MATHEWS 

BURWELL, OF WEST VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE 

OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

( 
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 

HEARING 

Page 

April 10, 2013—Nomination of Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell, of West 

Virginia, to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget ............ 1 

STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Chairman Murray .................................................................................................... 1 

Ranking Member Sessions ...................................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Joe Manchin Iii, A United States Senator From The State 

Of West Virginia .................................................................................................. 10 

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 

Statement of Biographical and Financial Information Requested of Presidential Nominee Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell to be Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget ..................................................................... 41 

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED 

Chairman Murray .................................................................................................... 61 

Ranking Member Sessions ...................................................................................... 72 

Senator Wyden ......................................................................................................... 87 

Senator Portman ...................................................................................................... 89 

Senator Crapo .......................................................................................................... 90 

Senator Enzi ............................................................................................................. 93 

Senator King ............................................................................................................ 96 

(1) 

THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, OF WEST VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2013 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:31 a.m., in Room 

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

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Murray, Sanders, Whitehouse, Warner, 

Merkley, Kaine, King, Sessions, Grassley, Crapo, 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. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. I want to thank 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 or watching online. 

Today we are considering President Obama’s nomination of Sylvia Mathews Burwell to be the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

Sylvia, thank you so much for joining us here today. 

I also want to welcome your husband, Stephen Burwell, and your 

sister, Stephanie O’Keefe, who I understand are with you today. 

Welcome to both of you. 

As everyone in this room knows, those of us in public service 

could not do our jobs without the support of our families. So we 

really appreciate your being here and all you do, and I want to recognize that at the top. 

I also want to recognize Jeff Zients this morning for his outstanding service as Acting Director of OMB. Jeff’s leadership at 

OMB has been instrumental during a critical time for our country. 

As Acting Director, Jeff has helped us tackle some of our most 

pressing fiscal issues over the past few years, and we have been 

very fortunate to have his skilled leadership, and I want to thank 

him again for his service. And, of course, we will hear from him 

tomorrow in this Committee on the President’s 2014 budget. 

As we all know, our country faces serious fiscal and economic 

challenges that we need to work together to address. 
2 

Right now the economy is recovering, but far too slowly. Millions 

of workers are still looking for too few jobs. Millions of families are 

still worrying about staying in their homes or putting food on the 

table. 

And we have serious long-term deficit and debt challenges that 

we need to tackle since we certainly do not want to leave our children and grandchildren with a pile of unmanageable bills. 

And the American people are, of course, sick and tired of the 

gridlock that has paralyzed the budget process here in Washington, 

D.C. So they are looking to us to end the constant artificial crises 

and political brinkmanship that is threatening our fragile economic 

recovery. And they want us to come together around fair solutions 

that work for the middle class, help our economy grow, and tackle 

our deficit and debt responsibly. 

That is why I am proud of the work we did here in this Budget 

Committee and on the Senate floor last month to write, debate, and 

pass a responsible budget plan that puts economic growth and the 

middle class first. 

The Senate budget that we passed invests in jobs and economic 

growth, tackles our deficit and debt fairly and responsibly with an 

equal mix of spending cuts and new revenue from the wealthiest 

Americans, and it keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, 

our veterans, our families, and our communities. But passage of 

our budget is not the end of the discussion. The work needs to continue until we get the balanced and bipartisan deal the American 

people expect and deserve. 

That is why now, more than ever, it is so important that we continue to have strong leadership at the Office of Budget Management, which is why I am very pleased that we are here today and 

have a very qualified and exceptional nominee in Sylvia Burwell. 

Sylvia knows what it means to invest in job creation in the short 

term while working to put our country on a strong path to responsible and sustainable deficit and debt reduction over the medium 

and long term. 

In the 1990s, she was a critical part of President Clinton’s economic team, serving as Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Deputy Chief of Staff to the President, and Chief 

of Staff to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

During her tenure in the Clinton administration, we saw broadbased economic growth and responsible budgets that worked for 

our middle class. As Deputy Director of OMB in the late 1990s, 

Sylvia helped preside over three of the four budget surpluses experienced in a row. 

Businesses saw Government taking a credible and sustainable 

approach to our Federal budget, and it gave them the confidence 

to hire new workers and invest in their growth. Middle-class workers were getting better jobs, spending their money, and building 

prosperity. 

This economic growth, built from the middle out, along with the 

balanced and responsible fiscal stewardship, turned our deficit and 

debt challenges around then. Federal revenue increased from 17.5 

percent of GDP to 20.6 percent. At the same time, responsible 

spending cuts lowered Federal spending by almost four percentage 
3 

points. And as a result, a 4.7-percent deficit was turned into a 2.4- 

percent surplus in 8 years. 

The lessons of the 1990s are vital to the discussions we are having today about our budget and our economy. So I believe that Sylvia’s experience working on a balanced, responsible approach to 

deficit reduction will bring important knowledge and a key perspective to OMB. 

Following her work in the Clinton administration, Sylvia continued her public service by leading major organizations in the nonprofit and foundation world. 

At the Gates Foundation, she served as the president of the 

Global Development Program and chief operating officer, working 

to expand their global efforts to improve the lives of others across 

the world. 

Most recently, as president of the Walmart Foundation, Sylvia 

has continued to create a positive impact on our communities, focusing on critical issues such as hunger relief and women’s economic empowerment. 

Sylvia’s experience managing billion-dollar global budgets, combined with her leadership on domestic fiscal policy in the 1990s, 

make her a uniquely qualified candidate to lead OMB and to help 

shape our country’s economic future. 

And not only does Sylvia’s professional experience make her a 

strong nominee for this position; she also brings an important personal outlook to the job. Raised in West Virginia as the granddaughter of Greek immigrants, Sylvia grew up with the values of 

hard work and the promise of American opportunity. 

She has seen firsthand that budgets are not just about abstract 

numbers and the partisan back-and-forth that too often dominates 

the conversation. She knows they are reflections of our values and 

our priorities, and they are about our families across the country 

whose lives and futures are impacted by the decisions that we 

make. 

There are tough challenges before Sylvia and all of us here on 

the Budget Committee. 

I have had the opportunity to sit down personally with Sylvia 

and to discuss the approach she will take to these important issues. 

And I am confident that she possesses the kind of experience, integrity, and expertise necessary to succeed in this position, and 

that she will work to tackle our debt and deficit issues in a balanced way, by prioritizing fairness, opportunity, and a return to 

the responsible fiscal and economic policies that have worked for 

our country before. 

Especially during these difficult economic times, it is critical that 

we continue having strong and consistent leadership at OMB. The 

Committee’s Ranking Member, Senator Sessions, and I agree that 

it is time to return to a pattern of stability and continuity with regard to our budget process. 

The Senate budget we passed last month was a key step towards 

that. And Senator Sessions and I agree that confirming a permanent Director of OMB is another important part of this effort. So 

I hope that we can move quickly as a Committee on this nomination since we cannot continue to have uncertainty in this position. 

And I hope to schedule a Committee vote, for the information of 
4 

our Senators, on this nomination soon so that the full Senate can 

confirm the nominee in a timely manner. 

Senator Manchin will be joining us in just a moment, and he will 

introduce Sylvia. I look forward to asking you some questions. And 

before we do that, I am going to turn to Senator Sessions, my 

Ranking Member, for his comments. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SESSIONS 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and this is the 

third time during the President’s administration that we have been 

called upon to advise and consent on a nominee to be the Director 

of the Office of Management and Budget. The primary responsibility of OMB is to assist the President in overseeing the preparation of the Federal budget. The office is supposed to help the President formulate his spending plan by evaluating the effectiveness of 

agency programs, policies, and procedures in order to set funding 

priorities. 

Notwithstanding this, one of the first actions of this administration was to eliminate the Program Assessment Rating Tool, the 

PART program, designed to evaluate the effectiveness of agency 

programs, I have to say drafted and the architect of that is Marcus 

Peacock, my chief Staff Director here on the Committee. It was a 

good program. I think it was the right thing to do. 

Ms. Burwell will be called upon to right the ship, the financial 

ship of state. The previous Directors have not submitted timely or 

responsible budgets. Indeed, we are going to receive the President’s 

budget today, which was due, according to Federal law, by the first 

Monday in February. The budget is over 2 months overdue. 

By all accounts, Ms. Burwell is well liked, an able leader with 

a commitment to public service. She brings some relevant experience to the task, having previously served as Deputy Director of 

OMB, and has other budgetary experience as the Chief of Staff to 

the Secretary of the Treasury and the Staff Director for the National Economic Council. 

But her most recent experience has been in the charitable sector 

with the Walmart and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations. So it 

has been more than a decade since she has been at OMB. 

The Director of OMB is one of the most crucial positions in our 

Government. There is just no doubt about it. In addition to preparing the budget, the OMB Director must evaluate program effectiveness throughout the Government, set priorities, represent the 

President, and have the strength to say no to agency demands that 

just cannot be met. The Director needs to protect the taxpayers. 

We would normally look for someone with a proven record, perhaps like a Governor who has managed a State and balanced a 

budget. But Ms. Burwell will have that opportunity to prove that 

she is up to that task. 

But make no mistake. It is a tough job. The OMB Director must 

be able to say no. 

I believe the next Director should be committed to offering a balanced budget. The national debt is currently $16.7 trillion and 

growing every week, every month. This is an unsustainable debt 

course. The actions of the new Director will reflect whether deficits 
5 

matter for this administration. We will tell immediately by seeing 

the budget. 

Will the next Director lead or take the path of former Director 

Jack Lew? Mr. Lew said of his 2011 budget, ‘‘Our budget will get 

us over the next several years to the point where we can look the 

American people in the eye and say we are not adding to the debt 

anymore, and we are spending money we have each year. And then 

we can work on bringing down our national debt.’’ 

That was not accurate. It just was not true. 

We must have honesty in the OMB Director. Mr. Lew’s—Senator 

Manchin, it is great to have you. 

Senator MANCHIN. It is always get to be here. 

Senator SESSIONS. And we are glad to have West Virginia values 

before us today in full force. 

Mr. Lew’s budget that he submitted never had a single year with 

less than $600 billion in deficit. So it came nowhere close to what 

he indicated to the American people his budget would do. 

The American people must be given the truth about our financial 

situation. You cannot ask them to make changes and make tough 

decisions if they do not know what the real facts are. You must not 

repeat that performance. You and I have talked about it. 

Will the next Director take the view of liberal economist Paul 

Krugman, who has indicated that even wasteful spending is good? 

This is what he said recently: ‘‘Whether it is entitlements or not, 

even if it is defense, even if it is wasteful spending, it is going to 

hurt the economy if you cut it right now. It does not mean we 

should not look for ways to cure waste, but now to a large effect, 

spending is spending.’’ In other words, spending is good even if it 

is borrowed, even if it is on a wasteful program. That is not the 

correct view. 

Just yesterday, the Government Accountability Office released its 

third annual report highlighting extensive duplication and overlap 

in hundreds of Federal programs. In the last two reports, GAO has 

identified more than 1,300 overlapping programs, costing the taxpayers more than $365 billion each year. This widespread duplication is costing hundreds of billions of dollars in excess Government 

spending. It can be eliminated. It must be eliminated. 

The taxpayers of this country deserve a Government that is lean, 

efficient, and productive. The Nation will benefit from such a Government. But, unfortunately, this administration seems to be more 

inclined to spend, more inclined to follow the Krugman approach. 

I hope that will change. 

Finally, it has become clear that our debt level is already pulling 

down economic growth and job creation. The Rogoff-Reinhart report 

that dealt with the threshold level of 90 percent of GDP is pretty 

well known in this Committee. But the International Monetary 

Fund, the European Central Bank, and the Bank for International 

Settlements have also done studies that indicate the debt level of 

the United States today is already above the level at which it begins to slow growth. We have to understand that. The recent job 

numbers, the recent fourth quarter sad growth numbers are indicative that we are not growing at the level we need to. I am more 

and more convinced, as these studies indicate, that the already 
6 

high debt level is pulling down economic growth, curtailing job creation, and we have to get off that path. 

So this is an important hearing, Madam Chair. I look forward to 

asking Ms. Burwell her views on the state of the Nation’s financial 

condition and her plans for helping us fix it. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much, Senator sessions. 

And, with that, we are delighted to have Senator Manchin join 

us today to introduce Ms. Burwell. He knows that she is a native 

West Virginian and shares the values that I think are so important 

to him and to the country. So, Senator Manchin, thank you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOE MANCHIN III, A UNITED 

STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator MANCHIN. Madam Chairman, thank you so much. I am 

sorry for my tardiness, but it definitely is important for me to be 

here with my dear friend. 

Sylvia Mathews Burwell to your Committee is going to be someone that you are going to enjoy working with, I know. She is a 

great American. She is a great West Virginian from the great town 

of Hinton, West Virginia, in Summers County, a little town in the 

foothills of beautiful New River that flows through Hinton Reservoir. And she is going to make just a great Director of the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

I am proud to support Sylvia’s nomination for this prestigious position, one in which she will be responsible for managing our Federal spending as we make the tough decisions to put our fiscal 

house in order. She will be a great partner in that effort with each 

and every one of you. 

Sylvia and her family reflect the heart and soul of West Virginia, 

a State where people are defined by their deeds as much as their 

words. This lady is grounded. She understands where she comes 

from. She understands who she is. 

It does not surprise any of us who know the Mathews family 

count them among our dearest friends. Her parents are truly my 

friends. They are community leaders in Hinton. For over half a 

century, her father, Dr. William Mathews, is a long-time optometrist and a leading proponent of his wife, Cleo, which is her mother, who is our town mayor. And she was also head of the State 

Board of Education for two terms. So this lady’s DNA is rooted 

deep with public service. Not only did Cleo serve as our mayor of 

Hinton; she spent 8 years on the State Board, two as the president 

of the State Board of Education. She was on the Development 

Board, served as vice president of the National Association of State 

Boards of Education. She served on the Board of Directors of the 

West Virginia Municipal League, and it goes on and on. 

Indeed, Sylvia has traveled the world over, but she has never lost 

touch with her West Virginia roots. She went off to Harvard and 

was a Rhodes Scholar. But no matter where she is, one day each 

week of her life, each week since she has left West Virginia, like 

clockwork, she is on the phone with two of her best friends that 

she made in the first grade in Hinton, West Virginia. That tells you 

that she is grounded, and they are here, right? There we go. 

I would hope that you would give Sylvia’s resume a quick glance, 

and you can see that she could earn a fortune in the corporate 
7 

world if she wanted to. But instead she has spent her life helping 

people all over the world. 

I share the beaming pride that her parents and her husband, 

Stephen, have in her life and in her life’s work. As many of you 

know, Sylvia dedicated the last 11 years to serving the greater 

good, helping the least fortunate among us both in the United 

States and throughout the world as a visionary leader with the Bill 

and Melinda Gates Foundation and more recently with the 

Walmart Foundation. 

She served as chief operating officer and executive director at the 

Gates Foundation from its inception in 2001 until 2006 at which 

point it was firmly established as a global philanthropy leader. 

Sylvia then transitioned to the Gates Foundation Global Development Program where she served as president until 2012 and led 

the foundation’s $725 million annual effort to improve the lives of 

more than 200 million people worldwide. Under her leadership, the 

foundation broke new ground in pursuing sustainable investments 

in agricultural development, low-income financial services, water 

and sanitation, global literacy, emergency relief, and poverty alleviation. 

Finally, as president of the Walmart Foundation throughout 

2012, she led the company’s charitable giving efforts and the Global Women’s Economic Empowerment Initiative. 

While her philanthropic achievements speak great volumes about 

her character, we should remember that she is no stranger to 

Washington or the Office of Management and Budget. She served 

as Deputy Director of the OMB from 1998 to 2001, our last era of 

fiscal responsibility, when balanced deficit reduction gave us balanced Federal budgets. We all know that Sylvia was a key part of 

the Clinton White House team that reached across the aisle and 

negotiated those balanced budgets with the Republican Congress. 

This experience as a problem solver and a bridge builder is in high 

demand these days. We should take to heart the advice Clinton 

White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles gave her: ‘‘You attract 

more bees with honey.’’ 

Of course, the 6 years she had previously spent in the Clinton 

administration prepared her well for those tough negotiations. Assistant to the President, Deputy Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of 

Staff to the Treasury Secretary, Staff Director for the National Economic Council, and Special Assistant to the head of the National 

Economic Council, Sylvia Mathews Burwell is uniquely qualified to 

serve as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Not 

only is she an expert on budgetary and domestic policies, but she 

also has a proven record of working in a bipartisan way to produce 

meaningful and enduring results. She understands that a bipartisan solution is a lasting solution. 

Madam Chairwoman, I can only say this about Sylvia: She understands the value of a dollar. Where we come from, we have to 

stretch that dollar as far as we can, and I implore all of my friends 

on both sides of the aisle to truly accept this wonderful lady who 

is as grounded as any grounded West Virginian or American that 

I know to do the job that she will do for this great country. I 

present to you Sylvia Mathews Burwell. 
8 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much, Senator Manchin, for 

that very gracious statement, and I appreciate your participating 

today. I know you have a very busy schedule. 

Senator MANCHIN. I am so sorry. 

Chairman MURRAY. Not a problem if you need to go ahead and 

leave. That is all right. We will go ahead and work through our 

questions with her. But thank you very, very much for that. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Senator Manchin. We value your 

opinion. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. 

Chairman MURRAY. Under the rules of the Committee, we are 

now required to testify under oath, so, Ms. Burwell, if you want to 

rise so I can administer the oath. Do you swear the testimony that 

you will give to the Senate Budget Committee will be the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Ms. BURWELL. I do. 

Chairman MURRAY. If asked to do so and if given reasonable notice, will you agree to appear before this Committee in the future 

and answer any questions that members of this Committee might 

have? 

Ms. BURWELL. I will. 

Chairman MURRAY. Please be seated. 

We will now have a chance to hear from Ms. Burwell, and, again, 

thank you so much for being here, to you and your family. Senator 

Manchin? 

Senator MANCHIN. If I could say one thing, I also have a statement from Senator Rockefeller. As you know, we both totally are 

in agreement and extreme support, so I want to also present for 

the record his statement. 

Chairman MURRAY. Absolutely. We will include that in the 

record as well. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MURRAY. With that, Ms. Burwell, it is a delight to 

have you here. I am glad you have your support team of your family and best friends. Go ahead and proceed with your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SYLVIA MATHEWS 

BURWELL, OF WEST VIRGINIA, TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Ms. BURWELL. Thank you, Chairman Murray and Ranking Member Sessions and the members of the Committee, for welcoming me 

today. It is a privilege to be considered by this Committee as the 

President’s nominee to be Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

I want to thank Senator Manchin for his gracious and kind introduction and, as a West Virginian, thank him for his service both 

here and in our State when he was Governor. I feel very privileged 

to actually know both of my Senators for an extended period of 

time, so it is a great privilege to be introduced by both of them. 

And I am pleased that my family could join me today: my husband, Stephen, and my sister, Stephanie. Our 5-year-old Helene 

and our 3-year-old Matthew thought that the park was a better op-
9 

tion than listening to Mommy answer questions, so they are not 

with us today. I understand the sacrifices entailed by public service, and I recognize that the biggest burden falls on one’s family 

members. So I deeply appreciate their support as I seek to take on 

this new challenge. 

I am also grateful to President Obama for nominating me to 

serve in this position as the Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget. It is an honor to be considered for this position at this 

important time. 

Finally, I want to thank the members of this Committee and 

their staffs for making the time to meet with me over the last few 

weeks and for sharing your insights. For those of you that we have 

not had the opportunity to meet with face to face, I look forward 

to that. And if I am confirmed, I very much look forward to continuing our conversations that we have started. 

I believe in the greatness of our Nation. As a second-generation 

Greek American, my family and I have benefitted greatly by the 

opportunities this country has to offer. 

Our Nation has made important progress over the last 4 years. 

We pulled out of a deep economic downturn. Our financial markets 

have stabilized. Businesses are hiring again. And we have begun 

the very long journey to put our fiscal house in order. 

The President and the Congress together have made progress on 

the deficit, but there is much more to do. And we need to focus on 

making our economy work for middle-class families and American 

business, in both the short and the long term. 

If I am confirmed, my primary focus will be to contribute to 

achieving balanced deficit reduction, increased efficiency and effectiveness in how our Government works, and targeted investments 

that grow the economy and create jobs for the American people. 

The President is actively engaged with Members of Congress on 

this subject. And if I am confirmed, I will do everything in my 

power to keep this dialogue going and to continue to build on the 

relationships between the administration and the members on both 

sides of the aisle. 

From my experience in the Clinton administration—at OMB, the 

White House, and the Treasury Department—I learned the importance of working together in a bipartisan fashion to get things 

done. I saw firsthand how the deficit reduction agreements of the 

late 1990s were reached. I know that when we all come to the 

table, we come with firm convictions and the belief that we know 

the right answer. We also, though, come with the same conviction 

to serve the American people, which I hope will drive us to find 

common ground to move the country forward. 

There is no question that the road ahead will be difficult. The 

challenges we face are sobering. But I am confident we can come 

together on a comprehensive plan. 

I am pleased with the prospect of returning to OMB. I have tremendous respect for the institution and the incredibly talented men 

and women who work there. I am hopeful that, if I am confirmed, 

I can contribute to ensuring OMB is a place where talented people 

want to go and that the institution is strong for other administrations. Although OMB is most well known for its work on the Federal budget, the management side of OMB is critical as well. 
10 

In the current fiscal environment, it is more important than ever 

that we are operating the Government in the most efficient and effective manner. 

I want to credit Acting Director Zients for his strong leadership 

in these areas. If I am confirmed, I want to work to build on those 

efforts and the success and to continue to increase the efficiency 

and effectiveness of taxpayer dollars. By governing smartly and 

being good stewards, we can reduce the deficit and increase the 

value of what that we deliver. 

As someone who has been out of Government now for 12 years, 

I am hopeful that I can bring a fresh perspective to the fiscal debates underway. From my positions at the Walmart Foundation 

and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I have seen the important role that both Government and the private sector play in the 

lives of the American people. 

If I am confirmed, it would be an honor to dedicate myself to 

using the tools at OMB to ensuring that our Government delivers 

for the American people. 

Again, I want to thank the President for giving me this opportunity and the Committee for considering my nomination. I look 

forward to answering the questions that you may have. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Let me begin. Ms. Burwell, you previously served as Deputy Director of OMB for 3 years. Correct? 

Ms. BURWELL. Two. 

Chairman MURRAY. Two years. And before that, you were Chief 

of Staff to Secretary Rubin at Treasury as well as Deputy to White 

House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, two people who are well 

known and respected by this Committee. Correct? 

Ms. BURWELL. That is correct. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. And following your time at OMB, you 

continued working in similar financial and management roles for 

some of the largest philanthropic institutions in the world. Right? 

Ms. BURWELL. Yes. 

Chairman MURRAY. While very different from your Federal service, I expect you experienced similar challenges at those large nonprofit institutions regarding how best to fulfill core missions given 

scarce resources, competing demands, and diverse workforces. Correct? 

Ms. BURWELL. That is correct. 

Chairman MURRAY. And now you are returning somewhat full 

circle back to Government service and facing and political and 

budgetary climate that is pretty different than the one you left 12 

years ago. 

So I wanted to offer you the opportunity this morning to really 

comment on the challenges and the opportunities that you see 

today and to tell this Committee how you view your extensive experience in the Federal and nonprofit sectors as helping you meet 

those challenges. 

Ms. BURWELL. Thank you, Chairman Murray. 

In terms of the challenges, I think I spoke to those a little bit 

in my statement. I think we have challenges with regard to making 

sure that the current economic recovery gets on its way and continues for the American people. When I think about the role of 
11 

OMB Director, I start at the end and start with the people in Hinton, start with the American people. That is the end, and that is 

where our outcome is. Often in philanthropy you talk about measurement, and you talk about outputs and outcome. The outcome is 

what we do for the American people, and that is why we think 

about the budget. That is why we think about any of the things 

that we are working on. It is about an outcome. 

And I think the challenge is to make sure that we are producing 

the best outcome in terms of a healthy economy for working Americans and American business. And I think right now that is a particular challenge for a number of reasons. It is a particular challenge because we have a very large hole. We are in a place where 

we have—as was reflected in comments, we have a large deficit, 

and we have a large debt. And to work our way out of that is a 

very important thing. 

At the same time, we have recovery that is starting, and that is 

something that we have to consider so that we make sure we can 

stay on the path that we are currently on, where there is actually 

job creation for Americans who want to work, and have the ability. 

The last part that I think is a challenge in terms of your question 

is thinking through the issues that we are responsible for the investments now in both the short and long term that will keep this 

economy healthy and be able to deliver on commitments we have 

made as a Nation. I think those are three extremely large challenges. 

With regard to my experience, I would say there are a number 

of things. First, working in philanthropy—and this gets back to a 

comment that Senator Sessions made—most of my days are filled 

with no. There are many more noes than yeses, actually, when one 

works in philanthropy. And so that is an experience that I have on 

a daily basis. And being able to say no in ways that are respectful, 

you can imagine the many great things that I see every day that 

people want to fund, and there are great things, but doing it in a 

respectful way. So the ability to say no. 

The other things that I think my experience over the last years 

since I was in Government helped with is how I think about problem solving and focus. I think about things like strategy, structure, 

people in terms of that framing. I think about the importance of 

measurement and focusing deeply on impact. And the other thing 

that I think I have learned a tremendous amount about in the last 

12 years is the importance of culture of an institution and culture 

that a leader sets in terms of as a leader it is very important that 

you set the tone at the top. 

So those are some of the elements that I hope I would bring if 

I am confirmed. 

Chairman MURRAY. I am assuming being the mother of two 

small children, the ability to say no in a good way is also part of 

your life. 

Ms. BURWELL. It is. As my husband and I experienced this morning. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman MURRAY. All right. Well, one area that you and I 

talked about when we visited was the importance of re-establishing 

regular order. It is something Senator Sessions and I have really 
12 

focused on together. We did our part here last month by passing 

a budget on time through the Senate, and I know from our discussions you have similar concerns regarding the current overreliance 

on budgeting by crisis. 

Can you talk a little bit about the importance of regular order 

and the role that it had in creating some of the successes that we 

had in the 1990s? 

Ms. BURWELL. Yes, Senator. Thank you. I think that regular 

order was an important part of the process, because I think the 

order that has been set up, the processes that the Congress follows 

and that the executive branch follows—and I will start by saying 

you have my commitment to do everything in my power to deliver 

a budget on time, which is a part of regular order. And so in terms 

of what I can do to do that, that is something I would start with. 

But in terms of how the regular order helps the process, the regular order is about bringing people together to prioritize. I think 

that is one of the most difficult things that we all need to do, and 

especially in difficult budget times, is that prioritization. And it 

first starts in the process of this Committee and what this Committee does to set the major pieces to guide the appropriations 

process so that it can do its next level of prioritization. And so that 

we afford both the expertise of the Committees and the experience 

of the Committees to apply and use that order to do that 

prioritization. And I think those were important parts of what contributed to a process that afforded us the opportunity to get to 

agreements during that time. 

Chairman MURRAY. And I assume getting a permanent OMB Director is part of that regular order as well. 

Ms. BURWELL. Yes, I think it is a part of the regular order. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. Before I turn it over to Senator Sessions, I just wanted to clarify one thing. I know the President’s 

budget is coming out today, sometime here shortly if it is not out, 

and I know a lot of our members are really interested in the details. For the record, I want to make it clear, Ms. Burwell, you 

were not involved in developing the President’s 2014 budget submission. Is that an accurate statement? 

Ms. BURWELL. That is an accurate statement. This process has 

been different than the last time when I came through the process 

to be Deputy Director. At that point I was in Government, so I was 

in a very different position. At this point I am a private citizen and 

so have not been privy to the conversations or the budget itself. So 

my knowledge is limited to whatever knowledge everyone has from 

a public perspective. 

Chairman MURRAY. Okay. I appreciate that, and I would remind 

all of our Committee members that Acting Director Jeff Zients will 

be here tomorrow to discuss the President’s budget, so we will have 

a great opportunity then to ask questions on that side. 

Thank you very much, Ms. Burwell, and I will turn it over to 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe we were 

in a position to move forward with this nomination, you know, rapidly. I do not know of any problems at this stage. If something develops, we will raise that with you, Madam Chair, but we would 

be cooperative in moving forward to a vote. 
13 

At this point I would yield to Senator Grassley, who has a scheduling difficulty, and I will allow him to take my slot for questions. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I appreciate that very much, and I appreciate 

your coming to my office to have a conversation. And I feel that you 

probably will have smooth riding unless something happens here 

all of a sudden that we do not know about. 

You have already answered one of my questions, but I still want 

to go back to it, and it was a question that the Chairwoman asked 

about delivering a budget on time. So, obviously, you said—you 

have expressed it as a concern of yours, and you said you do want 

to improve and deliver a budget on time. Considering the fact 

that—and I was going to start out with this statistic. It is not just 

the recent budget, but we have budgets for February, we have a 

mid-session review, and we have a financial report at the end of 

the year. And all of these deadlines, out of the last 15, 14 of them 

have been missed. 

So do you really think that you can improve upon that? I hope 

you can, but, I mean, I am challenging you. 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, I think that I can improve. One of the 

things that I will do when I get into the organization is to understand which ones I can influence on which timetable. As you know, 

some of these processes are in train, so you mentioned the mid-session and that, of course, is on my mind as I think about it and even 

as the budget is coming out today, I was thinking about the midsession. 

I do not know what processes are in train and that sort of thing, 

but I think that I can over time influence it. The immediacy of my 

influence when I come in is something that is fair to ask the question. But over the long term, yes, I think I can, and that is something that I believe is an important part of putting together plans 

and approaches to trying to meet these deadlines. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. I want to go to kind of the management aspect of your—but it also comes from a budget decision that 

we made, and that is sequester. It is my understanding that the 

office now had put out 3 or 4 months ago, in anticipation of sequester, memos that there needs to be a priority for national defense, 

law enforcement, health, and safety. So you get these oddities 

about meat-packing plants going to shut down, which obviously 

deals with health or safety, because of sequester. Or you are going 

to lay off 700 FBI agents or furlough them because of sequester. 

It seems to me those things come in the area of law enforcement 

and health and safety, so what power do you have over these agencies following your recommendations that these things ought to 

have priority? Because it seems to me there are a lot of things in 

these departments that ought to be sequestered before furloughing 

FBI agents or shutting down meat-packing plants? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, if confirmed, I think one of the first 

things I would do is try and understand and work with the departments to understand how they have thought about the 

prioritization. I think you articulate the part that I do know, which 

is departments were told to prioritize mission, and you articulated 

some specific missions in terms of that. And what I would do is 

work to understand how they are thinking about those choices as 

they work through that. 
14 

I think the budget process itself, as we start to think about the 

next year—because OMB will already start to think about the next 

year—will be an important process for how I will engage and the 

entire Office of Management and Budget will engage with departments as they think about that prioritization. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Does your office, though, have the power to 

enforce those priorities or not? I mean, that is what the law says, 

not what you might want to do or not do. 

Ms. BURWELL. In terms of the enforcement of sequestration and 

exactly how it is implemented, I am going to say I will have to 

check exactly who sits with the authority. But I think what one 

wants to get to a place where we are all working towards the same 

objectives of making sure we are protecting as much of the mission 

as we can and go about doing that in the right way. 

Senator GRASSLEY. The next question I ask because of a statement that Gene Sperling made. Can you really raise $1 trillion in 

new taxes without hitting the middle class? And he said that you 

would not be able to raise that amount of money without harming 

the middle class. 

Ms. BURWELL. I think that right now when I think about the 

question, the broad question of revenues and where we are in the 

revenue space, and when I think about ATRA and the work that 

was done in ATRA in terms of $620 billion and I understand perhaps it was not everyone’s first choice, and I think that is part of 

compromise—that there was an ability to do that. And so I think 

we are talking about at this point, as was articulated and what is 

public—and I understand the fiscal cliff portion—is another 580 

billion. So I think the number that we are then talking about is 

can you find $580 billion in the context of what we would think 

about is wasteful spending, loopholes, things that people agree that 

people should not have certain of these advantages. And I think 

that is where you would get to that larger number. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Without hurting the middle class? 

Ms. BURWELL. I think you are hopeful that you can do it, and I 

think some of the examples that have been talked about that are 

public—again, as the Chairman said, I am not familiar with all the 

examples that will be in today’s budget, but the issue of the 28 percent and what types of deductions people are able to take, and so 

you align that more across the board in terms of the maximum 

amount that many are able to take. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. I want to assure Senator 

Grassley that I can give him a trillion-dollar list that gets you 

there without hurting the middle class. I look forward to working 

with you on that. 

Senator GRASSLEY. He did not agree with you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. He did not see my list. 

I have a couple of quick points I would like to see if I can get 

through in my short time. My colleagues know that I talk about 

health care delivery system reform all the time in this Committee. 

There is a bipartisan and nonpartisan agreement from lots of leading folks that the savings per year, between $700 billion and $1 

trillion, and that you get there by improving the quality of care. 
15 

In that battle, we need OMB to be supporting HHS as they try 

to implement the 45 noncontroversial provisions in the Affordable 

Care Act that improve our health care system and lower cost, and 

we need you to be working with us to try to figure out better ways 

to fit that into our budgeting process because of the scoring dilemmas. 

Will you work with us on that as a priority? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, as the Director of OMB, it is one of the 

responsibilities to look at the scoring issues and talk about the 

scoring issues, whether those are specific ones or broader ones that 

we might discuss today. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And to support HHS in its efforts to move 

that regulation forward, which takes me to my second point. OMB 

has in some places become the place where regulations just go to 

die. You are supposed to get regulations out in 120 days. EPA’s 

draft guidance on identifying waters protected by the Clean Water 

Act has been sitting there 414 days, and the Chemicals of Concern 

List has been sitting there for 1,064 days. 

There are issues I think both with delay and with transparency 

at OMB. Once regulations get into OMB’s private chambers, who 

is making the tweaks? And I would like to have your assurance 

that you will work with us on both the delay and transparency 

issues. 

Ms. BURWELL. Yes, sir, if confirmed, I will. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Regulatory capture is a very well known 

phenomenon. I think that OMB is well suited to be a place that 

sounds the alarm where it looks like there might be instances of 

regulatory capture in the Federal Government. Clearly, at Minerals 

Management within the Department of Interior, at the SEC, and 

Mine Safety, we have seen episodes that sure look a lot like regulatory capture by the regulated industry, and I hope that we can 

work together on finding ways that OMB can take a more active 

role in looking for the benchmarks that should set off alarms that 

a regulatory body may now be the tool of the regulated industry 

and not serving the public interest. Would you work with us on 

that? 

Ms. BURWELL. Yes, sir, I would. I first learned of the concept I 

guess in 1986, and then it was Hugh Heclo’s iron triangle in my 

academic work many, many years ago. So a concept I learned about 

from an academic perspective many years ago, and having served 

in Government, understanding it, would look for the opportunity to 

think about that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. A great piece on that not too long ago in 

the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. It is a bipartisan concern. 

And the last thing is on cyber. As a former United States Attorney, I can assure you that trying to make cases, criminal cases, in 

cyberspace is an extremely complicated, difficult, and expensive 

proposition. The result is that for all that we have heard about the 

raiding by China of our corporate intellectual property through the 

cyber infrastructure, the Department of Justice has yet to bring a 

single pure cyber case. And in terms of cleaning up the Web from 

botnets, they have only brought one case, and the group disbanded 

after that case was done. 
16 

I think that there are resource issues behind that problem. They 

will not talk to me about resource issues because they are so scared 

of you, of OMB: ‘‘Oh, we cannot talk about anything because we are 

locked in with OMB.’’ 

I really need you to promise me that you will send the Justice 

person at OMB to sit down with me and with folks from the Department of Justice and the FBI to have a joint discussion about 

what the right level of support is for our prosecutors as they try 

to pick apart these Chinese networks that are raiding our corporations. 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, if I am confirmed, I look forward to the 

opportunity to having the discussion about cybersecurity and how 

we think about its priorities as well as its funding. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. In my last 20 seconds, let me 

point out that we need to distinguish in this Committee between 

what is economics and what is ideology. And the theory that you 

can always cut your way to economic recovery is simply not economics. The IMF, Goldman Sachs, Oxford Economics, the Financial 

Times, numerous studies have been presented recently showing 

that our fiscal multiplier is now over 1, indeed well over 1, because 

of the State of our economy and interest rates. And the fiscal multiplier being over 1 means that Government spending or cuts actually do more good when it is money spent and more harm when it 

is cut than in ordinary times. There is a difference between economics and ideology. We need to reflect that in this Committee, 

and I thank the Chairman for the time. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Senator Portman. I would note that Senator 

Portman, of course, is a former OMB Director, and I suppose he 

should get credit for having submitted a balanced budget. It did not 

pass, but he submitted one. Senator Portman? 

Senator PORTMAN. Thanks for that reminder. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator PORTMAN. It was a few years ago. Can you imagine a 

balanced budget today? This was in 5 years, actually, a 5-year balanced budget. But there are tough choices to be made. There were 

back in 2007, and, of course, the choices are even more challenging 

today, so thank you for being willing to step forward, and congratulations on your nomination. I enjoyed our conversations about the 

job, and as I mentioned yesterday at a hearing at the Governmental Affairs Committee, your measure of success will be sort of 

an unusual one, which is not how popular you are but how unpopular you are among your Cabinet colleagues. And it is a hard job, 

but you are doing it at a historic time. And being the champion for 

fiscal discipline is more important than ever. 

Yesterday we had a discussion that I was a little discouraged 

about because it was just about are you willing to follow statutory 

deadlines, and that had to do with the regulatory reviews that I 

think we need to have here in order to be smart on the regulatory 

front. I know Senator Grassley mentioned this, but let me give you 

some more data on what has happened prior to your involvement, 

of course. And I do expect that you will be confirmed, and as you 

said, you have the ability to bring a fresh perspective on this. 
17 

But no administration has a perfect record, but this is an extraordinary record. I have looked at all the reports due by OMB, 

12 of the 19 reports. This includes budgets, it includes the Medicare trigger and so on. Twelve of the 19 have been late. Another 

six have never been issued at all. This means only one report or 

budget has been submitted within the time frame required by law. 

These are statutory. 

So I do hope, without getting into a long discussion about this, 

that you will commit to trying to meet these statutory deadlines, 

because when you do not get the mid-session review on time, when 

you do not get the budget on time—we just did our budget. We did 

not have the input from the administration because you guys did 

not submit it— they did not submit it. Sorry. It is not you, yet. But 

it will be you, and you will have the opportunity. 

So, again, I do not want to get into a long discussion of this, but 

just to raise this with my colleagues who on a bipartisan basis 

should want to have what Chairman Murray said at the beginning 

of this hearing, more stability and continuity in the budget process. 

We cannot have it without this information. And we are not getting 

it. And so I would hope that your fresh perspective will include 

that. 

If you would like to respond briefly, I would be happy to hear 

from you, but I think, again, this is not asking too much. 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, as I stated at the beginning, you have my 

commitment that I will do everything in my power to get the budget on time, the mid-session on time, the things that I can influence 

as soon as I get there, as well as the reports that we discussed yesterday. 

Senator PORTMAN. I would add the Medicare trigger to that. I 

know the administration has talked about constitutional issues. 

CRS, by the way, disagrees with that, as do other lawyers, so we 

also need help on Medicare when you hit that 45-percent level 

under, I think it was, the 2003 law. You know, if anything, of 

course, Medicare has become a much more difficult problem to deal 

with from a budget perspective, so we need that report as well. 

In terms of fresh perspective, what do you see as the problem? 

What is the nature of the problem we face as a country? I will give 

you the CBO analysis from a few weeks ago that I know you have 

seen, which is that if we do not do something on the entitlement 

side—incredibly important programs, vital, safety nets—then they 

will increase by about 100 percent. This is Medicare, Medicaid, and 

Social Security. The health care side increases 110 percent in the 

next 10 years. And so the President has said he refuses to pass this 

problem on to another generation of Americans. That is his quote. 

But that is exactly what is happening. I mean, if you look at what 

CBO has projected, they have said that if you are going to maintain all the promised benefits, it would require eventually putting 

the middle class into a 63-percent tax bracket, small businesses 

into an 88-percent tax bracket. Obviously, this is unsustainable. 

You cannot catch the level of spending that CBO has projected with 

enough revenue. 

Do you have some thoughts on that with regard to what OMB’s 

role can be going forward in terms of looking at, again, our important but unsustainable entitlement programs, with interest on the 
18 

debt now 62 percent of the budget, the fastest growing part of the 

budget, again, nearly a 100-percent increase over the next 10 

years? What do you think OMB’s role should be there? 

Ms. BURWELL. I think that the role of OMB is to be a partner 

with the other players that play in the space, that Treasury plays 

as well as HHS and the entire economic chain. 

I agree that the issue of mandatory spending is an essential part 

of what we are looking at with regard to the size and magnitude 

of the current deficit, and as we look at what growth occurs because of the baby-boom generation coming on, also, and health care 

costs as we have seen them. And how I think about that issue is 

that we need to have it front and center. I think we need to implement some of the savings that we knew—that were stated in the 

Affordable Care Act. That is a start on the process. 

As I think about the issue, when I think about the mandatory 

side and health care, a lot of this involves health care costs. And 

coming back from the private sector right now, the issue of health 

care costs are an issue both for the Government and for our larger 

economy. 

And so when I think about those issues, trying to find solutions, 

even though we might not always be able to, that actually bend the 

curve, because the other thing about bending the curve is the benefit is to the U.S. Government; it is also to the private sector. But 

usually those types of solutions often lead to greater quality, and 

they actually start to benefit—the benefits we will get in terms of 

savings will build on each other. It will be an upward spiral of savings versus just a constant. So those are some of the thoughts I 

have about what I consider a very important part. 

I also believe it is important for us to think through how we 

maintain the commitments that we have made as a Nation to people who are on that verge of retiring and the most vulnerable in 

our country. 

Senator PORTMAN. I thank you, and I think members of this 

Committee would agree, including those of us who want to work on 

prevention and wellness and other issues in health care, and it 

does drive it. 

Just one final point to your comment about it is a big part of the 

problem. Look at the CBO numbers, look at your own numbers, 

and as a percent of GDP, the spending increase, it is the only problem. In other words, all of the increase in the debt and deficit projected going out into future years is attributable to those very important vital programs. In other words, what we are doing here in 

the annual appropriations is actually relatively flat. The other entitlement programs are increasing, but not at a level that necessarily 

catches up to the economy. You could argue and it is accurate to 

say that the entire increase and this huge increase in the budget 

deficit and debt is attributable to those three programs based on 

the CBO numbers. So it is not just one of the problems. It is the 

problem. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BURWELL. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Warner? 
19 

Senator WARNER. Ms. Burwell, it is good to see you again, and 

I look forward to working with you. I very much enjoyed our session. I actually want to pick up where my friend Senator Portman 

left off. I concur with him that entitlement reform has to be a piece 

of this debate. 

I would also say that no matter what we cut or tax, we have to 

have a growth economy as well. And one of the things, as a former 

investor and business guy and somebody who did balance budgets 

as a Governor, I am very concerned about, for example, the proposals the House laid out that would take domestic discretionary 

spending from its current about 16 percent of the Federal budget 

down to less than 5 percent. I would never invest in a company 

that spent less than 5 percent of its revenues on educating its 

workforce, building its infrastructure, staying ahead of the competition through research and development. So I hope as well we can 

talk about how we have policies. The private sector will grow most 

of the economy, but the Government has a role as well in providing 

that framework. 

I also think it is important as we talk about both sides of the balance sheet, both the spending side and the revenue side, that we— 

and I get terribly frustrated at this at times, and I want to keep 

our taxes as low as possible. But somehow in this debate we seem 

to always forget the fact that while entitlement spending continues 

to go up at an unsustainable rate, on the other side of the ledger, 

when this body made tax cuts in the 2003 time frame on a 10-year 

basis, we took $4.5 trillion out of the revenue stream on a 10-year 

run rate. Just as entitlement spending may be unsustainable, I 

think that plan on the revenue side was unsustainable. 

And what I sometimes find interesting is that even if you take 

the Senate budget, take the New Year’s Eve, and combine those together on the revenue side, nobody is talking about putting all that 

$4.5 trillion back into the revenue stream. Most of us on our side 

are not even talking about putting half of that back in. We are literally talking about returning about a third of that revenue back 

to the revenue stream as we make targeted cuts, as we do entitlement reform. 

Again, I just want us to make sure that we have this discussion 

that is constantly refreshed. We have to deal with entitlements. We 

have to grow our economy. But we have to recognize that the revenue base—not to grow the Government but just to pay our bills, 

and a revenue base that—even with slimmed-down entitlement 

programs, with the baby boomers it is going to push up the spending as a percentage of GDP no matter almost what, that we have 

to have this balance on both sides. 

I guess my question that will come out of this—and I want to 

come to the management side in a moment—is my concern is that 

in many ways, while we have limped through budget crisis after 

budget crisis, with, I think, not the comprehensive approach that 

we need—we have still got another $2 trillion, roughly, to do—I 

feel and fear that too often we are simply redebating the deal 

points from June of 2011. And what I hope that you will be open 

to in this new role—and I know this will be not just your role, but 

as a leading figure in the administration—is new ideas both on the 
20 

revenue side and new ideas on the entitlement reform side that 

may not even be in the President’s 2014 budget going forward. 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, if confirmed, I look forward to hearing 

about those ideas. These are hard problems, and so innovation and 

ideas as potential ways to help us all go forward in a way that we 

can agree on I think is an important thing, and I hope that you 

will find me always willing to listen to new ideas. 

Senator WARNER. Well, thank you. 

Let me move to the management side of the house, and, again, 

I want to echo some of the comments that were made by actually 

some of my colleagues on the other side, and Senator Whitehouse. 

One of the things we can also do is how we save money in terms 

of inefficiencies and duplication. One of the concerns I have, as the 

author of the Government Performance and Results Modernization 

Act, GPRA—and I appreciate this Committee’s support of that— 

was that for the first time ever we have a requirement in place 

where agencies actually have to identify not only their most successful programs but their least successful programs. And, quite 

honestly, OMB has not been as forthcoming as we would like on 

that. There have been some times that have been missed. There is 

also supposed to be a requirement of trying to narrow down each 

agency’s amount of goals. Anybody that has managed anything 

knows that if you have 50 goals, you do not really have any goals 

at all. This legislation required a targeting of the top three to five 

goals per department and agency. And we would love to see more 

collaboration and cooperation on implementation of GPRA. 

Ms. BURWELL. With regard to GPRA, it has changed since I was 

here before, and the GPRA modernization legislation I think was 

an important change. Also, in terms of what I have been briefed 

on so far, we have actually seen improvements in where that is. A 

long way to go, but I think we have moved from a box-checking exercise to a strategic planning and prioritization. And I think this 

is something where one has to learn the skills, and I think hopefully if I am confirmed, as part of the leadership at OMB, that we 

can continue to work on it. 

I think one of the most important points—and it comes back to 

one of the things that I mentioned in terms of lessons learned—is 

culture and creating a culture of this is not a box-checking exercise, 

this is a management tool that will help you deliver impact, and 

getting that to be a tool that is embraced in terms of thinking 

about how can I do my job better. And so that culture shift is something that I am hopeful that working with this Committee and the 

other Committee that I spent time with yesterday, that we can 

work on together to get the kind of savings and clear movement towards impact that is definable and recognizable. 

Senator WARNER. My last comment, Madam Chair, is just that, 

you know, example, this is the GAO report that just came out yesterday on duplication. You know, this is not sexy stuff. This is 

hard, grind-it-out, lots and lots of focus on how we tax and spend, 

but the management component has to be a higher, higher priority, 

and I look forward to working with you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Sessions? 
21 

Senator SESSIONS. I will yield to Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair, and, Senator Sessions, I appreciate you yielding your time. 

Ms. Burwell, again, welcome here, and I want to reiterate, as I 

said yesterday, I appreciate the fact you are willing to sacrifice, you 

and your husband. This is a big job, and I do appreciate your willingness to serve. 

You mentioned in your opening comment a couple phrases that 

were dear to my heart: ‘‘problem solving,’’ ‘‘management’’—or 

‘‘measurement’’ and ‘‘leadership.’’ So let us talk about those because 

I think that really is the key role of OMB. 

I was one of those Senators that President Obama invited to dinner, and it was interesting, as we listened to him behind closed 

doors, describing the problem pretty accurately. You know, it is 

health care spending. He talked about Medicare, particularly in the 

second and third decade. He made the comment that the problem 

with Medicare reform is for every dollar that Americans pay in, 

they are going to get about $3 out in benefits. And we have been 

saying that. It comes from a study by the Urban Institute. He also 

said most Americans do not understand that, which is a problem 

in solving the problem. Let us talk about that. 

From my standpoint—and I have solved a lot of problems in 

business—the first step in any 12-step program is raising your 

hand and admitting you have a problem. And I think right behind 

that is you have to properly define the problem. 

So, first of all, do you agree with President Obama’s assessment that the problem with Medicare is $1 in, $3 out? 

Ms. BURWELL. I agree that the actual dollars in and dollars out, 

and then the next question is: What is that rooted in? Is it rooted 

in cost? Is it rooted in numbers? Going to the next step. 

Senator JOHNSON. But, again, all I have ever heard President 

Obama say publicly is we just need modest reforms to Medicare. 

But when Medicare is a $575 billion a year program and you have 

$1 in and $3 going out, would you agree that implies more than 

modest reform is going to be required to save that program, a very 

important program for Americans? 

Ms. BURWELL. I think that very important program to Americans, what I think is important is thinking about it in terms of how 

do we meet the appropriate level of commitments that we have 

made at the same time that we address the dollar-in/dollar-out 

problem that you— 

Senator JOHNSON. That is serious reform that is required, 

though, wouldn’t you agree, not just modest? 

Ms. BURWELL. I think that the reforms that are required, when 

we start looking at some of the numbers—and, again, I’ll work off 

what I have, which is the fiscal offer. And when we see that additional $400 billion in that health care space, I think we are starting to talk about actually large numbers. And large numbers that, 

if done in a way that comes back to that earlier point I made about 

bending the cost curve, then we can start to get even more over 

longer periods of time, when you start to get that kind of cost savings embedded. And so those start to become large savings. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. Let us switch to Social Security, which 

is obviously an incredibly important program, and we want to do 
22 

everything we can to honor those promises. I have some charts that 

we are going to put up on the screen here. Are we ready with 

those? 

This is from the Social Security Administration. I hope you 

would acknowledge—these are accurate—that over the next 20 

years basically Social Security will run a cash deficit of $5.1 trillion. Now, I have certainly made the point publicly that I do not 

believe this is a sustainable— first of all, a solvent program. The 

only reason anybody can claim that is the fiction of the Social Security Trust Fund. It is true that we ran the surpluses, accumulated more than $2.5 

trillion, but the problem is the Social Security Trust Fund holds an 

asset called U.S. Treasury bonds, which in the hands of the Federal 

Government really has no value. It is the same thing as if you had 

$20, spent it, and that money is spent, it is gone, wrote yourself 

a pretty note, said $20 stuffed in your pocket and say, ‘‘Hey, I got 

20 bucks.’’ You do not. You just have a piece of paper that you have 

to basically offer somebody else and entice them to give you $20 in 

exchange for that promissory note. I mean, would you acknowledge 

that point? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, when I think about the trust fund and 

those commitments, I do think about those commitments in the 

context of the commitments that we actually make in the public 

markets. And I also think about it in terms of harkening back to 

the years when I had the opportunity to work on balanced budgets, 

that there was the creation of something called the Social Security 

lockbox. And so while those— 

Senator JOHNSON. Let me just say, do you think that has value 

to the Federal Government? Do you believe the trust fund has 

value to the Federal Government, that it can actually pay out and 

meet that $5.1 trillion deficit? 

Ms. BURWELL. What I think it has is value to the trust fund and 

the ability that there is a commitment that we will pay. 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. So let us go to the next couple slides 

here. This comes from the Office of Management and Budget’s 2010 

Analytical Perspective. Will you put the next one up here? Let 

me—the next slide. Anytime. 

We have a technical problem here. Okay. Let me paraphrase. 

These balances, referring to the trust fund, are available for future 

benefit, but only in a bookkeeping sense. They are not assets of the 

Government as a whole that can be drawn down to fund future 

benefits. It goes on to say basically there are claims on the Treasury. 

So, in general, when you are talking about a consolidated statement, you have the Social Security Trust Fund, it holds $2.5, $2.6 

trillion worth of bonds; but, on the other hand, you have the U.S. 

Treasury Department that has the liability. So you have an asset 

on one hand, liability on the other, and the Office of Management 

and Budget, when you consolidate those statements, claims that 

nets to zero. 

So my point is, as the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget, would you acknowledge that to the Federal Government 

the Social Security Trust Fund has no value in terms of paying off 

that $5.1 trillion of deficit spending over the next 20 years? 
23 

Ms. BURWELL. But as we consider our deficit numbers, these 

commitments are in the consideration as we think about our longterm— 

Senator JOHNSON. Does it have any value, is there any value 

drawn out of that Social Security Trust Fund to fund the $5.1 trillion worth of promised benefits? Do you believe that has any value 

to the Federal Government? Are you disputing what OMB has basically published here? 

Ms. BURWELL. What I do believe is it has value in terms of the 

trust and how we think about the trust. The first chart I think did 

not— 

Senator JOHNSON. It has no dollar value. There are no dollars 

there; there is nothing of value to pay those benefits. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. BURWELL. When we think about the issuance of debt that we 

do on a regular basis in the public markets in terms of how we 

think about that as well. So right now we have a very large deficit. 

There are investors all over the world purchasing that debt. And 

the question is: How do we think about that? 

Senator JOHNSON. So basically we have made promises to seniors 

which we are going to honor, but the only way we honor those 

promises is for the Treasury Department to basically increase taxes 

on the American public or float more bonds. There is nothing that 

they can cash in from the Social Security Trust Fund that has any 

value to pay those benefits. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. BURWELL. So until 2033, at that point, that is the point 

where the interest of these investments stop, earlier, am I right 

that— 

Senator JOHNSON. But the investments are worth zero to the 

Federal Government. That is my point. The Social Security Trust 

Fund will give those bonds, and then how does the Federal Government fund those bonds? How do they make the payment on those 

bonds? 

Ms. BURWELL. They make the payment—the trust fund has been 

self-funding for many years. As you reflected in the chart, there 

comes a time and point where that shifts. And then we draw down 

on the assets, because during— 

Senator JOHNSON. How do you pay off with assets? 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator, Senator, with all due respect— 

Senator JOHNSON. Okay. I am sorry. 

Chairman MURRAY. —you are over your time. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ms. 

Burwell. 

Ms. BURWELL. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

First, I wanted to ask about a specific program important to my 

timber communities, the Secure Rural Schools, which I mentioned 

when we met. It is in the budget that was released today, which 

is very good. I wanted to ask if you feel like you have your hands 

around an understanding of the role that that program plays as the 

Federal Government has changed the mission of the timber stands 

that have contributed to the enormous success of our timber coun-
24 

ties and now they are much more challenged with those additional 

restrictions. 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, I think that I have more to learn in that 

space. The two things that I do recall is back when I was previously in the administration, I learned through the conversations 

around the spotted owl and other things in the timber space. I 

think there has been much going on. And the only other thing I 

would say is reflecting upon the comments of Senator Manchin and 

Senator Rockefeller yesterday, being from a rural community and 

having my mother at the age of 65 become mayor and talk to me 

about rural economic development, I have some familiarity with 

the challenges in rural communities today. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, and I will look forward to continuing that conversation with you. We are working hard to try to 

create a balance, setting aside environmentally sensitive lands 

within the forest, but then having a sustainable supply of saw logs 

from the balance. But, meanwhile, because the Government has 

changed the mission of the lands, it has undercut deeply the financial foundation for those counties and, therefore, pledged to compensate for that. And that pledge must be honored, and that is the 

pledge I hope you will continue to understand and support. And as 

I mentioned, it is in the President’s budget. 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, I look forward to continuing these conversations. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

I wanted to ask you about tax expenditures. They have grown 

enormously since 1986 when Senator Packwood led the reform of 

the Tax Code. We spend over $1 trillion a year on deductions and 

credits and ways of bypassing accountability or responsibility to 

pay taxes, including offshore strategies. Those areas have grown 

enormously and include some very wasteful spending. 

As you envision your responsibility for OMB, do you include in 

your portfolio the challenge of understanding the money that we 

spend on tax loopholes? 

Ms. BURWELL. As a member first having been at the Treasury 

Department, I, of course, defer to the role of Treasury as the lead 

on tax issues. But my previous experience and my expectation of 

what will happen is that the economic team are all part of that 

conversation, and I would look forward to being a contributor 

where Treasury leads. 

Senator MERKLEY. I think that was a yes. Is that a yes? 

Ms. BURWELL. I will be a part of the conversation. I do respect 

that Treasury has the analytical capability and plays the lead role, 

as does the Finance Committee and Ways and Means here on the 

Hill. 

Senator MERKLEY. The tax expenditures very much impact the 

deficits in the budget and the allocation of resources, so I hope you 

will understand that spending in the Tax Code is very much spending and needs to be part of a holistic understanding of the allocation of responsibly shaping the way we spend resources in this 

country. 

Third, I wanted to turn to the cost/benefit responsibilities of the 

department, of OMB, and certainly part of that is to try to quantify 

the benefits not just that are, if you will, obvious economic pluses 
25 

and minuses, but also the social impacts. Are you kind of familiar 

with that broad framework? And can I count on OMB to really address the broad social and economic impacts when they are evaluating the impact of regulations? 

Ms. BURWELL. Yes, as we work through at OMB, and if I am confirmed, and in the management of OIRA making sure that as we 

think about regulation that we are very conscious of what the core 

objectives of a regulation are in the sense of public safety, public 

health, and the environment, and that that is a part of the consideration as one looks at the costs and benefits of any regulation. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, I am delighted to hear that. We are seeing in Oregon just recently massive forest fires. We had the biggest 

forest fires in a century, one the size of the entire State of Rhode 

Island last summer, enormous growth of pine beetle infestations 

because of the warmer winters. We have a big problem in our oyster farming because the oyster seed are having trouble being propagated because of a slight increase in the acidity of the ocean. And 

that is just within the State of Oregon. 

And so when the rules are related to our challenge of controlling 

the warming of the planet, the warming here in America that impacts my State in so many ways, those are costs that would fit into 

the framework of OMB’s responsibility to do cost/benefit analysis? 

Ms. BURWELL. As we think through those issues, the issues of climate change I think are extremely important and some that the 

administration and the President has said that will be prioritized. 

And if I am confirmed, I look forward to having the opportunity to 

understand how those types of things that you have articulated 

weigh into that process. I think EPA will be a part of that, and I 

look forward to a good and strong working relationship with EPA. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I am out of time here, so I will 

put it this way: I realize you cannot speak to the individual pieces, 

such as is there really a problem in the oyster seed or is there really a problem with pine beetles. But in terms of your understanding 

of the theory of the responsibility for cost/benefit analysis, are such 

social impacts ones you intend to make sure are weighed in that 

responsibility? 

Ms. BURWELL. It was my experience before at OMB and OIRA 

that certain social impacts in terms of whether it is impact on an 

individual or others are weighed in the process. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Ms. Burwell, you mentioned the savings under the Affordable 

Care Act. The savings under the Affordable Care Act were spent 

to fund—from Medicare were spent and are projected to be spent 

over time to fund the Affordable Care Act. Is that not correct? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, my understanding is that CBO has scored that $100 billion would be over the first decade, and in the 

second decade, when you start to get the type of positive spiral that 

I was talking about, that they have scored that at $1 trillion. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, what they said was—and I asked them 

explicitly this fact—that the money that was saved by reducing 
26 

provider payments in Medicare was used to fund the new Affordable Care Act and cannot, therefore, simultaneously be used to 

fund Medicare. The money has been spent. This is not a matter of 

real dispute. I do not want to go into it. But you need to understand that. And they said, in fact, it is double counting the money 

in a letter they sent to me. And I would submit to you Senator 

Johnson is exactly correct. There are no assets in the notes that 

are held by Social Security and Medicare to fund future expenses. 

The Federal Government is going to have to borrow that money on 

the world market or raise taxes to honor those commitments because the money has been spent. There are no assets there. You 

need to know that. This is going to be an important issue. And the 

spin has been different over time, but it is not accurate. What I 

told you is accurate. 

With regard to the budget, you have talked to the President, I 

assume, that you will be submitting next year. Do you plan to submit a budget that will balance in 10 years? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, the question of balance comes back to a 

comment that I made earlier about how I think about the role of 

the budget. I believe that the role of the budget is a reflection of 

how we meet—‘‘we’’ the Government—our responsibilities to the 

American people. And I believe that those responsibilities are in 

three areas, and so the question of balance— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, my only question is: Do you expect to 

submit a budget in which the revenues are equal to the expenditures and balances? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, we are in a very, very deep hole, and 

when one thinks about how quickly one wants to come out of that 

hole, I think you have to connect that to the results for the American people in terms of the economy, and that— 

Senator SESSIONS. You would acknowledge that the President 

has not submitted a balanced budget in each of his years in office 

and this year will not either? Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, I will not speak to the 2014 budget, as 

we have discussed. With regard to the historical budgets, the 2013 

budget, I think what the President has done is proposed a budget 

that is—and I know we have disagreements about the word ‘‘balance.’’ There is ‘‘balanced budget’’ and there is the word ‘‘balanced 

approach.’’ And so I know there are very different points of view 

on that and do not— 

Senator SESSIONS. My colleagues used that ‘‘balanced’’ word 230 

times in the budget debate, and their budget, of course, did anything but balance. The President is not going to submit a balanced 

budget. You know it and I know it, and you are not going to submit 

one. Isn’t that correct? You are not going to submit a budget that 

you expect to balance next year? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, I want to— 

Senator SESSIONS. Can you answer that yes or no? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, I actually do not know that the economy—if the economy takes off and does an incredible, an incredible 

job this year, if there are incredible dynamics. One of the things 

that I do not think I can foresee right now and commit to is we 

could have never known about 9/11, and then the commitments 
27 

that we then as a Nation had to make after that. We did not know 

about 2007— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, okay. I acknowledge that you will not 

answer my question, and I will tell you, you are not going to submit a balanced budget next year, and the President has dismissed 

the value of the idea, and I disagree, and I think the American people disagree. 

Let me ask you this: What is the current level of debt as a percentage of GDP? 

Ms. BURWELL. The current level of debt as a percentage of GDP 

is around the 77-percent range. 

Senator SESSIONS. Is that public or gross debt? 

Ms. BURWELL. That is public. 

Senator SESSIONS. And do you know what the gross debt is? 

Ms. BURWELL. The gross debt numbers, I think, depending on 

which baseline you use, the CBO baseline, the Senate budget baseline, or the House baseline all differ slightly, but are around the 

100 level. 

Senator SESSIONS. 104 percent. Are you aware that the ReinhartRogoff study in their best-selling book, ‘‘This Time Is Different,’’ 

that when gross debt reaches 90 percent of GDP, that begins to 

bring down economic growth? 

Ms. BURWELL. My understanding of the Reinhart-Rogoff analysis 

was that it is actually based on a number of international countries, and so not just the U.S., and that when one compares, the 

most comparable thing that you actually have to go to public debt, 

debt held by the public, not gross public debt— 

Senator SESSIONS. I have to correct you on that. I want you to 

look at this. That will be my request to you. It is so important. 

That is not—we examined their study. It is based on gross debt, 

and the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund, 

and the Bank for International Settlements have also done studies 

dealing with the impact of large debt on a nation’s economy. They 

have concluded that debt levels that we are at today will pull down 

growth. And it is the gross debt. You have to look at that number. 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, where I think we— 

Senator SESSIONS. So if I am correct, we are seeing slowed 

growth today, I believe—and I believe we are—as a result of this 

debt. But you think that is not so, so I will let you explain that. 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, where I think we both agree is that we 

both believe that debt as a percentage of GDP should be on a 

downward trajectory. I think that is a place where we all agree, 

and I believe that that is a place that when one connects to that 

point which is closest to the American people and jobs in terms of 

measures that are closest, in terms of outputs that help us think 

about that outcome, that that is a place where we all agree we 

want that to be a downward trajectory. 

With regard to the study, I am happy to and will look at it again. 

I have a different understanding of what they were using as a 

basis for the study, and I look forward to having the opportunity 

to look at that again. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, and that is the quote in the report: ‘‘Above the threshold of 90 percent, median growth rates fall 

by 1 percent, and average growth rates fall considerably more.’’ 
28 

And I would note—if we have that chart, I think this is important 

for my colleagues. Debt is already hurting growth, in my opinion. 

Look at this chart. The blue line was based on what was predicted 

for growth 2 years previously by CBO. In 2008, they predicted 3.1 

percent growth; it came in at 2.4 percent. In 2009, they predicted 

4 percent growth for 2011; it came in at less than half of that. In 

2010, they predicted 4.4 percent growth for 2012; it came in at 2.2 

percent. 

I believe we are seeing delayed slow growth as a result of the 

size of debt we have now, and, therefore, I think it is imperative 

for us to have growth to get the debt middle-coming down in a substantial way, not just a token way. 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, as I said, I believe there is a place that 

we do agree and that that is the numbers should come down. 

With regard to these questions of growth, as one of your colleagues earlier said, I think there are different points of view in 

terms of why we have the current growth rates that we have and 

in terms of why those growth rates are not where they should be. 

The other thing—and that harkens back to a comment that I 

think the Chairman made that everyone agrees on—a return to 

regular order actually is an important part of how the economy 

views things. Having had the opportunity to be in the private sector for a period of time now, the crisis-to-crisis lurching and the uncertainty that that creates does affect GDP because it affects businesses’ willingness to invest and think about how they are going 

to manage. 

So I think there are a number of contributing factors to when we 

think about that number and some differences of opinion. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Kaine? 

Senator KAINE. Thank you, Ms. Burwell. I look forward to supporting your nomination. I think you are the right person at this 

challenging time. Both your governmental and private sector background well equip you for the role, and I think you bring some good 

karma, having been part of a budget operation and having as part 

of your legacy balanced budgets. And the President you served and 

the Congresspeople that you served with have that as part of their 

legacy as well, and I believe that will be brought to bear in a positive way should you be confirmed, and I am confident you will be. 

A comment and just one question. My comment is on the regular 

order point, and this is, sadly, to put pressure on you. I think the 

concerns about the submissions of budget on time are shared by 

both parties. And I know many have expressed them to you, and 

I did in my meeting. 

I have puzzled about why this President, this administration— 

and I support him so much and feel like so many of the aspects 

of the President’s achievements from, you know, getting Bin Laden 

and the al Qaeda leadership to CAF? standards, to a stock market 

that is rising, to hiring and not job reductions, so many things the 

President can say with his team that I have put my thumbprints 

on something that is really going in a positive direction. But I do 

view, frankly, your portfolio as the one where this President really 

is still looking for a very signature achievement in the budget area. 
29 

The late submissions of budgets probably to some seems inconsequential, and yet it is statutory. And just to tell you from the 

outside, the way that it looks, it is not a question of competence 

because the people who are doing this work, as you pointed out, in 

OMB and elsewhere, highly competent, highly intelligent, highly 

talented. And it is not a question of decisiveness because in so 

many ways the President and the team demonstrate the quality of 

decisiveness. 

Late budget submissions send the message of lack of concern, 

that it is not that important, and yet in terms of where we are 

right now, you know, open any newspaper, turn on any news account for the last few years, everyone has been saying how important this is. 

And so one of the things that is really important for you to do 

is to help us as we wrestle toward, you know, finding the big-picture budget deal and to cement, you know, what by all rights 

should be this President’s accomplishments in the budget area. 

And I am very happy that he has picked you to do this, and that 

is just a comment. The pressure is on. This President has done so 

many things so well. In this particular area, I think he is still looking for a very solid achievement, and you are the person that he 

has relied on to help deliver that. And I view that as a very 

weighty responsibility. 

My one question is this: In the votes surrounding the passage of 

the Senate budget, an interesting point came up, and it was an 

amendment that was proposed by Senator Isakson on the floor, and 

it was passed by a fairly sizable vote, 68–31, the notion of beginning to explore, as many States do, a 2-year budgeting process 

where you would do a budget, a full budget over a 2-year course, 

and then use the mid-year as sort of a truing-up year, while revenues were not exactly what we projected, expenses were not either. 

I think many States find this is something that helps them a little 

bit with planning. It can help a little bit for incoming Members of 

Congress to come in in a true-up year rather than a write-the-fullbudget year. So it has some appeal to the legislators, and I can see 

why it passed when it was proposed in the Senate. 

I would just like your general thoughts about budget process and 

whether the notion of a 2-year budget is something that you have 

thought about, and if so, what is your take on it? 

Ms. BURWELL. The issue of biennial budgeting is one that I had 

the opportunity to speak to when I was at the Office of Management and Budget before, and I think there are some positive aspects to the issues that you can do— most of which you articulated 

in your explanation. 

I think the question is what is it that will most help us get back 

to a regular order and a process that works. And if I am confirmed 

at the Director of OMB, while something like that is very much a 

legislative decision and a decision with appropriators and a decision with this Committee, what I would commit to is being a part 

of that conversation in terms of what it would mean from the executive branch standpoint, to think about how we can work together 

to get to a place where, if that can contribute to getting us back 

to a regular order, where we have that prioritization, because to 

me, as I have reflected as I am entering back in and thinking about 
30 

these issues and studying and that sort of thing, the thing that is 

missing is the form for prioritization. The conversations are in 

their pieces, and conversations in their pieces do not require us to 

bring it together, and, therefore, actually stand above our particular interests as represented—of course, everyone represents 

their State. Of course, everyone represents their district to the best 

of their ability. But they also represent the American people broadly. And it is only in those fora where we bring everyone together 

where they have to make the decisions together that you actually 

act in that other role as well. 

And so if things like biennial budgeting can help with that, that 

is something that I would love to be a part of the conversation, as 

I say, as appropriate, because I also respect that is a decision of 

the Congress. 

Senator KAINE. Thank you very much. 

Chairman MURRAY. Senator King. 

Senator KING. Ms. Burwell, thank you very much. I agree, one 

of the most interesting votes was the 2-year budget vote. Of course, 

any vote that occurs at 2:00 in the morning you have to— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KING. Senator Portman raised a question about health 

care costs. I have a slightly different view of it that I would like 

to share and ask your reaction. I believe that virtually the entire 

Federal budget deficit problem on an ongoing basis is health care. 

It is the cost of health care that the Government buys in very large 

quantities in terms of Medicare, Medicaid, and Federal health benefits. 

To me, though, the solution is not to try to squeeze and change 

Medicare. It is to try to deal with the overall health care escalation, 

which affects all of us as private citizens and businesses and everything else. I think you have touched on this, but what I am interested in is how can we as governmental entities affect the larger 

issue of health care costs. One way I have thought of is we are a 

very big customer, and maybe as a customer we could start to affect—for example, Medicare should require every provider they 

deal with to have electronic medical records as a customer, just say 

this is something we are going to do. You know, I have been hearing about electronic medical records forever, and it just does not 

seem to be happening. It is happening on a piecemeal basis, very 

expensive. 

Thoughts on this idea? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, you touch upon an issue that I actually 

raised yesterday in my hearing yesterday, the issue of electronic 

medical records. I had the opportunity to be on the board of a 

major health institution, the University of Washington Medical 

Center, as they were starting on that process of transferring to 

those records, and now I am in a health care system where they 

are fully transferred, in the Mercy Hospital system in northwest 

Arkansas. And the experience both in quality of care and cost savings is one that you see every day. 

So I am able to see the results of my children’s tests on my computer in the evening, and so that calling back and forth with the 

nurse, that step is eliminated. That is a cost savings. It is actually 
31 

better quality care because I get the answers and know the answers as best possible. 

In addition, when I go in or take the children in, when we go in 

with our children, all the tests are there. They know—it also helps 

with preventive care. I had, you know, one of the nuns question me 

on why I had not gotten my flu shot. It is recorded. It is there. And 

so the elements of those types of things I think are extremely important to— 

Senator KING. But do you see my point that we are the world’s 

largest customer, we can influence these decisions? 

Ms. BURWELL. And I think those are questions that we would 

work through with the Office of Personnel Management in how we 

do that. I think the question of customer influence, I think the 

question of how we implement and how we legislate, I think those 

are all tools that we have to think through. The customer one is 

one that I welcome, and I welcome understanding what we are and 

are not doing, having been out— 

Senator KING. I judge a health care provider by whether they 

hand you a clipboard when you walk in. If they do, they are behind 

the times. 

Changing the subject entirely, you were there at a time of a balanced budget, I think the only balanced budgets in the last living 

memory, 40 years or something like that. It is very easy to spend, 

and it is very hard to tax. My question is: Do you think the time 

has come to consider some kind of external restraint in the nature 

of a balanced budget amendment or something like that to compel 

the Federal Government to ultimately get to a balanced budget? I 

realize we are not talking about next year or 5 years or 10 years, 

but at some point. I just wonder if the realities of American politics, the will, if you will, has to be governed by some constraint. 

All my life I have been opposed to such a thing, but I am coming 

to believe that, given the realities, maybe we have to do that. 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, I think that we should be able to make 

the decisions without the question of a balanced budget amendment. I think we have talked about it all today. It is where everyone wants to go in terms of taking that debt-to-GDP ratio down, 

getting us to the right place. As you reflect, I had the opportunity 

to work on balanced budgets. Those were in a particular context of 

a number of things, what I believe is fiscal discipline, revenues at 

a certain level, and good economic health. And I think how you put 

those together at different times and different needs for the Nation, 

one needs to take care, and that that is the job about the judgment 

of when and how we do that. 

I would be hopeful that we can make our way to a place without 

an amendment specifically. 

Senator KING. I guess I would fall back on President Reagan: 

Trust, but verify. I think there has to be something to force the 

verification, you know, just looking at history. 

A final question. One of the roles of OMB is in the regulatory review area, and there has been some discussion of that today. When 

I talk to businesses in Maine, small businesses in particular, the 

regulatory burden is the biggest thing that they mention. It is the 

first thing they mention. I hope that you will take very seriously 

the regulatory review process and certainly meet the deadlines on 
32 

a timely basis, as Senator Whitehouse talked about, but to really 

try to assess what will the impacts of this be. Are there ways that 

this goal can be accomplished without increasing cost burdens in 

time? 

It was very interesting. I talked to companies about the Affordable Care Act. They are more concerned about the regulatory requirements than they are the costs. At least that is what I am 

hearing, and the number of forms they have to fill out. These are 

companies that have their own health insurance. They still have to 

go through a long regulatory process, and I hope that this will also 

be an important part of your attention when you are in this position. 

Ms. BURWELL. I think that the issue of small business actually 

is a role throughout OMB. You specifically mentioned it in the context of regulatory and rulemaking, and I think that is an important 

role that OMB brings, bringing the voice of small business, whether it is through the executive branch or more broadly, making sure 

that small business is at the table. But I think it actually occurs 

in other places in OMB, such as the strategic sourcing initiatives 

and making sure that when one thinks about the Strategic 

Sourcing Leadership Council, it is the seven largest departments of 

contracting, but it also includes small business. 

So I think there are a number of places where OMB has a role 

in ensuring that the interests of small business are expressed and 

understood. 

Senator KING. Thank you very much, and I really appreciate 

your willingness to take on this task. It is one of the most important jobs in the country, and I am delighted that you are willing 

to do what it takes to make this happen for our country. Thank 

you. 

Ms. BURWELL. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions? I am sorry. Senator Sanders? 

Senator SANDERS. You have confused Mr. Sessions with me? 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman MURRAY. No. We were going back and forth. I would 

not do that, Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Ms. Burwell, thank you very much for being 

here. I look at your opening remarks, and you indicate that your 

primary focus will be deficit reduction, increased efficiency and effectiveness in how Government works, and targeted investments 

that grow the economy and create jobs. It seems to me those are 

all important initiatives, but you are missing one that is very important, and that is the issue of distribution of wealth and income 

in this country. 

In the last several years, we have seen modest economic growth, 

but it did not mean anything to working families because all of the 

increase in income went to the top 1 percent. 

As one of the major financial advisers, if you are appointed, to 

the President, is the issue of distribution of wealth and income, 

which is now the widest of any major country on Earth and worse 

than at any time since the 1920s, is that an issue of concern to 

you? 
33 

Ms. BURWELL. Yes, sir, Senator, it is. The issue of that and how 

a healthy economy—to me the definition of a healthy economy actually includes the point you are making, which I think is a very 

important point. Healthy means not just—for a few, it means 

across the economy as we think about what happens when there 

is growth. And so thinking about it broadly is something that is important to me, Senator. 

Senator SANDERS. So is it a major concern to you that between 

2009 and 2011 all—A–L-L—of the new income went to the top 1 

percent? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, it is a concern and one that, while I have 

not seen the President’s budget, I think the President’s announcement about the minimum wage issues is one that I think is important. 

Senator SANDERS. Yes, it is, but cuts in Social Security are also 

important, which would move us in exactly the wrong direction. 

In terms of revenue—and I know Senator Warner raised the 

issue—in 2012, at 15.8 percent, revenue as a percentage of GDP 

was the lowest in 60 years. And yet at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high, corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is near a record low. Corporate profits, all-time 

high; as a percentage of GDP, corporate revenue is at an all-time 

low. 

The President has just brought forth a budget in which he wants 

to see tax reform as revenue neutral. When one out of four major 

corporations pay zero in taxes, do you not think that we have an 

opportunity to bring in substantial amounts of revenue as part of 

corporate tax reform? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, I think that the—when we think about 

revenue and think about it in its entirety and those percentages 

and how they work, I think we are up to 17 percent when we include ATRA and the effects of that. And so moving in that direction, I think as you and I have discussed, I do believe there is an 

opportunity in the revenue space. 

As we think about the corporate issue—and, again, I will defer 

to my colleagues at Treasury, and I think Director Lew will be here 

tomorrow—will be actually on the other side tomorrow talking 

about these issues. I would defer to them. But I think the questions 

of how we think about corporate tax issues and tax overall, when 

I think about tax overall, I think about three principles: simplicity, 

progressivity, and thinking about its contribution to deficit reduction. 

Senator SANDERS. Well, in 2011, corporations paid just 12 percent of their profits in taxes, the lowest since 1972. Before we cut 

programs like Social Security or Medicare, do you not think it is 

a good idea that we look to corporate America for more tax revenue? 

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, I think a balanced or comprehensive approach to the issues of deficit reduction require us to look at all options as we think through things. I think the question of in the corporate tax space, are the changes that we need broadening of the 

base and a closing of the loopholes that will then, as the economy 

gains steam, result in changes in revenue? 
34 

Senator SANDERS. Why do you think—the issue of health care 

has, appropriately enough, been discussed by a number of Senators. At the end of the day, the United States spends almost twice 

as much per capita on health care as any other major nation. We 

are the only major country on Earth without a national health care 

program guaranteeing health care to all people. Do you think there 

might be a connection between the fact that we spend so much, our 

outcomes are often not as good as other countries’, and we do not 

have a national health care program? 

Ms. BURWELL. I think that the issue of health care costs and actually provision of health care are ones that are both equally important, both the cost issue and actually the provision of care as 

a Nation, which is why I think the Affordable Care Act is an important part of a step forward in providing— 

Senator SANDERS. My question was—I do not think we have a 

Medicare or a Medicaid problem. We have a health care problem. 

Our health care system spends as a Nation almost twice as much 

as many other countries, and our health care outcomes in many 

cases are worse. We are the only major nation without a national 

health care system. Do you think there is a connection in the fact 

that we spend so much and we do not have a system? 

Ms. BURWELL. I think the question of what is at the root cause, 

probably a number of things, but I think you articulated—I agree 

with what you articulated, is that connection between costs and 

outcome. And then I think the question is: What is the best way 

to get that connection between outcome and cost? Because I think 

we often, in the construct of our current systems, have trouble 

doing that, and that is— 

Senator SANDERS. Do we have a health care system? I was not 

aware that we had a health care system in America. 

Ms. BURWELL. When I used the phrase ‘‘health care system,’’ I 

meant broadly for the Nation as a whole in terms of the marketplace. 

Senator SANDERS. Marketplace, yes. And do you think that marketplace health care system might be one of the reasons we spend 

almost twice as much as any other country on health care, the role 

of private, for-profit health insurance companies? 

Ms. BURWELL. I think that it is a combination—and I will come 

back to what I think is a core point, which is, How do we align the 

outcomes with what we are paying for? And I think that gets to 

some of the parts of the conversation that we have had in a number of different places. And I think at the root of trying to bend 

those curves and get those—both the costs down and the quality 

of the result up. When people are trying to measure what they are 

doing against an outcome—in other words, a health result—I think 

that makes a difference. 

We had conversations in yesterday’s hearing about this with regard to looking at some of the results that both Cleveland Clinic 

and Mayo are having in terms of the quality of their outcome in 

a cost-efficient manner. And I think that is at the root of the issue. 

Senator SANDERS. Okay. My time has long expired. Thanks, 

Madam Chairman. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Sessions, did you have any final— 
35 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, thank you so much, Madam Chairman, 

for the hearing, and I appreciate you, Ms. Burwell, and look forward to working with you. I think things will go well with you in 

this confirmation process. 

I will say, in all honesty, I think you were using some of the spin 

tactics that the administration has been using on this debt. We are 

going to have to be able to talk directly about what real numbers 

are, what the real finances are. When we are talking about trillions 

of dollars, we cannot have confusion about this. 

Mr. Lew came in and spun his way and I guess got an election 

successful. But it is not the right way for us to reach a bipartisan 

agreement. 

I would note that the President’s budget—the embargo has now 

just been lifted—is out today. It proposes $1.1 trillion in new 

taxes—that is one thousand one hundred billion—and he proposes 

$946 billion in new spending. 

So basically it is a tax-and-spend budget. The idea that we have 

a balanced plan where we raise taxes and equal that with the reduction in spending has never been what has been presented to 

Congress by this administration. It has always been raise taxes 

and raise spending, and that is why we remain on an 

unsustainable course, in my opinion. 

Your former boss, Mr. Erskine Bowles, said this Nation has 

never faced—in that very seat—a more predictable financial crisis 

because we were on an unsustainable path. And I just would say 

to you I look forward to working with you. You are very good to 

talk with. I think we can have an open relationship. But it is a crisis time. And if I am correct that the debt already is impacting our 

growth rate, then we have an even stronger imperative to reduce— 

and the Ryan budget, which balances—the House budget, which 

balances, shows you can grow spending 3.4 percent a year and the 

budget will balance. It just cannot grow at 5.4 percent a year. So 

we can increase spending each year and balance a budget, and that 

is the kind of concrete goal we need. This vague idea of a sustainable plan or sustainable deficits, those kind of words create no accountability, no firm goal which we can adhere to and fight for. 

So I look forward to working with you. This will be a challenge. 

I am worried about the growth that we are not seeing, and if we 

get this thing on the right course, I think America will bounce 

back. I believe there is a lot of vibrancy out there and a lot of potential, but there are some clouds that we need to remove. 

So thank you very much for your testimony today. 

Ms. BURWELL. Thank you. 

Chairman MURRAY. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions. We 

will have a chance to debate those numbers you put out about the 

President’s budget, which I think we will have a debate about, and 

certainly continue to the debate about whether or not the Ryan 

budget is a balanced budget in many different aspects, as we continue forward. 

Ms. Burwell, thank you very, very much for your testimony today 

and for your willingness to participate in public service at a very 

challenging and important time. We greatly appreciate the sacrifice 

of both you and your family, so thank you very, very much. 
36 

As a reminder to all of my colleagues, additional statements for 

today’s hearing are due in by 6:00 p.m. today to be signed and submitted. And also for the information of my colleagues, again, it is 

my intention to move to Ms. Burwell’s nomination as expeditiously 

as possible. This Committee does have a 48-hour notice requirement, but— Senator Sessions, I will work with you—I would like 

to do it as quickly as possible early next week. 

Senator SESSIONS. We have a few questions to submit questions, 

as normal, but I think they can be handled expeditiously. 

Chairman MURRAY. Very good. 

And, finally, again, just a reminder to all of our Committee members, we will have Acting Director Jeff Zients here tomorrow to discuss the President’s budget. 

With that, I will call this hearing to a close. 

[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(37) 

UNITED STATES SENATE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

ROOM SD-624

(202) 224-0642

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6250

STATEMENT OF BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL 

INFORMATION REQUESTED OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 

1. Name: Sykvia Mathews Burwell, Sylvia Mary Mathews 

2. Position to which nominated: Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

3. Date of nomination: March 8, 2013 

4. Address: (Redacted) 

5. Date and place of birth: June 23, 1956, Hinton, WV 

6. Martial status: Married to Stephen Roderick Burwell 

7. Names and ages of children: (Redacted) 

8. Education: 

-Harvard College, Septemnber 1983–June 1987, Bachelor of Art 

-Oxford University, Worcester College 1987–June 1990, Bachelor of Art 

9. Employment Record: 
38 
39 
40 

10. Government Experience: 

None 

11. Business relationships: 
41 
42 

12. Memberships: 
43 
44 
45 

13. Political affiliations and activities: 

(a) List all offices with a political party which you have held or any public office 

for which you been a candidate. 

(None) 

(b) List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered to all political 

parties or election committees during the last 10 years. 

My husband and I were co-hosts of an Obama fundraiser at my 25th college reunion 

in May 2012. 

(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 

5 years. 
46 
47 
48 

14. Honors and awards: 

Rhodes Scholar 

Institute of Politics Fellow, Harvard University 

Senior Fellow, UCLA School of Public Policy 

Honorary Degrees: West Virginai University, Doctor of Humane Letters, 

2003Northeastern University, Doctor of Philanthropy, 2011 

15. Published writings: 
49 
50 
51 

16. Speeches: 

In my official capacity at the Walmart and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 

I delivered speeches that focused on global development (E.g. increasing productivity 

for small holder farmers) and philanthropy. None of these speeches were on topics 

relevant to the position for which I am being nominated, and thus copies are not 

provided. 
52 

17. Selection: 

(a) What do you believe in your background or employment experience affirmatively 

qualifies (YOU) for this particular appointment? 

I believe that my prior professional experience at Office of Management and Budget, 

the White House, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the National Economic 

Council as well as my private sector experience at Walmart, the Bill and Melinda 

Gates Foundation, and MetLife qualifies me for this appointment. 

(b) Were any conditions, expressed or implied, attached to your nomination? If so, 

please explain. 

No. 

(c) Have you made any commitment(s) with respect to the policies and principles 

you will attempt to implement in the position for which you have been nominated? 

If so, please identify such commitment(s) and all persons to whom such commitments have been made. 

No. 

B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS 

1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers, business firms, business associations or business organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? 

Yes, 

2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service with the government? If 

so, please explain. 

No. 

3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after completing government 

service to resume employment, affiliation or practice with your previous employer, 

business firm, association or organization? 

No. 

4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any capacity after 

you leave government service? If so, please identify such person(s) and commitment(s) and explain. 

No. 

5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? If not, please explain. 

Yes. 

C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

1. If confirmed, are there any issues from which you may have to recuse or disqualify yourself because of a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of 

interest? If so, please explain. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of Government Ethics and the Office of Management and Budget’s designated agency ethics official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest 

will be resolved in accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have 

entered into with OMB’s designated agency ethics official and that has been provided to this Committee. I am not aqare of any other potential conflicts of interest. 

2. Identify and describe all investments, obligations, liabilities, business relationships, dealings, financial transactions, and other financial relationships which you 

currently have or have had during the last 10 years, whether for yourself, on behalf 

of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a 

possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of Government Ethics and the Office of Management and Budget’s designated agency ethics official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest 
53 

will be resolved in accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have 

entered into with OMB’s designated agency ethics official and that has been provided to this Committee. I am not aqare of any other potential conflicts of interest. 

3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have engaged for the 

purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat or modification of 

any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public policy 

other than while in a federal government capacity. 

Apart from my duties as a government official during the past 10 years, I have had 

minimal engagement in legislation and policy-making. While employed by New York 

University, I had occasional meetings with members of congress and local government officials on education policy. 

4. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the Office of Management and Budget and by the 

Office of Government Ethics concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal 

impediments to your serving in this position? 

Yes. 

5. Explain how you will resolve potential conflicts of interest, including any disclosed by your response to the above questions. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of Government Ethics and the Office of Management and Budget’s designated agency ethics official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest 

will be resolved in accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have 

entered into with OMB’s designated agency ethics official and that has been provided to this Committee. I am not aqare of any other potential conflicts of interest. 

D. LEGAL MATTERS 

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics for unprofessional 

conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, 

professional association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, 

provide details. 

No. 

2. To your knowledge, have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendre) by any Federal, State, or other 

law enforcement authority for violation of any Federal, State, county or municipal 

law, regulation, or ordinance, other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. 

No. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer, director or owner 

ever been involved as a party of interest in any administrative agency proceeding 

or civil litigation? If so, provide details. 

As a member of the MetLife Board I may have been named in individual matters, 

however, to my knowledge, none of these cases involved allegations of wrongdoing 

by me in my official or individual capacity. Walmart as a company has various proceedings and lititgation; however, I was not involved in any of these matters. 

4. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in connection with our nomination. 

None to my knowledge. 

E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS 

1. If confirmed, are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted 

committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested 

to do so? 

Yes. 

2. If confirmed, are you willing to provide such information as may be requested by 

any committee of the Congress? 

Yes. 
54 

F. FINANCIAL DATA 

All information requested under this heading must be provided for yourself, your 

spouse, and your dependents. 

1. Please provide personal financial information not already listed on the SF278 Financial Disclosure form that identifies and states the value of all: 

(a) assets of $10,000 or more held directly or indirectly, including but not limited to bank accounts, securities, commodities futures, real estate, trusts (including 

the terms of any beneficial or blind trust of which you, your spouse, or any of your 

dependents may be a beneficiary), investments, and other personal property held in 

a trade or business or for investment other than household furnishings, personal effects, clothing, and automobiles; and 

(Redacted) 

(b) liabilities of $10,000 or more including but not limited to debts, mortgages, 

loans, and other financial obligations for which you, your spouse, or your dependents 

have a direct or indirect liability or which may be guaranteed by you, your spouse, 

or your dependents; and for each such liability indicate the nature of the liability, 

the amount, the name of the creditor, the terms of payment, the security or collateral, and the current status of the debt repayment. If the aggregate of your consumer debts exceeds $10,000, please include the total as a liability. Please include 

additional information, as necessary, to assist the Committee in determining your 

financial solvency. The Committee reserves the right to request additional information if a solvency determination cannot be made definitively from the information 

provided. 

(Redacted) 

2. List sources, amounts and dates of all anticipated receipts from deferred income 

arrangements, stock options, executory contracts and other future benefits which 

you expect to derive from current or previous business relationships, professional 

services and firm memberships, employers, clients and customers. If dates or 

amounts are estimated, please so state. Please only include those items not listed 

on the SF 278 Financial Disclosure form. 

(Redacted) 

3. Provide the identity of and a description of the nature of any interest in an option, registered copyright, or patent held during the past 12 months and indicate 

which, if any, from which you have divested and the date of divestment unless already indicated on the personal financial statement. 

(Redacted) 

4. Provide a description of any power of attorney which you hold for or on behalf 

of any other person. 

(Redacted) 

5. List sources and amounts of all gifts exceeding $500 in value received by you, 

your spouse, and your dependents during each of the last three years. Gifts received 

from members of your immediate family need not be listed. 

(Redacted) 

6. Have you filed a Federal income tax return for each of the past 10 years? If not, 

please explain. 

(Redacted) 

7. Have your taxes always been paid on time including taxes on behalf of any employees? If not, please explain. 

(Redacted) 

8. Were all your taxes, Federal, State, and local, current (filed and paid) as of the 

date of your nomination? If not, please explain. 

(Redacted) 

9. Has the Internal Revenue Service or any other state or local tax authority ever 

audited your Federal, State, local, or other tax return? If so, what resulted from the 

audit? 
55 

(Redacted) 

10. Have any tax liens, either Federal, State, or local, been filed against you or 

against any real property or personal property which you own either individually, 

jointly, or in partnership? If so, please give the particulars, including the date(s) and 

the nature and amount of the lien. State the resolution of the matter. 

(Redacted) 

11. Provide for the Committee copies of your Federal income tax returns for the past 

3 years. These documents will be made available only to Senators and staff persons 

designated by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. They will not be available for public inspection. 

(Redacted) 

12. Have you ever been late in paying court-ordered child support? If so, provide 

details. 

(Redacted) 

13. Have you ever filed for bankruptcy or been a party to any bankruptcy proceeding? If so, provide details. 

(Redacted) 
56 
57 

Answers to Questions Submitted 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 

Æ