U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

88–932 PDF 2003

S. Hrg. 108–207

NOMINATION OF JOSHUA B. BOLTEN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATION OF JOSHUA B. BOLTEN, TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

JUNE 25, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Deleware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Counsel 

JOHANNA L. HARDY, Senior Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

SUSAN E. PROPPER, Minority Counsel 

JENNIFER E. HAMILTON, Minority Research Assistant 

AMY B. NEWHOUSE, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 2

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 3

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 4

Senator Sununu ................................................................................................ 5

Senator Durbin ................................................................................................. 6

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 7

Senator Stevens ................................................................................................ 20

Senator Fitzgerald ............................................................................................ 27

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 29

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 35

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 38

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2003

Hon. Jon S. Corzine, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey .................... 8

Joshua B. Bolten, to be Director, Office of Management and Budget ................. 9

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Bolten, Joshua B.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Biographical and professional information requested of nominees .............. 45

Pre-hearing questionnaire and responses for the Record ............................. 53

Corzine, Hon. Jon S.: 

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

APPENDIX

Letter from Thomas J. Donohue, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, dated June 25, 

2003, supporting the nomination of Mr. Bolten ................................................ 146

Post-Hearing Questions for Joshua Bolten from: 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 147

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 149

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 155

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 156

Additional question for Mr. Bolten submitted for the record by Senator Levin . 157

(1)

NOMINATION OF JOSHUA B. BOLTEN 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2003

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Stevens, Voinovich, Coleman, Specter, 

Bennett, Fitzgerald, Sununu, Levin, Akaka, Durbin, Carper, Lautenberg, and Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. Good 

morning. 

Today, the Committee on Governmental Affairs is holding a 

hearing to consider the nomination of Joshua Bolten to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, one of the most important positions in the Federal Government. Most people know 

OMB as the agency that oversees the preparation of the President’s 

budget and its administration by Executive Branch agencies. OMB, 

however, also has a variety of other responsibilities. Most notably, 

it oversees financial management, Federal procurement, information and regulatory policies in all executive agencies. As such it 

plays a broader role than virtually any other agency in the Federal 

Government. 

While OMB’s budget functions are important, so too are its management responsibilities. Over the years this Committee has received countless reports from Inspectors General and the General 

Accounting Office that highlight programs at high risk for mismanagement, waste, fraud, and abuse. Ensuring that agencies are 

properly managed is crucial to seeing that taxpayer money is wisely spent and that the missions of each agency are carried out efficiently and effectively. 

I applaud President Bush for placing far more emphasis on management issues than have previous administrations. For example, 

the President has developed an aggressive Management Agenda to 

ensure that management issues are of high priority. As part of this 

Management Agenda OMB is responsible for assessing agencies’ 

performance in five key areas: Financial management, human resources, e-Government, competitive sourcing, and linking budget to 

performance. 

The administration is also beginning to link management and 

budget issues through its Program Assessment Rating Tool, also 

2

known as PART. PART is intended to hold agencies more accountable and ensure that they are operating efficiently by identifying 

the strengths and weaknesses in their programs. 

In overseeing these management responsibilities as well as the 

preparation and implementation of the President’s budget, Mr. 

Bolten will face many challenges if confirmed for this critical post. 

I am very pleased personally that he has agreed to serve in this 

important position for which he is very well qualified. His extensive 

experience in both the public and private sectors provides him with 

the background he will need as the Director of OMB. Mr. Bolten 

also possesses the extensive knowledge, extraordinary intelligence, 

and perhaps most important, the patience and persistence needed 

to be a successful OMB Director. 

I would now like to turn to Senator Akaka for any opening remarks that he might have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I join 

you in welcoming our nominee, Mr. Bolten, and his mother as well. 

It is every President’s prerogative to implement management 

proposals like, as you mentioned, Madam Chairman, PART, the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool or the Management Scorecard. I 

believe that management proposals should not make worse the 

challenges that we seek to correct. 

A good example of my concern is the recent demand on employees at the National Institutes of Health to sign and return within 

a day an addendum to their performance plan contract. The addendum included the objective of completing ‘‘the fiscal year 2003 competitive sourcing program.’’ Circulation of this form, reportedly 

without explanation, created widespread confusion and even fear 

among some employees. 

The incident raises a question as to why there are such missteps 

at a time when NIH is seeking to hire young researchers and scientists. Unfortunately this example is indicative of what I see as 

a disregard for the government’s most valuable asset—its workforce. The insistence on numerical targets for contracting out work 

regardless of an agency’s needs does not evoke an employee friendly work environment. 

I urge you to re-examine what type of work the administration 

views as inherently governmental, and work with employees to 

allay their fears. 

Federal contracting policies should be fair to Federal workers, be 

transparent, and be in the best interest of the public. Agency efforts to address challenges in recruitment and retention should not 

be undercut by numerical targets that simply eliminate jobs. 

In closing, let me touch on the budget aspect of your new appointment, Mr. Bolten. I urge you to focus like a laser on the debt 

burden we are bequeathing to our children, and with that I wish 

you well in your work. 

As you may know, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the 

on-budget deficit to exceed $400 billion in fiscal year 2003. This 

amount includes Social Security with the budget. If Social Security 

is off-budget as it should be, the actual deficit would approach $600 

billion, or 5.5 percent of the gross domestic product. In 2001, there 

3

was a budget surplus. With the President’s current budget there 

would still be a budget deficit in 2013. 

Mr. Bolten, I look forward to your testimony and I want you to 

know that I may not be here long in this meeting because I have 

a markup that I have to attend, but I will stay as long as I can. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like 

to extend my warm welcome to Josh Bolten, and I am glad that 

your mother is here and another young lady. Is that your sister? 

It is a special day, I am sure, in your family’s history. 

I recently had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Bolten to discuss his 

vision for the roles and responsibilities of the Director of Office of 

Management and Budget, and I find him to be eminently qualified 

for that job. If confirmed, Mr. Bolten, you will enter OMB at a very 

crucial time. The departures of Mitch Daniels’ deputy director, 

Nancy Dorn, deputy director for management, Mark Everson, have 

left OMB without a cohesive management team to oversee the Federal Government’s policies, procedures and programs. However, 

with your nomination and Clay Johnson’s recent confirmation I am 

hopeful the new leadership team will provide the necessary amount 

of continuity, energy, and pragmatism to OMB’s management and 

budget roles. 

Mr. Bolten, three of my goals when I came to Washington were 

to balance the budget, pay down debt, and change the culture of 

the Federal workforce. If you are confirmed as OMB Director you 

will have a key role in each of these issues. I have always believed 

that if you have your finances in order and you have good people, 

you have a successful business. As OMB Director you will be involved in the biggest business that we have in our country. 

In the past decade, fiscal conservatives have worked very hard 

to return the Federal Government to a balanced budget. For a 

short time after hand-to-hand combat—and I was here during that 

hand-to-hand combat—we met our goal for 2 years. In 1999, we 

had a real on-budget surplus of about $1 billion and then in 2000 

we had one of about $87 billion. It is the first time that we did not 

use Social Security to operate the Federal Government. 

Unfortunately, our success in balancing the budget was shortlived. In the blink of an eye we returned to spending the Social Security surplus and running large budget deficits. Today, instead of 

reducing our $6.2 trillion national debt, we are expanding it. In 

2001, we had an on-budget deficit of $33 billion. In 2002, we suffered an on-budget deficit of $314 billion, and CBO now projects 

that we are going to have a unified budget deficit in 2004 and 2005 

of over $400 billion. And as Senator Akaka just pointed out, if you 

add in Social Security we are close to about $600 billion borrowing 

to run the Federal Government. 

In addition to the budget process, the Federal Government has 

been experiencing a different type of deficit for too long, one of 

human capital. For the first 41⁄2 years of my term I have offered 

solutions to the government’s human capital crisis. Last year, with 

the administration’s support we successfully amended the homeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Dec 11, 2003 Jkt 088932 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88932.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
4

land security legislation to include several provisions that are helping the Federal Government recruit and retain the best and brightest candidates possible. 

However, Congress alone cannot solve the human capital crisis. 

Therefore, I was grateful that the President took a proactive interest in the issue of making strategic human capital management the 

first of his five governmentwide management initiatives. It is terrific and I commend the President and the administration for their 

foresight and leadership on this issue. 

Overall, I believe the administration is making progress in implementing the President’s management agenda. I hope Mr. Bolten 

will continue the legacy left by Mitch Daniels by serving as the 

President’s advocate and leader on governmentwide management 

reform. 

I am, however, troubled that the administration’s competitive 

sourcing initiative is causing unease within the Federal workforce. 

In fact on July 24th I will hold a Subcommittee hearing to examine 

the past, present, and future of the administration’s competitive 

sourcing initiative. I am interested to learn how you would manage 

the program if you were confirmed. 

Madam Chairman, I believe Mr. Bolten possesses the qualities 

and skills necessary to be an effective director of OMB and hope 

we can move him through the process as soon as possible. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome to 

Josh Bolten, and my friend and colleague, Senator Jon Corzine. 

The two of you seem to have an affinity of sorts; background. I 

think Jon Corzine worked for Josh Bolten; is that right, Josh? 

[Laughter.] 

Reverse order. 

I had the opportunity to meet Josh Bolten some days ago, and 

while there are issues that we do not agree on, and I think that 

his focus on trade-related activities is very important—but I really 

believe that having gone to school in New Jersey he will be a quick 

learn. We do welcome him here. 

I am sure he will handle himself very well, if all goes as planned 

and he is confirmed as the director of OMB. He knows his way 

around Washington having been here for some time, and we congratulate you for being nominated for this post. Your family, I understand, is with you and we also congratulate them for having 

such a talented member of the family here. 

I want to make just a couple of quick points. First, on a parochial 

matter, I look forward to getting Mr. Bolten’s on-the-record commitment to try to give us a hand, work with New Jersey, with Governor McGrevey and other New Jersey officials on our State’s 

PAAD waiver. The PAAD program in New Jersey works quite well. 

It is a prescription drug program designed to help those who are 

at the 160 percent of the poverty level or less. It has been paid for 

out of New Jersey funds for many years. What we are looking for 

now is a waiver—not uncommon, by the way—to be able to use 

other Federal funds at no increase in cost to the Federal Government for the program because of the emergency nature of the cash 

5

flow right now. But with New Jersey picking up, continuing to pick 

up its share of the obligation that we have set out to provide. So 

I would hope, Mr. Bolten, that you will be able to look at that. It 

has been quickly moved in a couple of other States, so we would 

ask your attention to that. 

Second, I want to modestly remind the nominee that I had a very 

good vote last week on the privatization, the potential privatization 

of the air traffic control function. We won 56 to 41 to prevent the 

President from privatizing air traffic control functions. It is not 

modest at all to say so, but we had a lot of thoughtful Republicans 

join a lot of thoughtful Democrats and put this into place. So we 

are not happy about the suggestion that there could be an attempt 

to privatize FAA. I consider that like a fifth branch of the military 

and they have such a wonderful safety record there that we do not 

want to disturb it. 

Last, I want to find out whether or not a report that was commissioned by the former Treasury Secretary, Secretary O’Neill, indicating that the future Federal budget deficits could total $44 trillion, I want to know whether or not that report is prevented from 

being made public. It should be made public, and we would like to 

have some understanding about where it is and what it is. 

I said before that was final. This is final. I would hope that if 

confirmed, Mr. Bolten, that we are going to have a good working 

relationship with the Congress. It was not quite what we would 

like to see it in the last administrator, but we believe that we can 

achieve that with you. As long as we are open and straight with 

one another, having done the work that you have done in the 

past—I looked at it carefully. I know you have got broad shoulders. 

You just may have to exercise them occasionally, but other than 

that we will try, as you see, with Senator Voinovich and the Chairman, Senator Collins, this is going to be among your easier places 

to be. 

But we look forward to working with you and believe that you 

are going to have a distinguished record with OMB. If we disagree 

on an issue, we want to work to resolve, as much as practical, the 

issue, and get on with the business of government. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. 

We are following the early bird rule today, so I will call on Senator Sununu next. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUNUNU 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Having only 

been here for 6 months I do not know a great deal about the Senate, but I know as a potential nominee you should probably be a 

little bit nervous when a Senator says, ‘‘This will be easy. Do not 

worry.’’ [Laughter.] 

As I came into the hearing, you might have noticed a flash of excitement. For a minute I thought you had talked Senator Corzine 

into taking the position in your stead. [Laughter.] 

I say that only half jokingly. I think that the position of Budget 

Director is the toughest job in Washington. You have one boss and 

535 critics, but as tough as that role may be, I think the President 

has made a great choice. Josh Bolten has tremendous qualificaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Dec 11, 2003 Jkt 088932 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88932.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
6

tions, and experience in finance and budget. He has a great depth 

of understanding of the policy issues that we deal with, and more 

than just understanding the nuances of policy, an ability to understand the budget implications of policy, which is absolutely critical. 

Moreover, you have experience in the White House in the administration, and the White House is a difficult place to work. It is a 

large organization in and of itself, and understanding how to work 

through issues and problems and decisions that need to be made 

as a budget director is valuable experience to have. 

I think we are very fortunate to have such a qualified nominee. 

I do not think you need a lecture about the state of the budget. You 

have been dealing with these issues, at least in a peripheral way, 

now for several years. We have a challenge I think everyone understands, to try to control Federal spending, get the economy moving, 

and strengthen revenue collections. Those are going to be recurring 

themes not just this year, but I think for the next 2 to 5 years as 

we try to bring our budget back to a balance. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman . 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN 

Senator DURBIN. Thanks a lot, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Bolten, welcome, and you could not come with higher recommendation than the presence of your former business colleague 

and friend, Senator Jon Corzine, who has talked to me personally 

about his respect for you, and that ranks very high with me, and 

I am happy that you are here today. 

I assume that before you came here today they had you review 

a lot of things in preparation for the penetrating questions which 

Senators are known to ask, and you perhaps had a chance to take 

a look at the statements made by your predecessor, Mitch Daniels, 

when he sought this job. We asked Mr. Daniels, ‘‘What challenges 

currently face the OMB?’’ A very broad question. It is interesting 

what he told us, January 16, 2001, ‘‘I view the greatest challenge 

for OMB is the development and management of the Federal budget during a period of record budget surpluses.’’ He went on to say, 

‘‘I think it is imperative to ensure taxpayers’ dollars are spent efficiently, and programs are increased due to some high priority and 

that is simply due to the availability of funds.’’

My, what a difference 21⁄2 years make. You are now in a position 

where you come to this job facing the largest deficits perhaps in 

our Nation’s history, and we of course are concerned about what 

happened in 21⁄2 years, what economic policy did we follow that 

failed to revive the economy and drove us so deeply into debt. I am 

interested because you have been close to the opinion makers and 

decisionmakers in the White House during that period of time, 

whether there was any voice in the room sitting with the President 

at any point in time that said, ‘‘You know, this is not working, 

these tax cuts are not working.’’ Clearly that voice did not prevail 

in the conversation because the President followed one massive tax 

cut with another one, and still we have record unemployment, the 

highest deficits in our history, and frankly, a state of the economy 

which is of very great concern, and one that will absolutely, I 

think, influence your job at OMB more than anything else. I think 

7

your hands have been tied. I think you are being given a very difficult job with your hands tied, with the tax cut taking money out 

of the Treasury, with the needs for national defense and national 

security, the demands there that will be met and will be spent by 

Congress. What is left is very limited. The President cannot fund 

his own education program. No Child Left Behind has become an 

unfunded mandate in my State as it has in many other States. And 

time and again we are finding, whether it is prescription drugs or 

health care, or homeland security, or veterans’ medical, the money 

is not there, the money is gone. It went by way of tax cuts, primarily to the wealthiest people in this country. 

I am interested, as you tell us about your experience that leads 

to this, in finding out whether there was any voice in the room 

speaking to the President at any point over the last 21⁄2 years, saying this is not working, because clearly the facts tell us it has not 

worked. What Mitch Daniels faced were grand surpluses and the 

need to impose discipline, and what you face are massive deficits 

and the absolute imperative to put discipline into that process. It 

is a tough job. I believe you are up to it. I am anxious to hear what 

you have seen and heard in the White House in the last 21⁄2 years 

that can give us some comfort that reason has at least been suggested, if not prevailed. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I look forward 

to voting for this nomination, to moving it forward very quickly. 

Clearly, Josh Bolten contains the skill, the talent, the intellectual 

capacity, the experience that is necessary to do a very tough job. 

I echo the changing reality by my colleague from Illinois. Less 

than 9 months after Mitch Daniels’ statement we were hit with 

September 11, and subsequent to that we were hit with WorldCom, 

Tyco, Enron, and a great unstabilizing impact on confidence in the 

economy, and I think we have made progress. But you do have perhaps one of the toughest jobs in Washington. Somebody has to hold 

the line. I would not like to lecture here, but to reiterate that this 

President is a compassionate conservative, and I think we have to 

keep that in mind, and so as OMB does the things that it does, 

clearly and hopefully not in a mechanistic, formalistic way, but taking into consideration the human impact on some of the decisions 

that are made. 

Then finally, I looked at your comments and noted in answer to 

one of the questions you talked about the important task going forward as to return the economy to strong growth and healthy job 

creation, which will begin to move the government’s finances back 

into balance. Clearly, tax cuts, trade policy and the like are important. 

So I think you bring the skills and the talents to the table at a 

very difficult time. The world has changed since Mitch Daniels 

came before us a couple years ago, but I think we are up to the 

task and I think you are the right guy to do it. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. 

8

It is now a great pleasure to welcome our colleague from New 

Jersey, Senator Corzine, for his introduction of the nominee. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JON S. CORZINE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator CORZINE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and colleagues 

of the Committee. It is good to be here with you today. I am particularly pleased in the role that I am playing because I enthusiastically support the nomination of Josh Bolten to be the Director 

of OMB. 

As you may know, Madam Chairman, Josh was a trusted colleague in the private sector for a number of years. He almost became my Chief of Staff before he so abruptly chose an alternative 

career path with a then-aspiring governor, high-aspiration governor 

from Texas. Accepting graciously that slight, I maintain a sincere 

respect for Josh Bolten’s judgment and consider him a close friend. 

That said, my support of his nomination is not based on friendship. It is knowing Josh as a man of uncommon common sense, intelligence, integrity, and I think he is an outstanding leader, and 

I think he will do an outstanding job as the Director of OMB. I 

think most people who know him would share that view. While at 

Goldman, Sachs he was rightly respected for his intellect, work 

ethic, modesty and skills as a manager. Speaking for myself, I relied on him heavily in almost every way, except when I was asking 

someone to write my political speeches. In that case we sometimes 

had to part ways. From all indications, he has done a similarly outstanding job for the President including writing political speeches. 

I am confident that he will do a great job at the OMB. 

To be a good OMB Director, you have to get your hands dirty, 

you have to get into the details of a lot of issues and understanding 

of the program. Josh is an individual that is both willing to do that, 

has exhibited that, understands the intricacies of policy, and I 

know he will do an outstanding job. 

To be a good OMB Director, you also need to maintain an effective working relationship with the Congress and with colleagues in 

the administration and the White House. Josh will excel at this, in 

my view, because he believes in treating everyone with respect, and 

because he knows not just how to pursue an agenda, but to listen 

and learn from others. In that regard I hope you were listening to 

Senator Lautenberg on the PAAD waiver for New Jersey. 

To be a good OMB Director, you need to be a good manager, and 

I know from personal experience that Josh is. He is well organized 

and he knows how to get the best out of other people. 

And finally, to be a good OMB Director, you need to be able to 

communicate about complex policy issues with a broad range of 

players, including all of us sometimes difficult folks on the Hill, but 

most certainly with the public. 

Lest I be accused of killing Josh with kindness, let me assure my 

Republican friends that Josh and I have very different views on 

some matters of policy. That was true in our Goldman, Sachs days, 

and will be true in the future, I am sure. But while we will surely 

see things from different perspectives, Josh is the kind of person 

who can be someone who can disagree with you without being disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Dec 11, 2003 Jkt 088932 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88932.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
9

agreeable, and I think that will serve the administration and the 

public very well in one of the toughest jobs in Washington. 

In sum, Madam Chairman, I cannot imagine a better choice 

President Bush could have made for OMB Director. I am proud to 

call Josh Bolten a friend. I am confident he will do an outstanding 

job not only for the President, but for our Nation, and I hope the 

Committee will give his nomination fast, favorable consideration to 

go forward. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Senator, for your 

comments. It is very helpful to know of your personal experience 

in working with the nominee, and we very much appreciate your 

taking the time to introduce him today. We would be happy to excuse you at this point if you would like, or you are welcome to stay 

by his side and whisper in his ear. 

Senator CORZINE. I think he is going to do OK. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Bolten has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered prehearing questions submitted by the Committee, and has had his financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will be made a part of the hearing record, 

with the exception of the financial data, which are on file and 

available for public inspection in the Committee offices. 

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath, so, Mr. Bolten, I would 

ask that you stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I do. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Bolten, I would like to give you the opportunity to introduce any family members or other special people 

to you who are here today. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSHUA B. BOLTEN, TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. BOLTEN. Madam Chairman, I have with me my mom, whose 

80th birthday we will be celebrating in just a few weeks, and my 

sister Susannah, and my friend Lindsey Kozberg. I am very proud 

to have them all here, and I thank you for welcoming them. 

Chairman COLLINS. We welcome them. We are glad to have them 

here as well. Mr. Bolten, I would now like to ask you to proceed 

with any statement that you would like to make to the Committee. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning, 

and I am deeply honored to come before you as the President’s 

nominee to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I will, for the record, put my thanks in to Senator Corzine, who 

was generous as an employer, and even more generous with his 

kind words, and I was proud to call him boss, and I am now proud 

to call him friend. 

Madam Chairman, I’ve spent most of my career in public service, 

and I’ve been fortunate to have a wide array of extraordinary experiences in that service. For someone who takes great pride in public 

service, there may be no better or rewarding job than OMB DirecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Dec 11, 2003 Jkt 088932 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88932.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
10

tor. Helping to prepare the budget of the United States is an unparalleled opportunity to see that the Nation’s priorities are carried 

out completely and faithfully. The Federal Budget and the spending bills that follow represent a shared conclusion on how much of 

the people’s money the government will spend and for what purposes. These are critical judgments, as Madam Chairman, you and 

other Members have noted, and the American people depend on all 

of us to get them right. 

Equally important is the other part of OMB’s mandate, Federal 

management. OMB has the responsibility to make sure that our 

government delivers on its promises, gets the most out of its resources and puts the great talents of Federal employees to good 

use. 

Madam Chairman, you and other Members of this Committee 

have shown strong leadership on the management agenda, and I 

look forward to working with you to make this agenda successful 

in every way. 

Since being nominated I’ve heard from many knowledgeable people, and I think virtually every Member of this Committee, that 

being the Director of OMB is not the easiest job in government. 

This is true in the best of times, and it is certainly true in our challenging times. Yet I believe that the President’s program, as reflected in his budget, is very well designed to meet the Nation’s 

greatest challenges. Those challenges are strengthening our economy, securing our homeland, and winning the war on terror. If confirmed, I will give full effort to serving these great goals and will 

do so, as the President has directed me, with a watchful eye on the 

people’s money. 

In preparing to take on the role of OMB Director and its challenges, I’ve been greatly encouraged by two discoveries. First is the 

people of OMB. They perform some of the toughest jobs in government with the highest, the very highest level of professionalism 

and dedication. Second is the goodwill of so many Members of Congress, beginning, Madam Chairman, with Members of this Committee, and extending to your able staff. My own service on the 

Senate Finance Committee staff roughly 15 years ago, that experience gave me an early appreciation and respect for the role of Congress both in enacting laws and in overseeing their implementation. 

We may, as some Members have noted, Senator Corzine noted, 

we may have differences. They may be large. But they need not be 

partisan or bitter, and I hope they never will be. You have my commitment, Madam Chairman, that if confirmed I will work closely 

with this Committee and with the entire Congress as we fulfill our 

shared responsibilities for the American people. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to appear. I look forward 

to your questions. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Bolten. 

I am going to begin the questioning with standard questions that 

we ask of all nominees for the record. First, is there anything that 

you are aware of in your background which might present a conflict 

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

nominated? 

Mr. BOLTEN. No. 

11

Chairman COLLINS. Second, do you know of anything personal or 

otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have 

been nominated? 

Mr. BOLTEN. No. 

Chairman COLLINS. And third, do you agree without reservation 

to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before 

any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I do. 

Chairman COLLINS. You passed that first round with flying colors. [Laughter.] 

We are now going to start a round of questions of 8 minutes 

each. 

Mr. Bolten, OMB is responsible for overseeing the financial management of Federal agencies and Federal programs. Many of us 

were very concerned and disturbed to learn recently that accounting problems have plagued the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the result has been that the projections for the 

AmeriCorps program show that there will be severe reductions in 

the number of volunteers for fiscal year 2003, and this is going to 

occur, unless we remedy the problem, despite the fact that the 

President has identified this program as a priority, and that it has 

strong support among Members of Congress. Congress attempted to 

correct these financial management problems by passing the 

Strengthen the AmeriCorps Programs Act last week, but nevertheless, past errors will cause my home State of Maine to cut its number of volunteers from 160 last year to only 20 in the next fiscal 

year, and I think that is true of everybody sitting on this panel. 

Our States are all experiencing these significant cutbacks. 

How will OMB work with the Congress and the Corporation to 

minimize the impact of these financial management problems? 

They should not have occurred in the first place, but they certainly 

should not be allowed to decimate a program that has been working very well and is a presidential as well as a congressional priority. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Madam Chairman, that is indeed a high presidential priority and the President has put great emphasis on his 

support for AmeriCorps and for the other programs that are under 

the aegis of the Corporation for National Community Service, and 

that is an issue on which I want to work with you and the other 

Members very closely to see what we can do. 

There was a serious financial management problem, an accounting problem that has persisted for many years within the 

AmeriCorps program that has undermined its ability to meet its financial obligations. When that was discovered by the folks over at 

AmeriCorps, by the financial manager there last year, she took 

very rapid steps to solve the problem. The Congress stepped in 

helpfully in supplemental appropriations earlier this year to fill 

some of the gap that was created by that problem. But we were not 

able to take it all the way. The President’s request for AmeriCorps 

and other CNCS entities was not fully met in the appropriations 

bills that were passed earlier this year. We are very hopeful that 

we will be able to get full funding as we go forward, including all 

of the President’s requests in the 2004 budget. I want to work very 

12

closely with you on getting that full funding going forward, and 

then doing everything we can possibly in the interim to ensure that 

we get as many people serving in AmeriCorps and the other important volunteer agencies as possible. 

Chairman COLLINS. There has been a great deal of discussion recently about high energy prices and the impact on our economy. 

Alan Greenspan, for example, recently testified about his concern 

over the high price of natural gas as one of the key challenges facing our economy. There is another side of energy prices, however, 

beyond this macro view, and that is the challenges that many of 

our low income families face during cold winter months in simply 

keeping warm, particularly in areas of the country like the Northeast, which are heavily reliant on home heating oil. Every year we 

have a tussle with OMB to get the emergency LIHEAP, the Low 

Income Heating Assistance Program, monies released in time. 

Would you commit to working with those of us who are concerned about prompt funding of the LIHEAP program to, (A) ensure that the President’s budget adequately funds this program, 

and (B) that we do not keep experiencing these delays in releasing 

the emergency funds? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I will make that commitment, Madam Chairman. 

The President’s budget this year requests a total of about $2 billion 

for the LIHEAP program, $300 million of that in contingency 

money that we can use to meet those urgent needs that you spoke 

about, and you do have my commitment that as we see urgent 

needs come up, we will work with you to ensure that we get that 

money out promptly to the people who need it. 

Chairman COLLINS. I have a second question I want to ask you 

about the LIHEAP program. That is, the community action agencies in Maine that administer the program tell me that there is a 

far more efficient way to administer the LIHEAP program, and 

that would be if we advance funded it so that you would have to 

have double funding for 1 year in order for this to happen. But that 

way the funding would be received in the summer months and it 

could be distributed so that people could fill their oil tanks when 

prices are lower. There is a significant difference usually in the 

cost of home heating oil in the summer months versus the winter 

months. By taking the same amount of money but disbursing it in 

the summer months, the community action agencies would be able 

to help a far greater number of people, or give a larger benefit 

level. 

I realize that you cannot commit today to changing the way the 

program is structured, but would you be willing to work with us 

to take a look at the efficiencies that would be brought about by 

having an advance appropriation to change the funding cycle for 

this program so that the money would go further and be able to 

either help more people or provide a greater monthly benefit? 

Mr. BOLTEN. It is an interesting idea, Madam Chairman. I would 

be glad to work with you on it. I have not heard about it before, 

but it sounds like it may hold both some promise and peril, and 

we’ll see if we can capture the promise and avoid the peril. 

Chairman COLLINS. We see only promise. We will help you on 

that. 

13

Finally, on my round of questions, I want to ask you a procurement question. As you may know, the Senate recently adopted an 

amendment that Senator Talent and I offered, and Senator Levin 

supported as well, that dealt with the issue of contract bundling by 

the Department of Defense. What we are finding is that small businesses are finding it increasingly difficult to bid on Federal contracts because contracting officers are bundling the requirements 

for contracts together into one large contract that is beyond the 

scope or means of a smaller company to bid on. If the requirements 

in that contract were broken out in a logical manner, it would expand the number of businesses in the United States that could bid 

on the contract, and thus help the Federal Government to get a 

better price, perhaps better quality. 

Now, procurement officials tend to resist breaking up these contracts because it is obviously easier for them to administer one 

giant contract and leave it to the prime contractor to subcontract 

certain parts of it, but if you look at it from the perspective of the 

taxpayer getting the best value and the desirability of having as 

broad a contractor base as possible, the advantages of breaking out 

contracts requirements become obvious. 

Will you work with us to try to implement through the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy within the OMB, policies that will discourage unnecessary bundling of contracts? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I will, Madam Chairman, and the issue you’ve 

raised is a priority for the President. He has recognized for many 

years that perhaps the best way to promote small business, minority-owned, women-owned businesses is to ensure that the contract 

that they are bidding for are not so large that they are simply out 

of the game. So the President very much supports the initiative 

that you have pursued and I know the OMB’s Office of Federal 

Procurement is putting in place some programs to ensure that 

when agencies do bundling, they have met a variety of criteria that 

justify the bundling in that particular case because I think we are 

in full agreement with you that the bundling should not be permitted unless it is necessary in that particular case. So we will look 

forward to working with you on the implementation of that. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Bolten, you had a hint of what might be coming from me in 

my other remarks, and I want to continue the discussion about our 

Pharmacy Plus Program. We in New Jersey have been in negotiation with CMS and OMB since March 2002, and Section 1, it is 

1115, waiver of the pharmacy plus. One of the questions I was anxious to ask today on behalf of the people in my State who need and 

depend on the assistance provided by the PAAD program, if you as 

OMB Director will make the effort to work with us to reach a 

speedy conclusion on the matter of this waiver, and I would like 

to know that you will keep me informed about the progress of this 

situation as it goes. 

As an example, Wisconsin applied about the same time as New 

Jersey did for this waiver, and their approval was developed in 

July 2002, so I would like to know that we can count on you to take 

a good look at it, and again, keep us in touch. 

14

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, not being at OMB at this point, I have had 

no involvement in the waiver, but I’ll be glad to work with you if 

confirmed. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I am sure you are aware of the report commissioned by then Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, showed the 

United States facing Federal deficits of more than $44 trillion, and 

there was extensive reporting by the Financial Times of London,

and they talk about the administration choosing not to disclose the 

findings of the report during a time when Congress and the administration were negotiating the 10-year, $350 billion tax cut. How do 

you feel about disclosing this kind of information? Is the public, the 

Congress entitled to know what is expected from inside the financial structure of the White House? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Sure, Senator, the public is entitled to know what 

the government’s views are about what is coming down the road at 

us in our budget situation. I have not seen the report you’ve referred to. I know of it. But what I can tell you is that this administration, for the first time, has taken on very explicitly precisely the 

issue that is addressed in that report, which is the massive unfunded liability that we face in our entitlement programs. One of 

the chapters of the budget that the President put out at the beginning of this year, the 2004 budget, explicitly addresses some estimates that the administration has made and some economists have 

made about the size of that unfunded liability. I understand that 

this report uses different methodology, taking out estimates infinitely, and it attaches a higher number to it. We can discuss what 

the right methodology for putting the number on the size of the unfunded liability in their entitlements is, but I don’t think we really 

need to do that to have the discussion. The number is huge, whether it’s $17 trillion or $47 trillion, and it’s a problem that we need 

to work together to address. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Enormous consequences in my mind, 

whether it is $17 or $47, but is one of those unfunded liabilities 

a tax cut promise that the President made? Because that one got 

funded in a hurry, and we are seeing it now as, I hope, will not 

be an annual or biannual process. Is that one of the liabilities that 

you would pair off against the other, unfunded against other unfunded liabilities? 

Mr. BOLTEN. No, sir, the President’s and the tax cuts enacted by 

this Congress are not part of the unfunded liability problem we 

face. The problem we face is the obligations that we as a society 

have undertaken mostly through Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, for which we are not setting aside sufficient money to cover. 

The tax cuts are a more short-term measure, designed to get this 

economy going again. The deficits we face in the short run, hopefully not the long run, the deficits we face in the short run are by 

historical standards relatively within the range of past practice. 

They are large. They are larger than we want them to be, but they 

are not the problem we face with the huge unfunded liability coming down the road. They are, by my judgment, part of the solution 

to getting this economy back on to the kind of growth that this 

economy needs, which is ultimately the solution for the government 

to bring its budget back into balance now. 

15

Senator LAUTENBERG. I do not want to be unfair with you because we are talking about some things that occurred in the past, 

but I would like to feel that we have some understanding about 

what the public is entitled to hear and when they are entitled to 

hear it. I believe in lots of sunshine even though we rarely see it 

around here, but the fact is that I am hoping that we are going to 

be able to count on you in that regard. I ask you here, are you committed at this point, or have you been encouraged to think about 

the next tax cut during your early tenure on the job? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I have not, Senator. I have been involved, obviously, 

in the discussions on the tax cuts that the President has proposed 

over the last few years. The President, at this point, has no plans 

for a future tax cut beyond those that are already contained in his 

budget, some of which are still pending before the Congress. And 

my expectation is that the judgment about whether any further tax 

cuts are needed will be made based on a cold-eyed view of the economic situation. And whether a further tax cut is needed I think 

will be known when we know better how the economy is doing. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You might guess, I see the glass as half 

full, and I am concerned about the quick evidence that we have 

seen. Having been the senior Democrat on Budget before I left in 

early 2001, where we were beginning to ride a very comfortable 

surplus train, and suddenly this has turned around and we are developing massive budget deficits, very disappointing, and I am not 

including the war. I am one of those who believe that that action 

was necessary, and I commend the President and our military for 

having it done in very competent fashion. 

One last question if I may, Madam Chairman. I want to ask Mr. 

Bolten if you are familiar with the A–76 outsourcing program? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I have become familiar with the President’s competitive sourcing initiative, yes, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And that is combined with the President’s 

agenda to privatize Federal jobs and job functions that might create too much pressure on agencies at this time to identify functions 

as commercial or attempt to contract out. 

One example of those, and I think it is perhaps the most egregious for all kinds of reasons, not including the generic reason, but 

is the air traffic control privatization. Again, I want to be fair with 

you. Have you seen enough of that to comment on whether or not 

that is a program that you think is advisable at this time? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I do not have enough information, Senator, but I 

can tell you that it would be my commitment to ensure that the 

President’s competitive sourcing initiative is implemented in a way 

to ensure that the only jobs that we attempt to competitively 

source would be those that are inherently commercial in nature. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Thanks, Mr. 

Bolten. Good luck. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator SUNUNU. I’m sorry. Senator Voinovich first. Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. I would like to comment on the 

Chairman’s remarks to you. The AmeriCorps situation is a problem 

in Ohio. It is a very good program. The private sector is supporting 

it much more than I ever thought they would, and I think we need 

16

$200 million if it is somewhere to be found to take care of this 

problem. You are aware of it, and I know the President supports 

it. Anything you can do to help switch AmeriCorps would be greatly appreciated. 

Mr. BOLTEN. I agree, Senator, we’re in a difficult spot because we 

do not have the money in the budget for 2003 that we would like 

to have for the program. It’s an extraordinarily successful and important program from the President’s initiative. If confirmed, I will 

do what I can to assist for this year. More importantly, I think, or 

just as importantly, I want to look forward to make sure that we 

make sure that program gets the resources it needs going forward. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Great. Again, too often I do not think the Office of Management and Budget ties up other policies in the Federal Government that cause problems like the LIHEAP program. In 

other words, we must provide LIHEAP funding to those in need because the cost of oil, and the cost of gas is so high. It seems to me 

that when some of these things come up, that you ought to emphasize that we need to get, for example, Clear Skies passed so that 

we have a more diversified source of energy to keep us from relying 

on natural gas, which could drive up the heating costs of people all 

over this country. Furthermore, finding natural gas has become a 

priority with Alan Greenspan, and that we need an energy policy 

in this country, that opens up more sources of natural gas. Too 

often we do not tie the two together so people only hear about it 

from the environmental groups, but we never connect up some of 

these policies with the down side of, for example, cuts to the 

LIHEAP program. Have you given any consideration to looking at 

how some of these things work and working with some of your colleagues so people can make the connect? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I have, Senator, and I would be pleased to work 

with you on that if I am confirmed as Director. I think those are 

very important connections to make, and the energy legislation 

that is now pending before the Senate I think is a good place to 

start, as well as, as you mentioned, Senator, the President’s Clear 

Skies initiative. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And I think the fact that you worked in the 

White House policy shop, makes you more qualified to start connecting up the dots for the American people. 

Mr. BOLTEN. I hope so, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. One thing I have noticed about the current 

budget and budgets of the past is they really seem to ignore the 

infrastructure needs of this country. For example, if you look at 

water and sewers, we are talking $50 billion during the next 5 

years, and the amount of money in the 2004 budget was less than 

what was in the budget before that. Unfortunately, we have resorted to borrowing money from the Highway Trust Fund to pay 

for new road construction and existing road maintenance. It seems 

that people are reluctant to look at the fact that we may need more 

gas tax dollars in order to do the job that we need to have a decent 

highway system. My State, for example, is the ‘‘Just in Time 

State,’’ and the highways affect our economy. The role of the Army 

Corps of Engineers, has expanded into environmental restoration, 

and their budget has been cut. They have operation and management costs that have expanded astronomically every year. It seems 

17

like no one is paying attention to the infrastructure needs of this 

country. They seem to be taking back seats, and it is particularly 

disconcerting because of the fact that we have all these Federal 

mandates on local governments. At one time the Federal Government pitched in, for example, for sewers. Now it is a loan program. 

Would you like to comment on that? Why is it that there seem 

to be no appreciation of these infrastructure needs that we have 

got for the country? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, I’ll be glad to work with you on the infrastructure issues. They are important. Obviously, the infrastructure 

is central to how our economy operates. We need to make sure it’s 

sound. There are, at the same time, many competing priorities in 

the budget, as Senator Stevens knows better than anyone, and my 

first sense is that the President’s budget as presented in 2004 does 

meet many of the infrastructure needs that we have. The highway 

proposal that the President put out earlier this year is, I recall, 

roughly a 20 percent increase over previous highway funding. 

There are demands for a great deal more highway funding, but the 

administration’s view is that given the many priorities that we 

have in the budget, that’s what we have available to deal with the 

infrastructure, the highway infrastructure priority, and I do not expect the administration to be supportive of a gas tax increase to try 

to expand the base there. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, the truth of the matter in the highway 

area is that the new program will get us back another few years, 

and it will take us until 2007 to recover. This demands your full 

attention and I hope you look into it. 

Mr. BOLTEN. I will look at it with you, Senator. 

Senator VOINOVICH. And I know GAO is working on a big study 

on infrastructure needs of this country. 

As you know, the House included significant personnel reforms 

in their version of the National Defense Authorization Act, and although the full Senate Committee—we did not get a chance to participate because the Parliamentarian decided it was not a germane 

issue. So I worked with Chairman Collins and Senator Levin, on 

a bipartisan level, to come up with an alternative to Secretary 

Rumsfeld’s proposal. We are very concerned that our bill is given 

consideration by the Conference Committee. We would also like to 

see the administration be involved in this as well. One of the concerns that we have is that the original bill from the Department 

of Defense cut out the Office of Personnel Management. We believe 

the Office of Personnel Management should be involved in the establishment of a new DoD personnel system as they are with the 

Homeland Security Department. We think that they should be involved with this new proposal in terms of personnel flexibility, 

which changes Title 5. Are you familiar with this issue? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Roughly familiar, and I will become more familiar 

if confirmed. I will take a close look at that. I do know that Secretary Rumsfeld and OPM Director James had an opportunity to 

address this, and came to the conclusion that the right thing to do 

for the Defense Department was to let them establish the flexibilities through their own system, and that, it seems to me, offers 

them an opportunity to actually structure the personnel system 

within our defense community in a way that is going to make it 

18

possible for Secretary Rumsfeld to pursue the major transformation 

of our modern military that he would like to see accomplished. 

Senator VOINOVICH. We feel that OPM should to be involved, and 

we have seen their non-involvement in the Transportation Security 

Administration. A debacle we had over there is evidence that they 

ought to be involved in these issues. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Bolten, as you know, OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive 15 

was revised in 1997. It governs the racial and ethnic data collection 

by Federal agencies. Native Hawaiians were disaggregated from 

Asian-Pacific Island category at that time, and a new category, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, was created. Agencies 

were given until January 1, 2003 to make all existing record keeping and reporting requirements consistent with its standard. If confirmed, I am asking you what will you do to ensure a full implementation of Directive 15? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, I’m aware of Directive 15 and your leadership in putting it into place. It is a sound directive and knowing 

of your interest particularly and your kindness to my mom, I will 

be keeping an especially close eye on the enforcement of that directive, which I am told is being observed by the various agencies, and 

you have my commitment that if confirmed as Director, I will ensure that it is strictly observed by various agencies to whom it applies. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. GAO is studying this issue for me. 

Let me ask another question. 

Sound government contracting relies on transparency and accountability. In your response to prehearing questions you stated 

that, ‘‘agencies should take into account that some commercial 

practices will lack the degree of transparency that the public rightfully expects of Federal agencies.’’ Could you please clarify what 

that means? Do you believe the practices of contractors should be 

less transparent than Federal workers in public/private competitions? 

Mr. BOLTEN. No, Senator, I don’t. I do think that as we move toward competitive sourcing in some areas agencies need to take in 

account that private contractors may not yet be as familiar as they 

should be with the transparency requirements of government, but 

then I think what that means is that it is contingent upon those 

of us involved in promoting a competitive sourcing agenda to ensure that the private contractors are brought up to speed on whatever transparency requirements we may have within the government, just as we need to make sure that where the public employees are competing for an inherently commercial function, that they 

are brought up to standard on knowing how to bid for a contract 

because that, on the other side of the coin, is an unfamiliar area 

to many public sector employees. 

I think the important part here, Senator, is that we ensure that 

there is a level playing field of competition, where we’ve decided 

that a function is inherently commercial and appropriate for review 

19

as to be competitively sourced. We make sure that there is a fair 

competition between the public sector and the private sector. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. OMB had a hard and fast deadline 

for agencies to complete outsourcing goals by September 30 of this 

year. At the same time, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 

has repeatedly advised agencies to spend more time on front-end 

planning before initiating a public/private competition. This is an 

important point since, with the exception of the Department of Defense, most agencies have little or no experience with these competitions. Now OMB has extended its deadline to July 2004. My 

question is: Why has this deadline been extended nearly a year? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Well, partly for the reasons that I was just talking 

about, which is that I think we need to make sure that as we ask 

for competition to be brought to some of these inherently commercial functions, we make sure that all sides are ready to do that, and 

as I said, so that there is a level playing field of competition. If the 

agencies need more time to have their personnel trained in the 

proper functioning of a competitive bidding process, if the employees need an opportunity to come up to speed on how to do a proper 

commercial bid, then we should be flexible in giving the time to do 

that, because the one thing we don’t want to do is give the bum’s 

rush here and have a competition done on an unfair basis. What 

we want to do is get the most efficiency possible out of the taxpayers dollar and we want to do that on a fair basis to both public 

employees and private sector employees. 

Senator AKAKA. I am sure Senator Voinovich would be interested 

in this question, so let me ask you, will there be funds for training? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Funds for training within the agencies? 

Senator AKAKA. Yes. 

Mr. BOLTEN. I don’t know precisely what the budget is, but I expect that the administration would undertake to ensure that agencies have the proper training necessary to conduct a good competitive bidding process. 

Senator AKAKA. There are serious concerns over OMB’s revision 

to Circular A–76. The revision removes cost as the driving factor 

in deciding whether Federal work should be outsourced. As a result, Federal jobs may be eliminated if the work can be performed 

more efficiently in house. The revision allows agencies to outsource 

Federal work without giving Federal employees a chance to compete for their jobs. My final question is how will you ensure that 

OMB’s revised regulations are fair to Federal workers and enhance 

government efficiency? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, I’ll be glad to work with you as we implement the regulations. We do want to make sure they’re fair. We do 

want to make sure that we are getting the most efficient use of the 

taxpayers’ dollar, and that we are doing that in a way that does 

not unjustifiably disadvantage any party in the competition. So I’ll 

look forward to working with you on it. I know how sensitive an 

issue it is to many of your constituents and other Members of this 

Committee. We will pay attention. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Bolten, for your response, and I wish you well. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

20

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Stevens, Senator Sununu has agreed to defer to you. Always a wise move, to defer to the Chairman of the Appropriations 

Committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, and I apologize to my 

colleagues. 

I welcome you in your new position, and I think you have eminent qualifications. As I told you in our personal conversation, I 

hope you do not throw away Mitch’s flak jacket. You will need it 

before we are through. 

Mr. BOLTEN. I’m wearing it now, Senator. 

Senator STEVENS. I do want to ask you a few questions though 

that relate to not only my role here in this Committee, but in appropriations. First here in this. I am working with the Chairman 

on the revision of the DoD suggested changes in the civilian personnel procedures. I would urge you to go back and look at the 

Gaither report in 1958, and see what President Eisenhower sought 

for then-Secretary McElroy, and changes in defense procedures, 

both in hiring and in concentration of power in the Secretary of Defense. To the great credit of the CNO at that time, Artie Burke, he 

convinced Congress not to follow the President’s recommendations 

totally. It was enacted in 1958, but the concentration of power in 

the Secretary was not approved by Congress, and I hope that this 

Committee will see to it that it is not approved this time. I do 

think that there is an absolute necessity for having a senior executive service that reaches throughout the government. My feeling 

about the Department’s recommendations that have been sent up 

here for change in civilian procedures is that it would destroy 

many of the things that many of us have worked for years on, and 

that is for a fact a senior executive service that knows that it has 

the protection of law, and knows that any member of that senior 

executive service is qualified to serve in any department of the government. I would urge you to check that out, and hope that it does 

not turn into a battle between your office and us here on this Committee. 

With regard to the Appropriations Committee, I do not know how 

to even ask questions about this, but I hope that you realize that 

the gimmicks in the budget this year have placed severe restrictions on the Senate. Take bioshield, for instance. Bioshield has just 

been approved as an addition to the budget by the House, and as 

it does that the provision in the budget resolution says that their 

top line for budget authority and outlays is automatically increased. When it comes over here, the budget resolution gimmick 

says the authorizing committee has the increase in budget authority, but we do not get the increase in outlays. Automatically an 

enormous battle between your position and mine, and I do believe 

that we have to put you on notice that we are not going to approve 

bioshield under those circumstances. You are going to have to give 

us either a budget waiver or something, because unless you do, I 

have to take the money out of other subcommittees to fund bioshield. This budget is replete with those little gimmicks. 

21

Another one is that there is a cap put on the Senate for 2003. 

We cannot change the 2003 amounts. That does not apply to the 

House. It just applies to the Senate, and puts a cap on the budget 

for 2003. But guess what? There was never a budget resolution for 

2003. Under the circumstances if we want to rearrange some 2003 

money in order to meet some of the requirements for 2004, such 

as bioshield, I am faced with a 60-vote point of order there too. 

I really think that we need to also take a look at veterans’ care. 

Veterans’ care now, even if I fund the budget resolution, which is 

woefully short, we are a billion and a half short in outlays. Why? 

Because they limited us in outlays. 

I am going to serve notice on you and on the Senate that next 

year we are not going to get that kind of a gimmicky resolution. 

I am going to oppose the budget resolution if they attempt to do 

that again. I would urge you to study it, because it automatically 

creates friction between your office and the Senate Appropriations 

Committee, and we cannot cut below what we have got now, 

MILCON, you name what it is, the subcommittee is woefully short 

to meet the conditions that exist in this country following Afghanistan and Iraq on the heels of Bosnia and Kosovo, particularly in 

defense and in other areas of the government. 

I want you to know I welcome you here, and I am without question going to vote for your confirmation, but I want to urge you to 

use some of your distinguished background as a law professor to 

help us get some of your people on the management side to follow 

the law. We have had so many disputes with the Congress because 

the agencies think they can go around the law and not comply with 

the law with regard to the appropriations process in particular, and 

we have to put restrictions in the appropriations bills in order to 

assure compliance with existing law. I do not think we should have 

to do that. I hope that you will help us in that regard. 

My main question to you is, have you had a chance yet to take 

a look at this 2004 budget and how it is being handled? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Yes, sir, I am beginning to become educated in it. 

Senator STEVENS. I do not want to pin you down here at a confirmation hearing, but as I indicated, there are some real wrinkles 

in this one, and I do not think we ought to be put in a position 

where we are automatically in conflict, although I will wear my 

Hulk tie to tell you when I am ready for battle, OK? I really think 

we should try to avoid those battles and I welcome your background in order to try and achieve that goal. 

Madam Chairman, I thank you for the time. I am too fed up 

right now with problems that I know you do not have the answers 

to, and neither do I, but I would hope that you are aware of those 

problems and will work with us to try and solve them. Thank you 

very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Madam Chairman, if I may make a comment to 

Chairman Stevens, I am with you all the way. I am familiar with 

some of the problems you have raised, not all of them. I have become familiar with the sorts of tensions and conflicts that are created when we do put gimmicks into the budget. I would like to 

work with you to keep those to a minimum, particularly on something like the bioshield initiative which is so important. If conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Dec 11, 2003 Jkt 088932 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88932.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
22

firmed I would like to work with you immediately to ensure that 

we properly fund bioshield without having to unnecessarily take 

that money away from other committees. I do not think that was 

the intent from the beginning, and I know that when we use a variety of budget gimmicks in the resolutions, that we put ourselves 

in positions where we end up in unnecessary conflict. I am very 

much looking forward to working with you to avoid that. 

Senator STEVENS. I do hope you will do that, and I do hope that 

we can find some way to look at the problems ahead of time, for 

instance, FEMA. We are short on money for FEMA right now. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. And we need a budget, something on request. 

But I know why you are not sending it to us. We have got several 

others along the line too. Somehow or other we have to set up some 

kind of reserve for those supplementals that are coming if we do 

not get an amendment from you on the budget. And under the 

budget resolution, as it stands right now, even if you send a supplemental, my top line is still what it is now. That is the difficulty. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Understood, sir. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Bolten, I am sure as you look into the responsibilities and 

authority of the Office of Management and Budget, you will find 

some surprises. I certainly did. After September 11, I focused on 

one issue, and I said everybody has a specialty. My specialty is 

going to be in a field that I know almost nothing about, and that 

is information technology. At my age and with my experience, I 

rely on the youngest people in my office to give me advice on information technology. 

But I did know this: Our oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation disclosed that as of September 11, the information technology in that agency was archaic, embarrassingly archaic. And 

there was little or no communication between the information technology of the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, all 

of the obvious agencies. 

So, had anyone really come up with the names of the 19 terrorists on September 11 and tried to transfer them from INS to the 

FBI or to the Federal Aviation Administration, it was possible to 

do by telephone or fax or hand carrying. So I said, well, I am going 

to go after this. I really took this right up the chain. I started with 

Bob Mueller at the FBI, whom I respect greatly, Attorney General 

Ashcroft, Vice President Cheney, even to the President. And every 

one of them said, ‘‘Why, certainly. We need to modernize this architecture of computers and we need to have interoperability.’’ I love 

those terms. 

Then I was stopped in my tracks by OMB. Mitch Daniels and the 

OMB said, ‘‘Stop, Senator. Stop, Mr. President. This is our job. We 

have the management responsibility when it comes to this kind of 

architecture for information technology.’’ When the Homeland Security bill came before this Committee, I tried to push for a Manhattan Project, to try to really accelerate the development of the 

very best information technology to fight the war on terrorism. 

23

Tom Ridge said, ‘‘It is a great idea. It is a force multiplier.’’ But 

time and again I was stopped by OMB, that said, ‘‘Our people have 

that responsibility. Stay away.’’ And they prevailed. 

That is some indication of the power of your agency, and your 

power once you become the head of this agency as I am sure you 

will. But also the responsibility. I do not expect you at this moment, unless you can surprise me, to give me a long discourse 

about what has been done at OMB and what will be done. But I 

would like to ask you this. Within 30 days after your confirmation, 

would you be kind enough to report to me so I can share with the 

Members of this Committee exactly what has happened? I know 

great strides have been made at the FBI and a few other agencies, 

but the idea of getting all of our agencies to communicate with one 

another, to share this information, to protect America, turns out to 

be part of your say in this new role. 

I do not know if you want to comment on that, but I just wanted 

to vent if you do not mind. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Thank you for venting, Senator. I do know that Director Mueller has made extraordinary progress at the FBI——

Senator DURBIN. Yes, he has. 

Mr. BOLTEN [continuing]. In increasing interoperability and all 

the other buzz words that basically mean that they have radically 

improved their ability to collect and disseminate the information 

that we have within the government from the people who have it 

to the people who need it, and only the people who need it. 

I think you have probably seen some presentation from him. 

Senator DURBIN. I have. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Which is very impressive about the progress we’ve 

made. 

Senator DURBIN. It is impressive. 

Mr. BOLTEN. So I am anxious that if placed in this position of 

responsibility to be able to encourage that kind of innovation across 

the government. I will be happy to bring several very knowledgeable e-Government experts that we have at OMB with me to come 

visit you sometime in the next 30 days after I am confirmed. I am 

not sure that I will understand everything they say, but my expectation is that you will. 

Senator DURBIN. That is fair enough. 

Mr. BOLTEN. And I am hopeful that you will be impressed by it. 

Senator DURBIN. That is fair enough. The thing that struck me 

though was that the territorial imperative at OMB was so strong 

that it stopped all of this effort that we were focusing on, and it 

is that same territorial imperative at each of these agencies that 

excludes communication and dialogue that is essential for our security. So I hope that when you look at the management of this you 

can help me in developing that. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Here’s an important point about the role of OMB, 

and that is that one of the reasons why we find ourselves often 

without interoperability is that agencies go off and do their own 

things. OMB’s unique strength is that it can look out across the 

whole government and give direction so that the agencies are able 

to be consistent to cooperate with each other, not just on IT but on 

all sorts of policies. So my territorial imperative as Director would 

be to ensure that we get that kind of consistency, but that we emVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Dec 11, 2003 Jkt 088932 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\88932.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
24

power the agencies to do the right thing and upgrade their IT systems in a way that I think you should be happy with. 

Senator DURBIN. Let me ask you this question. In my introduction I talked about Mitch Daniels’ statement to this Committee 

when he sought this post 21⁄2 years ago. His biggest worry is what 

to do with these surpluses, what are we going to do with them? 

And here we are 21⁄2 years later in a totally different world. It has 

been turned upside down from your point of view. It now is not a 

record surplus, it is a record deficit. It now is not an expanding 

economy, it is an economy that has lost over 2 million jobs in the 

last 21⁄2 years. 

I would like to go to my opening statement. Was there a point 

in time where you sat in a meeting with the President where anyone questioned the idea of tax cuts as part of the Bush economic 

policy, as to whether this was working? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Let me go back even a little bit farther in your 

statement, Senator. At the time that $5.6 trillion surpluses were 

projected, I think we now know in hindsight that the projections 

were wrong. It is not that our situation has changed so radically 

in the last few years, it is that our understanding of what the reality is has changed so radically. When this President came into office at the beginning of 2001, the economy was already entering 

into a recession. The stock market had peaked a full year before 

that. Government revenues were declining. When the Presidentelect met with business leaders in Austin in January 2001, before 

his inauguration, the word from all of those business leaders 

unanimously was, we have hit a wall. The economy is dropping off 

of a cliff and it’s accelerating. The business people varied in their 

assessments only by when they hit the wall. Some had said earlier 

in 2000, some said later in 2000. All of them had the same message 

for the President. This is why the President came into office with 

a conviction that it would be very important for any number of reasons to get the economy going again. 

The advice, the unanimous advice of economists, whose opinions 

I respect, has been that the policy best fashioned to get the economy going again was precisely the kind of policy that was pursued 

in the tax cuts of 2001, 2002 and 2003. Give the people, give the 

businesses back some of their own money so that they can invest 

in job creation and ensure that the economy is robust. 

Senator DURBIN. So I take it from your statement that you have 

no misgivings about the Bush economic policy, about the latest 

statements about record unemployment rates over the last years, 

the fact that we are now knocking on the door of the biggest deficit 

as a percent of GDP that we have seen in some 50 years? None of 

this is giving you any pause as to whether or not you ought to step 

back and say: Maybe we were not on the right track here. Maybe 

there is something we have missed in terms of getting this economy moving again. You are still a true believer, no misgivings? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, I share the President’s concerns about our 

deficit situation, and especially about the unemployment situation 

that we now face. Too many people are looking for jobs, unable to 

find them. The economy, although we have pulled ourselves out of 

the recession we had when the President entered into office in 

2001, is not growing nearly as fast as it should be, particularly to 

25

generate the jobs we need. But I have no misgivings about the policies that the President pursued to try to correct that situation. On 

the contrary, I would say those policies were precisely designed to 

address the problem we have on both the deficit side and on the 

jobs and economic side. And the problem was, has been, economic 

growth that is too slow, too anemic. The solution for that is in fact 

to give people and businesses back some of their money so that 

they can invest and make the economy grow. 

Senator DURBIN. If I might ask one last question. So are more 

tax cuts your recipe now for economic recovery? 

Mr. BOLTEN. No, sir. While you were out of the room I was asked 

whether I had been instructed or had in mind any particular tax 

plan. The answer is no. I think the judgment about what further 

the economy might need, needs to be made based on an assessment 

of where the economy stands. Our economists right now, particularly given the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, are projecting a return 

to at least moderate growth by the second half of this year above 

the 3 percent margin, which is where I think most of, if not all of, 

the blue chip economists are. So we believe that we have taken the 

right kind of steps to get the economy back on track, but we will 

need to reassess toward the end of the year, and I hope I will be 

able to persuade you that if we need more measures, that we can 

get the support of the Congress to pursue them. 

Chairman COLLINS. I am going to turn to Senator Sununu because we just started a vote and I want to give him an opportunity 

to question before we break. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

As I indicated in my opening statement, Mr. Bolten, it is nice to 

have someone with such strong qualifications, such great experience in policy, budget matters and in the administration, and I 

think someone with the temperament for the job. It was hard to 

tell, and I do not know him that well, but I think Senator Stevens 

likes you. [Laughter.] 

But so often the problem is we have nominees——

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, if I could get that in writing, back home 

that will be a huge help. [Laughter.] 

Senator SUNUNU. We have nominees come forward, and they 

have the qualifications and they have the experience and they have 

the temperament for the job. As policy makers, we are excited to 

see that. But we are not sure if they are going to be in a position, 

or if they are close enough to members of the administration to 

have the kind of access and the kind of influence, frankly, to have 

the ear of the President on policy matters that are important. That 

can be a very real concern. You can imagine my relief today when 

I saw in the paper that Democrats see Bolten as the key to Bush’s 

inner sanctum. I think it is terrific that we have someone with 

such strong bipartisan support that is obviously going to be in a 

position to make a difference, and to be an advocate for budget 

policies and economic policies. I am not especially surprised that 

the President has chosen someone that supports his approach to 

economic growth and opportunity to run the budget office. That is 

not a stunner to me. And I am sure you are going to be an advocate 

for policies that you think are right, but also an honest broker 

when it comes to making budget decisions. 

26

Let me also note that I am not stunned, but pleased, that you 

were willing to complete the 100 pages of questions and answers 

that we have been provided. I think there were something like 75 

pages from the Committee, and another 20 pages or so from Senator Lieberman, that cover all matters of budget policy. So I will 

not go into the detail that those questions go into because that 

would only be redundant. 

I would like you to talk broadly about the recent growth in Federal spending that we have seen, specifically the growth in discretionary spending that has been proposed by the President for the 

2004 budget. Perhaps you can provide some relative comparison to 

previous years growth in discretionary spending, and talk a little 

bit about what kind of a growth level you see as being sustainable. 

I happen to believe that controlling the growth of spending is very 

important to moving back toward a balanced budget, and that will 

not happen. Even if we are successful in 1 year, it has to be sustained over a period of time. So talk about that level. What level 

needs to be sustained to help us balance the budget? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, thank you. The President’s 2004 budget 

contained a growth in discretionary spending of roughly 4 percent, 

which is about the expected growth in the income of an average 

family, and the President chose that rough amount because he 

thinks that, at least in the current times it is a pretty good measure of how rapidly the Federal budget ought to be growing. It is 

a moderate amount, but it should be plenty of room to accommodate all of the priorities we have, given the competing priorities 

that we have because we absolutely must provide what is necessary to protect the homeland and ensure that we can effectively 

prosecute the war on terror. Those are must do’s. They are part of 

the discretionary budget, but those are not discretionary obligations of the Federal Government. 

That then leaves us with the discretionary part of the budget 

that is unrelated to Homeland Security and defense, about half of 

$800 billion that is in the discretionary budget. And I agree with 

you completely that if we are going to bring this government back 

on a path toward a balanced budget, we need to be sure that we 

are showing as much restraint as possible in the growth of that 

number. I believe we can do it. 

The most important prerequisite to doing that, I believe, is to ensure that this economy is actually on a path back to growth. 

The collapse in government revenues from income tax receipts is 

actually the principal reason why we find ourselves in the deficit 

situation we do this year. The radical decline in receipts from capital gains tax, from income tax that accompanied the collapse in 

the stock market, and in general economic activity, is why, for example, in 2002 we found ourselves in a deficit situation that had 

previously been projected to be a surplus. So I think the most important things we can do are first, on the side of the discretionary 

budget, ensure that we are very carefully allocating our resources 

and ensuring substantial restraint, and on the other hand putting 

in place policies like the President’s tax cuts, that are well designed to ensure robust economic growth. 

27

Senator SUNUNU. Could I ask you to comment on the one or two 

most important management reforms or management initiatives 

that the OMB will be working on in the next 12 months? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I feel I’m a little bit at peril by highlighting one or 

two of leaving some child behind, and likely to, if confirmed, enter 

into the job having disappointed many of the people at OMB. The 

President’s management agenda, as Chairman Collins outlined at 

the outset, includes five very broad categories, all of which are important. Human capital development, competitive sourcing, integration of budget and management processes, sound financial management, and—Chairman Collins, help me out. I think I have 

missed——

Chairman COLLINS. E-Government. 

Mr. BOLTEN. E-Government, that I was discussing with Senator 

Durbin, is the fifth one. 

All of those are important priorities. If I may come back to you 

after I have had some experience in the job and let you know which 

I think holds the greatest promise for the greatest progress over 

the next year, I would like to do that. Right now I will identify all 

of them as key priorities of the administration and of OMB, and 

I would gratefully receive your counsel on where you think we 

ought to be putting our effort in the year ahead. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

We are in the midst, unfortunately, of three roll call votes. Senator Fitzgerald, would you like to begin your questions now or after 

the recess? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FITZGERALD 

Senator FITZGERALD. I will begin it with a few remarks, then 

vote, and I would start my questioning when I come back. 

I want to congratulate the Chairman for having this hearing. I 

think Mr. Bolten clearly has superior credentials. He has been a 

success in almost everything he has done in life, and he has a distinguished academic background. He has been a success in law and 

in business and in government, and I think he will make a very 

good Director of the OMB. 

I do have some questions when we get back. I am hopeful that 

we could move the nomination rapidly through the Senate because 

with the appropriations process getting well under way, I think it 

would be unfortunate if the administration did not have an OMB 

Director in place as we go forward this summer before the recess. 

So I will resume questioning when we get back. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. And if I could ask leave to have 

my opening statement included in the record, I will not read it 

now. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Fitzgerald follows:]

OPENING PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR FITZGERALD 

Thank you, Chairman Collins, I would like to welcome our witness today, Mr. 

Joshua B. Bolten, whom President Bush has nominated to be the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Mr. Bolten, the President has selected you for one of the most important positions 

in our government, and I congratulate you on your nomination. 

28

As the Chairman of the Governmental Affairs subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International Security, I have a special interest in ensuring that Federal agencies receive independent audits and in making our government 

more accountable to the taxpayers. 

Fiscal mismanagement by Federal agencies costs taxpayers billions of dollars each 

year. In the area of erroneous payments by Federal agencies, the General Accounting Office has reported that the problem is so pervasive, that the actual extent of 

improper payments government-wide is unknown. GAO also reported that the total 

amount of improper payments could be more than $35 billion. 

Another area of extensive government waste is the misuse of government credit 

cards by agency employees. Last Wednesday, Comptroller General David Walker 

testified before the House Budget Committee that the GAO and a number of Inspectors General have identified improper and fraudulent use of government credit cards 

in the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, and the Federal Aviation Administration. On April 16, 2003, the 

GAO reported that it had documented in HUD alone millions of dollars in improper 

or questionable purchase card transactions by agency employees. 

In fact, I was pleased to read in this morning’s Washington Post that Secretary 

Abraham has ordered an extensive overhaul of the Energy Department’s nuclear 

laboratories, in large part due to government waste involving the misuse of credit 

cards and missing equipment. 

Therefore, it is imperative that the new OMB Director exercise strong leadership, 

implement rigorous standards, and hold agencies accountable to ensure each agency 

is practicing sound financial management. 

To help strengthen this process, I sponsored the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act 

of 2002, which President Bush signed into law last November. This new law expanded the audit requirement of the Chief Financial Officers Act to cover all Executive Branch agencies, while providing authority to OMB to exempt certain agencies 

with budgets under $25 million. This provision requires agencies to prepare financial statements and to subject those statements for review by independent auditors. 

The agencies must then submit their audited financial statements to Congress and 

the administration for close scrutiny. 

During today’s proceedings, I look forward to hearing from Mr. Bolten about his 

views regarding OMB’s role in implementing the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act. 

I also look forward to hearing about his vision and the leadership role he will play 

in OMB to improve financial management in government agencies. 

As I mentioned in the beginning of my statement, Mr. Bolten has been nominated 

to one of the most important positions in the Federal Government. As Congress begins to consider the appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2004, I believe it is vitally 

important for the Office of Management and Budget to have a Senate-confirmed director as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, it is my hope that this Committee will 

act promptly on this nomination. 

Thank you, Chairman Collins.

Chairman COLLINS. We are going to recess for, unfortunately, 25 

minutes because we have three stacked votes. I know that Senator 

Levin and Senator Pryor, in addition to Senator Fitzgerald, have 

additional questions. So while you may have been encouraged by 

the lessening of people here, you still have others that are eager 

to question you. So we will be in recess for 25 minutes. 

I do want to say in response to Senator Fitzgerald’s comment, 

that it is my intent to mark up this nomination tomorrow in the 

hopes of clearing it by the full Senate before we depart for the July 

4th recess. 

Mr. BOLTEN. I appreciate that very much, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. We are in recess for 25 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman COLLINS. The hearing will come back to order. 

I am pleased at this time to call upon the distinguished Senator 

from Delaware for any questions he may have. 

29

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Bolten, welcome. Delighted to see you today. 

Madam Chairman, Mr. Bolten was good enough to come by and 

visit with me as I suspect he did most of the Members of the Committee a week or two ago, and we had the opportunity to walk all 

over the Hart Building, up and down, and to get to know each 

other a little bit better. It is easy to see why the President has confidence in him and would submit his name for this nomination. 

About 21⁄2 years ago, we sat, I think, in this same room, and 

Mitch Daniels sat at that same table, and we had the opportunity 

to talk with him as a nominee for head of OMB, to talk with him 

about his view of the world, and the budget, and our finances as 

a country. I was pleased, especially pleased, when he assured us 

that the concerns that I expressed about the level of our national 

debt, together with some of our other unfunded liabilities were concerns that he shared. My staff was actually good enough to dredge 

up some of the quotes that he made. He promised to give, and this 

is a quote, ‘‘a very high priority to debt reduction.’’ And he spoke 

of the great window of opportunity that we had. You may recall 

that window at the time, and due to the great surpluses that the 

new administration was inheriting from the old administration, 

and gave us a chance to deal with some long-term challenges including the time when my generation, the baby boomers, will start 

later in this decade, early in the next decade. 

He noted that if we let the opportunity pass us by, it would make 

addressing those challenges—and I will quote again. He said, ‘‘A 

much more painful and severe process.’’ Needless to say, I have 

been disappointed, sorely disappointed with the direction of our 

budget policy since that day. Not only have we let this window of 

opportunity pass us by, but we have succeeded in—notice I say 

‘‘we’’—have succeeded in transforming what might have been the 

most enviable fiscal position of any Nation on earth into a situation 

in which we will now, this year I am told, have the largest budget 

deficit in the history of the world, the largest budget deficit in the 

history of the world. That is hard to believe, but I am told that is 

true. 

I am one of those Democrats who actually likes to cut taxes, and 

when the President came to Delaware in early spring of 2001, we 

talked about tax policy, and he was putting together his proposal 

to submit to the Congress at the time. And I said, ‘‘I like to cut 

taxes too. When I was Governor of Delaware, we cut taxes 7 out 

of 8 years, but we also balanced the budget in 8 years, and we 

managed to get ourselves the best credit rating, Triple A credit rating for the first time in the history of our State.’’ I will not go into 

all the ways we cut taxes, but we basically cut in half State incomes taxes for a typical middle class family, cut them in half, 

State personal income taxes. Delaware used to have the top marginal personal income tax rate in the country, 19.8 percent, when 

Pete Dupont became Governor in 1977. When I left as Governor, 

it was 5.95 percent, and we still balanced the budget and ended up 

with reducing our debt and getting a better credit rating. 

This administration has significantly reduced Federal revenues 

and done so with the acquiescence of the Congress. I think fourVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Dec 11, 2003 Jkt 088932 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88932.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
30

fifths of the budget today, however, is comprised of about 4 or 5 

areas. One is defense. Another is entitlement spending, and a third 

is interest on the national debt. I do not know if this is true, but 

I believe it is. I think we spend today about 19, 20 percent of GDP 

to run the government. I think we spend about 7 percent of GDP 

for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. By the time that my 

generation is in full retirement, about 25 years from now, I believe 

that we will be spending about 15 percent of GDP just for Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. 

What we are leaving for our kids is not something that I feel 

good about. I do not think any of us could feel good about this kind 

of legacy. It is sort of like, we will take the tax cuts now. We will 

take the health care and prescription drug program now. And by 

the way, to our sons and daughters, we will let you pay for it. I 

thought the best line of the President’s State of the Union message 

was when he talked about how we should not pass on to the next 

generations the challenges that we could address today. I thought 

that was a great line. But really, we are passing on a big part of 

what we ought to be doing today, to those who follow us, as our 

children and our grandchildren. 

I want to really come back to—with that as pretext, I want to 

come back just to share with you some of the concerns I shared 

with Mitch Daniels, 2, 21⁄2 years ago. He said all the right words, 

and we are where we are today and we do not have a budget deficit 

just because of any one administration, any one person, or any one 

policy. I realize it is more complicated than that. But sure would 

love it if we had a Budget Director who did not just talk a good 

game and say the right words about being concerned about the 

budget deficit, but who actually would help us address the policies 

and take on the policies that we need to. We can squeeze domestic 

discretionary spending all we want. That is not going to solve this 

problem. It has to be broader than that. 

The last thing I will say, and then I will turn it over just for comments, if you will, to Mr. Bolten. Somebody told me the other day, 

Madam Chairman—are you on the Armed Services Committee? 

Chairman COLLINS. I am. 

Senator CARPER. Somebody told me the other day we spend more 

money on defense now than the next 18 nations combined. Is that 

true? 

Chairman COLLINS. You have to ask the nominee. 

Senator CARPER. The next 18 nations combined. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Thanks. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. And we are all interested in strong security, 

strong national defense, and I say as an old Naval flight officer, 

war veteran, if that is true, that is stunning. 

Any kind of initial response to those observations, those reflections? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to visit with you. I did enjoy our tour around the Hart Building, which was nostalgic for me, Madam Chairman. We even, 

through the Senator’s good offices, had an opportunity to barge in 

on the office that I used to occupy on the second floor of the Hart 

Building, which but for the presence of the Senator, would have 

been, had the Capitol Police called. 

31

I want to thank you for that opportunity, Senator, and I enjoyed 

our conversation. 

Senator CARPER. They still had, like written on one of the doors, 

like you could barely see it, like it was in pencil or pen, it said, 

‘‘For a good time call Josh Bolten.’’ [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. That was probably about 20 years old. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. You could still just barely make it out. By the 

way, anybody here from your family here with you? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Who is here? 

Mr. BOLTEN. My mom and my sister are both here. 

Senator CARPER. Which one is which? 

Mr. BOLTEN. My mom is the one who will be celebrating her 80th 

birthday in a few weeks. 

Senator CARPER. I was just with my mom in Kentucky this past 

weekend. She is 80-years-old as well. So happy birthday. And your 

sister? Welcome aboard. You did a good job with this one I think, 

both of you. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, first I want to commend your tax cutting 

fervor. I hope we will be able to work together should further tax 

cuts be necessary at some point, or appropriate at some point. I 

also want to share and commend your concern about the long-term 

budget situation that we face, that is driven principally by entitlements. I think you were exactly right when you said that we can 

squeeze discretionary spending all we want, but that’s not going to 

address the real, fundamental, long-term problem, which is the 

tidal wave of unfunded entitlement liabilities that is coming at us 

far out in the future. And I share your conviction that it’s the responsibility of this generation to try to address those problems for 

future generations, and I look forward to working, Madam Chairman, with you, the rest of the Committee and other Members of 

Congress on how to address those problems. 

Now, as to the remarks that you referred to by my predecessor, 

Mitch Daniels, who in my judgment was a terrific Budget Director 

and an extraordinary person. His words I think remain true today, 

that we do need to address these problems. Even when it appeared 

that we were on the cusp of massive surpluses, budget surpluses, 

these problems were coming. Now though it is clear that those surpluses never existed, that the 5.6 trillion or whatever was estimated at the time of Mitch Daniels’ appearance before this Committee 21⁄2 years ago. Now, that it is clear that surplus never existed, it is all the more important that we act with great caution 

to control our discretionary spending as best we can. 

And we had discussed earlier, Madam Chairman, some of the 

measures we might take to do that and to ensure that on the discretionary side of the budget we do all we can to control it. On the 

defense portion of the budget, it is large. I don’t know if it’s larger 

than the next 18 countries combined. I would be surprised if it 

were that large, but——

Senator CARPER. The next time you have a chance to be before 

us, I will try to remember to ask that question. 

Mr. BOLTEN. I will prepare myself as soon as this hearing is over, 

with the correct data on that. It is certainly true that America is 

32

far out ahead of the rest of the world in defense spending and in 

defense capability, and it is critical that we remain there for our 

own national security and to ensure that the United States fulfills 

its role as the world’s super power in helping to promote peace and 

end the threat of terror around the world. So that portion of the 

budget, I think we will agree, is one that is discretionary in name, 

but not discretionary in function. We must meet our national security obligations and we must meet our obligations to protect the 

homeland. 

So that leaves a relatively small part of the discretionary budget 

over which we have some control on a year-by-year basis, and I am 

anxious to work with the Members of Congress to ensure that we 

are observing strict discipline in that category. 

The other thing we can do in the short run is ensure that we 

have a robust economy, because at the time that you spoke to 

Mitch Daniels, it was before September 11, it was before the corporate scandals that persisted through much of the 1990’s, came to 

light, and caused some collapse of confidence both on Wall Street 

and in the markets. It was before the President launched the war 

on terror in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And perhaps most important, 

it was before that there was a full realization of how weak the 

economy that we were entering was actually going to be. There 

were clear signs that the economy was going to be much weaker 

than was reflected in those optimistic $5.6 trillion surplus projections. That was not a good idea of how weak the economy has been, 

and in fact, subsequent projections, almost semiannually, have 

been, even when conservative, have underestimated the weakness 

in the economy and the corresponding falloff in government revenues that was going to come with that. 

When you spoke with Mitch Daniels we were anticipating large 

budget surpluses, largely based on a tremendous increase in government income tax revenues coming in. The reason why in the 

next year, in 2002, we had the budget deficit we did was principally the result of a radical falloff in government revenues, in income to the government from capital gains taxes and from income 

taxes. 

The most important thing I think we can do in the short run is 

to try to restore us to a sustainable budget position, to get the 

economy moving again. Beyond that, even if restoring the deficits 

were not important, it’s very important that we provide jobs for the 

people who want jobs, and I believe that the President’s tax cuts 

that have been enacted by this Congress in 2001, 2002 and 2003, 

have been precisely well designed to try to put us back on that 

track. 

Senator CARPER. My time is expired. If there is another round, 

I would welcome the chance to ask another question or two. Thank 

you. I think for the record—you mentioned, if I could, you said that 

those surpluses never existed. But actually they did exist, we actually had a surplus or two, maybe three——

Mr. BOLTEN. Yes, there were modest budget surpluses immediately in those years. What I was referring to was the projection 

of a $5.6 trillion surplus over——

33

Senator CARPER. We went from 1968 to roughly 1998 without 

ever balancing the budget, and then we did it, I think, two or three 

times in a row. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Fitzgerald. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Bolten, in January of this year, the National Commission on 

the Public Service, known as the Volcker Commission, released its 

report called ‘‘Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century.’’ One of the report’s major 

findings was the extent to which there is an enormous amount of 

duplication and overlap in government agencies. The report cited 

some specific examples, including 50 homeless assistance programs 

administered by 8 agencies; 90 early childhood programs in 11 

agencies and 20 different offices; 40 job training programs administered by 7 agencies; and 342 economic development related programs administered by 13 different cabinet departments. 

What do you think about the Volcker Commission’s findings on 

overlap in government agencies and programs? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I have not read the Volcker Commission study. I 

will look forward to doing so and to addressing it with you in greater detail. I can say that I do view it as a central function of the 

Office of Management and Budget, to be looking precisely for those 

kinds of opportunities that are highlighted in the report, to consolidate government efforts and to focus our efforts on those programs 

that are actually well designed to achieve the objective. 

We have in place now something that Chairman Collins described very well at the outset of the hearing, called the PART 

process, the performance assessment—performance—I don’t know. 

Chairman, can you help me out again? 

Chairman COLLINS. PART, just call it PART, rating tool. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Anyway, it is the tool by which the Office of Management and Budget looks at individual programs and determines 

where there are clear goals set out for that program, whether it is 

meeting its goals, and whether it is being appropriately managed. 

So far the administration has done about 20 percent of the reviewable programs that are out there. That was done in the past budget 

cycle. In this budget cycle, a cumulative additional 20 percent——

Senator FITZGERALD. Has the OMB recommended any programs 

for elimination based on a finding of ineffectiveness? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I don’t know whether the connection has been, but 

it seems to me it should create opportunities precisely for that, and 

that as we look at those programs, and as we evaluate their effectiveness, there is also an opportunity to look across programs that 

are—once we have been able to do a complete canvas of the programs in government—and say that these 20 programs are all 

headed toward the same objective. Let’s see which ones are actually doing well at meeting the objective, and let’s move the resources away from the ones that are ineffective and move them toward the ones that are effective. I think that’s central to the role 

of the Office of Management and Budget, and I look forward to 

working with this Committee on those issues. 

Senator FITZGERALD. I, for one, stand ready to help you with any 

initiatives you undertake at the executive level. I think your leadership could be very important in this regard, enhancing the proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Dec 11, 2003 Jkt 088932 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88932.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
34

grams that are effective, and dismantling or recommending the dismantling of programs that are ineffective. But also please take a 

look at that overlap that the Volcker Commission cited, because it 

seems to me that we are probably wasting an enormous amount of 

taxpayer resources by duplicating our efforts in so many different 

ways. 

I would like to ask you a few questions about the Chief Financial 

Officers Act, and I want to compliment your predecessor, Mitch 

Daniels, on the improvements that were made in terms of the 24 

government agencies that are required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 to get annual financial audits. Prior to 1990 there 

were no audit requirements, which is really incredible if you think 

about it. Prior to Mitch Daniels’ term most of those agencies were 

not getting clean audits from their auditors, but under Mitch Daniels, in February of this year, OMB announced that a record 21 of 

the 24 CFO Act agencies submitted unqualified financial audits. In 

other words, the accountants were not qualifying their audit reports. But OMB reported that one agency, the U.S. Agency for 

International Development, USAID, received a qualified audit, and 

two agencies, the Small Business Administration and the Defense 

Department—the Defense Department takes up a lot of our government spending—they received not qualified audits, but they received disclaimers of opinions all together. That means that the 

auditors are not really able to make heads or tails out of their 

books, and so they could not comment at all on the meaningfulness 

of their financial reports. 

I would be interested to know what steps you might plan on taking to try and get the Department of Defense and the Small Business Administration to urge them to get their books and records in 

order? We could be wasting billions of dollars. Money could be misappropriated. We would not know about it. It could be stolen. We 

would not know about it because their books and records are not 

in good enough shape to express any opinion on them. 

Do you have any thoughts on what you might be able to do to 

move those departments forward in this area? 

Mr. BOLTEN. These are huge and longstanding problems, and it 

is one of the issues that the President identified early on in his administration as a top management priority, which is to get the financial management in the individual agencies right. There has 

been an enormous amount of progress made. You cited some of it. 

I know that for the first time in its history the Department of Agriculture has a clean audit as well, and it will be a high priority of 

mine, and especially a high priority of the recently-confirmed Deputy Director for Management, Clay Johnson, to see that we extend 

the good news throughout the government. We have a lot of challenges in doing that. These are not problems that have popped up 

overnight. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Have you thought about creating any internal rewards or carrots and sticks within your budgeting? I have noticed that agencies that receive a clean audit do not really get a 

reward, and the ones that go on year after year getting negative 

audits or qualified opinions or disclaimers of opinion receive no 

penalty. Their budgets are not cut. Have you ever thought about 

35

calling some of these directors in and saying, hey, we cannot be entrusting you with all this money if you cannot get clean audits? 

Mr. BOLTEN. We will be glad to think about additional sticks and 

carrots. What I can tell you is that the spotlight that the President’s management agenda and the scorecard have put on agency 

practices is in itself, has been in itself, a pretty powerful carrot and 

stick. I’ve had the privilege of being present when the President 

meets with a lot of his cabinet officers just to review their agenda, 

which he does periodically. And rare is the cabinet officer who does 

not either brag about having gotten a good mark on one of these 

new scorecard measures or a PART review, or does not complain 

about having gotten an unfairly bad mark. And the principal takes 

note. The President asks about the scorecard, and I know the cabinet officers take it very seriously. So I think the spotlight itself has 

provided a very powerful carrot and stick, and I am looking forward to working with you to maybe increase the wattage of the 

spotlight, because that may be the most powerful tool we have. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Just one final question. I know my time has 

expired. We passed another law last year, the Accountability of Tax 

Dollars Act, that extended the CFO Act to all Federal agencies 

with budgets over $25 million, and I believe that is going to add 

this audit requirement to 78 agencies. 

I understand in December of last year Mitch Daniels sent a 

memorandum to those 78 agencies outlining their obligations under 

the new act. But in his memorandum he indicated that he was invoking the waiver provisions in the act, and was waiving the act’s 

new requirements during the initial transition period of 2002, 

when that law was passed. 

Are you able to inform the Committee today of whether any of 

the 78 agencies may have requested a waiver for 2003, and are you 

able to tell the Committee today how many of the 78 agencies you 

expect to meet the new requirements of that act this fiscal year? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I’m not, Senator, but if confirmed, I will provide you 

an answer to that as promptly as possible. 

Senator FITZGERALD. I would urge you to be tough on them and 

try and get them all to comply. 

And I want to welcome your sister and your mother here to this 

Committee too. They should be very proud of you, and I wish them 

well also. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Bolten, let us talk some dollars and cents here real quick, 

and I will try to leave plenty of time for Senator Levin to ask questions. 

In response to written questions you said, ‘‘Our current deficit, 

as measured as a percentage of gross domestic product, is not large 

by historical standards and is manageable within the overall context of our economy.’’ I believe it was last week the CBO came out 

with a projection that we would be at $400 billion in deficit for this 

fiscal year. Do you agree with that projection, by the way? 

36

Mr. BOLTEN. What I can tell you is that the latest projection in 

the President’s budget, which goes all the way back to January or 

February, has a $300 billion projection. But since then there have 

been further degradation in the expectation about the economic 

growth. There has been an omnibus bill, there has been a supplemental and so on, some additional tax cuts. My expectation is that 

$300 billion number is low. 

Senator PRYOR. Do you think it will be about $400 billion? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I don’t know what it will be. OMB will release a 

mid-session review this summer, so fairly shortly, that will update 

our own projections. 

Senator PRYOR. But as part of your statement there, you said 

that you look at the gross domestic product, and that is an interesting point, because obviously one way to look at a deficit is based 

on a percentage of GDP, but it seems to me that is only one aspect 

of the deficit, because the most important aspect of a debt is how 

are you going to pay it back. And at this point, what I see our government doing is going further and further and further into debt, 

and larger deficits every year. In other words, I do not know what 

it was last year, $200 and some odd billion. This year it is going 

to be $400 billion, maybe more. Next year, I am scared to know 

what the projection will be for next year. 

But do you agree with me that GDP is one thing to look at, but 

also how we pay the debt back is equally important, maybe more 

important than GDP percentage? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Well, absolutely, how we’re going to repay the debt 

is important. The burden of the debt, I think, is properly measured 

as a percentage of GDP, just as if you were taking out a mortgage, 

you would take out a mortgage roughly appropriate to your income 

and——

Senator PRYOR. Wait a minute though. GDP is not our income. 

GDP is the gross domestic product. Our income is the revenues 

that we take in. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Understood, Senator, but the measure of how much 

of a burden on this society that the deficit we may run will impose, 

I think is dictated by how well the economy overall is doing. The 

deficits we have now are I think too large. We need to bring them 

down. By historical measure, even a 4 percent of GDP deficit figure 

is not way out of line with historical precedent. 

What we do need to worry about is the addition that is adding 

to the public debt, as you are concerned, because in the long run 

a great buildup in public debt or an expectation that there will be 

a great buildup in public debt, can ultimately lead to rising interest 

rates, which is where the problem comes back and bites us today 

in the economy. So far we haven’t seen that. In this period of rising 

deficits, we have seen declining interest rates, in fact, to almost 

historic lows in both short term and long term rates. 

So right now we don’t see the bite from the deficits we are running, and that’s why I used the word manageable in the written 

response to the questions, but I think you’re absolutely right, it is 

something we need to be concerned about, and we need to be particularly concerned about getting control of our long term budget 

situation with respect to the massive unfunded liabilities that are 

coming at us in our entitlement programs. 

37

Senator PRYOR. I am glad you mentioned unfunded liability because in your opening statement you refer to that, and a couple 

times in questioning you refer to that. It seems to me—and I would 

like to hear your thoughts on this—our debt load, not as a percentage of GDP, but as a percentage of our Federal budget, is increasing fairly dramatically every year. It eats into our ability to meet 

our responsibilities, whether it is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, whatever it may be. 

Now, do you agree with that, that it is eating into our ability to 

meet our responsibilities? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I think they’re actually severable problems here. 

Our immediate deficit is a problem of how we’re doing on our current accounts, and it seems to me that these are the kinds of deficits we are running now, while too high, are manageable within 

our current means. What is much more difficult to address, it 

seems to me, is the longer term picture of looking out several decades and ensuring that we are properly structuring our programs 

and setting aside enough money to meet all the liabilities currently 

unfunded that we see coming at us with entitlements. In the short 

run I think the best answer for us is to have a strong and growing 

economy that will restore the revenue base that has been so badly 

eroded recently, and that will be, I think, a big help in bringing us 

toward balance in the short run. But even taking care of that short 

run problem doesn’t take care of the long run entitlement problem 

that I know you share a great concern about. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. I am very concerned about that. I just sense 

that it is going to be harder and harder for us to meet our responsibilities over time. You can look in the future, the not-too-distant 

future, and see a train wreck about to happen. 

Back on the percentage of GDP, etc., how large do you believe 

the deficit can get as a percentage of GDP before it becomes unacceptable? Is there a magic percentage—not magic—but is there a 

percentage that in your mind, where it has just gotten too large? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I have posed precisely that question to a number of 

economists whose opinions I respect, I did not get an answer, and 

so I won’t have an answer for you either. What I can say is that 

the size of deficits we are currently running, while a matter of concern, don’t reach the level of alarm that it’s likely to have a long 

term detrimental effect on our economic situation either today or 

in the future. If that were true, I think we would be seeing it in 

the interest rates, and we’re seeing precisely the opposite in lower 

interest rates. 

Senator PRYOR. I understand that there is also Fed policy there 

that is driving interest rates lower at the same time, so we will see 

how that works out. 

But let me ask two last questions really, and that is, when you 

look at a budget, any kind of budget, it does not matter if it is a 

household budget or the Federal Government’s budget, you really 

look at two things. That is, how much money you are taking in and 

how much money you are spending. I would like to hear your 

thoughts and your recommendations to the Congress, if you are 

ready to talk about those, about what spending we should cut. 

Also I would like to hear your thoughts about if you think a tax 

increase would ever be necessary in the future. 

38

Mr. BOLTEN. Taking the second part of the question first, Senator, I do not foresee either the need or the propriety of a tax increase as we look forward. I think the tax cuts that have been put 

in place have been precisely the right kind of remedy for the situation we were in, and my expectation is that any sort of tax increase 

will actually cause a contraction in the economic growth that really 

is our best prospect for getting back to a sound budgetary basis. 

As to the spending cuts, I am not ready today to discuss those 

with you. I will be ready at some point if confirmed and have had 

a chance to dig in with the very able staff of OMB. My expectation 

is that in the 2005 budget the President presents, we will be presenting some cuts in budgets that will undoubtedly have controversy in some portion of the Congress, and I look forward to soliciting your support for achieving some of the cuts that may be 

necessary for us to do the kind of fiscal restraint in the short run 

that I think you and I will both agree is necessary. 

Senator PRYOR. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank you and 

thank the witness. Just in parting, I would encourage you, Mr. 

Bolten, to take to heart the comments of Senator Stevens and Senator Voinovich. Both of them are very respected not just within this 

institution but all over the government and I think they make very 

valid points about our budget and some of our spending priorities. 

So I would encourage to always keep their comments in mind. 

Mr. BOLTEN. I will. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Levin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome to you, Mr. Bolten, and congratulations. You are well 

qualified for the position to which you have been nominated. We 

commend you on it. I obviously have a lot of questions, a number 

of differences in terms of the economic approach that you take, but 

nonetheless, you are clearly well qualified for the position, and we 

look forward to an early confirmation. 

I would like to talk to you about dynamic scoring first, as to how 

reliable it is. I gather you, in general, support dynamic scoring? 

Mr. BOLTEN. As a principle, yes. 

Senator LEVIN. It is supposed to provide a more complete picture 

of the budget effects of tax and spending proposals, but a good 

number of experts, perhaps most, believe that dynamic scoring, as 

practiced today at least, is inaccurate and unreliable. The Congressional Budget office last year asserted that dynamic scoring would 

pose intractable problems. Those are their words. And to my 

knowledge, there is no consensus that exists among economists to 

start to implement dynamic scoring. It relies on a number of highly 

subjective elements, including predictions of future interest rates, 

monetary policies, fiscal policies, business cycles, and labor supplies, among other matters. There also of course is a risk of dynamic scoring being manipulated to arrive at a desired result. 

Do you plan on employing more dynamic scoring as head of 

OMB? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, I didn’t hear anything that I disagree with 

in what you have just said. Our economists internally say the same 

thing, that the science of dynamic scoring is at this point insuffiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:03 Dec 11, 2003 Jkt 088932 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\88932.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
39

ciently advanced. There’s been a lot of terrific work done, I’m told, 

to advance the science, if it can be called that, of trying to estimate 

what sort of macroeconomic effects are going to result from a specific change in either revenue or spending policy, and I think it’s 

very important that we try to do that, because as the administration evaluates, and as you, the Members of the Congress evaluate 

a change in policy, I think you ought to have before you the best 

information possible about what sort of economic effects that 

change in policy is going to have. Today’s relatively static analysis 

does not capture that. So as a matter of principle, I do support trying to advance toward the point at which we will have science that 

at least some critical mass of economists can agree is sufficient for 

us to change the way we score things. 

Senator LEVIN. And until we get to that point? 

Mr. BOLTEN. For the time being, I know of no plans to shift over 

our system. I do intend, Senator, to be working on this issue with 

other colleagues in the administration, and hope to be coming to 

you shortly with mechanisms for dynamic scoring that we can all 

agree actually accurately capture what is likely to be happening in 

the economy. 

Senator LEVIN. That would go both to tax and spending proposals 

if you do that? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Yes, sir. 

Senator LEVIN. The CBO recently undertook a dynamic scoring 

analysis of the President’s latest tax cut proposals, and found small 

supply side impacts, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, with 

an overall negligible effect on the economy. The Joint Committee 

on Taxation undertook a dynamic scoring analysis of $550 billion 

worth of tax cuts in a House of Representatives’ proposal. It found 

some short term stimulus to the economy, but also, ‘‘The positive 

business investment incentives arising from the tax policy are 

eventually likely to be outweighed by the reduction in national savings due to increasing Federal Government deficits.’’ And four of 

the five Joint Tax dynamic scoring models predicted a drop in GDP 

between 2009 and 2013, while the other model remained constant. 

So these dynamic scores predict pretty anemic results for those 

years, and yet I think you said that is just precisely the right kind 

of remedy, that tax cuts are the right kind of remedy. It does not 

sound to me like it is much of a remedy at all, even according to 

some dynamic scoring models. Are you familiar with those models 

and their application to the tax cuts? And do you disagree with 

their assessments? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I do disagree with their assessments, and I think 

a lot of other economic analysts do, and I know that many of the 

best analysts on Wall Street also disagree with those analyses. 

They do see very positive effects coming from the tax cuts in the 

overall economy, and I think they, many of them have been able 

to model greatly enhanced—well, greatly may be in the eye of the 

beholder—but substantially enhanced economic performance out of 

this economy as a result of those tax cuts. 

So I feel very strongly that we have taken precisely the right 

kind of measures so far, and hopefully they will put us back on a 

path toward robust economic growth that we need to get people 

jobs in this economy and bring government revenues up. 

40

Senator LEVIN. I guess my specific question is, are you familiar 

with those five Joint Tax Committee scoring models? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I know of them. 

Senator LEVIN. Have you seen that particular analysis? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I know of them, Senator. I have not read them. 

Senator LEVIN. We are back in a deep deficit ditch, and I heard 

some of your testimony here this morning including your answers 

to Senator Pryor’s questions, and I have been concerned for a long 

time about the direction that we are heading in terms of deficits, 

and I do not find any really strong feeling about the problem of 

deficits in the administration. I wish I did. I think it is very untraditional in terms of conservative economic policy, to be this casual 

about deficits, as I sense this administration is—$400 billion becomes manageable all of a sudden. Is $500 billion manageable? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, I don’t want to put a number on what’s 

manageable. I think the manageability of our current deficits is in 

fact reflected in what we are seeing in short- and especially longterm interest rates, and those have been declining while the deficits are going up. I think that is strong evidence that we are not 

causing harm to the economy with the size of deficits we are running. 

Senator LEVIN. It also could be evidence of a very anemic economy where nobody is investing. 

Mr. BOLTEN. It undoubtedly is evidence of that as well. I would 

not describe the administration’s attitude toward the deficits, however, as casual. There are at this moment some higher priorities. 

Bringing the deficits down is a very high priority of the President. 

Returning our budget to balance is a very high priority of the 

President. But over the last couple of years we have had higher 

priorities, and those include protecting the homeland, winning the 

war on terror, and restoring this economy in the short run to the 

kind of growth that will actually make it possible to bring us back 

to balance. 

Senator LEVIN. Since Senator Stevens said that you are going to 

need Mitch Daniels’ flak jacket, let me ask you whether you agree 

with what Mitch Daniels said less than 2 years ago, that we were 

awash in money, we were just awash in money. Do you think this 

Nation is awash in money any more? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I think Mitch was referring to the projected surplus of, at the time I think it was $5.6 trillion. 

Senator LEVIN. It was. 

Mr. BOLTEN. We clearly are not in that kind of situation today 

and I believe we were not in that situation then. It is a testament 

more to the inaccuracy of projection models than anything else. But 

even at the time that Mitch was testifying here, 21⁄2 years ago, the 

economy was already entering into recession, and government revenues were declining. I do not believe that we were at the time 

awash in surplus money. We clearly are not now, and that is a situation we need to address. 

Senator LEVIN. It is just not that the Nation is awash in money. 

He said, ‘‘But it’s going to be.’’ Doesn’t sound like anything close 

to deficit hawks or a conservative approach to me. That kind of a 

projection is the basis for reducing revenues, surely has contributed 

to the deficit. Now, you have mentioned other things which have 

41

contributed to the deficit too, which they have. But surely, tax cuts 

have contributed to the deficit, at least according to the Congressional Budget office. Would you not agree with that? 

Mr. BOLTEN. I do agree that certainly in the short run, the tax 

cuts have contributed to the deficit. That is actually part of their 

purposes, is to get some money out to the people who need it to 

spend and invest. But I go back to the priorities, which include getting this economy going again, which I think the tax cuts have 

been very well designed to accomplish, to bring us out of the recession that was at the doorstep when the President entered office, 

and to restore the economy toward the robust growth that will 

make it possible to bring the budget deficits down in the future. 

Senator LEVIN. Like Mitch Daniels’ projection of the future, 

whether or not these tax cuts in fact have that effect, we will know 

soon enough. But I am afraid that your optimism about the effect 

of tax cuts runs directly counter at least to our Joint Tax Committee’s assessment, which is that they are negligible in terms of producing any kind of economic growth. That is a bipartisan Joint Tax 

Committee. That is not a partisan comment at all. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Understood, Senator, and I trust that I will have 

the opportunity to come back before you and show that the expectations that I have reflected and those of many other government officials and economists are the accurate ones, and that we will be 

headed back toward growth toward the end of this year. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, we sure hope that that is the case. We look 

forward to your coming back in either case, whether your predictions are accurate or not. 

My time is up. I have a few additional questions, but my time 

is up this round. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Levin. 

I would like to thank Mr. Bolten for appearing before the Committee today——

Senator LEVIN. I can submit them——

Chairman COLLINS. Would you like another couple minutes? 

Senator LEVIN. Yes, if that would be all right. 

Chairman COLLINS. OK. 

Senator LEVIN. I should not have assumed there would be another round. I apologize, Madam Chairman. 

Just one other question about the personnel system. I guess two 

questions. One is the financial management problems that Senator 

Fitzgerald mentioned. The ability to address them, particularly in 

the Department of Defense, is going to depend on whether or not 

you can put financial management systems in place with appropriate controls. That is what the key is in the DoD. This has been 

a longstanding problem, long before this administration. But it 

needs to be addressed. 

I wonder, Madam Chairman, if we could perhaps lay down a 

challenge to our new OMB Director, to give us perhaps by the end 

of the year, since you are talking about spotlights, give us by the 

end of the year your projection as to how we are going to make 

some progress in the financial management in the DoD so that we 

can get it auditable. Would that be reasonable to ask? This goes 

on year after year after year at the Department of Defense. Is that 

42

doable, is that practical, by the end of the year to give us a roadmap towards auditability for the Department of Defense? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, in a sense I think we’re already doing that 

and will do it when we release our scorecard. 

Senator LEVIN. Then you could perhaps give it to us now then. 

That would be fine. If you think that roadmap exists now, if you 

could just give us that for the record, that would be terrific. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, I’m not in a position to do that, certainly 

not currently being the Director. I’m not in the position to do that. 

But I do know that it will be the focus of intensive review as we 

prepare our 2005 budget submission that will come to you in February of this coming year, and that we will have a very sharp focus 

on the management practices throughout the government, including the Department of Defense, and will be able to show you a 

scorecard of how we think they are doing, and address the measures that we think are going to be needed to make the score better. 

Senator LEVIN. That budget submission will be adequate in 

terms of timing, if you can include it in that. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator LEVIN. And the last question would be, Dr. Chu, who is 

in the Department of Defense, has stated that if the Department 

of Defense moves 300,000 members of the uniform military into 

war fighting tasks, that there is no constraint to preclude the Department from hiring 300,000 new civilians to replace them. Will 

you ensure that in fact there is no constraint. He was talking about 

OMB. He said there is no constraint from OMB. Will you ensure 

that there is no constraint on the ability of the Department of Defense to hire new civilians to fulfill the functions that were previously performed by members of the uniform military? 

Mr. BOLTEN. Senator, I am not entirely sure of the implications, 

but my instinct is to say yes, but if I may come back to you with 

a direct response on that. 

Senator LEVIN. That would be great. 

Mr. BOLTEN. For the record. The one thing I would say is that 

if the question is, does OMB impose FTE, full time equivalent ceilings, my understanding is that OMB does not now do that, and 

that the constraint on the Department of Defense would be their 

overall budget, and that it is within those budgetary limits that the 

Defense Department would have to operate in terms of its new hiring. 

Senator LEVIN. You can give us a more complete answer then for 

the record as to whether there are any constraints on FTEs, full 

time equivalents, taking the place of uniform military people inside 

the Department of Defense. 

Mr. BOLTEN. I will do that. 

Senator LEVIN. That will be great, and thank you very much, and 

congratulations. 

Mr. BOLTEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator Levin. 

Mr. Bolten, I think it is a sign of how important the position is 

for which you have been nominated that we have had 13 Senators 

here today to ask you questions. 

43

We do look forward to working with you. I am confident that we 

will be able to move your nomination fairly expeditiously, and I appreciate your being here today. 

I also want to thank you for your willingness to serve in this 

very difficult position. It is probably the most difficult position in 

the entire Federal Government in many ways. But surely, it is also 

one of the most significant. Your commitment to public service 

means a great deal, and impresses me greatly, and I think we are 

very fortunate that you are willing to accept this further responsibility. 

So we look forward to working with you. Without objection, the 

record will remain open until 5 p.m. today for the submission of 

any additional materials for the record. It is my hope that the 

Committee will be able to report out your nomination tomorrow, 

and have it cleared by the full Senate before we adjourn. In that 

regard I want to acknowledge the efforts of Senators and staff on 

both sides of the aisle, as well as your efforts to reply quickly to 

the voluminous number of questions that were submitted to you. 

Chairman COLLINS. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(45)

A P P E N D I X 


88932.001
46


88932.002
47


88932.003
48


88932.004
49


88932.005
50


88932.006
51


88932.007
52


88932.008
53


88932.009
54


88932.010
55


88932.011
56


88932.012
57


88932.013
58


88932.014
59


88932.015
60


88932.016
61


88932.017
62


88932.018
63


88932.019
64


88932.020
65


88932.021
66


88932.022
67


88932.023
68


88932.024
69


88932.025
70


88932.026
71


88932.027
72


88932.028
73


88932.029
74


88932.030
75


88932.031
76


88932.032
77


88932.033
78


88932.034
79


88932.035
80


88932.036
81


88932.037
82


88932.038
83


88932.039
84


88932.040
85


88932.041
86


88932.042
87


88932.043
88


88932.044
89


88932.045
90


88932.046
91


88932.047
92


88932.048
93


88932.049
94


88932.050
95


88932.051
96


88932.052
97


88932.053
98


88932.054
99


88932.055
100


88932.056
101


88932.057
102


88932.058
103


88932.059
104


88932.060
105


88932.061
106


88932.062
107


88932.063
108


88932.064
109


88932.065
110


88932.066
111


88932.067
112


88932.068
113


88932.069
114


88932.070
115


88932.071
116


88932.072
117


88932.073
118


88932.074
119


88932.075
120


88932.076
121


88932.077
122


88932.078
123


88932.079
124


88932.080
125


88932.081
126


88932.082
127


88932.083
128


88932.084
129


88932.085
130


88932.086
131


88932.087
132


88932.089
133


88932.090
134


88932.091
135


88932.092
136


88932.093
137


88932.094
138


88932.095
139


88932.096
140


88932.097
141


88932.098
142


88932.099
143


88932.100
144


88932.101
145


88932.102
146


88932.088
147


88932.103
148


88932.104
149


88932.105
150


88932.106
151


88932.107
152


88932.108
153


88932.109
154


88932.111
155


88932.112
156


88932.113
157

Æ


88932.114