U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

49–486 PDF 2010

S. Hrg. 111–440 

NOMINATION OF ROBERT L. NABORS II 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

OF THE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOMINATION OF ROBERT L. NABORS II TO BE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, Senior Counsel 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 1 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 2 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 11 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 11 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009 

Hon. David R. Obey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin .................................................................................................................... 1 

Robert L. Nabors II to be Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 14 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 21 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics with an attachment .............. 52 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF ROBERT L. NABORS II 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:57 p.m., in room 

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman and Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The Committee is reconvened for the 

hearing on the nomination of Robert Nabors to be the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Perhaps in deference to Mr. Obey’s schedule, before either Senator Collins or I speak, Mr. Obey, we would be happy to hear from 

you. First, we thank you for coming over to introduce Mr. Nabors, 

and we would be happy to hear your opening statement at this 

time. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID R. OBEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator 

Collins. 

Yesterday, when I appeared before another committee to introduce Mr. Nabors, I noted that I had one concern with the incoming 

Obama Administration, their great concentration of power in the 

hands of Chicago White Sox fans, with both the incoming President 

and the Chief of Staff and Mr. Nabors. I was willing to overlook 

that, but as a Green Bay Packers fan, I discovered last night that 

all three of them are also Chicago Bears fans. That is almost too 

much to bear. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Enough is enough. [Laughter.] 

Mr. OBEY. But having said that, I am sure that you know what 

Mr. Nabors’ background is. He went to Notre Dame for his undergraduate degree, got his master’s degree at the University of North 

Carolina, served at OMB as a Program Examiner. He then served 

as Senior Advisor to the Director and then became Assistant Director for Administration and the Executive Secretary of OMB. He 

joined the staff of the House Appropriations Committee, serving in 

various capacities for several years. He then served 2 years as Minority Staff Director and for the last 2 years has served as Chief 

of Staff for the House Appropriations Committee. 

2 

1The prepared statement of Chairman Lieberman appears in the Appendix on page 11. 

2The prepared statement of Senator Collins appears in the Appendix on page 11. 

I have never met a person who works harder. It is really with 

mixed feelings that I appear before you because he has been my 

right arm for the last 4 years and he is a tremendous asset to this 

institution of the Congress of the United States. We are losing a 

very valuable asset, but the Executive Branch is gaining one, and 

I think that is the country’s gain, as well. 

He is a person of solidity and wisdom. I said yesterday that, as 

we know, mathematics is the universal language, but budgets, even 

though they are a compilation of numbers, also represent what can 

happen to human beings behind those numbers. Mathematics is a 

universal language, but so is pain and so is the human desire for 

opportunity, and budgets certainly can provide both. I think Mr. 

Nabors understands that and recognizes the human dimension of 

everything we do in the budgeting area. 

I would also simply note that he brings a special quality because 

I think he understands both branches of government and I think 

he will help bring a degree of respect between the Executive and 

Legislative Branches, which has all too often been absent in recent 

years. I think while he will provide tough-minded service to the Executive Branch and to the Congress, he will also bring a deep and 

profound understanding and respect for the opposite institution, 

and that never hurts around here. 

With that, I appreciate your hearing me, and I will leave and go 

back to my roll calls and leave you to your business. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Obey. That was a very, obviously, heartfelt and thoughtful introduction and endorsement. We 

appreciate it very much. Mr. Nabors, I don’t think you could have 

had a better start. Thank you. Safe travels. 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I officially welcome you, Mr. Nabors, to 

the Committee. Since I gave an opening statement on the issues 

facing OMB in Mr. Orszag’s hearing, I am going to simply enter 

that into the record, as well, for this hearing.1

The discussion we have just had with Mr. Orszag was, I think, 

both illuminating and sobering. For any Administration, directing 

OMB is one of the most important jobs, even though in some sense 

it is little known outside of Washington, but being second in command, being Deputy Director, is no less demanding, and particularly so at this unique hour, this really unprecedented time in our 

Nation’s economic history. 

As Mr. Obey illustrated, you have an impressive background. I 

think your previous experience at OMB will be very useful as will, 

of course, the service you have given the Legislative Branch of our 

government. 

So I thank you for being here, and I am eager to hear your views. 

Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, outlined in my opening statement from the previous hearing the general issues, as well as welcomed our witness today.2

3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Nabors appears in the Appendix on page 13. 

I will note that both of the nominees today have had the wisdom 

to bring adorable children with them, thus making it very difficult 

for the Members of this Committee to ask the kind of hard-edged 

questions for which we are known. [Laughter.] 

So I think that, too, indicates a certain skill and savvy on the 

part of the witnesses today. But welcome. 

I had a very good meeting with Mr. Nabors in my office yesterday, and I look forward to exploring a few issues with him during 

the questions. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Collins. 

I will say for the record that Mr. Nabors has filed responses to 

a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered pre-hearing 

questions submitted by the Committee, and had his financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record, with 

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

for public inspection in the Committee’s offices. 

Mr. Nabors, our Committee rules also require that all witnesses 

at nominations give their testimony under oath, so I would ask you 

to please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you will give before the Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Mr. NABORS. I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Please be seated. As Senator 

Collins has indicated, I understand your family is here with you, 

and I ask if you would like to introduce them at this time. 

Mr. NABORS. I would be very happy to. My wife, Theresa, my 

son, Jude, and my daughter, Georgia. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Welcome to all of you, and thank you for 

supporting your husband and dad in serving our country, as he is 

about to do in a very significant way. 

I would ask you now to proceed with any opening statement that 

you have. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. NABORS II1 TO BE DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. NABORS. In the interest of time, I will try to keep my statement brief and try to follow the Spratt model by reading the first 

and last paragraph of my prepared remarks. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Collins, I am honored by the 

opportunity to come before you as President-Elect Obama’s nominee for the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

I would like to take an opportunity to thank Mr. Obey for introducing me to the Committee. As anyone who knows Mr. Obey 

knows about him, he has a deep-seated respect for Congress. This 

is a gift that he has imparted in me and a gift that I plan on taking with me to my new position, if confirmed. 

Mr. Chairman, these are extraordinary times. If confirmed, I am 

committed to working with the Director, the Deputy Director for 

Management, and other members of the Administration to find the 

4 

best ways to reform our budget, eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, 

put in place oversight mechanisms to ensure that we wisely allocate Federal resources, and manage those resources as effectively 

as possible. 

With that, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

and am prepared to answer any questions you might have. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. 

Let me start with those standard questions we ask of all nominees. First, is there anything you are aware of in your background 

that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office 

to which you have been nominated? 

Mr. NABORS. No. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. 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. NABORS. No. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear to testify before any 

duly-constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. NABORS. Yes. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks. Let me proceed. 

Let me ask you first how you see the role of the Deputy at OMB, 

and as part of that, whether you and Mr. Orszag have discussed 

how you might divide responsibilities. 

Mr. NABORS. We have had those types of discussions. I think 

part of the way I view the role of the Deputy Director is influenced 

by my previous tenure at OMB. 

I think especially to the outside world, much has been made 

about the distinction between the management side of OMB and 

the budgetary side of OMB. From my experience, that distinction 

between the two parts of OMB are very much exaggerated, and I 

will just give you one example. 

In my previous tenure at OMB, I served as the Census Bureau 

Examiner in what is traditionally thought of as the budget side of 

OMB. But I was as likely to interact on a daily basis with my colleagues from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the 

Office of Federal Financial Management, or the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy as I was to interact with other budget people. 

It is because the issues that I was dealing with, with the decennial 

census in particular, were so complex that it actually took a team 

of experts to help think through some of the problems. 

So I come to the position with a predisposition that there is no 

distinction between budget and management at OMB. It is one institution. I see that my primary role as the Deputy Director of 

OMB is to make sure that all of these different perspectives within 

the institution—the management components, the statutory office 

components, the budgetary issues—are brought together so that 

when a recommendation is made to the Director, all of the different 

facets of a particular problem are brought to the forefront. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Very good. There was some talk with Mr. 

Orszag of the line-item veto or enhanced rescission. We are going 

to be looking at reform of current budget rules and procedures in 

this Committee and in Congress. I wonder if you have any suggesVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:37 Jun 01, 2010 Jkt 049486 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\49486.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
5 

tions yourself about how we might reform our budget rules and 

procedures here in Congress based on your experience, again, in 

both branches, to advance the cause of fiscal responsibility. 

Mr. NABORS. I think that there are a couple of things that the 

Committee could look at and that OMB could be a helpful partner 

in. I think that the first thing that I would point to is transparency. I think that the budget and financial systems of the Federal Government are among the most complex and obtuse systems 

that exist anywhere, and I think anything that we can do to bring 

increased transparency both to the budget itself and to the budget 

process is a positive step in the right direction. 

I think the second thing that can be done is—any efforts to better integrate the performance aspects of program management with 

the budget processing components would be, once again, a very 

positive step. I think right now, and once again, based on my previous experience at OMB, too much of the program analysis and 

the budget development are separated. 

The example that I would use is previously at OMB, we had a 

very long and detailed process that really began in October and extended all the way through February to put the budget together. 

After that, the examiners sort of catch 40 hours of sleep and go 

back to work starting on something called the spring reviews, and 

those spring reviews were opportunities to focus on the management components. That tended to be book-ended in between the 

budget creation process and the congressional budget process and 

appropriations process. So often times, that spring management review got short shrift. 

I think that one of the things that needs to occur is that throughout the budget process, from budget formulation all the way 

through budget execution, there needs to be a strong focus on the 

management component so that, as much as possible, these pieces 

are not disrupted, and I think the same thing can be said of the 

OMB and the Administration’s working relationships with the Congress. 

Too often, our conversations with regard to budgetary issues are 

limited to either the Appropriations Committee or the Ways and 

Means Committee or the Senate Finance Committee. I think more 

attention needs to be paid to incorporating the findings of oversight 

committees into the deliberations that go into crafting the annual 

congressional budget and the appropriations bills. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Very thoughtful. I appreciate it. 

Let me go to the stimulus package and ask for a reaction to an 

idea. The President-Elect has set down three standards for the 

stimulus package. Let me see if I can recall them. One was that 

they create jobs; two, that they are able to be implemented fairly 

rapidly; and three, that they support sound national policy. 

So consistent with that, we are obviously looking at a major infusion of money, for instance, into transportation by the States. We 

are looking at other more innovative sort of new economy ideas, 

like investments in health information technology (IT) and the 

smart grid. 

Probably because I am on the Armed Services Committee, it 

struck me that another possibility would be to accelerate the funding of defense programs that we know we are going to have to buy 

6 

in the next 3 to 5 years and to do them this year or next year. I 

am not talking about using this as an excuse to sort of find money 

for controversial programs. I am thinking of programs that everybody agrees would be a high priority for funding and are just going 

to be spread out over 3 years, and I am thinking that this would 

create jobs quickly. I think the question is, can you find them? I 

am sure you can. They are ready to be funded rapidly. And they 

do support sound national policy, which is our national defense. 

I wonder if you have a reaction to that thought. 

Mr. NABORS. Well, we have spent some amount of time looking 

at what can be done through the Department of Defense. In particular, we have been looking at efforts that could both stimulate 

the economy and make the lives of our military families and soldiers more satisfactory. 

We will go back and take a look at whether or not there are 

other defense programs that we think could be executed quickly 

and could provide a stimulative bolt to the economy. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good for you. I appreciate that. I take it 

you are thinking, when you think about the families, perhaps of 

military construction of housing and the like. 

Mr. NABORS. We are thinking about military construction and 

housing, but we will expand that perspective to look at other 

issues, as well. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is one of the areas I was thinking 

about, military construction of facilities on bases that everybody 

agrees we are going to have to do in the next 3 to 5 years, including housing, but also perhaps the purchase of some systems that 

we know we can actually gain a cost benefit if we fund up front 

with the defense manufacturers. 

I appreciate that answer, and I look forward to a response after 

you take a look at it. 

Mr. NABORS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you. Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Nabors, I am particularly interested in your experience with 

the census. As we discussed yesterday and as I indicated in my 

previous questioning, I am very concerned about the total failure 

of a major IT contract at the Census Bureau that was absolutely 

critical to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the 2010 

census. It is extraordinary to me in this time and age that we are 

going back to such a primitive system for trying to count people 

and carry out the constitutional responsibility of conducting a census. 

Do you think, given OMB’s responsibilities to oversee IT contracts, that OMB should have been able to avert that disaster at 

the Census Bureau? 

Mr. NABORS. I think the way I would answer that question is 

that because of the responsibilities that OMB has been given by 

the Congress and by the President on many issues, OMB is ultimately responsible, and this is one of those issues where so many 

components of the decennial census, both the funding, contracting 

issues, information technology issues, sort of reside ultimately at 

OMB for appropriate oversight, but yes, I believe that some 

amount of responsibility should be borne by OMB in terms of 

7 

whether or not an appropriate amount of attention was placed at 

a high enough level to catch these types of things. 

I think that one of the lessons that this brings out is that we 

need to spend more time doing the type of oversight that is necessary to ensure that the major dollars that we are investing in 

things like the decennial census are spent wisely. 

Senator COLLINS. Should OMB have a stronger Chief Information Officer or Chief Technology Officer who sets standards across 

the government? 

Mr. NABORS. I think, as Mr. Orszag laid out, the issue overall of 

IT and the importance of IT within the Federal Government at this 

point really is causing us to step back and take a look at whether 

another type of position, maybe a Chief Technology Officer or a 

Chief Information Officer, is something that is worthwhile. I think 

the decennial census provides a prime example of why we might 

need to consider that. I think over the next couple of weeks, I 

would expect to have further conversations with Mr. Orszag about 

that. 

Senator COLLINS. Along with technology concerns arises the 

greater concern about privacy of personal information that is held 

by Federal departments. In part due to the work that our Committee did when we passed the Intelligence Reform Act in 2004, we 

created privacy officers in a number of agencies. Many agencies 

have designated privacy officers as a result. However, within OMB, 

there is no single official designated as the lead on privacy policy 

despite OMB’s responsibility in e-Government, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and procurement issues. 

I understand that when you were working at OMB, for a period 

of time, there was a Chief Counselor for Privacy, a position that 

has been vacant since 2001. Based on your experience, do you believe that this position was a valuable part of OMB that should be 

restored? Should Congress mandate that the position be created? 

Mr. NABORS. Well, when I was at OMB, we did have a Chief 

Counselor for Privacy, and I think he was very effective at the 

time. I think it was because of two reasons. One, he was recognized 

as one of the foremost experts in the country on privacy, so when 

he spoke, he carried a lot of weight. And I think, second, the Director, the Deputy Director, and the Deputy Director of Management 

all made it a point to ensure that whenever we were having broader information technology types of conversations or broader policy 

conversations, that our privacy person was in the room and participated, so that privacy was always part of the conversation that we 

were having. 

I think as we go forward, there are reasonable discussions that 

we can have about what the best way to achieve that type of goal 

is again. Perhaps it is having a person, but I think there is general 

agreement that we need to ensure that privacy is in the room and 

that people that we have talking about privacy are among the best, 

brightest, and most thoughtful people considering the issue. 

So I would very much like to work with you and your Committee 

to determine, in your opinion, how would you think the best way 

to structure that to ensure that privacy gets the appropriate level 

of attention during the OMB decisionmaking process. 

8 

Senator COLLINS. I look forward to working with you on that 

issue. 

Finally, I want to talk to you a bit about performance of Federal 

programs evaluation and assessment. So much of OMB’s functioning is focused, as you indicated, on the budget that at times we 

lose sight not only of the management side of OMB, but the importance of evaluating the effectiveness of Federal programs. The current Administration tried to tackle this issue by establishing what 

is known as the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) program, 

yet Congress did not find that to be as useful as we might have 

hoped. 

I know that when I looked at various programs, oftentimes I very 

much disagreed with the ratings that OMB assigned, and often giving a program the red light in a PART program evaluation really 

seemed to be a way to try to kill a program or reduce or eliminate 

its funding rather than truly being a fair assessment of its effectiveness. Yet there is no doubt in my mind that there are programs 

that are not effective and either should be eliminated or restructured so that they better achieve their goals. 

What are your thoughts on a possible successor to the PART program that would help both the Administration and the Congress 

more effectively evaluate the worth of Federal programs? 

Mr. NABORS. Well, I think that the first step is recreating the 

process that led to PART, and I say that for the following reason. 

When I was on the Appropriations Committee, I was routinely 

asked by OMB analysts and by agency officials what I thought 

about various PART scores, and I had to be honest with them and 

say, we on the Appropriations Committee don’t really look at 

PART, in part because we don’t think it is a useful tool. It is not 

crafted in a way that was useful to the types of decisions that appropriators were making. 

From talking to my colleagues on various authorization committees, I got the same reaction from them, that while the concept of 

PART, the concept of measuring performance, is something that 

should be universally beneficial across the Congress, the way it 

was done was not terribly helpful. 

So I would step back, and the first step in the process is actually 

identifying the appropriate measures by which a program’s success 

or failure can be determined, and programs have very different levels associated with them. It can’t be as simple as cost per student. 

There are more fundamental issues at play with some education 

programs than just something as simple as cost per student. 

I think that one of the things in evaluating PART that I would 

want to do is sit down and determine with congressional stakeholders and with outside stakeholders, what is the best way to 

measure the performance of particular programs? 

I think that the second thing that I would want to do is evaluate 

exactly what are we going to do with the information once we have 

collected it? As you have noted, oftentimes, a bad PART score is a 

justification to eliminate a program. I think oftentimes those proposals were made without a consideration for how integral such an 

activity might be to the Federal Government or to society at large. 

Just because something gets a bad PART score doesn’t mean that 

we shouldn’t do it. It means that we should do it better, and I 

9 

think that this is one of the things that I would like to look at as 

part of a PART review process. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Collins. 

Senator Collins was kind enough to say before she gave her 

opening statement that I had said a lot in my opening statement 

that she had intended to say. She has now asked all the remaining 

questions I had wanted to ask, so unless you have others—— 

Senator COLLINS. I don’t. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Mr. Nabors, thanks very much for your 

willingness to serve. You and Peter Orszag are really a great combination. I think you will serve the country and the President and 

Congress really well because we have a lot of work to do together. 

I look forward, honestly, to getting to know you better, and I appreciate very much your testimony here today. 

Without objection, the record of this hearing will be kept open 

until 12 noon tomorrow for the submission of any written questions 

or statements for the record. 

We hope that the Senate will be able to confirm you as soon after 

the inauguration next Tuesday as possible. 

With that, I thank you, your family, and your staff. The hearing 

is adjourned. 

Mr. NABORS. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(11) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Welcome, Mr. Nabors. Due to Committee procedures, we are holding a nomination 

hearing for you separate from Dr. Orszag’s. Since I just delivered a lengthy opening 

statement on the issues facing OMB, I will not repeat it, but I would like to enter 

it into the record for this hearing since we will be covering much of the same 

ground. 

The discussion we have just had during Dr. Orszag’s hearing was both fascinating 

and very sobering. For any administration, directing the Office of Management and 

Budget is one of the most important jobs—albeit little known or understood outside 

of Washington. And being second in command will be no less demanding. 

You have an impressive background, and your previous experience at OMB will 

be very useful, if you are confirmed. 

Mr. Nabors has been Democratic Staff Director for the House Appropriations 

Committee for the past two years and was Minority Staff Director for two years before that. He joined the Committee in 2001. 

Before joining Congressional staff, he served in several positions at OMB—as a 

senior advisor to the Director from 1998–2000 and as Assistant Director for Administration and Executive Secretary from 2000–2001. From 1996–1998, he was an 

OMB program manager. 

I am eager to hear your views and plans for the difficult times ahead. But first, 

please feel free to deliver an opening statement. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Seldom have nominees for director and deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget come before this Committee at a more critical time. 

The federal budget is under tremendous stress from the impacts of a deep recession and the costs of rescue and stimulus packages. Spiraling entitlement costs are 

driving long-term budgetary imbalances. And the next few years will also see the 

cresting waves of Baby Boom retirements, with enormous impacts on Social Security 

and Medicare expenditures, as well as on our federal workforce. Pointing to these trends and to the estimated $1.2 trillion deficit for the current 

fiscal year, the President-Elect has prudently warned that unless strong measures 

are taken, the outlook is for ‘‘red ink as far as the eye can see.’’ Our nation’s public debt has reached $6.3 trillion—about 45 percent of gross domestic product. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending will 

climb to an astonishing 25 percent of GDP this year—more than any time in American history outside of World War II. With a stimulus package worth another $800 

billion or more, our nation’s debt as a percentage of GDP could rise to 60 percent, 

the highest level since World War II. That is, of course, an unacceptable and 

unsustainable scenario for the government, for the economy, and for the households 

and business owners who pay the government’s bills. 

OMB will be the leading player as the incoming administration formulates policy 

to deal with a grim present and uncertain future. OMB will also be an indispensable 

link to Congress as the executive and legislative branches work toward consensus 

on a sustainable path forward. 

Dr. Orszag comes before the Committee with an impressive set of skills and experiences. As a former director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, he is 

familiar with the legislative branch, as well as with the intricacies of budgets and 

policy analysis. His earlier service as an economic advisor, as a scholar, and as a 

consultant has given him other important perspectives that will prove valuable if 

confirmed as OMB director. 

I take special interest in several issues for which the OMB Director is a key play- er. 

12 

The overriding concern, of course, is the federal budget. Dr. Orszag has already 

indicated that the economy and stimulus measures portend a near-term rise in the 

deficit. But as he knows—and as we have heard from former Comptroller General 

David Walker and other experts—recent years’ outlays and the growth of unfunded 

entitlements are unsustainable. 

The recession will not last forever, so we desperately need a realistic plan to avoid 

having the federal budget become a mammoth drag on opportunities for job growth 

and higher personal income—and for people’s ability to decide what to do with their 

own money. And let me add that the public expects far better oversight of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and of any future economic-recovery package. 

Another major OMB responsibility falls under the general heading of Executive 

Branch management. This Committee has documented a voluminous record of 

shocking waste of taxpayer dollars by the federal government in virtually every program and department. 

Many of these examples have arisen in the realm of contracting. This Committee 

has successfully passed legislation to improve the federal acquisition process, but 

additional reforms, including revitalization of the federal acquisition workforce, 

must be high on OMB’s list of targets for critical improvements. 

Effectiveness and equity are other key management concerns. Homeland Security 

Grants, for example, are essential to ensure that every state can achieve a baseline 

level of readiness and response capability for natural or man-made disasters. OMB 

needs to examine budget plans carefully to ensure that they consistently support 

our nation’s first responders and help achieve our national goal for all-hazards 

emergency preparedness. 

Other special concerns—which Dr. Orszag recognizes in responses to pre-hearing 

questions—include transparency in government operations, metrics for agency performance, close attention to GAO’s High-Risk List, and the need to tackle the escalating costs of health care. 

Today the Committee will also consider the nominee for one of the deputy directors at OMB, Robert Nabors. 

I look forward to learning more about Mr. Nabors’ background, particularly his 

experience as a program examiner at OMB during the Clinton Administration. That 

past OMB service included oversight of a previous Census and of agency technology 

investments, both areas of considerable concern today. 

Our exploration with these nominees of the financial and management hurdles 

facing the federal government makes this a critically important hearing. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

13 


49486.001
14 


49486.002
15 


49486.003
16 


49486.004
17 


49486.005
18 


49486.006
19 


49486.007
20 


49486.008
21 


49486.009
22 


49486.010
23 


49486.011
24 


49486.012
25 


49486.013
26 


49486.014
27 


49486.015
28 


49486.016
29 


49486.017
30 


49486.018
31 


49486.019
32 


49486.020
33 


49486.021
34 


49486.022
35 


49486.023
36 


49486.024
37 


49486.025
38 


49486.026
39 


49486.027
40 


49486.028
41 


49486.029
42 


49486.030
43 


49486.031
44 


49486.032
45 


49486.033
46 


49486.034
47 


49486.035
48 


49486.036
49 


49486.037
50 


49486.038
51 


49486.039
52 


49486.040
53 

Æ 


49486.041