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

80–290 PDF 2013

SEQUESTRATION OVERSIGHT: UNDERSTANDING 

THE ADMINISTRATION’S DECISIONS ON SPENDING CUTS AND FURLOUGHS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, 

JOB CREATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 19, 2013 

Serial No. 113–10 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, JOB CREATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chairman 

JOHN DUNCAN, Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

PAUL GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS Florida 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania, 

Ranking Minority Member 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 19, 2013 ............................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. David Robbins, Managing Director, Federal Communications Commission 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Mr. Michael L. Young, Director, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Mr. Hari Sastry, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Resource Management, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 23 

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Member of Congress from the 

District of Columbia, Opening Statement .......................................................... 48 

The Honorable Jim Jordan, a Member of Congress from the State of Ohio, 

Opening Statement .............................................................................................. 50 

Politico—Now Dems Worry: Did President Obama cry wolf? .............................. 52 

Letter from Rebecca M. Blank, The Deputy Secretary of Commerce to the 

Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, a Member of Congress from the State 

of Maryland .......................................................................................................... 56 

(1) 

SEQUESTRATION OVERSIGHT: UNDERSTANDING THE ADMINISTRATION’S DECISIONS ON SPENDING CUTS AND FURLOUGHS 

Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, JOB CREATION

AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, U.S. POSTAL

SERVICE AND THE CENSUS, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m. in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Blake 

Farenthold [chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, 

U.S. Postal Service and Census], presiding. 

Present: Representatives Farenthold, Jordan, McHenry, Duncan, 

Gosar, DesJarlais, Lummis, Meadows, DeSantis, Issa, Cartwright, 

Norton, Clay, Connolly, Pocan, Horsford, and Cummings. 

Also present: Representative Mulvaney. 

Staff Present: Kurt Bardella, Majority Senior Policy Advisor; 

Molly Boyl, Majority Parliamentarian; Caitlin Carroll, Majority 

Deputy Press Secretary; Drew Colliatie, Majority Legislative Assistant; John Cuaderes, Majority Deputy Staff Director; Brian 

Daner, Majority Counsel; Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of 

Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Majority 

Chief Clerk; Tyler Grimm, Majority Professional Staff Member; 

Jennifer Hemingway, Majority Senior Professional Staff Member; 

Frederick Hill, Majority Director of Communications and Senior 

Policy Advisor; Michael R. Kiko, Majority Staff Assistant; Mark D. 

Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; James Robertson, Majority 

Professional Staff Member; Scott Schmidt, Majority Deputy Director of Digital Strategy; Matthew Tallmer, Majority Investigator; 

Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Lena Chang, 

Minority Counsel; Devon Hill, Minority Research Assistant; Brian 

Quinn, Minority Counsel; and Safiya Simmons, Minority Press Secretary. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. The committee will come to order. 

As is normal at our meetings of the Committee and Subcommittee on Government Oversight and Reform, we start each 

meeting by reading our mission statement. 

We exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans 

have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them 

2 

is well spent. And second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective 

Government that works for them. 

Our duty on the Government Oversight and Reform Committee 

is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold the 

Government accountable to taxpayers because taxpayers have a 

right to know what they get from their Government. We will work 

tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts 

to the American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal 

bureaucracy. 

This is the mission of the Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee. 

At this point, I will make my opening statement and we will then 

let the ranking member give her opening statement and then this 

is a joint Subcommittee hearing so we will also go to the Chairman 

and Ranking Member of the other Subcommittee. 

Today we are going to talk about stewardship of taxpayers’ 

funds. That is what this hearing is about. It is about being responsible managers. And finally, it is about the credibility of this Administration. 

The bottom line, is agencies should have planned better for sequester. And if the President, the Government agencies and the 

Secretaries who head these agencies would spend more time planning and less time with political posturing before the American 

people with scare tactics about the sequester, we would be better 

off. 

Federal agencies have known about the sequester since August 

of 2011. My grandmother taught me a lot of things, but one thing 

that sticks with me that I use almost every day is plan for the 

worst and expect the best. Why didn’t our Government agencies 

apply this bit of common sense in dealing with the sequester? Some 

did, some did not. 

Those who didn’t could have done some simple things, like rein 

in bonuses, cut wasteful and frivolous spending and, as we will 

learn in the course of this hearing, implement reports of their own 

IGs to save money. 

But what have the agencies done instead? They have listened to 

irresponsible advice. Last summer, the OMB instructed agencies to 

continue normal spending and operations since more than five 

months remained before sequester took effect. This was reckless. 

Sequester was the law of the land then as it is today. So why didn’t 

agencies at least have a contingency plan? 

Even our Federal employee unions recognize that agencies did 

not take sequester seriously. A regional president of the American 

Federation of Government Employees recently commented that 

agencies really have not done their homework. They are under the 

illusion that the sequester was not going to happen. 

With the sequester now upon us, some of the Administration’s 

spending choices make no sense. The only conclusion I can draw is 

the President wants to politicize the sequester and make the cuts 

as painful as possible. Rather than looking for the low-hanging 

fruit of waste, fraud and abuse, we have furloughs. Rather than 

keeping the White House open for tours, we have Presidential golf 

outings. And, quite frankly, I am appalled the President has 

3 

thrown the men and women who would take a bullet for him, the 

Secret Service, under the bus for canceling White House tours. 

I don’t believe for a second that if the President had asked, let’s 

find somewhere else to cut, they would have found plenty of options. Hey guys, how about looking at the $300,000 annual pay for 

calligraphers? The President and Executive Branch agencies are 

talking furloughs when on the day the sequester went effect, these 

agencies posted more than 400 jobs. You know, instead of those calligraphers, ZapfChancery comes free on every MAC and does pretty 

nice name tags. 

I am also worried about the credibility of the Administration. We 

need to trust our President. But the trust is eroding due to his 

false rhetoric about the sequester. When President Obama said the 

janitors and security guards who work here at the Capitol will face 

pay cuts, the Superintendent of the Capitol had to send out an 

email to employees saying their pay and benefits would be safe. 

And when the Secretary of Education, Mr. Duncan, said teachers 

were getting pink slips, the Washington Post awarded him four 

Pinocchios for this claim. 

The public is starting to catch on. Politico recently ran an article 

asking, did President Obama cry wolf about the sequester. And the 

Chicago Tribune ran an editorial this week headlined TruthSquadding Sequester Hysteria, Officials Sabotage Themselves 

When They Manipulate, Exaggerate and Flout Common Sense. 

Again, if our agencies would get to work and plan instead of 

using scare tactics, we would be better off. 

Thank you all for being here. I am looking forward to productive 

discussion as we talk about how we are going to manage the sequester. 

I will now recognize Ms. Norton for five minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We should not be surprised by the scope of the damage that sequester will bring. Congress was warned what would happen if sequester took effect. We were informed about the potential devastation of vital Government programs and services and on furloughs 

of more than 1 million Federal employees. The Congressional 

Budget Office estimated that the $85 billion cut required by the 

Budget Deferral Act of 2011 will cause the loss of 750,000 jobs and 

will slow the economy by .6 percent. 

Instead of trying to prevent the sequester from happening, our 

colleagues on the other side of the aisle embraced it. They wanted 

it to happen. In fact, a member of this Committee said just last 

month, quoted in her paper, ‘‘Sequester will take place. I am excited. It will be the first time since I have been in Congress that 

we really have significant cuts.’’ 

As a result of the sequester, Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce and the 

Federal Communications Commission are now required to follow 

the specific mandates of the Budget Control Act to make acrossthe-board, indiscriminate and untargeted cuts to each account, and 

I repeat, each account, calligraphers, yes, and other accounts, you 

cannot substitute one for the other, program and project and activity by program, project and activity. 

4 

The agencies have noted that the law gives them little discretion 

at implementing the cuts and that such cuts could negatively impact their missions, the services they provide to the American people and the economic recovery itself. For Agriculture, this would require cutting $2 billion across the 

board. Where do you think those dollars would have gone? To help 

the private sectors, to farmers, agribusiness and, yes, poor people. 

For Commerce, sequestration would mean $550 million in acrossthe-board cuts. Where do you think that money would have gone? 

To help the private sector, the small business and satellite infrastructure. 

For the FCC sequestration, the cut would be $17 million. Guess 

who is going to benefit from those dollars? You guessed it, the private sector. Now that sequester is taking effect, Republicans want 

to shift the blame for the cuts to Government activities benefiting 

even the private sector. 

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have accused the 

agencies of exaggerating the negative effects of sequestration for 

political gain. They claim that the agencies can simply undo sequestration by eliminating wasteful and duplicative programs or 

reducing other spending. Well, that is exactly what we would have 

done without sequestration. And that is what sequestration does 

not allow. 

And they have criticized the Administration for implementing 

the sequester too slowly. A Republican-controlled House required 

across-the-board cuts as their price for extending the Nation’s debt 

limit and overting the first fiscal default in the Nation’s history. A 

Republican-controlled House has continued the longstanding practice of controlling the power of the purse which by law give Federal 

agencies the freedom to spend money as they choose. Why do they 

have to spend money as Congress chooses for them and are not free 

to do or undo sequester on their own? 

A Republican-controlled House gave the agencies until April 

11th, which is 30 days after the President issued the sequester 

order, to submit to Congress their sequester plans. As I look at the 

calendar, the agencies still have a couple of weeks to go. Contrary 

to the accusations of some Republicans, the agencies are not late. 

So, this hearing today attacks the problem caused by sequestration from exactly the wrong angle. If the Republican House does 

not like the effects of across-the-board cuts, why did they insist on 

them? Why have some embraced them? Why have some feared for 

them? 

If the Republican House does not like the fact that agencies’ 

hands are tied by law, and that only Congress can mitigate the 

damaging consequences of sequestration, why have they not 

changed the law? If the Republic House does not like the time that 

Federal agencies are using to develop implementation plans, why 

did they give the agencies so much of it? 

The course of sequestration can still be done. This is still the 

House of Representatives. Today’s hearing really should be entitled 

Sequestration Oversight: What Were House Republicans Thinking? 

That might be something for American businesses to ponder in the 

days to come. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

5 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Ms. Norton. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Economic 

Growth, Mr. Jordan, for an opening statement. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Real quickly, in response to the Ranking Member’s statement, 

the reason we support reducing spending and sequestration is because we have a debt larger than our entire annual economy. We 

do have to cut some spending around this place and we are finally 

taking some modest first steps. 

Second, we did try to change how this was implemented. We 

passed two pieces of legislation in the last Congress that passed 

the House of Representatives but, as with so many other bills when 

they get to the Senate, it went nowhere. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will go to my statement. 

Today’s hearing compares the reality of sequestration with the 

rhetoric of this Administration. The Obama Administration has 

misled the American people with horror story after horror story 

about the sequester. 

First, Education Secretary Arne Duncan went on National television and claimed that teachers were literally getting pink slips. 

The Washington Post, that wonderful conservative newspaper, 

later awarded him four Pinocchios for his claim. 

Next, we had the President. I guess he didn’t want to be outdone 

and wanted his Pinocchios as well because he claimed that janitors 

at the United States Capitol would receive a pay cut. Washington 

Post gave him the same that they gave Mr. Duncan, four 

Pinocchios. The President’s statement prompted the Superintendent of the U.S. Capitol to email his staff to reassure them 

that this was not, in fact, the case. 

Now, newspapers are running stories about the Administration’s 

smoke and mirrors. A Politico headline asked, ‘‘Did President 

Obama Cry Wolf About the Sequester?’’ The answer was a pretty 

resounding yes and included criticism from, among others, former 

Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. 

The Chicago Tribune ran an editorial last week entitled ‘‘TruthSquadding Sequester Hysteria, Officials Sabotage Themselves 

When They Manipulate, Exaggerate and Flout Common Sense.’’ It 

featured pictures of children unable to tour the White House holding up signs that said, the White House is our house, please let us 

visit. Now, news reports are indicating that the White House may 

cancel the annual Easter Egg Roll. The absurdity of this action 

would be comical if it were not so cruel. 

The USDA and the Department of Commerce are also partaking 

in the doomsday rhetoric. In mid-December of last year, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack issued a memo downplaying the possibility of the sequester and informed his staff that should it occur, 

USDA may have to consider some furloughs. Then, just a little over 

a month later, he changed his tune and declared that the USDA 

would have to furlough over 6,000 food inspectors for up to three 

weeks. He recently walked back that statement saying the U.S. Department of Agriculture would not seek continuous furloughs. So 

the obvious question is, which is it? Might happen, probably won’t 

happen, or three weeks, 6,000 people? 

6 

The Department of Commerce said it would furlough up to 2,600 

employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Yet, at the same time, it is advertising job openings at NOAA 

and it was hit with an IG audit that found NOAA paid more than 

$40 million in contracts without proper justification. 

Finally, let me express my disappointment with the extraordinary amount of effort it took to get the Department of Commerce 

and the Department of Agriculture to testify today. Despite multiple offers by the Committee to move the hearing date to accommodate these agencies, and the willingness of the Committee to accept several different alternative witnesses from each agency, the 

Committee ultimately had to threaten to use subpoenas to secure 

their testimony. 

Both agencies used delay tactics and appeared to play games 

with the Committee in an effort to avoid testifying. Even after finally agreeing to testify, the Department of Commerce notified the 

Committee that it was doing so ‘‘reluctantly.’’ I mean, this is amazing. An agency spending taxpayer dollars won’t even come in front 

of Congress, comes reluctantly after they are given multiple opportunities, multiple dates to come and share what is happening with 

the American people’s tax money. 

The American people have heard one dire warning after another 

about the impact of the sequester on their lives. Yet, when it comes 

to accountability and answering simple questions about what agencies are doing with the American people’s money they throw up one 

roadblock after another. 

The issue has been at the forefront of the news for months. 

Therefore, the agencies should have been planning for months and 

it is inexcusable agencies would not have multiple people ready 

and available to talk about it. 

The American people have a right to know why they continue to 

be misled by this Administration in an effort to score cheap political points. They deserve truth. They deserve truthful and accurate 

answers, not more misleading rhetoric, and we hope, we hope to 

get the American people these answers today at this Committee 

hearing. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. 

We will now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 

on Economic Growth, Mr. Cartwright, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold, and thank 

you to the witnesses for attending the hearing today. I know we 

are pulling you away from your busy schedules to speak to us 

about the impact of sequestration. 

Everybody in this room knows that it is not crying wolf about sequestration. I come from the 17th Congressional District of Pennsylvania where we have the Tobyhanna Army Depot which employs 

5,200 people, about 430 of whom are getting pink slips, all of the 

rest of whom are being given furlough notices. 

These are people who for the last three years have not had a 

raise, people who have diligently and faithfully been performing 

their jobs, supporting the Armed Forces of the United States and 

now are being told that they have to take a further pay cut of 20 

7 

percent just because the people in Washington can not come together and solve this. 

For anyone to say that this is crying wolf, they are sorely mistaken because people, real people, are suffering because of this sequestration. 

Also to say that nothing has happened despite Republican’s efforts is also a complete fallacy. Two bills were passed by House Republicans last Congress and both bills died with the Congress. 

House Republicans who are in charge of the United States House 

of Representatives right now have not acted this Congress to avert 

sequestration. 

Congress passed the Budget Control Act of 2011 which required 

across-the-board cuts to each program, project and activity within 

each budgetary account in the event that Congress failed to enact 

deficit reduction legislation. Agencies are further limited to implementing these congressional-mandated cuts by longstanding laws 

that Congress uses to enforce its power of the purse. Together, Federal agencies cannot avoid consequences like employee furloughs or 

the disruption of services on which Americans depend. 

For example, USDA furloughs, even if they are not on consecutive days, really matter because when there is no USDA inspector 

in a meat packing plant, that plant has to close down, cannot process beef, cannot process meat. It is a big deal to the American economy when there is no USDA meat inspector on the job. 

Now today, we are fortunate enough to have representatives 

from the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of 

Agriculture and the Department of Commerce discussing sequestration. These agencies are each losing valuable funding as a result 

of these blind cuts. The FCC is losing $17 million, resulting in possible furloughs in the future. These cuts are going to create hiring 

freeze at a time when people need jobs the most, reducing the ability to monitor the airways. 

The Department of Commerce will see significantly greater re- ductions than the FCC with cuts of $551 million. The Economic Development Administration will be cut by $13 million at a time 

when economic development should be our focus. 

Sequestration will also result in thousands of lost or unfilled jobs 

at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. No matter what a member thinks about a manmade climate change, 

NOAA is responsible for weather forecasts and warnings of natural 

disasters like Hurricane Sandy which impacted my District and 

millions of people across the Country. It is irresponsible and dangerous to cut a program that gives critical and lifesaving advanced 

warnings of impending disasters. 

In fact, these consequences are just what was intended. In 2011, 

House Speaker Boehner emphasized these across-the-board cuts in 

a meeting of the GOP Conference in an effort to win Republican 

support for an extension of the Nation’s debt limit. Recently, Republican members have repeated their support for across-the-board 

cuts labeling the cuts a victory and the best thing that has happened since they came into office. 

I am here to tell you, last week in my District the Greater 

Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Commerce, which represents many businesses and business owners in my District, wrote a letter to me to 

8 

express their disappointment with the chilling effect that sequestration will have. They wrote whether is it the thousands of jobs 

at the Tobyhanna Army Depot and their subcontractors, small 

businesses aching for a forward-moving economy, school children or 

those most in need in our community, the cuts will be felt across 

the board. 

They get it. The whole Country gets it. Across-the-board cuts to 

every Government project, program and activity can only be 

stopped by Congress. I urge Republican leadership to come to the 

table and put a stop to this ridiculous, ridiculous sequester. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Cartwright. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent at this point to enter into 

the record an article from Politico ‘‘Now Dems Worry, Did President Obama Cry Wolf?’’ 

Without objection. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Without objection, members will also have 

seven days to submit their opening statements for the record. 

Now, we are going to go to our panel. Let me introduce the panel 

first. 

First, we have Mr. David Robbins. He is the Managing Director 

of the Federal Communications Commission. Welcome, Mr. Robbins. 

Mr. Michael Young is the Director of the Office of Budgetary and 

Program Analysis at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

And Mr. Hari Sastry, who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Resource Management at the Department of Commerce. 

Pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in 

before they testify. Would you please rise with me? 

Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm 

that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the 

whole truth and nothing but the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. 

I know each of you has submitted written testimony but in order 

to allow for timely discussion, especially as we have votes coming 

up this afternoon, we would like to ask you to summarize that and 

try to keep your statements within five minutes. You have a red, 

green and yellow light in front of you. It works just like the numerous traffic lights on the streets here in Washington, D.C. Your entire testimony will be entered into the record and available for review. 

So we will start first with Mr. Robbins from the FCC. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF DAVID ROBBINS 

Mr. ROBBINS. Good afternoon, Chairmen Farenthold and Jordan, 

Ranking Members Lynch and Cartwright and other Members of 

the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It is an honor 

to be here with you this afternoon. 

My name is David Robbins and I am the Managing Director of 

the Federal Communications Commission. My core role is to ensure 

9 

that the Commission’s resources are allocated and utilized properly 

and to manage the staff that supports the FCC’s programs. 

I joined the Commission on September 2, 2011 after serving as 

the SBA’s Associate Administrator for Management and Administration. Prior to that, I worked at the FTC as an Assistant Director 

in the Bureau of Consumer Protection. I also have more than 15 

years in the private sector. 

I feel privileged to serve as a public servant in an agency with 

such important responsibilities. The information and communications technology sector, also known as the broadband economy, is 

a growth and job creation engine. The Commission’s work to unleash wireless spectrum, extend the benefits of broadband to all 

Americans, protect and empower consumers, promote competition 

and ensure public safety is critical to our economy and society. 

But I also recognize that these are challenging budgetary times 

for all Federal agencies. The FCC is a small, independent regulatory agency and we already have a very lean budget, even less 

than in some prior years, and we currently have our lowest FTE 

level in more than 30 years. The Commission’s activities are completely fee-funded by our licensees, and these licensees will pay the 

same amount to the FCC regardless of whether the monies to go 

the Treasury for sequestration purposes or for agency operations. 

To better understand the challenges we face, it is important to 

review our general budget situation. For Fiscal Year 2013, the FCC 

requested $246 million, with $8.8 million specifically dedicated to 

the Office of Inspector General. Our Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriation, including OIG funds, was $339 million and the current CR 

provides $341 million to the agency. Sequestration requires a 5 percent cut or $17 million from the FCC’s regular budget, which would 

result in the OIG cut of $490,000 and the non-OIG cut of $16 million. 

In addition, we have limited spending flexibility for a broad 

range of programmatic needs outside of fixed costs. Our compensation and benefits are a large part of our fixed costs, at about 72 

percent, followed by rent, utilities and a portion of our contracts 

which together make up another 23 percent. That means that 

roughly 95 percent of our budget is committed to expenditures that 

are difficult to change quickly, leaving us with limited options from 

which to address these cuts. 

So our starting point for flexible budget cuts is lower than would 

first appear. With a budget this small and targeted, there is not 

sufficient room to reprioritize during the year to ensure that we 

can handle contingencies and emergencies that may come up. 

The Commission processes over 375,000 applications a year, including 16,000 equipment authorizations, and reviews over 300,000 

consumer complaints and inquiries in addition to handling a broad 

range of issues related to public safety and homeland security, as 

well as universal service reform. 

It is important to note that much of what we do is highly technical and dependent upon a skilled workforce of engineers, economists, attorneys and other experienced professionals. For that reason, our budget is workforce intensive and it is for that reason that 

we are taking every reasonable measure to minimize the risk of 

furloughing our employees. But that does not mean that we will 

10 

not be forced to furlough at a later date to ensure that the agency 

accomplishes its mission. 

As we move forward, the FCC will be instituting cuts in every 

part of our budget in order to ensure that we reach the goal of $17 

million in cost reductions. These cuts will affect every part of our 

operation, including the compensation and benefits we pay our employees, the rent and utilities we pay to occupy and operate our 

various facilities, the contracts and agreements that we utilize to 

purchase goods and to provide vital services to the agency, the 

myriad of administration costs that all organizations have in running their day-to-day operations, the services we provide to licensees and consumers, and the work we do to fulfill our public safety 

and homeland security missions and to advance Congressional Directives such as universal service. 

We are working hard to balance the cuts necessitated by sequestration with the need to ensure that our licensees, consumers, 

stakeholders and everyone with an interest in the communications 

industry receives the highest level of services from the employees 

that are on staff. 

With roughly 95 percent of our budget going to our workforce, 

rent, utilities and contracts, it will be a difficult task to find the 

$17 million of cuts required under sequester without adversely impacting our workforce and the mission of the agency. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify here today and I will 

be please to answer your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Robbins follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 9 here 80290.009
12 


Insert offset folio 10 here 80290.010
13 


Insert offset folio 11 here 80290.011
14 


Insert offset folio 12 here 80290.012
15 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Robbins. 

We will now proceed to Mr. Young from the USDA. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. YOUNG 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairmen, Ranking Members and Members of the Subcommittees, my name is Michael Young. I currently serve as the 

Director of the Office of Budget and Program Analysis which is essentially the Department’s central budget office. I have been in this 

position for just over two years but essentially I have served nearly 

my entire career within the office in various other positions. 

The 2012 budget for the Department of Agriculture was about $152 billion which made it the fifth largest budget in the Federal 

Government. As I mention in my written statement, the Department manages a very wide range of programs including nutrition 

assistance, food safety, conservation, research and, of course, the 

farm programs. Based on the annual appropriation acts, farm bills 

and other authorizing statutes, USDA has an extensive and detailed account structure. 

In terms of the sequester, the Balanced Budget Statute exempts 

several of the Department’s larger programs from sequestration. 

These exemptions include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program, the Child Nutrition Program, the Conservation Reserve 

Program and most of the Federal Crop Insurance Program, among 

others. 

For the programs that are not exempt, the sequestration order 

signed by the President on March 1st requires a reduction of 5 percent to the discretionary funds and 5.1 percent to the mandatory 

funds. For the Department of Agriculture, that translates into a reduction of almost $2 billion. 

The statute provides requirements on how the reductions are to 

be calculated by the Office of Management and Budget and allocated across the Department’s programs, projects and activities. 

OMB calculates the sequestration percentage that applies to each 

account and has now sent a report to the Congress showing those 

amounts. 

The statute then requires that the reductions be applied equally 

to each PPA, each program, project and activity, within a budget 

account. Applying the definitions in the statute, USDA has identified over 920 PPAs in more than 110 separate accounts. 

At USDA, we began the process to identify these PPAs and apply 

the Balanced Budget Act special rules on exemptions back in December of 2011. This became a longer term process and certainly 

intensified during the summer of 2012. This process has involved 

significant effort, working closely with agency-level budget officers, 

the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Following this effort, agencies have been responsible for planning 

how to implement the sequestration given their specific account 

structure and the PPAs within those accounts. As the agencies 

move forward, the Secretary has asked them to implement sequestration in an equitable and fair manner and in the least disruptive 

manner possible that protects the ability to perform the USDA mission to the extent possible. 

16 

However, depending on the specific structure of an agency’s accounts and the laws applicable to those accounts, more or less flexibility may be available to minimize the impact of the reduction. 

To that end, I described in my written statement an example 

where the Department could use a limited transfer authority that 

we have which allows for transfers of up to 7 percent among accounts within an individual USDA agency. As an update, I would 

just note for the Committee that the Secretary announced earlier 

today his intention to use this limited transfer authority to reduce 

the disruptive impacts of the sequester in some of the farm payment programs. 

In contrast, as members are likely aware, the Food Safety and 

Inspection Service identified a need to furlough employees for an 

estimated 11 days as a result of the sequester. However, the interchange authority would not assist FSIS in addressing its shortfall 

because there simply are no other accounts from which that agency 

could transfer funds to offset a shortfall. 

Mr. Chairman, that is a very brief overview of some of the work 

underway at the Department of Agriculture to implement the sequester. I would be glad to respond to the questions you and members of the subcommittees may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:] 

17 


Insert offset folio 13 here 80290.013
18 


Insert offset folio 14 here 80290.014
19 


Insert offset folio 15 here 80290.015
20 


Insert offset folio 16 here 80290.016
21 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Young, and 

I applaud your administrators’ efforts to make this as painless as 

possible. 

We now go to Mr. Sastry from the Resource Management Department at the Department of Commerce. 

You are recognized for five minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HARI SASTRY 

Mr. SASTRY. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I want 

to thank you for inviting me to this hearing on the impact of sequestration on the Department of Commerce. 

We appreciate your interest in protecting the Department’s mission and the many services we provide to the American public. The 

Department values the Joint Subcommittees’ oversight role and is 

committed to working with you on this important issue. 

Before getting into the impacts, I would like to give you a few 

words about my background. I spent 13 years as a career civil servant under both Republican and Democratic Administrations, 11 of 

those years were at the Office of Management and Budget as both 

a program analyst and branch chief working in the area of Veterans Affairs and Defense Health. 

For nearly two years, I have worked at the Department of Commerce as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Resource Management. 

My responsibilities include aligning the formulation and execution 

of the budget with the Department’s policy priorities. I also lead 

the Departments’ Enterprise Risk Management. 

As you know, the President was required by law to issue a sequestration order on March 1, 2013. As a result of this action, approximately $85 billion in budgetary resources across the Federal 

Government were canceled. Of that, $567 million were canceled 

within the Department of Commerce, which include $16 million 

from the Sandy Supplemental. For our larger bureaus, sequestration means budget cuts of $270 million to NOAA, $46 million to the 

Census Bureau, and $38 million to NIST. 

In planning for and applying the cuts required by sequestration, 

our primary focus has been on protecting our mission. However, no 

amount of careful planning can mitigate the short-and long-term 

effects these cuts will have on the Department’s ability to deliver 

on critical parts of our mission to serve the public. 

Sequestration is unprecedented and the planning process has 

been confounded by the fact that we are currently operating under 

budgetary uncertainty with the current CR. Communities will feel 

the impacts as we are forced to reduce grants to States, localities 

and universities as well as renegotiate and potentially terminate 

contracts with private sector firms. 

Our bureaus are already feeling the impacts as we are forced to 

implement hiring freezes, curtail or cancel training, and halt critical program investments. While we have worked hard to manage 

the challenges of sequestration as best we can within the context 

of this Fiscal Year, the longer it is in effect the more our ability 

to accomplish the Department’s mission is degraded. 

There is not a one-size-fits-all approach to this planning and, just 

have you have seen differences across departments, there are differences among our bureaus as well. The Department of Commerce 

22 

is extremely diverse, both in terms of the mission we administer 

and the populations we serve, as well as the makeup of our budget 

and the challenges posed by sequestration. Planning has been complex and we are continually refining our efforts as we work to protect our mission under sequestration. 

Let me give you one quick example. Our Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite, or GOES–R Program, is a critical 

component of our weather forecasting and will be one of the primary tools for the detection and tracking of hurricanes and severe 

weather. In order to maintain the current schedule to launch the 

first satellite in 2015, this program requires a $186 million increase in 2013. 

Based on the information available to us, we initially projected 

a two to three year slip in launching the first GOES–R satellite. 

However, recently the House passed a CR supporting this program 

with significant increases and the Senate is due to follow suit. We 

will now adjust our plans to factor in these new possible funding 

levels. This is just one example of how the uncertainty drives continual updates and changes to our planning efforts. 

Current law requires that all agencies submit operating plans by 

March 31st, but the passage of the CR under debate would amend 

that date and also change our projected funding levels. In the 

meantime, recognizing that the situation is still in flux as Congress 

completes its work, I am happy to answer your questions as best 

I can. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Sastry follows:] 

23 


Insert offset folio 17 here 80290.017
24 


Insert offset folio 18 here 80290.018
25 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Sastry. 

Just as a matter of housekeeping, we are expecting votes in the 

House of Representatives in about five minutes on a couple of procedural matters in the rule for considering the budget. We will 

start. I will do a five minute round of questions, we will let Ms. 

Norton do a five minute round of questioning, and then we will 

take a recess and reconvene here immediately after the votes to 

allow the other members who have questions the opportunity to 

ask questions. But, obviously our first responsibility is to vote on 

the matters on the Floor of the people’s House. 

So with that, I will recognize myself for five minutes of questioning. 

Mr. Sastry, we will start with you. You were talking a little bit 

about the two NOAA satellites. I understand there has also been 

some problems with scheduling and management with these two 

satellites since 2007 when the Commerce IG issued a critical report. Is it really fair to blame the sequester for the problems with 

these satellites? 

Mr. SASTRY. These satellites are critical to our weather forecasting capability which the Department takes very seriously. We 

have worked very closely with the IG on the issues that they have 

brought up going forward and we consider that a strong partnership. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, the problem is that we have been struggling with these for a long time. 

I also understand that your staff told this Committee that you 

would be testifying here reluctantly because you don’t think you 

are in a good position to describe DOC’s sequestration impacts with 

certainty. So I want to ask you, are you aware of page four of the 

February 8th letter from Deputy Secretary Rebecca Blank to the 

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman outlining some of the 

impacts of sequestration on the Department of Commerce? 

Mr. SASTRY. Yes, I am. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Are you also aware that the letter referenced 

at least some of these sequester impacts as certain? 

Mr. SASTRY. Yes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. But today you are still not able to give us a 

great degree of certainty. What has changed between then and 

now? 

Mr. SASTRY. When we responded to the Chairwoman’s letter in 

early February, we had a set of assumptions and a set of estimates 

based on the information we knew at that time. Since then, we 

have had several changes that occurred from the Sandy Supplemental to the House CR to the Senate CR. Each of those required 

us to continually update our planning efforts. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. I am going to request that we enter 

that February 8th letter into the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Young, let’s talk a little bit about the USDA. One of my ongoing concerns is, and I mentioned it in my opening statement, is 

that we are trying to make this as painful as possible on people 

and I don’t think that is appropriate coming out of the White 

House or the agencies. 

26 

I am an old radio guy. Mr. Robbins could probably look up when 

I first got my FCC license, assuming their computers work. But 

you all have spent in the past couple of years just a ton of money, 

a Hungry Pest Campaign, $942,200 for a marketing campaign, and 

a Save Our Citrus Campaign, I have actually heard those PSAs, 

and spent $200,000 to produce some PSAs. 

Now, as an old radio guy, that is a lot of money to produce a 

PSA. I checked with the station I used to work for. They are running them for free. If you all want to do some more, I will do them 

for free in my office for you. 

It just seems like we ought to be able to find some of these savings in these contracts or in other areas without laying off some 

people. Don’t you think we might be able to do that? There is also 

one, the question here says I am supposed to ask you about a 

Smokey the Bear statute. Having heard the PSAs, I realize it is not 

Smokey the Bear, it is Smokey Bear. Do you think we could maybe 

save some money on this production? 

Mr. YOUNG. Sir, I am not specifically familiar with the items that 

you mentioned. However, I would note that most of those, the 

Smokey Bear item would be in the Forest Service, they are not projecting to have a furlough, and the others sound as though they 

may be in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and 

they also are not planning a furlough. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So I think in your testimony you said you have 

a 7 percent ability to move around those cuts. Why are we just getting to this now when we have known about sequestration for a 

year? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. The authority that we have, it is called the 

Secretary’s Interchange Authority, and that allows for the Secretary to transfer up to 7 percent from one account within an agency to another account within that same agency. It is not available 

to the Forest Service due to a proviso in the Interior Appropriations. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So, would you all be better off if we were to 

do an Ag Appropriations Bill and get it through the Senate and operating under a CR? 

Mr. YOUNG. It would provide more certainty, certainly, for operations. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And let me get to Mr. Robbins before 

I am out of time. 

You said the FCC, with a really tight budget, it looks like you 

probably are going to be able to pull this off without furloughs. I 

applaud you for that and hope you can do it. When did you all start 

planning for this? 

Mr. ROBBINS. Sir, at the FCC, my teams spend a lot of time all 

of the time trying to make sure we are managing our budget well. 

So, sequestration, which we knew passed back in 2011, we have 

been working hard to ensure that from hiring to contracts to every 

part of our budget that we are managing the funds we have been 

given appropriately. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So regardless of the OMB letter saying do not 

worry about sequestration, you all followed my grandmother’s advice and planned for the worst and hoped for the best. 

27 

All right. I see I am out of time. I will now recognize the 

gentlelady from the District of Columbia for 5 minutes and 30 seconds. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I defer to the Ranking Member of 

the Full Committee, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding. 

When you cut $85 billion out of a budget over a course of seven 

months, there are consequences. Duh. Mr. Chairman, In today’s 

hearing, the Majority wants people to believe that the across-theboard cuts that are coming are a choice made by the Administration and that the Administration has alternatives to cutting everything. 

To our witnesses, is it not true that by law sequestration means 

across-the-board cuts to every program, project and activity? Please 

answer, gentleman, I do not have a lot of time. Go straight across. 

Mr. SASTRY. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. ROBBINS. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. Thank you. 

The phrase ‘‘program, project and activity’’ that is a direct quote 

from the Budget Control Act of 2011 that the Congress, we did 

that, which means the most granular and specific level of spending. 

Is that right? Is that correct? Quickly, gentlemen. 

Mr. SASTRY. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROBBINS. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So the law says, the law that we created, we created this now, says that Federal agencies must make across-theboard cuts to everything, and Congress writes the laws. Now, some 

in the Majority have recently asserted that Federal agencies have 

the power to reprogram and transfer funds away from wasteful or 

duplicative purposes to more meritorious ones and in that way they 

can undo the across-the-board cuts caused by the sequester. My, 

my, my. 

For instance, Chairman Issa sent letters to the Federal agencies 

seeking suggestions for specific program reductions for elimination 

‘‘that would be more beneficial to the American people than the 

across-the-board sequestration.’’ The letter suggests that agencies 

have flexibility to not make cuts across the board but rather selectively cut ‘‘wasteful spending’’ to achieve the congressionally-required reductions in spending. 

Now, to our witnesses, sequestration has imposed a 13 percent 

across-the-board cut to everything in the Defense Budget and a 9 

percent reduction to everything in the non-Defense budget. Do you 

have legal authority to restore, by reprogramming or transferring 

funds, those cuts right now without prior authorization from us, 

the Congress? 

Mr. SASTRY. No. 

Mr. YOUNG. Sir, we have the authority as I described. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. That 7 percent that you talked about? 

28 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, the 7 percent. But that does require us to notify 

the Appropriations Committees 30 days in advance of making such 

a transfer. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And you, sir? 

Mr. ROBBINS. No, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is it not true that each of your agencies is restricted by appropriation acts and authorizing statutes from reprogramming or transferring funds to a degree necessary to completely restore the across-the-board cuts that sequestration requires? 

Mr. SASTRY. We cannot transfer that much. That is correct. 

Mr. YOUNG. Again, just with the caveat on our specific authority. 

Mr. ROBBINS. I would just note the FCC has really one account. 

As a small agency, we are a bit different than the others who are 

testifying. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And how is that? Talk to me. 

Mr. ROBBINS. We have one account. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Okay. All right. So, the law that Congress wrote, 

that we wrote, we wrote this, now, requires everything to be cut 

under sequestration and the laws that Congress wrote restrict Federal agencies from restoring those cuts on their own without new 

authority from Congress. In other words, Congress is responsible 

for creating across-the-board cuts and for enforcing them. That is 

just what the House Republicans intended all along. 

In 2011, House Speaker Boehner emphasized that the price of extending the Nation’s debt limit would be across-the-board cuts we 

are now seeing. Will staff put up the slide? Here is a slide created 

by Speaker Boehner to use in his presentation to the House GOP 

Conference in July, 2011. He used this slide to convince the GOP 

Conference to go along with an extension of the debt limit and 

avert default. 

Look at what it says: ‘‘A new sequestration process to cut spending across the board and ensure that any debt limit increase is met 

with greater spending cuts.’’ The only reason the House of Representatives voted to steer the Country away from the first financial default in its history was Speaker Boehner’s promise that 

across-the-board cuts to everything would follow and would not be 

reversed. 

With that, I see my time is out. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. 

And, as we are in votes now in the House of Representatives, we 

will take a recess. It will probably be around a half an hour or so 

that we will be gone for votes. We will reconvene as soon as votes 

are over. I am not going to give you a specific time. You all are welcome to move back to the Majority Lounge and make yourselves 

comfortable. We will be back and we appreciate your patience as 

we do the people’s business. 

So, without objection, we are in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. At this point, I think we are on the Republican 

side of the aisle so we will recognize Dr. DesJarlais, the gentleman 

from Tennessee, for five minutes. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and bear with me 

while we gather our thoughts here. It was a short interruption. 

29 

Mr. Young, how did you interpret a July 31, 2010 OMB memo 

about the potential for sequestration and instructed agencies to 

continue normal spending and operations since more than five 

months remain for Congress to act? Did you follow that? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, sir, I would say that agencies did continue to 

have their full funding available. But I would indicate that a number of agencies had been taking actions to take reductions in various areas. I would say that a couple of the agencies, a few of the 

agencies, had closed a number of field offices and taken some other 

actions to reduce their spending. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So you are saying that you did prepare for this? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. According to USA Jobs last week, the 

USDA is advertising 152 open positions while at the same time announcing the furloughs of meat inspectors. Some of these open positions are things such as a visitor service information assistant at 

a salary of $31,000, a position for a liaison specialist with a salary 

of $47,000, Pathways intern student trainee salary $44,000 and so 

on, an agriculture commodity grader with a salary of $69,000. Why 

is the USDA advertising open positions for food inspectors while 

planning to furlough inspectors? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, it sounds like a number of those titles that you 

read off there would likely be in other agencies. I know that the 

Food Safety and Inspection Service that employs the meat and 

poultry inspectors has had a hiring freeze on for positions that are 

not in their frontline inspection system. I think those would possibly be positions in other agencies. I am not familiar with the specific ones that you mentioned but they may well be in other agencies that are not planning furloughs. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. So a position for a food inspector, salary 

$50,000, is that not in the same department as the meat inspectors? 

Mr. YOUNG. That could be in the Food Safety and Inspection 

Service. I do not know the specifics regarding that instance. I 

would be happy to look into it for the record. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay, so you are saying that the 152 jobs that 

are advertised just as of last week should not impact the plans to 

furlough meat inspectors? 

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir, because I am guessing again to the extent 

that those positions are in other agencies, we just would not have 

any means to shift the funds from those other agencies to avoid the 

FSIS furloughs. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. How is it prioritized, how is the USDA 

prioritizing its furloughs? For example, is USDA prioritizing cutting conference and travel costs over furloughing employees and if 

so, how? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, there have been reductions in both travel costs 

and conference spending. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. What are they cutting in terms of conference 

and travel spending? 

Mr. YOUNG. I may be able to get you a number here. From 2010 

to 2011, we reduced the number of conferences by 76 and the cost 

by $6.4 million. 

30 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Let’s talk about bonuses. I understand the USDA spent $33 million on bonuses for employees in Fiscal 

Year 2011. Did you issue bonuses in Fiscal Year 2012? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. I know that some agencies did. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay, so $33 million in 2011. How much in 

2012? 

Mr. YOUNG. I am not sure that I have that information with me 

today. I would be happy to get that for the record. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Were they awarded for food inspectors? 

Mr. YOUNG. I would have to check on that, sir. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. And you would not know how much then? 

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. With sequester looming, do you think it 

is responsible budgeting to hand out bonuses? 

Mr. YOUNG. As I understand, there is guidance that we will not 

be issuing bonuses at this time. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So you don’t plan on doing that this year? 

Mr. YOUNG. Other than those that are, any that might be required by law. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. There are laws that require bonuses? 

Mr. YOUNG. Apparently. That would be a little bit out of my bailiwick. It is probably more in the Human Resources area. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Young. 

Mr. JORDAN. [Presiding] I thank the gentleman. I will now yield 

to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify 

that my good colleague on the other side indicated, and it is very 

important, these differences, that the OMB indicated that you 

should continue to spend at normal rates because we were five 

months away from the sequester. 

I would have hoped that you would spend at normal rates because normal rates would have meant that we were already into 

a 10-year spending reduction that had been required to avoid the 

debt ceiling debacle. So, you were already in a cut mode and, as 

you have just replied, spending at normal, to be sure cut rates, did 

not imply that you were not planning for what would happen in 

case of sequester. 

But if I may say so, I would have thought that the American people and many of us here would have thought that the sequester 

would not occur because it is among, you look at the annals of Congress, perhaps falls into, outside of what Congress has done even 

in its most insane moments. 

It has been suggested that you could find savings in, I don’t 

know, Smokey Bear, and that it looks like the President is trying 

to indeed make the sequester as painful as possible. The last time 

I heard, that was the point of sequester. It was a hammer so painful that responsible members of Congress would never engage in it. 

But it was not something that the President was supposed to do, 

it was something that the sequester said you will do if you do not 

make the cuts in a balanced way or in a way that both sides can 

agree. 

Now, I just want to clarify, therefore, when it says why are you 

not finding savings here, there and the other place that would be 

more sane to cut than, for example, meat and poultry plant inspecVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:28 Apr 15, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\80290.TXT APRIL
31 

tion personnel, suppose you, this goes to any of the three of you, 

suppose you had found an administrative level, two or three administrative employees, that would be easier to cut than poultry inspectors, easier in the sense that you could do without them, to use 

that example, more easily without that layer of administrative cutting corners, to be sure, than you could do without poultry inspectors. 

Could you have made, even if you found that level of savings 

needed in administrative positions, could you have made that 

choice under sequester? Could I have your answers? 

Mr. ROBBINS. I think for the FCC, we have been managing our 

head count and our FT very carefully for quite some time. We subject every hire we do to a careful scrutiny. There is no automatic 

backfills. I suppose the answer for the FCC would be yes, although 

as I have mentioned earlier, while we are not currently planning 

to do furloughs, it is something that we cannot take off the table. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Robbins, I want to ask you about the 

FCC because your agency, I believe, is not funded by the American 

people as much as by regulatory fees. Is that the case? 

Mr. ROBBINS. Yes, it is. 

Ms. NORTON. So those fees are paid by business? 

Mr. ROBBINS. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, how are you subject to the sequester? 

Mr. ROBBINS. Sequestration applies to the regulatory fee funded 

portion of the agency. 

Ms. NORTON. So what happens? Do those who owe the funds, 

which are necessary of course to carry out the functions of the 

agency, do they get a break from paying the fees? 

Mr. ROBBINS. No, they do not. 

Ms. NORTON. Where do those funds go? 

Mr. ROBBINS. Those fees will be collected, as required by our appropriation, and placed over at Treasury. 

Ms. NORTON. Could I ask, in Agriculture we hear that there may 

well be the need for fund cuts, but not at FCC. Is this because 

some agencies are more labor intensive than others? It is not very 

pleasant for the American people who have seen some food scares 

in the last years to hear that plant, that poultry and meat inspectors could be cut. 

What is the difference between these two agencies, one perhaps 

not needing furloughs, the other, Mr. Young, needing furloughs? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I am not familiar with the specifics of the FCC. 

Ms. NORTON. No, just discuss your agency, Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. In terms of our Food Safety and Inspection Service, 

I would note that about 80 percent of that budget is devoted just 

to salaries and benefits, another 15 percent of it is spent on support activities for the frontline inspection process. And so, that essentially leaves very little flexibility. 

Ms. NORTON. So it is labor intensive. 

Mr. YOUNG. Very labor intensive, yes, madam. 

Ms. NORTON. Does it have an effect upon the businesses you deal 

with? 

Mr. YOUNG. If the inspectors are furloughed, those plants would 

not be able to sell their product in commerce. 

32 

Ms. NORTON. And if I just may see the difference then with Mr. 

Robbins whose fees comes from business and who believes that he 

may not have to do furloughs, the reason for that is, besides making savings before the sequester set in, are there any particular 

reasons based on the nature of the Commission? 

Mr. ROBBINS. Just as my colleague, Mr. Young, had the difficult 

time time knowing what the difference between our agencies are, 

I also have the same problem. I would say for the FCC we have 

been trying to be careful stewards of the dollars that you have 

given us. 

Ms. NORTON. What kind of cut have you taken so far? 

Mr. ROBBINS. Our cut will be $17 million under sequestration. 

Ms. NORTON. What percentage is that of your budget? 

Mr. ROBBINS. So, as a percentage of the budget it is 5 percent. 

Ms. NORTON. No, I am talking about before sequestration. You 

said you had been taking cuts and making savings before sequestration. That was part of the point I made earlier, that cuts were 

already in existence. 

Mr. ROBBINS. I would say we have been carefully managing our 

budget and that has included being careful about how we hire people. So we are at a 30-year low right now as well as finding savings 

in every other part of our budget. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. I recognize the gentleman from Arizona, 

Mr. Gosar. 

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thought 

sequestration was a backstop to have responsible Government, not 

to make it painful to the American people but have responsible 

Government. I think that is the first think I would like to address 

to the gentlelady. 

But my question for you, Mr. Young, is this the first time that 

we have gone through sequestration? 

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir. I believe that there were sequestrations in 

the late 1980s and perhaps in 1990. 

Mr. GOSAR. Let me ask you a question. Did you think it was 

going to go through? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, we certainly realized that it was a potential, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. GOSAR. How about you, Mr. Sastry? 

Mr. SASTRY. We also thought there was a potential that it would 

go through. 

Mr. GOSAR. Now, my understand is it is a two-way street, that 

you can also ask Congress in regards to making these cuts a little 

bit different. Is that not true, Mr. Sastry? That it is a two-way 

street in communication in regards to sequestration, is it not? 

Mr. SASTRY. This sequestration law itself had very limited flexibility. 

Mr. GOSAR. But you can ask Congress to give you that flexibility, 

can you not? 

Mr. SASTRY. We can request reprogramming. 

Mr. GOSAR. Yes, you can. Did it ever come from your agency? It 

did not. How about you, Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOSAR. You actually wrote a letter in regards to this? 

33 

Mr. YOUNG. We, the Secretary did just sign a letter this morning 

with regard to transferring some funds within our Farm Service 

Agency. 

Mr. GOSAR. No, but I am asking you did you petition Congress 

in regards to having some more flexibility within the agency? 

Mr. YOUNG. We—— 

Mr. GOSAR. You did not. How about you, Mr. Robbins? 

Mr. ROBBINS. As I mentioned earlier, the FCC only really has 

one account. And so, transferring funds is not the same issue for 

us. 

Mr. GOSAR. Right. 

Mr. JORDAN. Would the gentleman yield for one second? 

Mr. GOSAR. Sure. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Young and Mr. Sastry, have you responded to 

Chairman Issa’s letter asking you for ways that maybe we could 

work together and give you more flexibility? Have either of you responded to that letter? 

Mr. SASTRY. I do know we received it and we are working on it, 

but we not yet responded. 

Mr. JORDAN. You have not? Even though you have had 20 

months to get ready for this? Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Sir, we are also in the process of putting together 

the response. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thanks. I yield back. 

Mr. GOSAR. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Sastry, you are from OMB, right? Five years 

experience? 

Mr. SASTRY. Previously, yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. And do you follow the publication? 

Mr. SASTRY. I am sorry, which publication? 

Mr. GOSAR. Do you look over OMB waste, fraud and abuse within the agencies? Do you follow that at all? Have you looked that 

up recently? 

Mr. SASTRY. The report from OMB on fraud and abuse? 

Mr. GOSAR. Yes. 

Mr. SASTRY. I have not read that report. 

Mr. GOSAR. I am going to kind of pinpoint something for you. 

OMB actually looked at the prevailing wage and when they did an 

audit of the prevailing wage, more commonly known as DavisBacon, there was a 100 percent error rate in the calculations of it. 

And I want workers to be paid fairly. The majority of them are 

overpaid, heavily, on programs. But a lot of them were not paid 

adequately. 

Do you know that if we recalibrate the prevailing wage, which 

is, I think very prominent in Commerce, I know it is very prominent in Agriculture, I do not know about you, Mr. Robbins, but you 

would save tens of billions of dollars? What I would like you to do 

is look within your agencies and see that cost savings and report 

back to the Committee if we actually took and calculated the prevailing wage appropriately. Because I think it is a very pointed aspect in regards to OMB that could give us a lot of savings. 

But I am also going to ask you, you know, I am a private sector 

person. When you look at budgets, I mean, you have got to look at 

things that work and things that do not. You are always, and Mr. 

34 

Robbins I want to compliment your stewardship of the taxpayer 

dollars, but I find it disdainful when we are not looking at programs and looking at managing those monies much better. 

Mr. Young, did you ever enter private business, sign the front 

end or back end of a paycheck? 

Mr. YOUNG. I am sorry, sir, the question again? 

Mr. GOSAR. Did you run a private business? 

Mr. YOUNG. I have not run a private business. 

Mr. GOSAR. How about you, Mr. Sastry? 

Mr. SASTRY. No, I have not run one. 

Mr. GOSAR. I would like that, hopefully that we would get some 

more principles of understanding in regards to public accountability of the public tax dollars. 

Mr. Speaker, I will just yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the ranking member, Mr. Cartwright. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Administration did not decide to impose across-the-board 

cuts to spending at Government agencies. It was Congress that did 

that, using Congress’ power of the purse. And Congress also required Federal agencies to submit their sequestration plans 30 

days after the President signed the Sequestration Order. He did 

that on March 1st, which means that the agencies here today are 

going to need to submit their plans by April 1st. Now by my reckoning, Mr. Chairman, criticizing Federal agencies on March 19 for 

not having their sequestration plans that are due on April 1st is 

premature, to say the least. 

Unfortunately, Congress did not take into account the harm to 

businesses and individuals as a result of what I have called this 

ridiculous sequestration. Cutting the Federal Budget was not a 

means to an end but an end in itself. In some instances, cuts will 

result in furloughs, reduced benefits and disruptions to basic services. 

Mr. Young, it has been reported that furloughs will likely be necessary for meat and poultry inspectors, as I mentioned in my opening statement. Can you estimate the effect of these furloughs on 

the meat processing industry and other related industries? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. I have an estimate here of about $8 billion 

if the furlough is in the range of the estimated 11 days. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And what has the USDA done in planning for 

this cut to minimize the impact on industry? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, we have, the agency has taken some steps to 

reduce their spending. I mentioned a couple of things in terms of 

reductions in travel and training, conference spending and that 

sort of thing, and having a hiring freeze for the non-inspection related part of the agency. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Sastry, across-the-board cuts are estimated to reduce your 

agency’s ability to spur job creation and economic growth among 

America’s private sector. Is that correct? 

Mr. SASTRY. That is correct. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. And Mr. Robbins, the across-the-board cuts to 

FCC operations will impact economic growth and innovation in the 

communications sector. Am I correct in that? 

35 

Mr. ROBBINS. It may very well do so. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Now, I received a letter dated March 6, 2013 

from the Greater Wilkes-Barre Chamber of Commerce which represents more than 1,000 member businesses that serve my constituents in Northeastern Pennsylvania. At this time, I do ask, Mr. 

Chairman, for unanimous consent to make this letter dated March 

6, 2013 part of the record. 

Mr. JORDAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Now, the chamber expressed their concern in 

this letter that these across-the-board cuts will have a chilling effect on our economy, slowing any further recovery, and it will be 

felt across the board. They wrote whether it is the thousands of 

jobs at the Tobyhanna Army Depot and their subcontractors, small 

businesses aching for a forward moving economy, school children or 

those most in need in our community, the cuts will be felt across 

the board. The only question is, who is responsible for undoing 

across-the-board cuts, Federal agencies or the U.S. Congress? 

And to these witnesses, I ask you, do you currently have the 

legal authority to reverse the magnitude of these across-the-board 

cuts that this sequestration requires? Do you? 

Mr. SASTRY. No, we do not. 

Mr. YOUNG. Sir, I only have the one limited authority within a 

specific agency to move funds in between accounts but that does require the notification of the Appropriations Committee. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Okay. Mr. Robbins? Do you have that authority? 

Mr. ROBBINS. No. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Now, who wrote the laws that prohibit you 

from exercising flexibility to undo the effects of this sequestration? 

Who wrote that? 

Mr. SASTRY. The Budget Control Act was written by Congress. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. It was Congress, was it not, gentleman? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. ROBBINS. Yes. 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT. In the letter from my local Chamber of Commerce there is an explicit plea to members of Congress for both 

parties to work together and develop a solution that will not cripple 

our economy. They understand that solving the problems created 

by sequestration is Congress’ responsibility. The whole Country understands that it is Congress that writes the laws and it is the law 

that mandated across-the-board cuts and it is the law that restricts 

Federal agencies from defying Congress’ intent in the implementation of across-the-board cuts. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have this hearing on sequestration today but I respectfully believe that the Majority has really 

got it backward. 

Thank you. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Robbins, when Congress passes a law, does it automatically 

become the law? 

Mr. ROBBINS. No, the President has to sign it. 

Mr. JORDAN. Oh. I forgot. That is an important lesson that we 

all learned. Mr. Young, is that your understanding of how the law 

36 

works? Once Congress passes something, does the Executive 

Branch, the President, have to sign it? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Yes. Mr. Sastry, is that how you understand how 

it works in America, too? 

Mr. SASTRY. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. And to your knowledge, the President signed this 

law, did he not? 

Mr. ROBINS. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. He did? Imagine that. Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Sastry? 

Mr. SASTRY. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. 

Let me start with you, Mr. Young. Do you think it is important 

that public officials speak plainly to the American people, talk 

straight with the American people, talk straight to the taxpayers 

and the folks that support this Government? I mean, that it is important for all public officials, anyone who works in our Government, that they should communicate in a straightforward way? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. So, I want to try and understand some of the 

statements that have come from the Department. We had in December of last year Secretary Vilsack saying we may have to consider furloughs as a result of the sequester. And then a month later 

he said no, we are going to have to have 6,000 food safety inspectors furloughed for three weeks. 

And then if I look at your testimony, your written testimony from 

today, you say near the end of your written testimony that potentially we will need to furlough employees for up to 11 days because 

of sequestration. 

And so it seems to me the American people just want to know 

which one is it? Might happen, no, 6,000 for three weeks or potentially for 11 days. So, which one is that? Which one is actually the 

truth, if any? 

Mr. YOUNG. The current estimate is that it may be for 11 days. 

But I would just preface that by indicating that there is the uncertainty of the four-year funding situation and so, depending on 

where the funding comes out for the agency, that would then 

change. 

Mr. JORDAN. And this is just in the Food Safety and Inspection 

Service part of your overall budget. Is that correct? 

Mr. YOUNG. The 11 day furlough, yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. I mean the comments. He said may, then he said 

6,000 for three weeks, and then you said potentially 11. It is all 

referring to that portion of the Department of Agriculture’s budget? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Can we put up the slide? Because I just want 

to show you, this is what our staff, looking at your numbers from 

the Department of Agriculture, I know it is difficult to see, but you 

can see the trend. It is pretty much a straight line. It is not like 

it a big drop off in one particular year or the other. In fact, where 

you are at post-sequester, it is that line third from the right, that 

37 

is pretty much where you have been throughout the last several 

years. 

And, I would further point out, you have had 20 months to get 

ready for this. This law passed, do you know when the sequestration law passed and was signed by the President? 

Mr. YOUNG. In August of 2011. 

Mr. JORDAN. August of 2011. So, it seems to me you should be 

able to deal with this in light of the history of this particular budget, the budget history there. Did you have to furlough any food inspection or safety people in 2009? 

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did you have to furlough any in 2010? 

Mr. YOUNG. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. How about 2011? 

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. What about 2012? 

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. So, the lines are basically the same and in none of 

those years did you have to furlough. But suddenly a bill comes 

along that you had 20 months to prepare for and you are saying 

maybe 6,000 people are going to get furloughed for up to three 

weeks? And that has been revised down to we don’t know how 

many but it might be 11 days. And you furloughed none in the 

whole pattern there. 

How long have you worked at the Department of Agriculture, Mr. 

Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. I have worked there since about November of 1983. 

Mr. JORDAN. Since 1983. So, a few years, right? In all those 

years, can we go back, do you remember furloughing folks in any 

of those years? In the meat inspection and food safety part of your 

budget? 

Mr. YOUNG. I don’t recall a furlough during that time period. 

Mr. JORDAN. Have any employees at the Department, this may 

have been asked while I was gone, have any employees at the Department of Agriculture received bonuses over the past year? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. How many? 

Mr. YOUNG. I don’t have that specific number with me. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you know what the dollar figure is? 

Mr. YOUNG. I don’t have the dollar figure, but I could get that 

for the record. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. We would appreciate that. To your knowledge, has anyone instructed you at the Department, no, has anyone 

instructed you, or to your knowledge anyone else at the Department, to implement the sequester in the most politically painful 

way possible? Have there been any kind of instructions like that? 

Mr. YOUNG. No, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Have there been discussions at the Department to 

implement the sequester in a different way in which you are now 

implementing it? Were there other plans brought forward in discussions at the Department? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. In fact, the Secretary’s guidance has been that 

the sequester should be implemented in an equitable manner, in 

38 

the least disruptive manner and to take steps that would allow 

us—— 

Mr. JORDAN. What I am asking is have there been plans brought 

forward which say if we do it this way, there is not even potential 

of food safety and inspectors being furloughed for any length of 

time? Have there been any of those kinds of plans that come forward and say, you know what, under this plan, we have got Secretary Vilsack saying oh, we may have to furlough 6,000 people for 

three weeks, you are saying 11 days and some number, but have 

there been other plans brought forward that say you know what, 

if we do it this way, we will not have to furlough anybody in the 

food inspection and safety area? 

Mr. YOUNG. No, I am not aware of a plan like that. And I would 

just say that the plans developed for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, as well as the other agencies, were developed within 

the agencies and submitted forward. So, I am not aware of such a 

plan. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Real quick as I am about out of time. Or, I 

am out of time. Can we put up the second slide which shows the 

overall budget if we can? I just want to make this a part of the 

record. This should be slide one, if we can look at this. I think it 

should come up. Get rid of the ugly face on the picture and get the 

slide up. There we go. 

So Mr. Young, this is your budget. And if you notice, over the 

last several years, if you notice, and this is straight from the U.S. 

Department of Agricultural budget summaries, Budget Authority, 

if you look at the 2013 number after the sequester, it is larger than 

the 2012 number. And so, is it not true, Mr. Young, that your 

budget is going to be, is larger this year, even accounting for sequester, than it was last year? 

Mr. YOUNG. It appears that that includes all programs, both 

mandatory and discretionary. 

Mr. JORDAN. But are not all programs part of your budget? 

Mr. YOUNG. They are all part of the budget but they are not all 

subject to sequester. 

Mr. JORDAN. No, I understand that. I understand the difference 

between discretionary spending and mandatory spending. What I 

am asking you is, is it not true that the overall budget at the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture will be larger this year than it was last 

year, accounting for sequester? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I don’t have a comparison between 2013 and 

2012. 

Mr. JORDAN. We can show you. We have, this is the USDA, the 

Appendix to USDA Budget Summary and Annual Performance 

Plan and it indicates that in 2012 it was $147,534 billion and in 

2013, after sequester, it is $149 billion. So, that is roughly $2 billion higher. Is that true? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. I am sorry, I don’t have those specific numbers 

in front of me. 

Mr. JORDAN. We would be happy to give it to you. It is your document. It says Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Mr. YOUNG. That would have been our President’s budget submission from last February. 

39 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Great. 

All right. We now go to the gentleman from Nevada. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The people of my district sent me to represent them here to solve 

problems, not to create new ones. I was a former State Senator, I 

served as the majority leader, I was the chairman of our finance 

committee, and I had to work during very difficult time to root out 

waste and to identify savings in order for us to achieve our goal 

of finding a balanced budget. 

And I don’t view our agency heads as the enemy. I view you all 

as partners. And I would just hope that we can change some of the 

rhetoric that this body and this Committee have been focused on 

because it is not what the American people want from us right 

now. They want us to work together to solve problems and the sequester is a problem that needs to be fixed. 

Now, I would like to ask the witnesses who are here, we just 

went through the history lesson of the three branches of Government and whose fault this is that we have this sequester. Now that 

we have it, who is going to take the responsibility to solve it? 

And my question is, do you have, under the Budget Control Act 

of 2011, the authority to reprogram in ways that would allow you 

to not implement the sequester? Yes or no? 

Mr. SASTRY. Not to that extent, no. 

Mr. YOUNG. Not in total, sir. We only have the one authority that 

I talked a little bit about before to transfer funds within an agency 

under certain conditions. 

Mr. ROBBINS. The FCC is a small agency and we basically have 

one account. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Will staff please put up the slide? Here is a slide 

that lays out the facts about agency authority to reallocate funds. 

The conclusion is that agencies are not free to undo sequester cuts 

mandated by the Control Act of 2011 and the restrictions on the 

agency authority to reallocate funds prevent Federal agencies from 

cutting a program altogether to offset the budget shortfall of another program. 

Now, what I find astonishing is if you all took the authority to 

do this around the Control Act, there would be Members who 

would be calling you up here asking you why you did that without 

the authority of Congress. That is the irony. 

The caps on the amount of funds that can be reallocated, emergency circumstances, purpose of reallocation and notification and 

approval requirements are some of the conditions on which programming is allowed. Is that correct? 

Mr. SASTRY. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. ROBBINS. Yes. 

Mr. HORSFORD. So additionally, the size and scope of your respective agencies limit the ability to reprogram funds to offset budget 

shortfalls for another project. Is that correct? 

Mr. SASTRY. Yes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. ROBBINS. And again, as I have mentioned, the FCC has one 

account basically and so we have, I think, a little bit greater freedom than my colleagues. 

40 

Mr. HORSFORD. So, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that, you 

know, the public understands that this reprogram authority is not 

an unrestricted power to pick and choose funding priorities based 

on the harm to the public. It is a highly-limited authority which 

Federal agencies will, of course, utilize where allowed by law. And 

if we do not like that, then we, as Congress, need to pass a law 

to work with our Federal agencies as partners to fix that problem. 

The USDA provides an example of the limits of that authority. 

The USDA’s potential furlough of meat inspectors and its food safety inspection has gained a lot of attention because of the anticipated affects it will have on meat processing. 

So, in conclusion, Mr. Young, could USDA reprogram sufficient 

funds to prevent the unanticipated furloughs of all meat inspectors? 

Mr. YOUNG. We have not been able to identify a means to do 

that, sir. 

Mr. HORSFORD. So, how do you arrive at the decision to furlough 

employees? 

Mr. YOUNG. That decision, or again, that planning effort was undertaken within the agency and given the amount of the budget 

that is devoted just to salaries and expenses, or salaries and benefits, excuse me, and the other fixed costs that are related to that 

frontline inspection effort just precluded the ability to avoid that. 

Mr. HORSFORD. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to work together to find a solution, not just identify 

new problems. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. [Presiding] The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to follow up 

where the gentleman from Nevada left off. 

I appreciate the ability to partner, but we are a separate branch 

of Government where our job is to hold you accountable. Let’s go 

through some things. Mr. Young, were you aware of the letter that 

this Committee sent asking for what areas of reprogramming or 

changes would authorize you to save money on sequestration back 

in February around the automatic cuts? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Are you aware that you have not responded? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Is that because you have no, after 19 plus months you 

have no suggested changes? 

Mr. YOUNG. I believe we are in the process of developing a response to that. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, I appreciate your developing the response. Actually, statutorily, you owe Congress one on April 1st. The question 

is, if you wanted to avoid cuts, if you wanted to avoid the scare tactics that we have been hearing about not being able to get fresh 

meat, wouldn’t you have responded at least with a couple that Congress could have acted on before the Easter recess? 

Is there any reason that you don’t have even one item of reprogramming, one item of legislative business, that we could take 

up on a bipartisan basis, sort of the no-brainer that could save 

some dollars? Is there a reason that you didn’t send one? Other 

than the bureaucracy of wait until you get White House authority. 

41 

That one I don’t want to listen to. Is there one reason you couldn’t 

send us even one item to change? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, sir, again, in terms of actually reprogramming 

within the current—— 

Mr. ISSA. That it not what my letter said. What my letter said 

is, is there anything that given legislative action would allow you, 

what I basically said in the letter is to you and to your colleague 

to the left, the FCC didn’t want, or didn’t need one, it didn’t happen to get one, you have taken care of the job quite well, is I was 

asking isn’t there anything? 

I could draw up a bill in an hour and to be honest, I would demand that my leadership immediately consider ones that were narrow and specifically toward areas of waste. We got no answer from 

anybody but DOD and the Department of Defense, quite frankly, 

sent us what they had already agreed to with the appropriators. 

So, I will go your colleague, Mr. Sastry. You didn’t respond, either. Is there not at least one item that you could have said Congress, I don’t have authority, but if you will pass a quick law, a 

change, we could save money, we could avoid some portion of sequestration? 

Mr. SASTRY. I do know we received the letter and it is being 

worked in a separate, in a different office. I will say that part of 

my job in resource management is to continue to plan for the current law that is in place which is sequestration which is what we 

have been focused on. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, earlier today we had testimony that just the opposite, that nobody bothered to do anything in the way of actual 

true planning until the President signed the order, that they kept 

hoping that it would not happen. They kept noting that nobody 

could be as dumb, apparently, as the President for signing such a 

law and believing that it would happen. But the President signed 

such a law, agreed to do it, cuts only, not tax increases, and apparently he never meant it because you never prepared in advance for 

sequestration. And now you act surprised. 

Mr. Young, I am going to hit you with the one that I am the most 

concerned about. Under President Obama, without legislative action, food stamp programs have skyrocketed, not because there are 

more poor but because the program has been deliberately expanded. 

When the chairman of the subcommittee put up that budget 

number and you said that it may include the full budget, is it not 

true that, in fact, although entitlements were not subject to sequestration, it was part of your total budget and had the President 

made sensible reforms, including implementing the IG’s suggestions, and brought down spending under entitlements, you would 

have in fact been bringing down your budget? Is that not true? 

Mr. YOUNG. I am sorry, I do not have the estimates of what 

changes might have been. 

Mr. ISSA. Have you looked at the IG’s recommendations to the Department of Agriculture? Have you looked at some of the $67 billion of unimplemented IG recommendations? 

Mr. YOUNG. We have looked at those, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Are you going to do that as part of sequestration, 

maybe implement some of those items? Budget sequestration is 

42 

only for the amount you need to have. If you save, as the FCC is, 

from anywhere through attrition and other means, if you save all 

or part of the amount, then the budget across-the-board cuts go 

down. Is that not true? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, sir, the way we need to implement it is by each 

individual program. 

Mr. ISSA. But it is relative. If you cut, if you were to find savings 

so that your target number was less, your across-the-board sequestration would be less. 

Mr. Robbins, in the case of the FCC, you have already hit your 

sequestration number, have you not? 

Mr. ROBBINS. We plan to save $17 million through the rest of the year. We have not saved $17 million yet. 

Mr. ISSA. But you have saved a considerable amount of it? 

Mr. ROBBINS. We are in the process of saving that money. 

Mr. ISSA. So anything you save before March 1st in fact lowers 

the across-the-board cuts you would have to make if you are unable 

to save it in any other way, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. ROBINS. That would be accurate. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I think the point I am trying to make 

is the FCC by comparison anticipated a law that has been on the 

books for 19 months and began making sensible, if you will, 

austerities. Well, agency after agency acts surprised that a law 

signed by the President 19 months ago actually meant what it said. 

I thank the Chairman and yield back. 

Ms. DESJARLAIS. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And for my friend 

from California, I think we were all surprised that the sequester 

went into effect. But that was the law and we are a Country of 

laws and so we have to follow the laws. 

Let me ask Mr. Sastry, from a June 17, 2010 presentation on the 

2020 Census goals by Assistant Director for ACS and Decennial 

Census Daniel Weinberg, Mr. Weinberg stated that investment is 

required early in the cycle to reduce cost and risk as the decade 

progresses. And he stated that the more substantial a change to 

the Decennial Design that is contemplated, the more must be invested up front in research. 

Sequestration will cut the Commerce Department budget by $551 

million, $46 million of that will come from cuts to the Census Bureau. Mr. Sastry, how will the Census Bureau reach its goals of 

early monetary investments in program infrastructure to reduce 

costs for the 2020 Census if there is such a substantial reduction 

in the 2013 Budget and beyond? 

Mr. SASTRY. Performing the 2020 Census at a reduced cost per 

household is one of their main goals, as you mentioned. And sequestration will reduce the 2020 Census, the early investment in 

the 2020 Census, just as it will every other program. And so there 

will be a risk that they will not be able to reduce the costs to the 

upcoming 2020 Census because of reduced investment. 

Mr. CLAY. Yes, because that will increase the back loading of the 

budget for the 2020 Census. Was that taken into consideration? 

Ms. SASTRY. As we continue to plan for sequestration, our mission is always our number one goal. However, the Budget Control 

43 

Act didn’t provide the level of flexibility for us to make those types 

of decisions. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. Then how will the cuts to the Census Bureau 

affect the ongoing efforts to update the Master Address File and 

the Partnership Program, both of which are critical in outreach efforts to underserved immigrant and minority populations in correcting the undercounted and providing for a more accurate census? 

Mr. SASTRY. Those programs, too, will be impacted starting this 

year which will limit their ability, limit their efficiency, as we get 

closer to the 2020 Census. 

Mr. CLAY. It seems as though you have heavily weighted cutting 

from the Census Bureau’s budget. I don’t know if that is wise planning. 

Mr. SASTRY. Our ability to plan for the cuts was very limited 

from the Budget Control Act so it, what the amount that was taken 

and from the programs it was taken was prescriptive from the 

Budget Control Act. 

Mr. CLAY. I am sorry to hear that. 

Mr. Young, because of the sequester, USDA identified a reduction of 600,000 lower-income women and children who could receive 

nutrition assistance and associated nutrition education and 

breastfeeding support through the Special Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants and Children, WIC. Mr. Young, while SNAP and 

the National School Lunch Program are exempt from the sequester, 

how do the reductions to WIC disrupt and negatively affect the efforts of those programs to feed low-income families? Is there a relationship? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I am not sure that I would have the specific 

information on that relationship. I do know that often folks who 

are participants in one of the programs may also participate in one 

of the others, depending on eligibility requirements. But as you indicated, the WIC Program is subject to the sequester. 

Mr. CLAY. Yes. Would you be able to correlate or give us, give 

the Committee, some data relative to that? 

Mr. YOUNG. I would be glad to work with the folks at the agency 

and see what we can provide on that. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay, and you can also look at the First Congressional 

District of Missouri, which I represent, while you are at it. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you and I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Ms. DESJARLAIS. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow up a little bit on what Chairman Jordan had 

mentioned. He talked a little bit about bonuses. And so, none of 

you are aware of bonus levels that you have been paying to employees, is that correct? Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. I do not have that information with me, sir. 

Mr. SASTRY. I also don’t have that information with me. 

Mr. ROBBINS. I would be glad to answer that for the record. 

44 

Mr. MEADOWS. Let me go a little bit further then. The Depart- ment of Commerce, in 2011, paid $50 million in bonuses. A similar 

amount was suggested in 2012. USDA paid $33 million in bonuses. 

So as part of this plan, I am a little unclear on whether you have 

a plan or whether you don’t have a plan because we have talked 

on both sides of that. Do you have a plan or do you not have a 

plan? Mr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. We do have draft plans for each of the agencies to 

operate in the sequester. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so those draft plans, did they include bonuses and guidelines for future bonuses? 

Mr. YOUNG. Some agencies have made those sort of decisions. 

Again, I am aware that there are general guidance that bonuses 

will not be paid out during the time of the sequester. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And the OMB made that general guideline. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And have we seen employees leave because they 

are not going to get their bonuses? Have you seen people filing out 

of the doors because of that? 

Mr. YOUNG. I am not personally aware of any. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. How about you, Mr. Sastry? 

Mr. SASTRY. I am not personally aware of any but I certainly 

cannot speak for the entire department. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So, neither of you are personally aware 

of any lack of bonuses affecting the retention of employees. That 

is correct? 

Mr. YOUNG. That is correct at this point, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So, we have had since August of 2011 to 

plan for these cuts and now we are talking about laying off people 

that are depending on their salaries on a weekly basis to put food 

on the table. And yet, we were giving out these bonuses and not 

planning. Is it because you relied on the OMB’s I guess letter of 

July 31st that says we have five months to act so really, at this 

point, continue spending as if you have always spent? Did you rely 

on that OMB guidance there as well? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, again, the agencies did have their full amount 

of funding available to them. But I would point out that, for example, in the case of the Food Safety and Inspection Agency, they did 

take a number of steps to reduce travel and conference spending, 

that sort of thing. They closed, I believe, five of their district offices 

over the past year. So they were taking steps. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And that is because of sequestration? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, that was because of operating more efficiently. 

They wanted to be in a position to operate more efficiently in the 

event that lower budgets for whatever reason, whether it be sequestration or lower funding levels, came about. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay, let’s go back to your testimony earlier. You 

talked about the fact that there was personnel and you talked 

about this 80 percent figure in terms of personnel, some of that 

being food inspectors and then another portion of that being support. What percentage of employees would be support for the folks 

who are actually doing the food inspection? 

Mr. YOUNG. I believe that about 88 percent of the agency’s personnel are related to frontline inspection work. 

45 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So, 88 percent of them are frontline inspection. 

Mr. YOUNG. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So you have just a small administrative 

support mechanism. Why would you say that most of the bonuses 

then went to those senior level support and not to the rank and 

file? When you look back at 2011 in terms of the way those bonuses 

were shared, they were shared at a more senior level instead of 

those that are actually, the 88 percent that are doing the job. Why 

would that be? 

Mr. YOUNG. Sir, I am sorry. I do not have that data in front of 

me and I am not aware of the breakdown. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So, as we go forward, what other cost saving measures, other than furloughs, could you implement and become a part of your normal strategy? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I do understand that the agency, for example 

the Food Safety and Inspection Service, does have a hiring freeze 

in place for non-frontline positions. So, some actions like that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But that is not long term. What long-term plans 

do you have to save money? I mean, you know, if we have hiring 

freeze right now, that can be lifted. Are there any other systemic 

plans that you have made that will be saving monies long term? 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, the agency has put forth a proposal to revise 

its poultry slaughter inspection process and that would potentially 

have longer term savings once that is implemented. It takes regulatory action to do that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I see my time has expired. Thank you. I yield 

back. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, if you could just give me 30 seconds. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Absolutely. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you. 

My head, like probably the panel’s, is spinning at some of the 

contorted logic going on about sequestration and the complete 

about face of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle who 

were talking apocalypse now just last summer and now the President signed it and it is not going to be that bad. And they are even 

getting helpful and presenting some suggestions of cuts. 

Mr. Young, is citrus greening a serious problem to the citrus industry in Florida? 

Mr. YOUNG. I understand it is, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would it be fair to say that it is costing the economy of Florida $3.6 billion? 

Mr. YOUNG. I am not actually aware of the specific impact but 

we could certainly get that for the record. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I have a study here that says it is $3.6 billion over five years including the loss of 6,600 jobs associated with 

this very serious deadly bacterial disease that is a growing threat 

to the citrus industry in your home State, Mr. Chairman. 

And I seem to recall that one of our colleagues made a big deal 

out of that is the study that you should get rid of. We don’t need 

46 

that. And I suppose that is matter of opinion. I commend the study 

to my friend the Chairman in the seat right now because we can 

get rid of studies like that, but they are not without economic implications. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, if I could? 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Yes, the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. JORDAN. Just to the same gentleman, while citrus greening may be a problem, is it not also true, or in your judgment, is a $16 

trillion debt a problem as well, Mr. Young, for the Country? Is a 

debt bigger than the entire GDP, is that not a problem for the 

Country as well? 

Mr. YOUNG. There will certainly be implications of a debt, but I 

believe that those sort of economic, larger-scale economic impacts 

would be not my bailiwick. 

Mr. JORDAN. I understand. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would my colleague yield? 

Mr. JORDAN. I would be happy to. I love this. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I just will remind my colleague that the context 

in which our friend and colleague from Texas brought up the study 

was not that we have to start somewhere. He actually ridiculed the 

study, as I understand it, and said it was clearly unnecessary 

which would come as news to an awful lot of citrus growers in Florida who actually understand the seriousness of this illness. If you 

want to eliminate it, go ahead. 

But the idea that there are no consequences to sequestration, 

then there are consequences to sequestration, and then when we 

find consequences to sequestration we belittle them. 

Mr. JORDAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. I don’t think, people are not arguing that there may 

be some consequences to reduced Government spending. What we 

are arguing is that there are also consequences to continuing to 

spend more money than you have and piling on a debt that is now 

bigger than our entire economy. That is the point. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No, my friend, I don’t think that is the point because if you take that logic, then we might as well just shut down 

the Government, which may be the intention of some people 

around here. We still have to function. 

Mr. JORDAN. No, no, no. I’m not saying that at all. But we need 

to take steps, to start taking those steps to get spending under control and a 2.4 percent reduction in spending out of the overall 

budget is not that big of a first step. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, again, I am very glad to have people on the 

other side of the aisle want to diminish the importance of sequestration. I have a different point of view. I think it is actually going 

to be quite serious. And I think, of course, the alternative is that 

we have a balance of revenue and spending cuts, not just spending 

cuts. And that is the philosophical difference, is it not? 

With that, I have to go vote. 

Mr. JORDAN. Same here. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Well, I would like thank all of our witnesses for 

taking time in their busy schedules to appear before us today. 

47 

The committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

48 


Insert offset folio 1 here 80290.001
49 


Insert offset folio 2 here 80290.002
50 


Insert offset folio 3 here 80290.003
51 


Insert offset folio 4 here 80290.004
52 


Insert offset folio 5 here 80290.005
53 


Insert offset folio 6 here 80290.006
54 


Insert offset folio 7 here 80290.007
55 


Insert offset folio 8 here 80290.008
56 


Insert offset folio 19 here 80290.019
57 


Insert offset folio 20 here 80290.020
58 


Insert offset folio 21 here 80290.021
59 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 22 here 80290.022