S. HRG. 111–1 

NOMINATION OF HON. DR. PETER 

ORSZAG, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE 

DIRECTOR OF OMB AND THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT NABORS, OF NEW 

JERSEY, TO BE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OMB 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

January 13, 2009—NOMINATION OF HON. DR. PETER ORSZAG, OF 

MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF OMB AND THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT NABORS, OF NEW JERSEY, TO BE THE DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR OF OMB 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget 

NOMINATIONS OF HON. DR. PETER ORSZAG AND ROBERT NABORS 

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

46–316pdf 2009

S. HRG. 111–1 

NOMINATION OF HON. DR. PETER 

ORSZAG, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE 

DIRECTOR OF OMB AND THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT NABORS, OF NEW 

JERSEY, TO BE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OMB 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

January 13, 2009—NOMINATION OF HON. DR. PETER ORSZAG, OF 

MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF OMB AND THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT NABORS, OF NEW JERSEY, TO BE THE DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR OF OMB 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota, Chairman 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

MARK R. WARNER, Virginia 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

MICHAEL ENZI, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MARY NAYLOR, Majority Staff Director 

DENZEL MCGUIRE, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

HEARINGS 

Page 

January 13, 2009—Nomination of Dr. Peter Orszag, of Massachusetts, to 

be Director of the Office of Management and Budget ....................................... 1 

Nomimation of Robert Nabors, of New Jersey, to be Deputy Director of 

the Office of Management and Budget ............................................................... 1 

STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Chairman Kent Conrad ........................................................................................... 1 

Ranking Member Judd Gregg ................................................................................. 12 

Senator Enzi ............................................................................................................. 148 

Senator Grasslely ..................................................................................................... 150 

WITNESSES 

Nabors, Robert, of New Jersey, Nominee to be Deputy Director of the Office 

of Management and Budget ................................................................................45, 47 

Orszag, Peter, of Massachusetts, Nominee to be Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget ....................................................................................16, 19 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS 

Hon. John M. Spratt, Jr., A Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina ................................................................................................. 12 

Hon. Paul Ryan, A Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin .... 14 

Hon. David R. Obey, A Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin .................................................................................................................... 44 

REDACTED 

Statement of Biographical and Financial Information Requested of Presidential Nominee Dr. Peter Orszag to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget .................................................................................................. 55 

Statement of Biographical and Financial Information Requested of Presidential Nominee Robert Nabors to be Deputy Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget .................................................................................... 88 

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO DR. PETER ORSZAG AND 

ROBERT NABORS BEFORE NOMINATION 

Chairman Kent Conrad ........................................................................................... 94, 105 

Ranking Member Judd Gregg ................................................................................. 98 

Senator Jim Bunning .............................................................................................. 110 

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO DR. PETER ORSZAG AND 

ROBERT NABORS AFTER NOMINATION 

Chairman Kent Conrad ........................................................................................... 113 

Ranking Member Judd Gregg ................................................................................. 120 

Senator Crapo .......................................................................................................... 114 

Senator Ensign ......................................................................................................... 115 

Senator Enzi ............................................................................................................. 141 

Senator Feingold ...................................................................................................... 117 

Page

iv 

Senator Murray ........................................................................................................ 122 

Senator Nelson ......................................................................................................... 143 

Senator Sessions ...................................................................................................... 132 

Senator Stabenow .................................................................................................... 134 

(1) 

NOMINATION HEARING 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in room 

SD–608, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Conrad, Murray, Wyden, Nelson, Menendez, 

Cardin, Sanders, Whitehouse, Gregg, and Sessions. 

Staff present: Mary Ann Naylor, Majority Staff Director; and 

Denzel McGuire, Minority Staff Director. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CONRAD 

Chairman CONRAD. I want to welcome everyone to the Senate 

Budget Committee this morning. Today, we consider Presidentelect Obama’s nomination of Dr. Peter Orszag to be the Director of 

the Office of Management and Budget and his nomination of Rob 

Nabors to be Deputy Director. In my judgment, these are two outstanding nominations. I would like both of these nominees confirmed quickly given the state of the economy and the Federal 

budget. It is imperative that the President-elect has his team in 

place without delay. 

We will first consider the nomination of Dr. Orszag. I will need 

to leave at about 11 o’clock today to return to my home State to 

attend my annual Marketplace for Entrepreneurs event. Senator 

Murray will chair the Committee if the hearing extends beyond 

that time. 

Let me begin by welcoming our distinguished guests from the 

House, House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, who I 

think is on his way, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Ryan, who will 

introduce Dr. Orszag. We very much appreciate your being here. 

Representative Ryan’s presence in particular says a great deal 

about the respect that Dr. Orszag has attained on both sides of the 

aisle. 

Dr. Orszag is joined today by his daughter, Leila—I hope that is 

the correct pronunciation. 

Mr. ORSZAG. It is. 

Chairman CONRAD. And his son, Joshua. We are very happy to 

have the two of you here, and we are honored by your presence. 

This Committee knows Dr. Orszag well. Two years ago, I picked 

Dr. Orszag to be the CBO Director, along with my colleagues in the 

House and the Senate leadership on the Budget Committee. We 

chose him based on his record and reputation as a talented economist and budget expert. I was not disappointed—and I think it is 

2 

fair to say all of us were delighted—by the leadership that he 

brought to the Congressional Budget Office. 

He has provided Congress and this Committee and the American 

public with invaluable information and insight on the economy and 

the budget, and his laser-like focus on addressing the growing cost 

of health care demonstrated his firm grasp of the tremendous longterm budget challenge facing our Nation. 

I am pleased that he will bring his immense talent and drive to 

OMB in the Obama Administration. We will need the best and 

brightest our country has to offer working together to pull us out 

of this fiscal and economic decline. Dr. Orszag is exactly the right 

person for this job at this time. I look forward to continuing to 

work closely with him as he assumes his new responsibilities. 

Before I turn to Senator Gregg, I want to lay out some of the 

very serious budget challenges facing our country. CBO’s new estimates show that the deficit in 2009 will be $1.2 trillion. That is 

more than 2–1/2 times last year’s record deficit. And CBO’s numbers show that under current policies, we will face record deficit for 

years to come, and that is before we adopt any economic recovery 

plan. 

3 

We are building a wall of debt. Gross Federal debt is now estimated to be $11.6 trillion in 2009. If we add in current policies, 

such as an extension of tax cuts, the alternative minimum tax reform, and ongoing war costs, we could easily see the debt rise to 

$21.3 trillion by 2019. That is nearly 100 percent of gross domestic 

product. 


46316.048
4 

Our debt is increasingly financed by foreigners. In 2008, 68 percent of the increase in publicly held debt was held by foreigners. 

This presents a significant risk to our economy. If these foreigners 

stop buying U.S. debt, interest rates could shoot up and our economy could be thrown into a downward spiral. The warning signs 

are already there. 

This article was on the front page of the New York Times last 

week. It was headlined, ‘‘China Losing Taste for Debt from the 

United States.’’ The explosion in debt we are seeing is coming at 

the worst possible time, just as the baby-boom generation is beginVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Oct 16, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\46316.TXT SBUD1 PsN: TISH

46316.049
5 

ning to retire. It is important to remember that within the decade, 

by 2018 more than half of the baby boomers will reach the early 

retirement age of 62. We are facing a demographic tidal wave. 


46316.050
6 


46316.051
7 

But this is not just a demographic issue. Rising health care costs 

pose a bigger threat. These rising health care costs are exploding 

the cost of our health care system. By 2050, more than 18 percent 

of our gross domestic product will be spent on Medicare, Medicaid, 

and Social Security. That represents nearly all of current Federal 

spending. And this is not just an issue of Federal health spending. 

Private sector health spending is also exploding. Taken together, 

public and private health care spending will reach 37 percent of 

GDP by 2050 if we stay on our current course. Clearly, that is completely unsustainable. 


46316.052
8 


46316.053
9 

Senator Gregg and I have made a proposal to our colleagues to 

face up to these long-term challenges. We are open to other proposals, but we believe something like what we have outlined is 

needed. Here are the highlights of the task force proposal: 


46316.054
10 

One, it would be tasked with addressing our long-term fiscal imbalances. 

Two, it would consist of sitting lawmakers and representatives of 

the administration. 

Third, everything would be on the table. 

Fourth, the panel’s legislative proposal would get fast-track consideration, and Congress would have a vote. 

Finally, it would be designed to ensure a bipartisan outcome. 

In announcing his economic team, President-elect Obama said, 

‘‘Short term, we have got to focus on boosting the economy and creating jobs. Part and parcel of that is a plan for a sustainable fiscal 

situation long term.’’ 


46316.055
11 


46316.056
12 

He has it exactly right. That is exactly what Senator Gregg and 

I are calling for. Our Nation’s economic future will remain at risk 

until and unless we confront this long-term fiscal challenge. 

With that, I want to turn to the distinguished Ranking Member, 

Senator Gregg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GREGG 

Senator GREGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

opening comments, which I am in 100 percent agreement with relative to the concern which you raise on the debt and the need to 

address it and the issue of the entitlement spending and the babyboom generation. We have heard considerable good counsel on this 

issue from Dr. Orszag over the years. 

I am not sure why we are having this hearing since you have got 

the Republican Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, 

the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, yourself and myself, and I suspect everyone in this room supports these two nominees. They are exceptional. They are talented. We are lucky to 

have them in public service, and I think the President-elect has 

done himself well and done his administration good service and is 

guaranteeing quality people when he puts people like this on his 

team. 

I would say this: You do not seem to turn out the crowd that 

Senator Clinton has turned out this morning, however. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GREGG. There are a lot of other issues which we hope 

to discuss also, but in order not to extend this hearing, I am not 

going to get into those until we get to the question-and-answer period. But I just want to reinforce what the Chairman has said on 

the issue of the need to address the underlying issue which we as 

a Nation are going to have to confront after we get by this immediate economic downturn, which is obviously severe, disruptive, 

and a terrible event for a lot of individual Americans. The bigger 

event is the coming fiscal tsunami that is facing us as a result of 

the retirement of the baby-boom generation and the huge costs 

which we will incur. 

And we are going to look forward to some encouraging and 

thoughtful ideas on this as to how we take that issue on from this 

team at OMB. 

Thank you. 

Chairman CONRAD. Thank you, Senator Gregg. 

Welcome, Chairman Spratt. If you want to proceed, and then we 

will turn to the Ranking Member, Congressman Ryan, and then we 

will hear from Dr. Orszag. Then we will have questioning rounds, 

and we will limit it to 7 minutes, and we will try to be strict about 

it so that everybody can have some clear idea of when their time 

will come. 

Chairman Spratt, welcome to the Senate Budget Committee. We 

appreciate very much your being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. SPRATT. Thank you for inviting me across the Capitol to testify on behalf of Peter Orszag for Director of OMB. Had the choice 

13 

been mine, Peter is exactly the person I would have chosen, and 

indeed, Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, when the nomination for the 

directorship of CBO was our choice, we selected Peter Orszag. I 

think you would agree with me he fulfilled our expectations in 

every possible way. 

Our country faces massive problems: a recession that is deepening, unemployment that is soaring, business failures and foreclosures occurring at a rate not seen since the 1930’s. As a result, 

the Government is racking up deficits and accumulating debt that 

will take a generation of sustained effort to overcome. 

During a time when we are plagued with problems, we can at 

least be thankful that the Obama Administration will have Peter 

Orszag, a steady hand, at the helm. Though Peter is young, he has 

experience beyond his years, a keen intelligence, and a breadth of 

knowledge about public policy. Over the last several years, he has 

trained his focus on two of the most vexing issues that overhang 

our future: fixing health care and securing retirement. 

While at CBO, Peter expanded its capacity for sophisticated 

health care policy analysis. He beefed up the health care staff and 

created a new panel of health advisers to bring together some of 

the Nation’s leading policy experts to inform CBO’s work. The investments he made have paid off. CBO’s work has helped us illuminate why health care spending is growing faster than the economy and why it may be possible to reduce that growth without 

harming outcomes by spotlighting medical spending that is of limited or no health benefit. 

Before his work in the economics of health care, Peter authored 

what may be the best short treatise on Social Security there is. He 

analyzed its long-term problems, and then laid out a path for solvency with better benefits for those who need them most. 

Beyond his mastery of economic issues, Dr. Orszag has a great 

gift for explaining complex matters simply and succinctly. This talent has made him an invaluable resource on Capitol Hill, in the 

Senate as well as the House. It will stand him in good stead at 

OMB. 

Because of his clarity and insight, long before he became Director, Dr. Orszag was a frequent witness at our Committee. As Director of the Hamilton Project, he was searching for new ways to promote economic growth. These dwelt on ways to strengthen saving 

and education, help families deal with economic change, and ways 

to make Government more effective—all useful pursuits if we are 

to build a stronger economy for the future. 

In the last 2 years, when Peter was Director of CBO, we called 

on him to testify before the House Budget Committee 13 times. His 

testimony ranged from such topics as the outlook for the economy, 

the cost of the war in Iraq, how we can gain more value out of 

health care spending, and the impact of controlling carbon emissions. No matter the economic issue, Dr. Orszag’s testimony has 

been informed, incisive, and eminently understandable. 

In the 1990’s, he worked for President Clinton’s National Economic Council and then for the Council of Economic Advisors 

(CEA). Armed with knowledge, commitment, and copious quantities 

of Diet Coke, Peter helped the Clinton Administration and the Congress fashion good fiscal policy. 

14 

Peter has worked in government, in the private sector, in academia, and in the think tank sector. He is a summa cum laude 

graduate of Princeton. He won a Marshall Scholarship and completed two graduate degrees at the London School of Economics. He 

has published six books on retirement and homeland security, and 

papers too numerous to mention. He successfully managed a large 

staff of over 200 at CBO. All of the above, in addition to his integrity and his work ethic, make him a hands-down, superlative choice 

for the Director of OMB. 

Mr. Chairman, our economy is not undergoing your typical business cycle recession. There are no off-the-shelf solutions to turn to. 

In times like these, we need our best and our brightest, and Peter 

Orszag fills that bill. He has the skills, the temperament, the intelligence, and experience needed at OMB. I urge his swift confirmation. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator GREGG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that the 

Chairman missed one item on Dr. Orszag’s resume, which is that 

he and I graduated from the same high school, which is probably 

the most significant item on his resume. 

Chairman CONRAD. I regret to say that I went to that high 

school, too. 

Senator GREGG. That is correct. 

Chairman CONRAD. I did not graduate there, however. 

Congressman Ryan, welcome here, and you are following Chairman Spratt, who, as always, did such a superb job of endorsing a 

candidate before this Committee. And we are delighted that you 

are here this morning as well, and we want to thank you for the 

role that you played in the interview process as we went through 

the selection process for a replacement for Dr. Orszag. I thought it 

was really an excellent process, and you played a very constructive 

role, and we appreciate that as well. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL RYAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Chairman Conrad. Thanks for having me 

here. Ranking Member Gregg, it is nice to see you again as well. 

I appreciate this opportunity to introduce Peter, my friend, the 

former Director of the CBO. 

First, I just simply want to say to Peter congratulations on your 

appointment to serve as our next OMB Director. It is fantastic and 

it is well deserved. 

Peter Orszag is slightly older than me, so I am very happy we 

are sending someone with wisdom and experience to OMB. 

But to my friends on the Budget Committee, I would like to give 

you my reasons for supporting his nomination. No. 1 is his understanding of the issues, of the budget, of the inner workings of the 

budget. No. 2 is his sense of fairness and impartiality. Those of us 

who are budgeteers have watched the CBO over the years. We care 

a great deal how this agency is run and how we are serviced here 

in this branch of Government. 

Peter Orszag brought a sense of fairness to that agency that we 

cherish so much. He gave us fair answers. We come from different 

economic doctrines and philosophies, but he did not bring that to 

15 

the CBO, and he gave us the cleanest answers we could have asked 

for. When it comes to issues like health care, cap and trade, we got 

good research, fair research, impartial research from the Congressional Budget Office. 

Another reason that I am particularly interested in is his understanding of and his ability to effectively communicate the entitlement problem facing our country and the key drivers of that problem—namely, health care. I am particularly pleased with his ability and his success at beefing up the Health Care Analytical Section at the Congressional Budget Office because that is an area in 

which we are going to have a lot of work to do if we are going to 

get our hands around this looming entitlement crisis. 

And so when you take a look at his success and tenure at the 

CBO, it gave us all those qualities we look for in a great CBO Director. And I take a look at this new administration. The challenges confronting our country—and I cannot think of a better person for the President-elect to nominate from within his ranks from 

his party to serve as the next OMB Director. This is going to be 

a tough 2 to 4 years, and that is why it is important to have someone with credibility, someone with skill, someone with knowledge 

and experience to help us navigate our way through these extremely difficult times that we have ahead of us. And then going 

forward, I know that the things we are going to get from OMB, the 

numbers we are going to receive, the dialog we are going to have 

is going to be that much better, that much more dependable, and 

that much more reliable because Peter Orszag will be the next 

OMB Director. 

And so, with that, I think that this is the best person that this 

President could have nominated for his administration to run the 

OMB, and that is why I am happy to be here to support his nomination. 

Thank you for having me. 

Chairman CONRAD. Thank you, Congressman Ryan. We appreciate very much your being here, as well as Chairman Spratt. We 

know that the two of you may have business on your side of the 

Capitol, and so whenever you need to take your leave, please feel 

free to do so. 

Under the rules of the Committee, we have to swear the witness, 

so, Mr. Orszag, if you would stand? 

Under our Committee rules, the nominee is required to testify 

under oath, so I will now swear you in. Do you swear the testimony 

that you will give to the Senate Budget Committee will be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I do. 

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

and answer any questions that members of this Committee might 

have? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I do. 

Chairman CONRAD. Please be seated. 

We will now have a chance to hear from Dr. Orszag directly, and 

then we will go into a questioning round with each member given 

7 minutes. 

16 

Welcome, Dr. Orszag. Congratulations on your nomination by the 

President-elect. Thank you for your extraordinary service as the 

head of the Congressional Budget Office, and please proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF PETER R. ORSZAG, PH.D., OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. ORSZAG. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Gregg, members of 

the Committee, I am honored to come before you as President-elect 

Obama’s nominee for Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget. I would like to particularly thank Mr. Spratt and Mr. Ryan 

for appearing and introducing me this morning. As Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office, I worked to establish good relationships with both of them and with members of both parties. If I am 

confirmed as Director of OMB, I hope to continue that spirit of bipartisanship as we struggle to meet the challenges that we face. I 

am also very pleased to be joined by my family this morning. 

This hearing is being held at a momentous time. In the short 

run, we face the most severe economic crisis that has occurred 

since the Great Depression. Over the medium and long run, we 

face the prospect of large and growing deficits that are 

unsustainable. These twin challenges of economic recovery and fiscal responsibility will make the job of OMB particularly challenging. But, again, if confirmed, I relish and look forward to attempting to meet those challenges. 

As we struggle to address both of those issues, we also need to 

make Government work better. I have never been particularly fond 

of the argument, ‘‘That is just the way it has always been done 

around here.’’ And as we struggle to meet both of these challenges, 

I think that argument in particular no longer makes sense. We 

need to be looking for new ways of doing things, exploring innovative approaches, and trying to make Government work better and 

smarter. 

Let me try to address both the short run and the long run briefly. 

As I mentioned, the short-term economic outlook that we are inheriting at the beginning of 2009 is bleak, and dramatic action is 

necessary to address it. In 2008, the economy lost more than 2.5 

million jobs. Without policy interventions to bolster aggregate demand, projections suggest that it could lose another 3 to 4 million 

jobs over the coming year. 

As Figure 1 of my written testimony shows, the unemployment 

rate in the final quarter of 2010, although still elevated, would be 

much lower if we acted through an economic recovery plan than if 

we did nothing. So we need to act. In particular, during periods 

like the current one, the key impediment to economic growth is aggregate demand. With existing capacity, the economy could produce 

substantially more goods and services if there were more demand 

for them. More specifically, in the absence of action, estimates suggest that the gap between how much the economy could produce 

each year and how much it will actually produce over the next year 

or two amounts to $1 trillion a year. That is $12,000 per year per 

family of four on average in lost income and output. 

An economic recovery plan will help fill this gap between aggregate demand and existing capacity. It can also help to expand caVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Oct 16, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\46316.TXT SBUD1 PsN: TISH
17 

pacity over the long run. Any such plan should include significant 

transparency, accountability, and oversight. The goal is to set a 

new standard for how we spend taxpayer dollars. Such heightened 

transparency and oversight is particularly important since we are 

inheriting not only an economic crisis but also a daunting fiscal 

gap, as the Chairman already mentioned. 

Even without steps to mitigate that economic downturn, the deficit we are inheriting for the current fiscal year, which began last 

October, is likely to exceed $1 trillion, more than 8 percent of gross 

domestic product and the largest in our history, which the exception of the Civil War and the World Wars. 

The combination of the economic recovery package, interventions 

to stabilize the financial and housing markets, and the normal dynamic of the economy over the business cycle should help to bring 

back a period of economic growth. And as the economy recovers, we 

must shift our attention to our medium- and long-term fiscal challenges. The simple fact is that under current policies the Federal 

budget is on an unsustainable path. Even after the economy recovers from the current downturn and, again, under current policies, 

the Nation faces the prospect of budget deficits that are in the 

range of about 5 percent of GDP over the next 5 to 10 years. They 

grow larger thereafter. And over the longer term, as has already 

been mentioned, the fiscal gap is driven primarily by the rate at 

which health care costs grow. 

Improving the efficiency of the health system has benefits that 

extend well beyond just the Federal budget. Health care costs are 

already imposing severe burdens on State governments. For example, health care absorbs about one-third of State government budgets on average, and those costs are reducing workers’ take-home 

pay to a degree that is both unnecessarily large and perhaps 

underappreciated. In all this, however, we have to keep in mind 

that we appear to have very significant opportunities to reduce 

health care costs without harming health outcomes. 

As Ranking Member Gregg knows, important research at Dartmouth University—I am kidding. Dartmouth College. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ORSZAG [continuing]. Suggests significant opportunities to reduce health care costs without harming health outcomes because of 

the very significant variation that occurs geographically in how 

health care is practiced. Many of the steps that would help to improve the value that we get from health care and improve the efficiency of the health care system include expanding the use of 

health information technology, which is necessary but not sufficient 

for a better-performing health system; expanding research on comparative effectiveness, that is, what works and what does not; providing financial incentives for better care rather than more care; 

and providing incentives for prevention and healthy living. 

Finally, in tackling both our short-run and long-run challenges, 

we need to make Government work better and smarter. That 

means increased transparency and accountability. It also means 

strengthening the Federal Government’s use of information technology so that we can better interact with the public and deliver 

services more effectively. It means reexamining our procurement 

budget and improving the management of Federal contractors. It 

18 

means restoring the prestige and building the capability of the Federal work force, which is particularly important given that roughly 

half of the Federal work force is expected to retire over the next 

decade. We need to broaden the appeal of public service. 

Finally, we need to reexamine how we can best protect public 

health, the environment, and public safety. I am pleased that the 

President-elect has announced his intention to nominate Cass 

Sunstein, one of the Nation’s leading legal thinkers, to run the office within OMB for coordinating regulatory policy. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, that concludes 

my prepared remarks. I want to reiterate my commitment to working across party lines to address both the short-run and long-run 

challenges we face. And I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Orszag follows:] 

19 


46316.042
20 


46316.043
21 


46316.044
22 


46316.045
23 


46316.046
24 

Chairman CONRAD. Thank you, Dr. Orszag. 

In my questioning time, I would like to first ask you how you assess—again, as Chairman Spratt and Congressman Ryan leave, we 

thank you for coming here to introduce Dr. Orszag, and thank you 

both for your service. 

As we consider the need for an economic recovery plan, can you 

give us your assessment of the near-term risk to the economy of 

the United States? How precarious do you believe our current circumstances are? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I will go back to saying I believe that we are facing 

the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. That gap that 

I mentioned between how much the economy can produce and how 

much it is currently producing of $1 trillion is excessively large. 

That represents a lost opportunity, and it is reflected in elevated 

unemployment, job losses, distress for working families, because 

that is $1 trillion of lost income that could be there if we could just 

bolster aggregate demand. 

The danger in this kind of situation is that given the risks that 

exist in financial markets and this dynamic of lack of confidence 

and downward spiraling is that things can feed on themselves, 

where you have the real economy weakening, financial markets 

weakening, and then feedback effects that feed from one part of the 

economy to another in a negative spiral so that the situation can 

become particularly bad. That is why I think we need to act. We 

need to act boldly and we need to act quickly in order to bolster 

aggregate demand, and address some of the financial market turmoil that still persists. 

It is not going to be over quickly, and I think Figure 1 in my 

chart kind of encapsulates it. It shows that if we do not act, we 

have a very significant increase in the unemployment rate. Even 

if we do act, the unemployment rate does go up but not by as 

much. There is a big benefit from acting. But we are still in for 

some period of economic difficulty, even with a significant economic 

recovery plan. 

Chairman CONRAD. Senator Gregg and I have decided that we 

would put together criteria to apply to any economic recovery plan. 

What would be your candidates for inclusion in an economic recovery plan? What criteria do you think ought to apply? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, I think there are several criteria. 

The first, and perhaps most important, is bang for the buck— 

that is, what bolsters aggregate demand the most and operates 

most quickly. 

The second is if there are any medium- or longer-term implications for spending or revenue from something that you are doing 

today, it would be better to minimize that; but to the extent that 

there are any such implications, that they are leading to things 

that help in the long term to promote economic performance. 

And then, finally, I would say there is the tension—and let me 

just again be forthright here—between that macroeconomic gap 

that I spoke about, the $1 trillion GDP gap, and the set of policies 

that you can come up with when you actually go through the possibilities that spend out immediately within the next 3 to 6 months 

and then add to aggregate demand immediately. 

25 

If you put all those together, you wind up with a package that 

is much smaller than the GDP gap that we face, and then you face 

this choice: Do you accept a high level of macroeconomic risk by not 

expanding the package? Or do you expand the package into other 

areas that might have somewhat lower bang for the buck but that 

help you to address more of the macroeconomic problem? 

Chairman CONRAD. All right. On your point No. 2, for those 

things that have longer-term implications—because to the extent 

possible we want this program to be temporary. To the extent it 

goes beyond the temporary, you make the argument that it needs 

to be helpful to securing longer-term economic growth, improve the 

competitiveness of the country. What would be examples of that? 

Mr. ORSZAG. There are a variety of examples of that. For example, various infrastructure projects that may spend out largely but 

not entirely over the next year or two will leave you with a physical infrastructure that can increase capacity and economic growth 

in the future. Various energy investments that may, for example, 

begin the process of leading to a smart grid can do so. Health information technology investments are another example of that. 

So you can go down a list of things that may not fully spend out 

over 6 months or a year, but that will have some macroeconomic 

benefit in the short run, and also do things that are beneficial for 

the economy over the longer run. 

Chairman CONRAD. All right. Let me turn, if I can, to the longerterm challenges. As you know, Senator Gregg and I have laid out 

a process. So far, the incoming administration has been resistant 

to laying out a process to develop a plan to deal with our long-term 

imbalances. What can you tell us would be the intentions of the administration, your intentions, to cope with these long-term imbalances that you have previously described as unsustainable? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, let me say two things. First, the new administration will put out a budget and economic overview in mid-to late 

February in which we will have more to say about the mediumand longer-term deficits. But I think you are referring specifically 

to process issues, and my view, for whatever it is worth, is that it 

is difficult to argue that our current processes for addressing longterm budget issues, especially including health care, are working 

that well, just by looking at the evidence. And so, obviously, therefore, looking at possible changes in process is worthwhile. I know 

that you and Senator Gregg have an idea with regard to a longterm fiscal commission. Senator Baucus and Mr. Daschle have put 

forward an idea on a Federal health board that would focus specifically on health care decisions. There are a variety of process 

changes that are under discussion that we are examining carefully 

and that, given the failures of the current system to address these 

problems, certainly seem worthy of examination. 

Chairman CONRAD. Let me just conclude by saying I understand 

the notion of a health board. I think that has prospects. But what 

we confront here in terms of our long-term fiscal situation, while 

health care is the 800-pound gorilla, we face other major challenging areas as well: Social Security, the revenue system of the 

country. My own view is we have got a revenue system that is 

badly outdated, and that fundamentally needs reform if we are 

going to make America as competitive as it can be for the future. 

26 

So I will leave you with that and turn to Senator Gregg. 

Senator GREGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of 

questions. I would like to run through them fairly quickly. 

The first is the obvious one. I presume you are going to give the 

Minority the same deference you would give the Majority if a request is made of you folks. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. 

Senator GREGG. Thank you. 

Mr. ORSZAG. One answer to that question. 

Senator GREGG. That is the right answer, and it is well phrased. 

Second, the baseline. As you know, this is a really critical issue, 

and I am sure you have some thoughts on it. I am hopeful that you 

will stick with the baseline you used at CBO so that we will have 

some consistency. What is the game plan there? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, what I would say on that is obviously the 

baseline that Congress uses is important for the integrity of the 

scoring process. The debate over the baseline in large part comes 

down to—let me put it this way: It is awkward because the sunsets 

in the Tax Code are now so large and the majority of them, I think 

everyone agrees, there is common agreement, the majority of them 

are going to be—if I understand the political economy correctly, 

they will be extended without being offset. 

So whether they are in the baseline and, therefore, they are extended without being offset, or whether they are not in the baseline 

but then PAYGO is waived for them, you do wind up at the same 

spot with regard to both revenue and the deficit. 

Senator GREGG. But on the other side of the coin, if you raise the 

taxes, then you get to spend the money if you do not use the baseline of CBO. So it really is a big issue. A big issue. 

Mr. ORSZAG. What I wanted to just clarify is that for the majority of them, the majority of the tax provisions under discussion, you 

wind up in the same place. Where it really does matter is for those 

tax provisions that under an administration policy or under a congressional policy would not be extended and what happens to that 

money. And so you can come to the same place; again, even if those 

provisions are in the baseline, but then not extending them is dedicated to deficit reduction as opposed to offsetting new proposals, 

you wind up in the same place. 

Senator GREGG. Well, can I simplify the issue? Don’t you think 

the integrity of the process requires at least CBO stick with the 

traditional baseline? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I have every expectation that CBO will stick with 

the traditional baseline. 

Senator GREGG. On this issue of criteria, let me hypothesize a 

different approach, because what you are basically suggesting is 

that we need stimulus that energizes the next 6 months. We tried 

that—do we have our chart? We tried that with the first stimulus 

package, and it did not work. This is pretty definitive that you did 

not get a lot of consumption for the rebate. 

27 

My sense is that this, as you say, is such a unique recessionary 

event, and very different than what we have experienced since the 

Great Depression or certainly World War II, that what we really 

should be focused on is how we improve the economy and basically 

repair the economy fundamentally so that we can recover—whether 

it is 6 months, 8 months, 12 months, or 16 months—in a way that 

makes us more competitive and more productive. So rather than 

using Keynesian philosophy on this, we ought to be using a philosophy that essentially says let’s put the dollars that we are going 

to stimulate into the productive side of the economy; and if it is infrastructure, productive infrastructure, infrastructure that is going 

to generate return and competitiveness and productivity—bridges, 

as you outlined, IT in health care, broadband expansion in areas 

of low density, things like that. 

Rather than the traditional Keynesian approach—I do not know 

whether you accept that or not, but if we accept at least the second 

part of that, which is that a large part of this should be on infrastructure, shouldn’t there be an entry test set up that it not be 

spent on running tracks and Main Street beautification and Halls 

of Fame, but it should be something that has valve to the economy 

in the area of productivity and competitiveness? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I think from the perspective of economic output, the 

more that we can focus any infrastructure investments on high-return investments, obviously, the better off we are. 

Even apart from this package, we do have issues that could be 

examined with regard to how infrastructure projects are selected, 

and the—— 


46316.047
28 

Senator GREGG. Well, that is what I am saying. Shouldn’t we 

have preconditions that basically set that up? Because as I understand it, it is probably just going to go out to the States. I know 

in my State every community has got their list. I have seen some 

lists that have changing the fire alarms in Town Hall. This is not 

where we get our return, and I think we have to have an entrylevel set of principles that we as the Congress should set up, and 

that is what Senator Conrad and I were talking about trying to 

produce—something that would focus on getting bang for the buck 

in the area of productivity and competitiveness. 

On a second level, TARP is obviously the issue of the day. Isn’t 

it true that if we are successful with the TARP investments—and 

they are investments rather than expenditures, and so far we have 

invested the TARP primarily in preferred stock. Although the debt 

may go up in the short run, in the long run the debt that represents TARP is going to come down, plus the taxpayer is going to 

get a return on that investment. So, really, this is, in a 4- or 5- 

year cycle, probably a wash with an income to us if it works correctly. Is that not true? 

Mr. ORSZAG. To a significant degree, although the estimates suggest that each dollar of expenditure or investment in an asset 

under the TARP does not necessarily lead to a full dollar in return. 

So it is not a dollar of cost, but the estimates both from CBO and 

the administration estimates suggest a net subsidy that is much 

smaller than 100 percent, but it is also greater than zero. 

Senator GREGG. But, of course, we are also borrowing this money 

at very cheap rates. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. 

Senator GREGG. And we are getting back dividends on these 

stock purchases of 5 percent right now. I hear a lot of talk in the 

press, regrettably, not necessarily all the press but some of the 

press, that says this is an expenditure that we are sending this 

money out the door and it is going to banks vut that is not the 

case. It is an investment by taxpayers which we are going to get 

back, with interest, a fair amount of that money. Correct? 

Mr. ORSZAG. And, again, I think the better way—in fact, the way 

that the TARP legislation directs the scoring of those activities to 

be reflected is to look at sort of the net subsidy. So what you are 

putting out today versus what you can expect to get back in the 

future, it is not a $700 billion net cost. 

Senator GREGG. Right. In fact, we may make money on it. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Possibly. 

Senator GREGG. I disagree with the scoring. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Possibly. 

Senator GREGG. But the basic view that I am trying to point out 

is that what is happening here is that we are trying to stabilize 

the financial industry of this country using dollars which we will 

get back, for the most part. And, thus, it is a pretty good investment for the taxpayer to put the dollars into this industry if it does 

stabilize it—because they are the core of economic recovery—especially when those dollars are not being spent in the traditional 

sense but are actually being invested with a return. 

And isn’t it essential to get an economic recovery that you have 

a viable financial industry? 

29 

Mr. ORSZAG. The financial system is at the heart of any modern 

economy. Without a working financial intermediation system, firms 

cannot borrow to finance their investments; households have trouble obtaining credit to buy houses and to finance their spending. 

The people who save have trouble; you cannot move funds from net 

savers to net borrowers. That system is at the heart of a modern 

economy like the United States. 

Senator GREGG. And that system is and was at risk. 

The last question I have, and I appreciate your courtesy and the 

Committee’s courtesy. Do you expect to send up a separate deficit 

reduction package independent of your budget? 

Mr. ORSZAG. At this point, we are—at least it is my view that 

we will incorporate our deficit reduction efforts in the economic and 

budget overview that we will be submitting to the Congress in midto late February. 

Senator GREGG. Thank you. I appreciate your time. 

Chairman CONRAD. Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me congratulate Dr. Orszag and his effervescent family. There are furious 

games of Tic Tac Toe going on over there. I would not try to compete with them. 

Dr. Orszag, as you and I have talked about, there is a ton of economic hurt about in our land, and you cannot, I think, today address specifically some of the economic stimulus initiatives. I do 

want to put on your radar right away that you will hear from the 

Westerners particularly about forestry—Chairman Baucus, myself 

and others; Senator Murray has been a great advocate of this. We 

have got to go in and thin out these forests because of the risk of 

fire, and there is merchantable timber that we can get to the mills. 

And so we look forward to working with you on it as a special priority, and, in effect, these are the natural resources equivalent of 

shovel-ready projects. They are ready to go. 

What I want to spend the bulk of my time on, though, is talking 

about health care, because you and the President-elect, to his credit, have made it clear that health care is gobbling up everything 

in sight, and there has got to be major reform. 

The biggest chunk of money today in the health accounts of the 

Federal budget goes out through the Federal Tax Code. This is a 

sum of at least $247 billion a year. It comes from the World War 

II days of wage and price controls. The Tax Code makes it a writeoff for employers who offer coverage. And it is free to the workers. 

It sounds good, certainly, but it rewards inefficiency and disproportionately gives the most money to the wealthiest among us and 

those who are lucky enough to have employer coverage. 

Now, here is my question. Barack Obama, to his credit, made 

two pledges in the campaign with respect to health care. First, the 

President-elect said he does not want to see middle-class folks clobbered with new taxes, and I sure agree with him on that. Second, 

he wants to make it clear that they can keep the health coverage 

that they have, and that is going to be protected, in my view, in 

any piece of legislation. 

Now, you and Senator Daschle are off to a very good start, in my 

view, in terms of the health reform agenda, and it is still being formulated. So I just want to talk theory with respect to you, and I 

30 

want to emphasize this. This is not about a program or a bill. This 

is theory. 

Isn’t it correct that there is so much money obligated under these 

Federal tax rules that you could still honor those pledges that 

Barack Obama made in the campaign and still in theory have the 

largest single sum available to quickly expand health coverage for 

those who are underinsured and uninsured? This is just in theory. 

Mr. ORSZAG. In theory, yes. 

Senator WYDEN. The answer is yes. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. 

Senator WYDEN. Good. Well, I am very pleased that you have put 

that on the record, and it comes at a particularly timely period. 

Chairman Baucus, in my view, deserves great credit for his white 

paper. It is chockful of specific suggestions, and he in theory as 

well wants to address the same kind of concern. 

I read your budget books on health. I think they are superb. I 

will say to you and Claire—I see her in the front row—that Nancy 

nudged me awake from time to time on the books, but there is 

nothing that will produce as much money as quickly as reforming 

the health rules of the tax accounts, and I appreciate your answer. 

One other health question. You all are onto some very thoughtful 

suggestions with respect to health IT, and the big question there— 

and Dr. Coburn has pointed this out, and I think thoughtfully—is: 

How do you make these systems interoperable? That is going to be 

the single biggest challenge in terms of quickly making reform in 

the health IT payoff in the real world. How do you envision, again, 

in theory—because there is no specific piece of legislation—wringing the maximum value out of these health IT areas? Sheldon 

Whitehouse is here, and he has done good work in this area. Talk 

to us a little bit about interoperability with health IT. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, I would actually identify interoperability and 

privacy as the two issues that need to be addressed rapidly in order 

to move toward more universal health IT systems. We need to aggressively move toward standards that systems must meet in order 

to exchange data across different HIT systems at hospitals and doctors, because without that the system is not as valuable as it would 

otherwise be, and then also appropriately protects privacy. 

And on that, just to pause for a second on privacy, I know that 

this is also a significant concern. I would just note that with appropriate privacy concerns, it is possible that health IT actually bolsters privacy rather than reduces it, because right now you have 

paper records that a nurse or a doctor could be thumbing through 

without your knowledge. And if a health IT record, an electronic 

medical record, had a system so that whenever it was accessed, you 

knew exactly who was accessing it, your privacy could actually be 

better protected rather than less protected. But I would say both 

of those issues—interoperability and standards—frankly, what 

needs to happen is we need industry to come together working with 

the appropriate people at HHS and elsewhere in the Government 

to rapidly reach agreement on appropriate standards, and then we 

need to move the systems out much more expansively than they 

currently are. 

Senator WYDEN. One last question and it touches on the good 

work being done by Dr. Wennberg, and we have been kidding about 

31 

how so many good ideas come from Dr. Wennberg and Dartmouth. 

He makes the point that we have these massive variations in terms 

of health care spending and that so often we pay for poor-quality 

coverage. 

Now, clearly, you can make changes in these practices quickly if 

you are willing to hammer a lot of providers, and there will be a 

lot of opposition to that in the short run. 

How do you see phasing in some incentives to go to these innovative approaches—they used to be characterized as ‘‘pay for performance,’’ but I think there are other kinds of approaches—so as to get 

acceptance in terms of the medical profession moving to the kinds 

of changes that you and Dr. Wennberg envision in terms of rewarding best practices? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I think at the heart of a lot of the problems that 

we have in the health care system is the lack of incentives for better care, and we need to move toward incentives on both the provider and the beneficiary side for better care rather than more 

care. 

What does that mean? It means first that we need to know what 

better care is, and that requires investments in health IT and a lot 

more research on what works and what does not so that we know 

what better care is. Second, we need to be exploring—and we could 

do this through pilot projects, we could do this aggressively 

through demo projects—different financial incentive schemes for 

providers. Do bonuses as opposed to penalties work better? Grouping accountable care organizations, does that work? All the various 

ways in which we can change the financial structure for providers, 

because, again, what happens in the current system is many providers are actually penalized for doing the right thing, and that 

makes no sense. They often have to give up something financial in 

order many times to get to better health outcomes for their patients by using a less intensive approach. And I do not think any 

of us would think that that makes much sense. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman CONRAD. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

your leadership, and you and Senator Gregg for thinking very seriously about the challenge of our fiscal outlook and trying to do 

something about it. 

Dr. Orszag, congratulations on your nomination. You certainly 

have a reputation of integrity and fairness. You certainly have the 

experience to understand exactly what is being talked about here 

today and the issues that relate to it, and you will be challenged. 

And you are a popular guy. A lot of people like you. But how long 

do you think that will last after you become OMB Director? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Not very long. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Are you prepared—let me just ask you that. 

You are Dr. Orszag. How about being ‘‘Dr. No’’? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am prepared, you know, and actually this is an 

aspect of the job at CBO, too, saying no. And I think my record 

there demonstrated that I am able to say no. And one of the things 

in my experience has been that it is not just whether you say no 

or not, but how you say it and whether you explain your reasoning, 

32 

and that people are much less likely to get as angry at you if you 

explain yourself clearly. So that is what I will try to do: not avoid 

saying no but, rather, explain the reasons for saying no, and engage the other side in a dialog so that at least you can understand 

why, if the answer is no. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, being nice about it probably helps. 

Mr. ORSZAG. A little. 

Senator SESSIONS. But it is remarkable, as Senator Gregg indicated, the excitement that is out there about the possibility of a big 

spending pot, and everybody wants a part of it. And your heart 

goes out to them, but a lot of the ideas are just not going to be 

stimulative of the economy. 

Do you agree with Senator Gregg—I think you do—that the purpose of the stimulus is to improve the economy as quickly as possible? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, I think there are two objectives. The first is 

to improve the economy as quickly as possible. And, second, to the 

extent that you are doing things, as Senator Gregg and others suggested, that may have somewhat slower spendout rates, you are 

doing things that then leave you in a better position in 5 or 10 

years, like infrastructure spending, for example, if it is well selected. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, there are some concerns that I have 

about the size of the stimulus package. Mr. Sunshine, CBO Director, in your chair just a few days ago projected that the economy 

would come out of this recession. And someone asked, ‘‘did it include the stimulus package’’, and he said ‘‘no’’. And the question to 

Mr. Sunshine was: ‘‘Well, would the stimulus package help?’’ He 

said, ‘‘It might.’’ And I thought, well, it will add $1 trillion to our 

debt. And he says it might improve the economy. And his assistant 

indicated, well, throwing this kind of money in the short run 

should help some. So we know that. But there are costs when you 

add another $1 trillion to the debt, are there not? We should not 

ignore the fact that for temporary advancement, we could suffer, 

we will pick up a long-term burden for decades to come with the 

debt. 

Mr. ORSZAG. There is a budgetary cost to addressing the current 

economic crisis, and, you know, there will be some effect over the 

medium to long term. What I would come back to saying, though, 

is over the medium to long term, the key really is rising health 

care costs and then, secondarily, Social Security and the demographic effects of the retirement of the baby boomers. Those are 

much, much larger over the next 5, 10, 75 years than any lingering 

effects from addressing the current economic crisis if we do act. 

Senator SESSIONS. USA Today, when this was all happening, had 

an article that said that an economy founded on huge governmental debt, huge personal debt, and a huge trade deficit is not a 

healthy economy. Would you agree? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I do agree with that. As we emerge from this downturn, we absolutely need to put the Nation on a sounder course. It 

is unsustainable for the world’s leading economic power to be saving 1 or 2 percent of its income, investing 7 or 8 percent of its income, and borrowing the difference from abroad year after year 

33 

after year. That will have to change. Markets will force a change 

if we do not act ahead of that forcing event. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, basically when President Bush took office—and he inherited a slowing economy—Nasdaq had lost half its 

value by the time President Bush took office. That bubble had 

burst. He basically decided, I think it is fair to say, that we should 

focus in the short term on creating jobs. And that is exactly the 

quote our Chairman gave from President-elect Barack Obama; we 

need not worry about the debt, we need to focus on the jobs. 

So is it your view that every time we go into an economic slowdown that we should spend $1 trillion to work our way out of it? 

Mr. ORSZAG. No. Two comments. The first is, again, the severity 

of the current downturn is beyond anything that I think we have 

seen, at least in my lifetime, and arguably since the Great Depression. 

Second, a preferable approach for more—I do not want to say 

‘‘normal downturns,’’ but for the typical downturn is for the various 

automatic stabilizers that already exist, so the fact that unemployment benefits rise and food stamp expenditures increase, revenues 

normally decline during an economic downturn, which provides 

some additional spending assistance to the economy—those automatic stabilizers help to mitigate economic fluctuations. 

The problem is the crisis that has hit has overwhelmed those stabilizers, and we are facing a difficulty, again, that is far in excess 

of a typical downturn. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, to our constituents, who favor infrastructure and highway improvements and that kind of thing, we 

are spending now about $40 billion a year on highways. I am not 

sure we can sustain doubling that. And certainly tripling that—if 

you tripled it, that would be $120 billion, and we are talking about 

an $800 billion to a $1 trillion stimulus package. So there is a limit 

to how much infrastructure we can get out of this money, and we 

have just got to be careful that when sums this large are dispensed, they are effective to accomplish the goal that we want to 

accomplish. And you will be a critical player in that discussion, and 

you are going to have to say no, I think. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CONRAD. I thank the gentleman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman, and—— 

Chairman CONRAD. If the Senator would withhold for one moment, we notice that the Chairman of the House Appropriations 

Committee, Congressman Obey, is here. I do not know if Congressman Obey would want to make a statement, but we would certainly welcome him to the Committee and thank him for his appearance. 

Senator GREGG. And can we give him our list while he is here? 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman CONRAD. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Peter, it is good to have you back. Welcome and congratulations 

on your appointment. Congratulations also on your family. I can remember when my kids were the age of your kids, and there is litVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Oct 16, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\46316.TXT SBUD1 PsN: TISH
34 

erally zero shot that mine would have been as well behaved 

through all this as yours have been so far. 

During the course of the Bush administration, the OMB has acquired the role and reputation of being the political fixer and hit 

man for the administration in agency regulatory proceedings. I do 

not think that is an appropriate or helpful role for OMB in the long 

run. I know that Cass Sunstein is coming on board, and he will 

probably be the lead person on trying to unwind that. 

You as the Director, obviously, will have an important voice in 

that. I am interested in your assurances that not only do you not 

consider that to be an appropriate role for OMB, but you would be 

happy to work with Professor Sunstein and others who are interested in this to figure out what sort of internal infrastructure can 

be done not only to stop doing that, but to prevent it or have 

alarms go off if future administrations should try to do it again. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Senator, yes, I would look forward to working with 

you, and if Cass Sunstein is confirmed as OIRA Administrator, 

which is part of OMB, I know that both he and I are committed 

to reinventing the OIRA process. And that is a big part of moving 

OMB as a whole toward sort of OMB 2.0, the new OMB, which we 

hope will work as well as possible. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. I applaud you for your intense 

focus on health care. I could have possibly thought when I got here 

that I knew more about health information technology and delivery 

system reform than you did, but you have drilled very hard into 

this in the last 2 years, and I think those positions have reversed 

themselves now. And I applaud you for having done that because 

I agree with you, it is an absolutely critical choice that our country 

faces. 

I would like your comment on this: As I see it, you have a need 

to advance electronic health records and computerization, health 

information technology, and its infrastructure. Two, you need to 

improve the quality of care that Americans receive and optimize 

the invention—economics word—make better the investment in 

prevention. That is an area that we underinvest in right now. And, 

finally, we need to make sure that what we are paying for is what 

we want and we are not sending mixed signals between what we 

claim to desire and what our financial policies direct. 

Those three techniques, I think—I am probably more bullish 

than anybody on what the prospects are for improved lives and 

lower expenditures as a result of those. But I am also pretty sanguine that it is going to take some time for those strategies to roll 

themselves out into the economy. 

The worry I have is that if we do not get started rapidly on those 

strategies, what is going to happen is that the coming tsunami, as 

the Ranking Member referred to it, will be at the door before they 

really have a chance to take hold. And then instead of having 

friendly toolbox A—health information technology, quality improvement, prevention, better payment mechanisms—we will have ugly 

toolbox B, which is pay providers less, throw people off coverage, 

thin out benefits even more, and raise taxes. 

Could you speak to the timing of all this? Because that latter 

toolbox you can pick up and apply tomorrow. It just happens to be 

a wicked toolbox to apply to this situation. And how much time do 

35 

you think we have to get the good toolbox in gear before we have 

to apply the tools from the wicked toolbox? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, I think you have identified a key tension, 

which is that many of these things will take time, perhaps more 

than 5 or 10 years, to really bear fruit, both in terms of cost and 

even in terms of quality and outcomes. In the meanwhile, we do 

face this stark and daunting fiscal problem of deficits of about 5 

percent of GDP or so that will need to be brought down. 

So, in a sense, there is a tension. One could perhaps consider tolerating medium-term deficits that are slightly higher than one 

would want, knowing that you are bringing the long-term deficits 

down. Or what would be required are more immediate steps, 

whether in health care or other areas of the budget, to bring the 

budget deficit down over the medium term, while also bringing 

down the long-term deficit. Those are the sorts of choices that, as 

the budget process throughout the years rolls forward, both you 

and a new administration will need to address. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I think I am making a slightly different 

point, thinking longer term about the health care problem per se, 

and that as that $35 trillion tsunami hits us, we cannot cope with 

that from a fiscal point of view, so we have to reduce the cost. And 

if we have not reduced the cost in the helpful, relatively benign 

ways of reforming the delivery system, then we are stuck with just 

whacking and bringing out the axe and cutting what providers get 

paid and whacking businesses with more taxes for health care. And 

that is something that I think is very much worth avoiding. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I agree. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But unless there is a lead time on the 

other one, we may not avoid it. The highway exits are not parallel. 

One, we drive by the delivery system highway exit long before we 

get to the fiscal axe highway exit. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes, and I think for that very reason, it is crucially 

important that we put in place as soon as possible or start building 

in place the infrastructure, as you termed it, to make more intelligent choices moving toward a more efficient health care system, 

so, health IT and comparative effectiveness and changes in the 

payment methodology, incentives and promotion of healthy living 

and prevention. We need to start now for precisely the reason that 

you suggested, which is that if we have not started and we do not 

have that infrastructure in place, as the time comes to be making 

hard decisions, you are going to be making them without—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Off a worse platform. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Off a much worse platform, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And so, your words, ‘‘now’’ and ‘‘as soon as 

possible.’’ 

Mr. ORSZAG. Absolutely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman CONRAD. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator CARDIN. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Orszag, I also want to thank you for your incredible public 

service, and say thanks to your family for sharing your father with 

36 

this Nation. And I am looking forward to you taking on the responsibility as the OMB Director. 

There has been a lot of discussion here about economic stabilization plan, and that obviously is of primary interest. We have got 

to get our economy back on track. But we will be talking soon 

about the 2010 budget. The budget, in my view, speaks to the priorities of our Nation; it speaks to how the Federal Government is 

going to be a partner in dealing with the problems of our country. 

Middle-income families are really stressed. You know that. You 

know what is happening in health care with so many people without health insurance and affordable health care. You know what is 

happening in housing with people trying to save their homes, and 

the lack of affordable housing, and the Federal Government’s role 

has shrunk over the past few years. You know what is happening 

on energy and the environment, what is happening with social programs in this country, where the Federal Government’s role has 

been diminished. 

So I just want to ask you a question. Let us assume that your 

estimates as CBO Director are accurate over the next 4 years, and 

let us assume also the budgets that you submit to Congress are 

acted upon favorably. What type of role do you see the Federal 

Government having 4 years from now that is different from today 

as it relates to the Federal Government’s role in providing affordable health care, affordable housing, and dealing with the fundamental problems that middle-income families are facing in this 

country? What changes do you anticipate we can look forward to? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well—and, again, the new administration would 

have much more to say in mid-to late February when the economic 

and budget overview is released and then more detail thereafter— 

but I think if you look at the President-elect’s statements during 

the campaign and what he is saying currently, clearly, among his 

top priorities, are moving toward a more efficient health care system with expanded coverage; a revitalized middle class, including 

through tax provisions and other support for the middle class. On 

housing, we clearly need to move out of the current downturn that 

is so severely affecting that sector. But beyond that, there are 

changes that could be made even as we emerge from the housing 

downturn for low- and middle-income households in terms of affordability and low-income housing in particular. 

And so I think if you start to—and you did not mention it, but 

energy is another—— 

Senator CARDIN. I did, energy and the environment. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I am sorry. Energy and environment are obviously 

also important, and then I would put education also. 

Senator CARDIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. ORSZAG. So if you go through health care—and, in fact, perhaps in that order, health care, energy, education, housing, and obviously support for the middle class being kind of an overarching 

theme—I think you are going to see a lot of energy activity surrounding those major items. 

Senator CARDIN. I would just make an observation. This Committee is required—and we need to—be very process oriented, and 

process gets us on a path where we need to be, and I applaud the 

37 

Chairman and Ranking Member for continually reminding all of us 

in the Senate about our responsibilities to balance the budget. 

But I think we also need to take a look at how effective the Federal Government is as a partner in dealing with these problems, 

and in many of these areas, even during good budgets, we have 

seen the Federal Government diminish its effective role in dealing 

with, for example, affordable housing. And I would just hope that 

at the end of the day you have made a difference and the Obama 

Administration has made a difference in the effectiveness of the 

Federal Government in dealing with these problems in partnership 

with our local governments and in partnership with the private 

sector. 

I want to ask you about one other issue in the time that remains, 

and that is, recruiting and retaining qualified Federal employees. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. I opposed the privatization initiative of the 

Bush administration, the OMB Revised A–76 Circular. This Congress took action to modify those provisions in the FY08 omnibus 

appropriations bill. My concern is that we have not had a level 

playing field in analyzing which Federal services should be performed by Federal civil servants and which should be privatized. 

I would just like to have your assurance that the privatization 

initiatives are going to be reviewed very carefully, that we are 

going to reward the retaining and recruiting of the most qualified 

people we can find in Federal service, understanding fundamental 

services that need to be performed by Federal employees, and having a fair method for looking at what should be done by private 

contractors and what should be done by Government workers. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Absolutely, Senator. And, in particular, I think the 

dividing line between what is inherently governmental and what is 

not has become too blurred in recent history and needs to be clarified. 

Second, there has not been enough attention paid to the impact 

of contracting out on the ability of the work force in a particular 

agency to continue to do what it needs to do—so, the human capital 

of the agency itself. 

Third, in terms of the contracts themselves, there has not been 

enough oversight and auditing of the contracts themselves. 

So there are in each area steps that need to be taken to improve 

performance in contracting out. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. 

I also just want to underscore a point that Senator Whitehouse 

made, and that is, I understand the budget rules and how scoring 

is required as far as our budgets are concerned. But we all know 

that in health care particularly, investing in technology, investing 

in better information sharing, investing in preventive health care, 

investing in ways in which we can get more competitive pricing for 

prescription medicines—all that is going to save money over time. 

And our budget scoring rules do not always give full credit for 

these initiatives, but we know at the end of the day they will 

produce a more cost-effective health care system, and that is where 

we need to be. 

I urge you to be creative in coming forward with ways in which 

we can reach those goals under our budget system and reward us 

38 

for expanding preventive health care, which the President-elect has 

talked about, because I fully support his efforts for preventive 

health care, for better pricing on prescription drugs, and for better 

use of medical technology and information technology. I think all 

those are areas result in a more cost-effective system, and we have 

got to bring those initiatives forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CONRAD. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MURRAY. Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Dr. 

Orszag, welcome and congratulations—I think—for your nomination to this position. I appreciate the conversations we have had already, the opportunity to talk and the followup, and thank you for 

your openness and willingness to work with us. You are taking on 

this task at a very, very challenging time. 

In my home State of Washington, we have seen institutions that 

I have grown up with and assumed would be there long after I am 

going leave: Washington Mutual shutting down, thousands of people out of work from that; this past Friday, the Seattle Post Intelligencer announcing that they are up for sale, probably closing. 

That is an institution that is leaving us. Boeing announcing this 

past week 4,500 job losses. We have got businesses and restaurants 

in every community whose doors are shut or that I never expected 

to see in my lifetime. So you are coming into a country at a time 

that is very worrisome for many people. 

I had an economic forum in Everett about 3 or 4 weeks ago 

where people jammed into the room to hear what we are going to 

do to help them feel stronger, and a gentleman in the audience 

asked me—he said he was trying to start a small business and was 

running into all kinds of problems and what we were going to do 

about that. And I asked him what the biggest barrier was, and he 

sort of stepped back and thought for a minute, and he said, ‘‘Fear.’’ 

And that really is something that we have got to get past, and that 

is why I think this economic recovery package is so important to 

begin to instill that confidence that we are working, that we are 

going to put people back to work, that we want this country to feel 

strong again, and that is such an important part of it. 

As part of that economic recovery, one of the things I am concerned about is that just putting the money out for jobs does not 

ensure that people have the skills to take on those jobs. We have 

a gap between the skills that people have and the skills that are 

going to be needed in the future economy that you are working so 

hard to plan and prepare for. 

Can you talk a little bit about how education and job training for 

the next generation of workers will be part of this stimulus? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I think there are two parts to that question. The 

first is, as you correctly noted, making sure that let us say, hypothetically speaking, there is a significant weatherization program, 

for example, that there are enough qualified workers to do the 

weatherization of the homes, which currently is an issue, and the 

training programs that are necessary to qualify people to do that 

kind of work would need to be part of the package in order for it 

to make sense to have a dramatically expanded weatherization program. And you can go down the list. Similarly, if you are interested 

39 

in dramatically expanding the electricity grid, you need to make 

sure that there are qualified workers who know how to do that. 

The second part of that, though—actually, I am going to give you 

three parts. The second part is, in the study that Christina Romer 

and Jared Bernstein released, the macroeconomic package as a 

whole will create significant numbers of jobs—they said 3 to 4 million, given the contours of the package that is under discussion— 

many of which will be in areas that might not be directly tied to 

the package itself. They identified indirect effects. So when the 

worker who was trained to weatherize the house has higher income 

and goes out and spends the money, that promotes spending on 

food and household appliances. And so workers in those industries 

have more jobs and higher income also. 

The final part involves education, and obviously there are significant concerns that are arising with regard to the primary and secondary education system as State and local governments are coming under stress, with regard to community colleges and others. 

State governments have played such a large role in our system of 

higher education, for example, that as an economic downturn hits, 

State governments come under pressure. Support from the State 

governments to higher education gets constricted. The effect is then 

felt at places like community colleges that have to cut back on 

teachers and other things. And so a question that has arisen is 

whether there can be assistance provided to education to try to 

mitigate some of that. And, in addition, State and local fiscal relief 

in general will help to mitigate some of those effects from occurring 

in the first place. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, we have a lot of work to do. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes. 

Senator MURRAY. And I want to work with you on that, but we 

have to remember those workers who are laid off need to get the 

skills for the kinds of jobs that we are providing. So we need to, 

I think, focus some effort on that. 

I also wanted to talk to you about the EM budget in DOE. As 

you know, there has been a lot of discussion about the future of our 

energy system, and many are looking to the Department of Energy 

to play a really critical role in that effort. And I am supportive of 

that. However, there are other jobs at the Department of Energy 

that we have to attend to. 

Are you aware that the Environmental Management mission accounts for about 25 percent of the DOE budget? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Roughly. I cannot commit to 25 percent, but a significant share. 

Senator MURRAY. It is. About a quarter of that budget goes to 

that. And they are responsible for the cleanup of our nuclear waste 

sites across the country. We have a moral and a legal obligation— 

I wish we did not, but we do—to clean up those sites. Hanford is 

in my home State. I wish it was in someone else’s, but it is not. 

And I am responsible, as we all are, for making sure we fund that. 

But there are other States, too. Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Tennessee, and New York all have sites, and to make progress on 

cleaning up these so they do not continually be something that I 

have to go talk to Chairman Obey about, we need to put in enough 

funds to reduce the sites there. We are actually paying quite a bit 

40 

now for what we call ‘‘hotel costs,’’ just keeping the lights on. If we 

can use this time to get significant funding in there to reduce the 

size of those sites, it will be cost effective in the future. And I wondered if you could talk to me a little bit not only about that, but 

about making sure we have got the funding in the future to do the 

cleanup of those sites. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Well, again, I am very aware of the importance of 

the issue. I know Secretary-designate Chu and others are also focused on it, so we will have a lot more to say, again, in the context 

of the fiscal year 2010 budget. The issue has also arisen, as you 

know, with regard to an Economic Recovery Act. 

So I will assure you that I am focused on it, and more details 

will be forthcoming. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. Thank you very much. We had an opportunity to discuss in my office and on the phone several times a 

number of other issues, and I really appreciate your willingness to 

work with us and your ability to communicate with us in a way 

that all of us can understand. I appreciate that a lot. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Chairman CONRAD. That is a gift. 

Senator NELSON. Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Dr. Orszag. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Good morning. 

Senator NELSON. I have just a couple of questions, but I want to 

offer some advice. A long time ago, as a pup Congressman, I was 

assigned to the House Budget Committee. Shortly before the Budget Act had been enacted, Chairman Obey was already a veteran of 

the House at that time, and we rocked along pretty good under the 

Budget Act. And it was doing what it was designed to do, which 

was impose fiscal discipline on the spending process. 

But then along came a former member of the Budget Committee 

named David Stockman, who was put in the position that you are 

about to enter, and it began the long series of the budget document 

not being used as a budget or fiscal document but as a political document. And I want to encourage you—this is my advice—with the 

fresh start that the new President is starting, to be transparent; 

do not make it a political document; make it a budget document 

on how we are going to have sanity and common sense in the budgetary and appropriations process and entitlement process of the 

U.S. Government. That is my piece of advice. 

And I would offer another one that is relevant to the current 

process of determining what is going to be the fiscal stimulus. Senator Murray had talked to you about how we have got to have help 

for education and health at the State level. But that presupposes 

that at the State level, the State legislators and Governors are 

doing their part, too. And I think if you look around, you will find 

some States that they are basically refusing to produce the revenue. As a result, they are whacking their budgets, and they are 

easily turning their heads toward Washington to get a bailout for 

what otherwise had been an irresponsible approach to fiscal policy 

in those States in balancing the revenue and spending needs of 

those States. So I hope you will take—and I can tell you I speak 

41 

for a number of Senators, because we have discussed this, and we 

discussed it with Larry Summers last Sunday. 

Now, a couple of questions that I want to ask you, and I am 

going to put on a parochial hat, but these are issues that I deal 

with every day: preserving the environment, in this particular case 

the Everglades, whose environmental impact is far beyond the 

State of Florida; and the necessary projects to reverse what mankind has messed up in this Everglades Restoration Plan. In the 

2000 bill, Everglades Restoration Plan, it was 50/50 Federal and 

State, but the Federal Government under the Bush administration 

has not come up with its appropriate share, and we have got to correct that. And there are a number of big projects that are ready 

to go. I want to put that on your radar scope. 

Now, the other one that I feel passionately about—and this is not 

just a parochial hat. Obviously, it involves part of my constituency. 

But this is to rekindle the spirit of adventure, exploration, and inventory. And there is nothing better than the space program. 

Now, I have visited with the President-elect over the course of 

our Senate careers, and then clearly over the course of the campaign, and he has made the most definitive, detailed policy statement on the future of America’s space exploration program, more 

so than any other candidate for President in the history of this 

country. 

Again, the Bush administration starved NASA of the funds. They 

laid out a great vision, but they starved NASA. And as a result, 

we are in the unenviable position of shutting down a launch vehicle 

in 2010, namely, the Space Shuttle, and we do not even have access to our own International Space Station. We are going to have 

to buy rides from the Russians. And who knows what the geopolitics is going to be in 2011 to 2015, this 5-year period that we 

are not going to have a human-rated American vehicle to get to our 

own Space Station. We can correct that, and the President-elect 

has stated so during the campaign by putting the appropriate resources, not only investing funds in NASA but other agencies that 

drive innovation that this country needs. 

Somewhere down there are two questions. I would like you to reflect on that. 

Mr. ORSZAG. OK. Do you want to remind me of what the two 

questions are? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator NELSON. Space innovation and Everglades restoration. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Yes, OK. On both topics, obviously those are crucially important issues. Let me take NASA as an example. 

I am aware of the statements that have been made. I know the 

President-elect—those statements reflect a shared passion that you 

have, and so we will be looking carefully at that topic. 

I do want to just remind ourselves that partly because of the environment that we are inheriting, the fiscal environment that we 

are inheriting, the out-year deficits are going to require a lot of 

scrutiny, and there are going to be lots of things that we would like 

to do that we are not going to be able to do. Those judgments have 

not been made yet, but I do want to just say vis-a-vis Senator Sessions’ point, unfortunately, as we look out over the medium to long 

term, again, we face the prospect of very significant deficits. So 

42 

there are lots of things that we will want to do that we are going 

to have to take a very careful look at and examine carefully in 

terms of whether we can actually afford to do them or not. And I 

am not speaking specifically about NASA or Everglades or anything else specifically at this point, but just a blanket statement 

that when we come back in mid-to late February and thereafter, 

we will need to work carefully with you to make sure that within 

that constrained budget environment, the priorities are things we 

all share. 

Senator NELSON. Now, we are talking about the stimulus bill. 

Mr. ORSZAG. I was talking about the out-year numbers, since you 

had mentioned some of the long-term—— 

Senator NELSON. I am talking about the stimulus bill. 

Mr. ORSZAG. The details of the stimulus bill I think you have already been in some discussions on, and I am aware of both of those 

topics coming up with regard to discussions about the Economic 

Recovery Act. 

Senator NELSON. To the contrary, the discussion on Sunday was 

devoid of details with Mr. Summers. When are we going to get 

those details? 

Mr. ORSZAG. My understanding is that there are ongoing discussions. I am not in a position to give you a firm date right now. 

Senator NELSON. Well, isn’t the President-elect supposed to make 

a statement today offering details? I mean, aren’t we at the point 

that we are going to vote this week on TARP? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Again, I think the TARP legislation is on a different 

track from the Economic Recovery Act. I do not believe there will 

be a vote on the Economic Recovery Act this week. 

Senator NELSON. Well, don’t we need to know some details of 

how you intend to spend TARP? 

Mr. ORSZAG. Again, I will defer to both Mr. Summers and Secretary-designate Geithner on the TARP piece. I do not think it is 

possible at this point for me to give you the precise full plan for 

how the TARP moneys will be allocated in the future post-January 

20th. 

Senator NELSON. All right. This is part of the transparency—— 

Chairman CONRAD. I would just say to the Senator, the Senator’s 

time has expired, and we have got to go to the next confirmation. 

Senator NELSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will stop with this. This 

is part of the new breath of fresh air that I am talking about and 

the transparency that is needed. 

Now, it is my understanding that by Thursday or maybe Friday, 

we are going to vote on whether or not to expand an additional 

$350 billion of TARP money, the first $350 billion of which none 

of us are satisfied how it has been spent. And I think in this era 

of freshness and transparency that the new administration would 

want to come forth with detail instead of this mumbo-jumbo that 

is going on. 

Chairman CONRAD. I would just say to the Senator, we received 

a letter now from Mr. Summers yesterday outlining how they 

would change the expenditure of funds under the TARP. I do think 

we have got to keep these different categories separated. So, with 

respect to the TARP, they have now come forward with a letter 

that we would be happy to share—the gentleman perhaps has not 

43 

seen it because it came to my office late yesterday—with respect 

to what they would do to change TARP funding. And I think the 

gentleman will be quite pleased, because I know the Senator from 

Florida has been very clear about the mistakes made by the current administration with respect to expenditure of TARP funds. I 

think he will be quite pleased with the new direction. 

With respect to the economic recovery package, that is now going 

to come sometime later, which will give us all additional time to 

scrub the details. And the Senator is quite right that it is critically 

important that it be transparent and clear. For that reason, the 

Committees of immediate jurisdiction have been given some additional time so that all of us can have a chance to review and have 

input on those details. 

With that, I want to thank Mr. Orszag for his testimony here 

today. Let me just say that here is the circumstance the Committee 

faces. 

The parliamentarian has advised us that it would be inappropriate to hold a Committee vote in relation to any potential nomination until the papers have been received in the Senate. The papers will not be received until the 20th. The 20th obviously is the 

inaugural day, and we would then have to try to convene the Committee for a vote if we are to get a confirmation on that day. I 

think that is fraught with difficulty. I think it is highly unlikely 

we could accomplish that. 

The second alternative is to have the Committee discharged on 

a unanimous consent agreement so that you could be confirmed on 

the 20th. And it is my intention to pursue that route, I say to my 

colleagues on the Committee. We have talked to the offices of the 

members of the Committee, and we have strong agreement, but I 

want to obviously reserve until the hearing is complete for Mr. 

Nabors, because we would like to handle his confirmation in the 

same way, and it is only right that we complete the hearing before 

a final decision is made. But I want to indicate that is my intention. 

The other alternative would be to have a vote. That would require 48 hours notice of a markup, and instead of having that 

delay, given the severity of the circumstance we are in, it seems 

to me the appropriate approach is to have the Committee discharged based on unanimous consent, and that is the approach 

that I will pursue. I have already talked to the Ranking Member 

about that approach, and we hope to have a conclusion later today. 

Again, Dr. Orszag, thank you very much for your service at the 

Congressional Budget Office. This Committee looks forward to 

working with you at the Office of Management and Budget. You 

take on an enormous responsibility here, and I know you are acutely aware of it. All of us have extraordinary responsibility given the 

seriousness of the economic conditions facing the country. So this 

is going to demand our very, very best, and I know that that is 

your intention and your commitment, and we look forward to your 

service. 

Mr. ORSZAG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CONRAD. Thank you, Dr. Orszag. 

We will now consider the nomination of Rob Nabors to be the 

Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

44 

I want to begin by welcoming a distinguished colleague from the 

House, the Appropriations Committee Chairman, David Obey. 

Chairman Obey, we look forward very much to your statement introducing Mr. Nabors, and we are very appreciative that you are 

here. I also want to welcome Mr. Nabors’ family, who I understand 

is here. I think they are on their way. 

Rob Nabors is somebody who is ideally suited for this job. As 

President-elect Obama stated in announcing his selection, ‘‘No one 

is more able or more qualified to assist Peter Orszag in this work 

than Robert Nabors.’’ 

Rob has served on the House Appropriations Committee since 

2001, has been the Democratic Staff Director there since 2004, including the last 2 years as Majority Staff Director. Before that, Rob 

served at OMB as senior adviser to the Director and then as Assistant Director for Administration and Executive Secretary. 

So Rob Nabors brings a wealth of experience to this position. His 

experience and knowledge in the appropriations and budget process 

will serve him well, especially with the perspective of both the executive and legislative branches. 

I have every confidence that Rob will be a great asset to the 

Obama Administration and the American people in this new role, 

and I want to thank him for his willingness to continue to serve. 

I know there are other things one could do in life that would be 

better compensated and perhaps less stressful, but this is important for the country. 

As with Dr. Orszag, we hope to have his confirmation completed 

as soon as possible after President-elect Obama is sworn in. With 

that, I want to welcome his wife, Theresa; his daughter, Georgia; 

and his son, Jude. We welcome you all to the Senate Budget Committee. I know you are proud of your Dad, and we are proud of him 

as well. 

Congressman Obey, it is a pleasure and an honor to welcome you 

and to recognize you for any statement. 

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

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Mr. OBEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say first of 

all, this is a very hard admission for a Member of the House to 

make, but I could not find a single thing that you said that I disagreed with. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBEY. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I commend Rob 

Nabors to you with a considerable degree of mixed feelings. He is 

a great gain for the executive branch of Government, assuming he 

is confirmed, but he is a great loss to the Congress as an institution. He is a person of great ability. He is a person of great wisdom 

of integrity. And I have never worked with anyone in my life who 

works as hard as he does. 

Mathematics is the universal language, but so is pain and so is 

the human hunger for opportunity. And I think Rob Nabors recognizes that budgets, while they may look like mathematics, in fact, 

they deliver both pain and opportunity to millions of people, not 

just in this country but around the world. And Rob fully recognizes 

that and acts like it every day. 

45 

Mr. Chairman, he brings a special quality to this job that I think 

is badly needed at this time. We are in the midst of the greatest 

economic crisis in our lifetime, certainly our professional lifetimes, 

and to get through it, the executive and legislative branches of 

Government are going to have to work with each other with a degree of thoughtfulness and respect that has all too often been missing in recent years. Rob understands and respects both branches 

of Government. He has deep service in both. He will provide toughminded service to the country and will help build an atmosphere 

of respect that is crucial to not only the executive branch functioning well but the Congress functioning well in relationship to 

the executive branch. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here. I must confess, however, that there is one serious shortcoming that concerns me greatly. I am very concerned about the incredible concentration of power 

that you are going to have in this administration in the hands of 

Chicago White Sox fans. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBEY. As a Chicago Cubs fan myself, I note that the President, his Chief of Staff, and his to-be Deputy Budget Director are 

all White Sox fans. All I can say is that nobody is perfect, and I 

hope you will overlook that defect in his otherwise sterling character. 

Chairman CONRAD. Well, I thank Chairman Obey. It is an honor 

for this Committee to have Chairman Obey come to this chamber 

to give a recommendation to Mr. Nabors, and it makes a great impression on this Committee. 

With respect to the White Sox, I am reliably assured that they 

are going to be AAA this year. You know, I am an Orioles fan, and 

it has been a pretty tough 10 years. 

Mr. Nabors, our rules require you to be sworn, so if you would 

please stand? If you would raise your right hand, do you swear that 

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

whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. NABORS. I do. 

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

and answer any questions that members of this Committee might 

have? 

Mr. ORSZAG. I do. 

Chairman CONRAD. I thank you and you may be seated. And 

please proceed with your testimony. 

Chairman Obey, as you depart, thank you very much for being 

here on Mr. Nabors’ behalf. 

Mr. OBEY. Thank you. 

Chairman CONRAD. It makes a great impression on this Committee. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. NABORS II, OF NEW JERSEY, TO BE 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. NABORS. Mr. Chairman, I am honored by the opportunity to 

come before you as the President-elect’s nominee for the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I would like to 

thank Mr. Obey for his introduction, and I would like to acknowlVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Oct 16, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\46316.TXT SBUD1 PsN: TISH
46 

edge and thank my family without whose support I would not be 

here. 

I would also like to associate myself with the remarks made by 

Dr. Orszag concerning the state of the economy, and in the interest 

of time, I will close and answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nabors follows:] 

47 


46316.040
48 


46316.041
49 

Chairman CONRAD. Mr. Nabors, first of all, as I indicated in the 

introduction, you have a sterling record and reputation. You can be 

very proud of it. As we did our due diligence on your nomination, 

I was really struck by the depth and breadth of your support, the 

number of members that have served with you, Republicans and 

Democrats, who spoke highly of your competence, of your fairness, 

and of your integrity. So I want you to know you can feel very good 

about how others feel about you and the public statements that 

they have made. 

I want to ask you, as I asked Dr. Orszag, first of all, it is critically important that the Budget Committee, as we discussed privately, be advised of plans by the administration. We know that 

you are required to consult with the authorizing committees, the 

Appropriations Committee, the Finance Committee. It is also critically important that the Budget Committee be kept advised of 

plans of the administration, because, as you know, virtually all of 

these things have a budget impact. And you have pledged to this 

Committee that you will bend your best efforts to make certain 

that that happens. Maybe we could just have you respond to that 

for the record. 

Chairman CONRAD. The understanding would be that when there 

are matters that are before the Office of Management and Budget 

that have implications for this Committee, you will be willing to 

keep staff and members briefed and advised. Is that correct? 

Mr. NABORS. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CONRAD. I appreciate that. 

Let me talk a little about the extraordinary circumstances we 

confront as a country with the debt. I believe the debt will go up 

approaching $2 trillion this year. We say that in the context of a 

debt that is already $10.6 trillion, and this is more than numbers 

on a page. You know, sometimes I think people react to the work 

on budgets something the way Chairman Obey described, that this 

is really an exercise in mathematics. And this is so much more 

than that. 

The budget is really a reflection of the priorities of the American 

people. Where are they going to put their resources the best to assure their economic futures, the best to assure that people have the 

greatest opportunity available to them, the best to assure our common defense, the best to assure that people have health care that 

is affordable and available, the best to assure that the quality of 

life in this country is everything that it can be? 

So a budget, as you know, is so much more than numbers on a 

page. Help us understand what you see your responsibility as being 

in this position. How do you see what is being asked of you? 

Mr. NABORS. I think when the President-elect considered my appointment, my nomination, there were two things in my background that would be useful as Deputy Director of OMB. The first 

is my experience dealing with the programmatic impacts of macro 

budgetary decisions. It is important to be cognizant of the overall 

fiscal condition, but I also think it is important to recognize the impact that each micro decision that goes into creating that macro 

budget actually has. And that is something that I have been working on since my career began in 1996 in the Federal Government. 

50 

I think the second thing that I bring to these types of discussions 

is a sense of this cannot just be a discussion within the administration. This really is a national set of priorities, a national conversation that needs to occur. And based on my work in the Congress, 

working with Members on both sides of the aisle, working with 

Members both in the House and in the Senate, I think that there 

was a belief that I would be someone who could communicate effectively within the administration what the views of a Congress 

would actually be so that that could be accommodated within the 

President’s budget as well. 

Chairman CONRAD. Well, you say it very well. You know, putting 

together a budget for the United States of America is a daunting 

undertaking. It requires literally thousands of decisions that affect 

tens of millions of people’s lives and affects the most fundamental 

elements of our national future. So you are being given an extraordinary responsibility and an opportunity. 

Tell us, if you can, at the end of your service, what would you 

like for people to say about Rob Nabors? What would you like your 

legacy to be? 

Mr. NABORS. I think I would answer that in three ways. 

One, I did begin my career in Federal service at the Office of 

Management and Budget. As a result, the institution means a lot 

to me, and I think the opinions of the career staff at OMB means 

a lot to me. So, to the extent that the career staff at OMB believe 

that at the end of my tenure I have improved not just the quality 

of their work process at OMB, but have made a discernible difference in the quality of the product that is produced for the President, I would be very proud of that. 

I think, second, I would be—I would want people to look back at 

the decisions that were made within the administration and know 

that it was not just a numerical exercise; that the implications of 

each of the decisions on people were considered at the time when 

budget decisions were considered. I think that is the second point. 

And I think the third point is that if people would look back and 

say that the tough decisions that were necessary in order to bring 

our budget back into a more sustainable alignment were made and 

that those decisions were made in a way that were fair to all of 

the factors involved, I think those three things would for me be a 

successful tenure at OMB. 

Chairman CONRAD. Could I offer a fourth? 

Mr. NABORS. Please. 

Chairman CONRAD. That you always have North Dakota in mind. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NABORS. I will add that fourth. 

Chairman CONRAD. Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I add a 

fifth—that after North Dakota, he remembers New Jersey? 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman CONRAD. I am not sure there is much left for New Jersey. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Really? That is what I was afraid of. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I always say you can tell 

the mark of talented people by knowing where they got their start, 

51 

and Mr. Nabors was born in Fort Dix, New Jersey. In fact, we can 

clearly see the impact the Garden State has had on him. 

Chairman CONRAD. So he always will have New Jersey in mind. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Well, I certainly hope so. But welcome to the 

Committee. I appreciate your path of public service. It is a commendable and a model for many to admire. I am fortunate to have 

served in the House when you were serving on the House Appropriations Committee, and I saw the incredible talent you had working with all of the different parties at work there, as well as all 

of the challenges in a very difficult period of time. And so I thought 

you did extremely well there, and I think you will serve very well 

at OMB. 

I have two sets of questions I just want to get your sense of. We 

obviously have enormously challenging time ahead of us. The 

President-elect has talked about a line-by-line review of the budget. 

Give us a perspective of what is the proper way to evaluate Federal 

programs and agencies during these tough economic times. What 

comes first: simply having a goal to cut and to fit targets, or developing policies that ensure the maximum benefit for the public? 

And, second, as part of all of that, how do you see OMB and 

Nancy Killefer, the President-elect’s Chief Performance Officer, 

working with the Congress to finalize these appropriation bills as 

we move forward? Give a little sense of what you expect to come? 

Mr. NABORS. Well, I think in terms of evaluating programs and 

making decisions, I do not think we can start from a position of 

just cutting. I think that, first, we need to evaluate the programs 

with regard to whether the programs are sufficiently—are playing 

an important governmental role. I think, two, we need to look at 

the effectiveness of the program. And, three, I think that we need 

to evaluate what the shortfall would be in the overall economy and 

within the overall society if the Federal Government was not performing that function. 

I think as we evaluate the programs across the Federal Government, one of the things that we hope to do is to be sensitive to the 

fact that, yes, tough decisions have to be made in order to get the— 

to return our budget to an over all sense of balance, but at the 

same time, they have to be done with the sense that each program 

affects real people, and we cannot just cut things assuming that everything is going to be fine if these programs disappear. So we are 

going to have to make tough decisions, but the tough decisions 

have to be made with a sense of who these programs will actually 

be affecting. 

I think second, with regard to the Deputy Director for Management-designate and the President’s nominee for CPO, Nancy 

Killefer, I see her being an incredible partner with myself, with Dr. 

Orszag, and with the Congress in terms of coming up with real 

metrics as to how effective these programs have been. I think one 

of the issues that has come up, as previous administrations have 

evaluated programs, is that there really has not been enough interaction with other stakeholders, including the Congress, as to exactly how programs should be evaluated. There are many, many 

levels upon which programs could and should be evaluated, and I 

think too often those decisions have been made behind closed doors. 

52 

I think one of the things that you will see with myself and with 

Ms. Killefer is more openness in terms of sitting down with the affected parties and with other stakeholders to determine exactly 

how programs should be measured. 

Senator MENENDEZ. I appreciate that. Let me take one provincial 

issue and give you a sense of why it will be important—and I appreciate the answer—as to how we look at the totality of how we 

go about making these difficult decisions. 

You know, we have an incredibly important coastline in New Jersey, which is the second driver of our economy, and it is beaches. 

And the beach replenishment issue has always been a challenging 

issue under the budget. I am sure you are familiar with that from 

the days on the appropriations side and people like Congressman 

Pallone and others who are advocates of this. 

You know, that is an issue in which some will argue that that 

is not a good investment of Federal money. I would say that if you 

look at it in the context of the importance of jobs, what drives that 

tourism industry to that part of New Jersey from the entire region 

is its beaches. We are talking about a couple million jobs that are 

generated as a result of that. We are talking about the property 

values. We are talking about the environment. We are talking 

about dealing with northeasters and the continual erosion that ultimately moves on to the property side of those communities, of 

which there is a whole slew along the waterfront, that would have 

real consequences if, in fact, the beaches are not there as a buffer 

to the northeasters. 

So that is a simple example—and I could go on—about how that 

particular program has many dimensions. It is about jobs. It is 

about the economy. It is about the environment. It is about public 

protection along the way. And so I appreciate your answer of looking at the totality of how we judge a program to make a decision 

as to whether it is effective or not. 

Is that a fair example of what you would be thinking about? 

Mr. NABORS. Yes, sir. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MURRAY [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator 

Menendez. 

Mr. Nabors, welcome to the Committee, and thank you for your 

willingness to take this on. I have watched you across the way in 

many conference committees, and I look forward to working with 

you in this new position. 

As you do know, I serve as Chairman of the Transportation and 

Housing Appropriations Committee, and I want to put that hat on 

for a moment here and talk to you about a housing issue that I 

know that you are familiar with. For years, HUD has been playing 

games with the Section 8 project-based account, and in order to accommodate the cuts that were ordered by the White House, HUD 

began the practice of shortening the 12-month contracts it had with 

project owners paying for them for just a few months at a time. 

That allowed HUD to move costs into a future fiscal year and essentially kick the costs of the program down the road. 

As a result of that, there is now a huge gap or shortfall between 

the full cost of these contracts and the resources that HUD has to 

53 

pay them. That shortfall is now estimated to be about $2.2 billion, 

so this is a practice that cannot continue. 

The consequences of this game-playing are not limited to our 

Federal budget. This program serves about 1 million of our Nation’s most vulnerable people, and their housing is now at risk because HUD has gotten the reputation as a deadbeat partner in 

many of our housing communities. So I wanted to ask you about 

that and ask if you agree that addressing that project-based problem is important to the development and preservation of our lowincome housing. 

Mr. NABORS. Well, thank you very much, ma’am. I have been 

aware of this issue for the last year or two, and I think that in 

many ways this issue symbolizes many of the problems that we 

face with the Federal Government. 

First, it is not clear to me exactly how we ended up in this position where there is such a lack of confidence in the Federal Government that lenders—or, excuse me, that landlords may think that 

it is in their benefit to actually not do business with the Federal 

Government. But the fact that there is the potential for that lack 

of confidence is very, very disturbing, and it is something that we 

need to address very quickly. 

I think, second, this issue suggests a lack of transparency in Federal budgeting that has been—that we really need to address if we 

truly want to understand the programmatic costs of the activities 

that we are undertaking. 

And I think, third, I think that there has to be some accountability for how we ended up in this situation. Within that framework, we will absolutely be making this a priority to evaluate as 

soon as the administration begins, if I am confirmed. 

Senator MURRAY. Can I have your commitment then to work 

with me to find an appropriate solution to this problem? 

Mr. NABORS. Absolutely. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. I appreciate that. 

You and I have talked before about the dire straits that our Nation’s transmission system is in. President-elect Obama wants to 

bring online massive quantities of renewable resources. I agree 

with that—wind, solar. And I agree that it is an important step to 

do that in order to get to a sustainable energy future. But in order 

to bring all of those renewable resources online, we have to make 

some very long neglected investments in our transmission system 

so that we can bring those resources from the rural areas where 

they are being developed and put online into our urban areas and 

to our users. 

As you I think are aware, BPA owns and operates about 75 percent of our Northwest region transmission lines, and it is now making plans to upgrade infrastructure and build some of those needed 

new lines. Including $5 billion in additional borrowing authority for 

BPA in any stimulus proposal is really key to integrating those renewable resources like wind onto that grid. We have got about 

4,700 megawatts of wind that is ready to go, waiting to be integrated once that new transmission system is up. And, by the way, 

we will create thousands of good jobs along the way. 

54 

I wanted to ask you about your thoughts on investing in the 

transmission infrastructure, particularly in terms of the economic 

recovery plan. 

Mr. NABORS. Well, I think as Dr. Orszag laid out earlier, there 

are several criteria that we are using to evaluate the types of items 

that might be included in a recovery package. One would be bang 

for the buck, ensuring that it actually puts people to work. Second 

is transforming our economy, moving our economy from a 20th century economy to a 21st century economy. 

I think that upgrading our transmission system fits in perfectly 

with both of those criteria, and it is something that we are looking 

very seriously at right now. 

Senator MURRAY. OK, good. In my State, we, of course, rely on 

hydropower, as I think you are aware, and it is very important 

now—and we are conscious about a lot of global warming and climate change issues—that renewable energy, cheap production, particularly in the Northwest, and relying on those is important. We 

need to invest in some of those hydropower projects now, and I 

hope that we get your support to do that, as they need maintenance and upgrading, too. We want to make sure they stay online, 

and I just wanted to bring that to your attention, and I hope we 

can work with you on that. 

Mr. NABORS. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MURRAY. Obviously, there are no other Committee members here. I have a couple of other issues. You know that I care 

deeply about education and job investment and work force training. 

You heard me earlier talk about that, and I am positive you will 

hear me talk to your more about that in the future. 

But, again, I really do appreciate your willingness to take on this 

task at a critically important time for our Nation as we face the 

economic challenges that we have, and I look forward to moving 

you as quickly as we can to get on the job and get going. So congratulations to you. 

With that, we will adjourn this Committee and look forward to 

your confirmation. 

Mr. NABORS. Thank you, ma’am. 

[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

55 

United States Senate 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

ROOM SD-624

(202) 224-0642

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6250

STATEMENT OF BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL 

INFORMATION REQUESTED OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 

1. Name: 

Peter Richard Orszag 

2. Position to which nominated 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

3. Date of nomination 

January 20, 2009 

4. Address: 

(redacted) 

5. Date and place of birth: 

December 16, 1968; Boston, Massachusetts 

6. Martial status: 

Divorced 

7. Names and ages of children: 

(redacted) 

8. Education: 

London School of Economics 

Attended 10/1994 to 06/1995 and 11/1996 to 01/1997 

Ph.D. in economics awarded March 1997 

London School of Economics 

Attended 08/1991 to 06/1992 

MSc. in econonmics awarded in June 1992 

Princeton University 

Attended 08/1987 to 07/1991 

A.B. in economics awarded June 1991 

Phillips Exeter Academy 

Attended 12/1985 to 07/1987 

High School Diploma awarded July 1987 

9. Employment Record: 

56 


46316.017
57 


46316.018
58 

10. Government Experience: 

Intern, Senator Thomas Daschle 

317 Hart Senate Office Building 

Employed from 03/1987 to 05/1987 

11. Business relationships: 

Competition Policy Associates, Director, 2003-2007 

Sebago Associates, Director, 2002-2007 

Orszag Association Limited Partnership, limited partner 1988-2006 

12. Memberships: 

National Academy of Social Insurance (current member) 

Institute of Medicine, National Academies of Sciences (current member) 

Council of Foreign Relations (previously held term membership) 

America Economic Association (former member) 

Pension Rights Center (previous member of board) 

Center for American Progress (previous member of academic advisory board) 

13. Political affiliations and activities 

(a) List all office with a political party which you have held or any public office for 

which you have been a candidate. 

None. 

(b) List all memberships and office held in and services rendered to all political parties or election committees during the last 10 years. 

None. 

(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 

5 years. 

05/09/2006-$1000; Judy Feder for Congress 

05/09/2006-$1000; Actblue 

09/24/2002-$250; Wofford for Congress 

14. Honors and awards: 

Awarded London School of Economics M.Sc. Economic Prize, June 1992 

Awarded Marshall Scholarship, 1991-1992 

Awarded John Glover Wilson Memorial Prize in Economics, June 1991 

Inducted into Phi Beta Kappa, June 1991 

Received and A.B. summa cum laude in economics, Princeton University, June 1991 

15. Published writings: 

59 


46316.019
60 


46316.020
61 


46316.021
62 


46316.022
63 


46316.023
64 


46316.024
65 


46316.025
66 


46316.026
67 


46316.027
68 


46316.028
69 


46316.029
70 


46316.030
71 


46316.031
72 


46316.032
73 


46316.033
74 


46316.034
75 


46316.035
76 


46316.036
77 

16. Speeches: 

78 


46316.100
79 


46316.101
80 


46316.102
81 


46316.103
82 


46316.104
83 

17. Selection: 

(a) What do you believe in your background or employment experience affirmatively 

qualifies you for this particular appointment? 

I have extensive expertise in budget and economic matters. I have researched, written and spoken on these issues extensively while Director of the Congressional 

Budget Office and a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute. 

(b) Were any conditions, expressed or implied, attached to your nomination: If so, 

please explain. 

No. 

(c) Have you made any commitment(s) with respect to the policies and principles 

you will attempt to implement in the position for which you have been nominated? 

If so, please identify such commitment(s) and all persons to whom such commitments have been made. 

No. 

B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS 

1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers, business firms, business associations or business organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? 

Yes. I have a custodial account which contains funds from the sale of my former 

employer, Competition Policy Associates to FTI Consulting. In the future, funds will 

be released into this account, but I no longer have any connection or employment 

with FTI Consulting or Competition Policy Associates. Details of the account have 

been disclosed on the SF 278 form. 

2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service with the government? If 

so, please explain. 

No. 

3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after completing government 

service to resume employment, affiliation or practice with your previous employer, 

business firm, association or organization? 

No. 

4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any capacity after 

you leave government service? If so, please identify such person(s) and commitment(s) and explain. 

No. 

5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? If not, please explain. 

Yes. 

C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

1. If confirmed, are there any issues from which you may have to recuse or disqualify yourself because of a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of 

interest? If so, please explain. 

None. 

2. Identify and describe all investments, obligations, liabilities, business relationships, dealings, financial transactions, and other financial relationships which you 

currently have or have had during the last 10 years, whether for yourself, on behalf 

of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a 

possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been nominated. 

None. In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office 

of Government Ethics and the Office of Management and Budget’s designated agency ethics official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of 

interest will be resolved in accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement with 

the Office’s designated agency ethics official. 

84 

3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have engaged for the 

purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat or modification of 

any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public policy 

other than while in a federal government capacity. 

I filed a brief with Joseph Stiglitz explaining the economic and policy rationales for 

allowing foreigners harmed by global cartels to file suits in the United States. 

‘‘Brief of Amici Curiae Economists’’ (with Joseph E. Stiglitz), F. Hoffman-LaRoche 

Ltd., et al., v. Empagran S. A., et al., Supreme Court of the United States, March 

15, 2004 

Additional activites directly or indirectly seeking to influence legislation include: 

‘‘The Impact of Asbestos Liabilities on Workers in Bankrupt Firms,’’ with Joseph E. 

Stiglitz and Jonathan M. Orszag, Journal of Bankruptcy Law and Practice, Volume 

12, Issue No. 1, February 2003. (Paper was orginally commissioned by the American 

Insurance Association) 

‘‘An Economic Assessment of the Exclusive Contract Prohibition Between Vertically 

Integrated Cable Operators and Programmers,’’ with Jonathan M. Orszag and John 

M. Gale, Filed in Conjunction with Reply Comments Submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (CS Docket No. 01-290), Commissioned by EchoStar Satellite Corporation and DIRECTV, Inc., January 7, 2002 

‘‘Quantifying the Benefits of More Stringent Aircraft Noise Regulations,’’ with Jonathan M. Orszag, Northwest Airlines and Sebago Associates, Inc., October 2000 

‘‘The Economics of the U.S.-China Air Services Decision,’’ with Jonathan M. Orszag, 

and Diane M. Whitmore, United Parcel Service and Sebago Associates, Inc., March 

2000 

4. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the Office of Management and Budget and by the 

Office of Government Ethics concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal 

impediments to your serving in this position? 

Yes. 

5. Explain how you will resolve potential conflicts of interest, including any disclosed by your response to the above questions. 

I will work with the Office of Government Ethics, OMB agency ethics officers, and 

the Congressional Ethics Committees to resolve any conflicts of interest should 

occur. 

D. LEGAL MATTERS 

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics for unprofessional 

conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, 

professional association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, 

provide details. 

No. 

2. To your knowledge, have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendre) by any Federal, State, or other 

law enforcement authority for violation of any Federal, State, county or municipal 

law, regulation, or ordinance, other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. 

No. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer, director or owner 

ever been involved as a party of interest in any administrative agency proceeding 

or civil litigation? If so, provide details. 

No. 

4. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in connection with our nomination. 

85 

E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS 

1. If confirmed, are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted 

committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested 

to do so? 

Yes. 

2. If confirmed, are you willing to provide such information as may be requested by 

any committee of the Congress? 

Yes. 

F. FINANCIAL DATA 

All information requested under this heading must be provided for yourself, your 

spouse, and your dependents. 

1. Please provide personal financial information not already listed on the SF278 Financial Disclosure form that identifies and states the value of all: 

(a) assets of $10,000 or more held directly or indirectly, including but not limited to bank accounts, securities, commodities futures, real estate, trusts (including 

the terms of any beneficial or blind trust of which you, your spouse, or any of your 

dependents may be a beneficiary), investments, and other personal property held in 

a trade or business or for investment other than household furnishings, personal effects, clothing, and automobiles; and 

(redacted) 

(b) liabilities of $10,000 or more including but not limited to debts, mortgages, 

loans, and other financial obligations for which you, your spouse, or your dependents 

have a direct or indirect liability or which may be guaranteed by you, your spouse, 

or your dependents; and for each such liability indicate the nature of the liability, 

the amount, the name of the creditor, the terms of payment, the security or collateral, and the current status of the debt repayment. If the aggregate of your consumer debts exceeds $10,000, please include the total as a liability. Please include 

additional information, as necessary, to assist the Committee in determining your 

financial solvency. The Committee reserves the right to request additional information if a solvency determination cannot be made definitively from the information 

provided. 

(redacted) 

2. List sources, amounts and dates of all anticipated receipts from deferred income 

arrangements, stock options, executory contracts and other future benefits which 

you expect to derive from current or previous business relationships, professional 

services and firm memberships, employers, clients and customers. If dates or 

amounts are estimated, please so state. Please only include those items not listed 

on the SF278 Financial Disclosure form. 

(redacted) 

3. Provide the identity of and a description of the nature of any interest in an option, registered copyright, or patent held during the past 12 months and indicate 

which, if any, from which you have divested and the date of divestment unless already indicated on the personal financial statement. 

(redacted) 

4. Provide a description of any power of attorney which you hold for or on behalf 

of any other person. 

(redacted) 

5. List sources and amounts of all gifts exceeding $500 in value received by you, 

your spouse, and your dependents during each of the last three years. Gifts received 

from members of your immediate family need not be listed. 

(redacted) 

6. Have you filed a Federal income tax return for each of the past 10 years? If not, 

please explain. 

(redacted) 

86 

7. Have your taxes always been paid on time including taxes on behalf of any employees? If not, please explain. 

(redacted) 

8. Were all your taxes, Federal, State, and local, current (filed and paid) as of the 

date of your nomination? If not, please explain. 

(redacted) 

9. Has the Internal Revenue Service or any other state or local tax authority ever 

audited your Federal, State, local, or other tax return? If so, what resulted from the 

audit? 

(redacted) 

10. Have any tax liens, either Federal, State, or local, been filed against you or 

against any real property or personal property which you own either individually, 

jointly, or in partnership? If so, please give the particulars, including the date(s) and 

the nature and amount of the lien. State the resolution of the matter. 

(redacted) 

11. Provide for the Committee copies of your Federal income tax returns for the past 

3 years. These documents will be made available only to Senators and staff persons 

designated by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. They will not be available for public inspection. 

(redacted) 

12. Have you ever been late in paying court-ordered child support? If so, provide 

details. 

(redacted) 

13. Have you ever filed for bankruptcy or been a party to any bankruptcy proceeding? If so, provide details. 

(redacted) 

87 


46316.106
88 

United States Senate 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

ROOM SD-624

(202) 224-0642

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6250

STATEMENT OF BIOGRAPHICAL AND FINANCIAL 

INFORMATION REQUESTED OF PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 

1. Name: 

Robert Lee Nabors II 

2. Position to which nominated 

Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

3. Date of nomination 

January 20, 2009 

4. Address: 

(redacted) 

5. Date and place of birth: 

March 27, 1971; Ft. Dix, New Jersey 

6. Martial status: 

Married; Theresa Kovscek Nabors, formerly Theresa Marie Kovscek 

7. Names and ages of children: 

(redacted) 

8. Education: 

Robert E. Lee High School-Springfield, VA. High School Diploma awarded June 

1989. 

University of Notre Dame-Notre Dame, IN. Bachelor of Arts awarded May 1993. 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (NC). Master of Arts awarded May 

1996. 

9. Employment Record: 

1/2007–present 

Staff Director and Clerk 

House Appropriations Committee 

Washington, DC 

2/2004–1/2007 

Minority Staff Director 

House Appropriations Committee 

Washington, DC 

02/2001–02/2004 

Minority Staff Assistant 

House Appropriations Committee 

Washington, DC 

1/2000–02/2001 

Assistant Director for Administration and Executive Secretary 

Office of Management and Budget 

Washington, DC 

8/1998–01/2000 

Senior Advisor to the Director 

89 

Office of Management and Budget 

Washington, DC 

7/1996–8/1998 

Program Examiner 

Office of Management and Budget 

Washington, DC 

8/1994–5/1996 

Instructor/Teaching Assistant 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Chapel Hill, NC 

10. Government Experience: 

None beyond those listed in question 9. 

11. Business relationships: 

None. 

12. Memberships: 

Member, St. Joseph’s Catholic Church (Washington, DC), 2000-2003 

Member, St. Ann’s Catholic Church (Arlington, VA), 2004-present 

116 Club, 2008-present 

13. Political affiliations and activities 

(a) List all office with a political party which you have held or any public office for 

which you have been a candidate. 

None. 

(b) List all memberships and office held in and services rendered to all political parties or election committees during the last 10 years. 

None. 

(c) Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 

5 years. 

Obama for America, August 20, 2008 - $250. 

14. Honors and awards: 

Professional Achievement Award: Office of Management and Budget 

Earl Wallace Award for outstanding political science teaching assistant: University 

of North Carolina 

Notre Dame Scholar: University of Notre Dame 

Bundschuh Scholarship: University of Notre Dame 

Meyer Award: University of Notre Dame 

15. Published writings: 

I have one published article, ‘‘Redistributive Cooperation, ’’ which was included in 

the Winter 1998 edition of the journal Interantional Organization (see attached). 

16. Speeches: 

None. 

17. Selection: 

(a) What do you believe in your background or employment experience affirmatively 

qualifies you for this particular appointment? 

In addition to serving seven years as a Congressional staffer dealing with appropriations issues, including four years as Staff Director, I previously served for five years 

in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). During my tenure, I served as a 

budget analyst, senior advisor to then-Director Jacob Lew, and as Assistant Director 

for Administration and Executive Secretary responsible for the internal management of the organization. 

(b) Were any conditions, expressed or implied, attached to your nomination: If so, 

please explain. 

No. 

90 

(c) Have you made any commitment(s) with respect to the policies and principles 

you will attempt to implement in the position for which you have been nominated? 

If so, please identify such commitment(s) and all persons to whom such commitments have been made. 

No. 

B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS 

1. Will you sever all connections with your present employers, business firms, business associations or business organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? 

Yes. 

2. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements to pursue outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service with the government? If 

so, please explain. 

No. 

3. Do you have any plans, commitments or agreements after completing government 

service to resume employment, affiliation or practice with your previous employer, 

business firm, association or organization? 

No. 

4. Has anybody made a commitment to employ your services in any capacity after 

you leave government service? If so, please identify such person(s) and commitment(s) and explain. 

No. 

5. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term or until the next Presidential election, whichever is applicable? If not, please explain. 

Yes. 

C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

1. If confirmed, are there any issues from which you may have to recuse or disqualify yourself because of a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of 

interest? If so, please explain. 

No. 

2. Identify and describe all investments, obligations, liabilities, business relationships, dealings, financial transactions, and other financial relationships which you 

currently have or have had during the last 10 years, whether for yourself, on behalf 

of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a 

possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been nominated. 

None. 

3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have engaged for the 

purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat or modification of 

any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public policy 

other than while in a federal government capacity. 

None. 

4. Do you agree to have written opinions provided to the Committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the Office of Management and Budget and by the 

Office of Government Ethics concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal 

impediments to your serving in this position? 

Yes. 

5. Explain how you will resolve potential conflicts of interest, including any disclosed by your response to the above questions. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of Government Ethics and the Office of Management and Budget’s designated agency ethics official to indentify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Oct 16, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\46316.TXT SBUD1 PsN: TISH
91 

est will be resolved in accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement with the 

Office’s designated agency ethics official. 

D. LEGAL MATTERS 

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics for unprofessional 

conduct by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, 

professional association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, 

provide details. 

No. 

2. To your knowledge, have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged or convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendre) by any Federal, State, or other 

law enforcement authority for violation of any Federal, State, county or municipal 

law, regulation, or ordinance, other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details. 

In June 1990, at age 19, I was arrested for misdemeanor shoplifting by Fairfax 

County (VA) Police in Springfield, VA. I was found not quilty by the Fairfax County 

Court. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer, director or owner 

ever been involved as a party of interest in any administrative agency proceeding 

or civil litigation? If so, provide details. 

No. 

4. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in connection with our nomination. 

None. 

E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS 

1. If confirmed, are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted 

committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested 

to do so? 

Yes. 

2. If confirmed, are you willing to provide such information as may be requested by 

any committee of the Congress? 

Yes. 

F. FINANCIAL DATA 

All information requested under this heading must be provided for yourself, your 

spouse, and your dependents. 

1. Please provide personal financial information not already listed on the SF278 Financial Disclosure form that identifies and states the value of all: 

(a) assets of $10,000 or more held directly or indirectly, including but not limited to bank accounts, securities, commodities futures, real estate, trusts (including 

the terms of any beneficial or blind trust of which you, your spouse, or any of your 

dependents may be a beneficiary), investments, and other personal property held in 

a trade or business or for investment other than household furnishings, personal effects, clothing, and automobiles; and 

(redacted) 

(b) liabilities of $10,000 or more including but not limited to debts, mortgages, 

loans, and other financial obligations for which you, your spouse, or your dependents 

have a direct or indirect liability or which may be guaranteed by you, your spouse, 

or your dependents; and for each such liability indicate the nature of the liability, 

the amount, the name of the creditor, the terms of payment, the security or collateral, and the current status of the debt repayment. If the aggregate of your consumer debts exceeds $10,000, please include the total as a liability. Please include 

additional information, as necessary, to assist the Committee in determining your 

financial solvency. The Committee reserves the right to request additional informaVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:56 Oct 16, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\46316.TXT SBUD1 PsN: TISH
92 

tion if a solvency determination cannot be made definitively from the information 

provided. 

(redacted) 

2. List sources, amounts and dates of all anticipated receipts from deferred income 

arrangements, stock options, executory contracts and other future benefits which 

you expect to derive from current or previous business relationships, professional 

services and firm memberships, employers, clients and customers. If dates or 

amounts are estimated, please so state. Please only include those items not listed 

on the SF278 Financial Disclosure form. 

(redacted) 

3. Provide the identity of and a description of the nature of any interest in an option, registered copyright, or patent held during the past 12 months and indicate 

which, if any, from which you have divested and the date of divestment unless already indicated on the personal financial statement. 

(redacted) 

4. Provide a description of any power of attorney which you hold for or on behalf 

of any other person. 

(redacted) 

5. List sources and amounts of all gifts exceeding $500 in value received by you, 

your spouse, and your dependents during each of the last three years. Gifts received 

from members of your immediate family need not be listed. 

(redacted) 

6. Have you filed a Federal income tax return for each of the past 10 years? If not, 

please explain. 

(redacted) 

7. Have your taxes always been paid on time including taxes on behalf of any employees? If not, please explain. 

(redacted) 

8. Were all your taxes, Federal, State, and local, current (filed and paid) as of the 

date of your nomination? If not, please explain. 

(redacted) 

9. Has the Internal Revenue Service or any other state or local tax authority ever 

audited your Federal, State, local, or other tax return? If so, what resulted from the 

audit? 

(redacted) 

10. Have any tax liens, either Federal, State, or local, been filed against you or 

against any real property or personal property which you own either individually, 

jointly, or in partnership? If so, please give the particulars, including the date(s) and 

the nature and amount of the lien. State the resolution of the matter. 

(redacted) 

11. Provide for the Committee copies of your Federal income tax returns for the past 

3 years. These documents will be made available only to Senators and staff persons 

designated by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. They will not be available for public inspection. 

(redacted) 

12. Have you ever been late in paying court-ordered child support? If so, provide 

details. 

(redacted) 

13. Have you ever filed for bankruptcy or been a party to any bankruptcy proceeding? If so, provide details. 

(redacted) 

93 


46316.105
94 


46316.001
95 


46316.002
96 


46316.003
97 


46316.004
98 


46316.005
99 


46316.006
100 


46316.007
101 


46316.008
102 


46316.009
103 


46316.010
104 


46316.011
105 


46316.012
106 


46316.013
107 


46316.014
108 


46316.015
109 


46316.016
110 


46316.057
111 


46316.058
112 


46316.059
113 


46316.060
114 


46316.061
115 


46316.062
116 


46316.063
117 


46316.064
118 


46316.065
119 


46316.066
120 


46316.067
121 


46316.068
122 


46316.069
123 


46316.070
124 


46316.071
125 


46316.072
126 


46316.073
127 


46316.074
128 


46316.075
129 


46316.076
130 


46316.077
131 


46316.078
132 


46316.079
133 


46316.080
134 


46316.081
135 


46316.082
136 


46316.083
137 


46316.084
138 


46316.085
139 


46316.086
140 


46316.087
141 


46316.088
142 


46316.089
143 


46316.090
144 


46316.091
145 


46316.092
146 


46316.093
147 


46316.094
148 


46316.037
149 


46316.038
150 


46316.039
151 

Æ