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

37–363 PDF 2008

S. Hrg. 110–620 

NOMINATION OF HON. JAMES A. NUSSLE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON THE 

NOMINATION OF HON. JAMES A. NUSSLE TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

JULY 24, 2007 

Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

LAWRENCE B. NOVEY, Senior Counsel 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Research Assistant 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

AMY L. HALL, Minority Director for Governmental Affairs 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 15 

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 17 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 19 

Senator Sununu ................................................................................................ 22 

Senator Tester .................................................................................................. 25 

Senator Voinovich ............................................................................................. 28 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 31 

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 33 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 35 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Obama ................................................................................................. 43 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2007 

Hon. Chuck Grassley, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................. 4 

Hon. Tom Harkin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ................................... 6 

Hon. James A. Nussle to be Director, Office of Management and Budget: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics ............................................... 46 

Biographical and professional information ..................................................... 47 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 54 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 107 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF HON. JAMES A. NUSSLE 

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Carper, McCaskill, 

Tester, Collins, Voinovich, Coleman, Warner, and Sununu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Good morning, and welcome to the hearing. Today we are going to consider the nomination of the Hon. 

James Nussle to be Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

The Senate will apparently have two or perhaps three roll call 

votes at around 10:30 a.m., so I hope that we can get through the 

opening statements by Senator Collins and me, and then perhaps 

go to the introductions and your opening statement, and then recess when the votes occur. 

But we welcome you here, Congressman Nussle. Your nomination comes at a moment of particular budgetary peril for the Administration and for Congress. In less than 3 months, we must 

enact 12 appropriations bills to fund the vital functions of the Federal Government for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2007, that 

would enable the government to continue to do everything from 

providing for the common defense to educating our children, from 

securing the homeland to providing health care for those who cannot themselves afford it, and from taking care of our veterans to 

enabling the agencies responsible, for instance, for food safety to do 

their protective work. 

In other words, these are actions of government that the American people depend on, and they are enabled, they only happen if 

we pass these appropriations bills. So we have a lot of work to do 

for our country in a short time, and it can only be done if we work 

together. 

That is why I am troubled by some of the budgetary rhetoric 

emanating at this moment from the White House. It is not surprising, obviously, that the President believes in the budget he submitted to Congress. That is his responsibility and, of course, his 

right. But I think to threaten vetoes at this point of any appropriations bills that in any way exceed the Administration’s top line 

2 

does not in the first instance respect the responsibility and right 

of Congress to reach its own budgetary conclusions. It also, I fear, 

sets us up for another round of political posturing and mudslinging 

that could shut down parts of our government and definitely will 

further push down the rapidly plummeting opinion the American 

people have of all of us who were sent to Washington to work for 

them. 

And what will this fight be over? The difference between the $933 billion discretionary spending level recommended by the 

President for fiscal year 2008 and the $953 billion top-line recommendation for discretionary spending set in the budget resolution that passed both Houses of Congress. That is a $20 billion difference—equal to 2 percent of the discretionary spending of the 

Federal Government for next year, and a small fraction of 1 percent of the overall $2.9 trillion spending that the Federal Government will do next year. It is not to say that $20 billion is not a real difference. It is. But 

it is, in my opinion, one that is not so great in either size or substance that it should imperil the operations of our government for 

the fiscal year that will begin on October 1. 

I grew up in Connecticut and was greatly influenced by thenGovernor of Connecticut Abraham A. Ribicoff, who became a Senator, in fact, became Chairman of this Committee for a period of 

time. He was a real mentor, and I remember in his first term as 

Governor—I was very young and not following it at the time. This 

I know from history, of course. He was a Democrat, and he had a 

legislature controlled by Republicans. And he gave a famous State 

of the State speech in which he described what he called ‘‘the integrity of compromise,’’ that there are differences of opinion that are 

sincerely taken, but we can never get to a point where we think 

that compromise—not compromise of real principle, but compromise of the positions we start with to find common ground— 

somehow lacks integrity. In fact, it is the very essence of government. 

If you will allow me a brief additional moment of parochialism, 

the founding generation of Americans, as we all know, had a major 

disagreement about how to constitute the Congress and how to reflect the balance between States of large population and small population. This was resolved by what is known and has been known 

ever since as the ‘‘Connecticut Compromise’’ because two of the 

Connecticut delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Sherman 

and Ellsworth, which created the Senate—which still obviously exists to this day—with two Senators from every State regardless of 

the population and a House which reflects population. 

So compromise was honored at the outset of our government and 

has sustained it since, and I think that spirit is what we need in 

the months ahead immediately. You are stepping right into a tough 

situation. You fortunately come to it with very broad experience, 

generally in government but also particularly in budgetary matters, having served as chairman of the House Budget Committee 

from 2001 to 2006 and on the House Ways and Means Committee 

for several years. 

The challenges that confront the next Director of OMB, I think, 

will require not only technical and fiscal experience and expertise, 

3 

which you have, but they will also require you to use some skills 

that I know from those who served with you that you also showed 

you had in Congress, which is to serve as a bridge builder, a credible intermediary, that obviously you have a responsibility to represent the Administration that has asked you to take on this significant responsibility, but to do so in a way that helps take all of 

us above political conflict to find common ground, to forge the kinds 

of compromises, honorable compromises, that will make our Federal Government work better for our country and our people. It is 

in that spirit of respect and challenge that I welcome you here 

today and thank you for your willingness to take on this responsibility. 

Senator Collins. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, your discussion of the Connecticut Compromise 

brings to mind another famous historical compromise in 1820, the 

Missouri-Maine Compromise, which brought in Missouri as a slave 

State, and Maine, of course, as a free State. But in the interest of 

time, that will be the end of my digression on American history 

and famous compromises throughout the ages. [Laughter.] 

I am pleased to welcome Representative Nussle to the Committee. His congressional service, particularly as chairman of the 

House Budget Committee, has given him a solid understanding of 

the budget, the legislative process, and, I hope, the importance of 

good relations between the Executive Branch and Congress. 

Close cooperation, as the Chairman indicated, will be essential as 

we address the enormous budget deficit and as we confront the 

looming structural deficit born of baby-boom demographics and unfunded entitlement obligations. Finding a mix of fiscal policies that 

will honor commitments and meet vital needs without throttling 

economic growth will be a huge challenge. 

Following PAYGO rule discipline for entitlement spending increases and for additional tax cuts will create a powerful tool for 

budget restraint, yet in my view it is unfortunate that the President opposes this tool. This is a subject that I intend to explore 

with Representative Nussle today. 

As recognized in the President’s Management Agenda in 2001, 

another tool for meeting the challenge is to improve the management and performance of the Federal Government. The Management Scorecard for each Federal agency indicates that, for most 

agencies, the weak spot is financial management. Poor financial 

management translates into billions of dollars lost to wasteful practices, excessive sole-source contracting, and outright fraud. 

In particular, I would welcome the nominee’s thoughts on how 

we can best improve Federal contracting procedures. Four colleagues—the Chairman, Senators Carper, Coleman, and McCaskill—are cosponsors of the Accountability in Government Contracting Act that I introduced earlier this year to increase competition and transparency in the contracting process and to promote a 

better trained acquisition workforce. 

We must also take care that fiscally driven management initiatives do not undermine government’s fundamental obligation to 

4 

protect the American people. Reductions in homeland security 

grants to State and local governments, as well as the President’s 

proposed cuts in port security and infrastructure protection funding, are troubling trends. 

I look forward to hearing the nominee’s views of what he sees as 

the top management challenges, what might improve agencies’ financial management scores, and, most of all, what can be done to 

achieve the political consensus necessary to tackle the fiscal imbalance in the Federal budget. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Collins. 

The Committee is honored to have with us Senators Grassley 

and Harkin to introduce Congressman Nussle. Senator Grassley, 

we welcome you and look forward to your statement now. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, and I would appreciate both my 

off-the-cuff remarks as well as my statement be printed in the 

record. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. Thanks to both you and Senator 

Collins for your leadership here in entertaining this nomination, 

and I notice you are very ecumenical on this Committee how you 

sit Republicans among Democrats. The public would be shocked if 

they saw that. 

This is a very important nomination, and I am sure I am going 

to say some things that will embarrass Congressman Nussle, but 

I think they are important so you know of our relationship. When 

I was running for the Senate the first time, he was a student at 

Luther College, and he drove me around in his old Ford to help me 

get elected, so I feel some obligation to him for his early support 

of my candidacy. 

Second, I have five children, and they all hated politics because 

I spent so much time at it. So I always thought, well, it would be 

nice to have somebody like me in the U.S. Senate. So when he ran 

for the Congress, I backed him, and I considered him kind of a little Grassley. And I made that point very clear when I was at 

breakfasts for him in what was then the 3rd District of Iowa. But 

I think he has grown to be a very qualified public servant, and I 

am proud that I worked for him, as I hope he is proud that he 

worked for me that first time. 

He has come to Washington, then, following some of those principles he campaigned on—to be a wise steward of taxpayers’ 

money. Very early in his congressional career, he took that responsibility very seriously. I think he worked hard to ferret out wasteful and unnecessary Federal spending, and if confirmed, and for 

the President, not for himself, I think he would continue that same 

thing as OMB Director. 

Being chairman of the House Budget Committee puts you in the 

middle of budgeting, so you understand it. I think that he followed 

on his early Senate career as one example working hard for the 

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, in which he worked to save the taxpayers $40 billion. 

5 

He also understands that the Federal budget process can be improved, and I think he demonstrated that by chairing the bipartisan task force in the late 1990s, developing a bipartisan initiative 

that is obviously not law, but he worked with one of our colleagues 

now, then-Congressman Ben Cardin, to do that. 

With this project, he demonstrated his ability to work across the 

aisle and develop bipartisan projects, and that is going to be very 

important. As the President has one opinion, Congress might have 

another opinion. He is the go-between who is going to have to bring 

common sense to both extremes, and I think he can do that. And 

I think maybe the bipartisanship is shown also by the fact that 

now Chairman Spratt but then Ranking Member Spratt intends to 

testify before the Senate Budget Committee in support. 

Given Congressman Nussle’s experience, knowledge, and commitment to public service, I think it is very fitting that the President 

nominated him, and I think you are going to find a very highly 

qualified candidate as he responds to your questions here and you 

become better acquainted with him. And if there is anything you 

want to know that I have not told you about his other-than-public 

life, I can discuss that with you, too. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. In open session. 

Senator GRASSLEY. In open session. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT SENATOR GRASSLEY 

Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased to have the opportunity to introduce my former Congressman and former Chairman of the House Budget Committee. 

Thank you, Chairman Lieberman, for holding a hearing on this important nomination. 

I’ve known Jim Nussle for nearly 30 years. I first met him when, as a college student, he drove me around the State of Iowa as I campaigned for my first run for 

the United States Senate in 1980. 

Jim Nussle was elected to the U.S. House in 1991, at the age of 30. Congressman 

Nussle quickly rose through the ranks to chair a committee and he excelled in that 

leadership position. 

One thing Congressman Nussle and I share is our strong belief that we here in 

Washington hold a great responsibility to be wise stewards of the taxpayers’ money. 

He took very seriously this responsibility early in his Congressional career. 

Few worked as hard to ferret out wasteful and unnecessary Federal spending as 

Congressman Nussle. If confirmed, I’m certain he’ll continue to be one of the taxpayers’ best advocates. 

As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Jim Nussle didn’t just focus on the 

short-term goals. He looked down the road at the long-term challenges. An example 

is the Deficit Reduction Act. With Jim Nussle’s leadership at the Budget Committee, 

this was an important first step in reforming our entitlement spending. This step 

saved taxpayers nearly $40 billion over 5 years. 

Jim Nussle also understands that the Federal budget process can be improved. 

He chaired a bipartisan task force in the late 1990s, and developed a bipartisan initiative—the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act in 1998—with then-Congressman Ben Cardin. With this project, he demonstrated his ability to work across 

the aisle and develop a bipartisan product. 

This respect for the other side continued during his time as Budget Chairman. 

Chairman Spratt intends to testify to this effect later this week at a hearing of the 

Senate Budget Committee. 

Given Congressman Nussle’s experience, knowledge, and commitment to public 

service, it is fitting that he’s been nominated to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Jim Nussle is a highly qualified candidate for this post in the 

President’s cabinet. He knows the budget; he knows Congress; and he is a decent 

and honorable public servant. 

6 

Jim Nussle has my respect, my trust, and my confidence. I hope this Committee 

will see fit to favorably report his nomination so the full Senate may act prior to 

the August recess. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Grassley, and 

I cannot help but comment that this little Grassley has grown to 

be a mighty Nussle. [Laughter.] 

Senator HARKIN. Interesting play on words. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Senator Harkin, thanks very much for 

being here. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. TOM HARKIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF IOWA 

Senator HARKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Collins, 

other Members of the Committee. I am pleased to join with my senior colleague from Iowa in introducing Congressman Jim Nussle to 

this Committee, and as I am sure Members of the Committee already appreciate, Congressman Nussle is superbly qualified to take 

on the job of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

First elected to represent Iowa’s 1st Congressional District in 

1990, he served for eight terms; joined the House Budget Committee in January 1995, elected Chairman in January 2001, a position he served in for the next 6 years. Congressman Nussle is a 

recognized and well-respected, genuine expert on the budget and a 

master of the budgeting process. 

Now, I have known Congressman Nussle and I have worked with 

him—and against him—for 16 years, and I can tell you, in those 

16 years of my running and his running, I have searched my memory, never once can I think of any one time when Jim Nussle ever 

in my campaigns or others ever did anything untoward or underhanded or even anything bordering on the unethical. He is a tough 

campaigner. Don’t get me wrong. He is a tough guy. But you know 

where he is coming from, and he is always aboveboard. He is a 

skilled and savvy operator. He is a very hard worker. Again, I can 

attest to that. He is a straight shooter whose word is his bond and 

who can be counted on to follow through with the commitments he 

makes. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, he reached out to 

majority and minority members, gave everyone a very fair hearing. 

In addition, Congressman Nussle will bring to the job an impressive array of political skills. I think I can attest to that, too. He 

is accessible. He is an excellent communicator. He is a formidable 

advocate for the causes he believes in. And if I can be a little bit 

parochial here, the things that we have agreed on and have fought 

very hard for in the past are things that help rural America. Here 

is a great spokesman and advocate for people who live in small 

towns and rural America, our farm families all over the country, 

not just Iowa. He has been a strong supporter of agriculture for all 

the years he has been here. And, again, maybe I am speaking a little bit parochially here, but we do not have a lot of clout—well, except for Senator Grassley and a few others around here. In agriculture, in the Congress, our numbers have dwindled. But Congressman Nussle always made sure that he watched out for and 

made sure that in the budgets that came through that our farm 

families and people that live in small towns, Senator Warner, were 

represented in those budget debates. 

7 

One other thing that I have admired Congressman Nussle for in 

the past in his budget work is his support for renewable energy. 

All the things that we have to do to become energy independent in 

this country, and it is not just ethanol, it is everything else. Whether it is wind energy, all these other things, Congressman Nussle 

has been really in the forefront of that fight. 

I think we need someone like that as the head of the Budget 

Committee who really can see the future and see what we need in 

terms of renewable energy. 

So I will just close by saying that as members of different political parties, Jim Nussle and I have often disagreed on principles 

and priorities. That is the way it ought to be. But in Jim Nussle, 

the President has chosen a person of exceptional intelligence, competence, and experience. I urge the Committee Members to send 

his nomination to the full Senate with a positive recommendation, 

and I hope we can act on it before we leave for the August break. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Harkin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARKIN 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my senior colleague from Iowa in introducing Congressman Jim Nussle to the Committee. 

As I’m sure Members of the Committee already appreciate, Congressman Nussle 

is superbly qualified to take on the job of Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget. He was first elected to represent Iowa’s First Congressional District in 

1990, and served for eight terms. He joined the House Budget Committee in January 1995, and was elected chairman in January 2001—a position he served in for 

the next 6 years. Congressman Nussle is a genuine expert on the budget, and a 

master of the budgeting process. 

I have known Jim Nussle, and worked with him, for more than 16 years. And I 

can tell you that he is a skilled and savvy operator. He is a straight-shooter whose 

word is his bond, and who can be counted on to follow through with the commitments he makes. As chairman of the Budget Committee, he reached out to majority 

and minority members, and gave everyone a hearing. 

In addition, Congressman Nussle will bring to the job an impressive array of political skills. He is accessible. He is an excellent communicator. And he is a formidable advocate for the causes he believes in. 

As members of different political parties, Congressman Nussle and I have often 

disagreed on principles and priorities. But, in Jim Nussle, the President has chosen 

a person of exceptional intelligence, competence, and experience. I urge Committee 

Members to send his nomination to the full Senate with a positive recommendation. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Harkin. 

Congressman Nussle, it obviously speaks very well of you that 

Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin have both been here to introduce you. I thank them both. Obviously, I know they are both very 

busy, so we thank them for their presence, and feel free to leave 

at any time that your schedule requires you to. Thank you. 

Congressman Nussle has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered prehearing questions submitted by 

the Committee, and had his financial statements reviewed by the 

Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information 

will be made a part of the hearing record with the exception of the 

financial data, which are on file and available for public inspection 

in the Committee offices according to the Committee’s custom. 

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath. Congressman Nussle, 

would you please stand and raise your right hand? Do you swear 

that the testimony you are about to give the Committee will be the 

8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Nussle appears in the Appendix on page 44. 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, 

God? 

Mr. NUSSLE. I do. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. Please be seated, 

and please proceed with your statement, including we invite you to 

introduce any members of your family who are here. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES A. NUSSLE 1 TO BE DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Collins 

and Senators, thank you so much for the opportunity to be here 

today and for the introduction. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and to be considered. I want to thank you both for the time 

that you have given me in these past weeks for personal conversations, as well as a number of Members on this Committee and 

throughout the Senate. I appreciate the advice and counsel. The 

Chairman spoke very eloquently about the challenge that we find 

ourselves in, and I can report to each one of you that it was a challenge that was felt in a bipartisan way in every conversation that 

I had. 

Many nominees are given the luxury of coming before you at possibly calmer times in our history and during the cycle. This is not 

one of those times. Judging from the rhetoric, picking up the newspaper, I understand that. But I also enjoy a challenge. I am an optimist. I am someone who likes to dive right in and tackle tough 

problems. And I am very interested in doing that on behalf of the 

President and also with, I believe, a unique understanding of not 

only the budget process but maybe more importantly how Congress 

works. 

I will not suggest to you, as I have told you in private, that I understand the Senate possibly as well as I understand the House. 

Former colleagues that have served with me in the House that 

have come over to the Senate have reported back that it is a little 

different in the Senate. So it is one of those parts of the job that 

I hope to continue to learn with your advice and counsel. But I very 

much look forward to continuing our dialogue, our discussions, and 

our meetings on a regular basis. 

I also want to thank my two home-state Senators. First, my 

‘‘Dad,’’ Senator Grassley. It is funny—he told that story on the 

campaign trail when he was campaigning for me about the fact 

that he had hoped that a son—and it is a story that has tickled 

me ever since. He is not always that way when we have disagreements, I will say, but he treats me very respectfully and has always been there as a mentor, and I appreciate that. 

And Senator Harkin, wow, I wish he was here for me to say 

thank you again in public, because he is right. Many of us are not 

going to agree on every single thing, but there is a way to do it. 

And the Chairman mentioned, I think so well, and it is this whole 

notion—we hear about you can disagree without being disagreeable. And, boy, we need that. We really need that, because we are 

passionate about what we believe. Each and every one of us come 

with backgrounds, philosophies, upbringing, principles that we 

9 

fought hard to get here. We wouldn’t be here if we did not have 

that. But there is a way to do it, and as the Chairman spoke of 

compromise, we do not have an Iowa Compromise in history that 

I can think of, and we probably, like many people from Missouri, 

are accused of being stubborn. There is a song about Iowa being 

stubborn and sometimes that precedes us. But it is passion. It is 

not partisanship; it is passion. And I think you can be passionate 

without having necessarily to be partisan in the negative sense of 

that word. And I believe I can do that. 

So I thank Senator Harkin for the tone that he set that suggests 

that even though Senator Harkin and I have had our differences 

on public policy, we are able to sit next to each other and have this 

kind of discussion and discourse. And I am proud of the service 

that they have provided our State. 

I would also like to thank your staff, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Collins. They interviewed me this past week, and I enjoyed that session. I have a feeling they were not as tough on me 

as you all will be, but it was a good beginning to the relationship 

that I know is a unique one between OMB and this Committee. 

And I look forward to that continuing. 

Also, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the OMB staff. 

You do not know—at least I did not know when I accepted the 

President’s invitation for nomination—what happens next. And 

some may think that what happens next is you come before the 

Committee. There are a number of preparation sessions; they provide briefings. I have no doubt I have so much more to learn, but 

they have done an excellent job, and I want to thank them for their 

professionalism. OMB, the staff at OMB, as I have always heard, 

has a great reputation. I want to continue to build on that, Mr. 

Chairman. I can speak for so many public officials who interact 

with them, and I just want to say thank you. 

You are right, I have family here today. My wife, Karen, is here, 

and I want to thank her for her support. She stands by me with 

grace. It cannot be easy to do that. As we all know who have 

spouses who deal with our public service, that is a challenge. But 

she does it with an inordinate amount of grace and understanding 

and patience, and I am very blessed to have her by my side. 

As I stated when the President nominated me, Mr. Chairman, I 

feel truly humbled and privileged at this opportunity. If confirmed, 

I look forward to helping to develop the policies that will help keep 

us on the path to balance, keep our economy growing, address some 

of the biggest budget challenges that many of us discussed at our 

meetings in private—about entitlement spending growing at an 

unsustainable rate, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security—huge outyear challenges that we are not tackling yet, but that we need to 

tackle if we are going to be serious. 

If I should be confirmed by the Senate, I intend to work every 

day, wake up every morning to try to deal with these challenges 

as straightforward as possible and honor the responsibilities the 

President has nominated me to and that I hope you will place upon 

me. 

I also have to tell you that it feels good to be back in Congress. 

It was in these halls that I learned some really amazing things. I 

have learned some very valuable lessons and met some incredible 

10 

people and formed friendships that will last a lifetime. My very 

first Chairman is in the room here today, Chairman Carper, who 

I served with in the House on the Banking Committee when I was 

detailed to that Committee. I remember when then-Minority Leader Bob Michel called me up and said, ‘‘You have to serve on the 

Banking Committee,’’ but it was a pleasure serving with Chairman 

Carper. 

And my first Vice Chairman is in the room here today, Senator 

John Sununu. And Senator Sununu and I forged a friendship after 

we actually competed for the job. I don’t know how it is, but—— 

Senator SUNUNU. It was not very close. [Laughter.] 

Mr. NUSSLE. There are days, I have to say, where I wish you 

would have won, Senator. But I appreciate that friendship. 

I really do appreciate the chance to follow in the footsteps of Rob 

Portman and Josh Bolten and so many others who have demonstrated an ability to not only be a professional advocate and representative of the President, but to do so with grace and dignity, 

to be able to reach across party lines, and to forge and continue to 

forge relationships here on the Hill. 

As I was trying to think of how to present this today, I cannot 

help but flash back to a time that Senator Grassley was mentioning when I was a student 30 years ago at Luther College and 

a political science class, and my professor, Joan Thompson, who is 

now a professor up in Pennsylvania, decided that during our Introduction to Congress class, she was going to teach us about the Federal budget process. And I have to tell you, at that time I thought 

to myself, ‘‘When in the world am I ever going to find this information useful at all? Do I really need to know this stuff about the 

budget?’’ 

And what I learned, as you all know, is that the budget process 

interweaves everything we do—you do, I used to do—on Capitol 

Hill, and it is an important part of everything that we do. 

I got hooked in this class on the budget, and I will have to admit 

it, I am a budget wonk. I love the budget, the budget process, and 

everything about it that goes along with it. But never in a million 

years as a 19-year-old college student at Luther in Decorah, Iowa, 

would I have thought I would be sitting here today, let alone having been chosen by my peers to serve on the House Budget Committee and to be chairman, and I am honored by that. It is truly 

an awesome thought for me, and I hope my daughter, Sarah, and 

son, Mark, who are teenagers, learn a lesson from this, as well as 

many other students, who sometimes I hear, when they say, ‘‘Why 

do I have to know this?’’ My story, I suppose, is a lesson of listening and learning even at times when you do not know exactly why 

you are doing it because you really do not know where life is going 

to take you. 

Listening and learning has been something that I have always 

taken very much to heart in my 16 years as I was blessed to represent Iowa in the House of Representatives. I believe we all govern better when we listen and learn from not only each other, but 

the people that we represent. 

Should I be confirmed by the Senate, I intend to continue that 

philosophy that my parents first taught me was important and that 

11 

the people of Iowa really cemented for me, that listening, learning, 

teamwork, and honesty are paramount. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Collins and Members of the 

Committee, I am eager to answer your questions and the Committee’s questions, and I very much look forward to continuing to work 

with you, and I ask for consideration in my nomination. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Nussle, for 

that outstanding opening statement. 

I am going to start my questioning with the standard questions 

we ask all nominees. Incidentally, it strikes me, as I heard your 

statement, that you are starting with a kind of unfair advantage 

with this Committee based on your past experience with Senators 

Carper and Sununu, and the fact that you have our former Staff 

Director, Michael Bopp, advising you as to what each of us will do. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Please do not hold any of that against me. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I am going to start with the standard 

questions that we ask all nominees. 

First, is there anything that you are aware of in your background 

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

to which you have been nominated? 

Mr. NUSSLE. No, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Do you know of anything personal or otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably 

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Mr. NUSSLE. No, sir. 

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

duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. We are going to start with the first round 

of questions limited to 6 minutes each. The vote apparently will not 

go off until around 10:40 a.m., so hopefully we will have some time 

for a few Senators to ask questions. 

Let me begin with the short-term challenge and what may become a crisis that you will step into if you are confirmed. What is 

your view of how to negotiate our way, your way, through the difference of opinion between the President and the congressional majority on the top-line spending so that, in fact, we can keep our government functioning? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, we have been through these challenges before. While we are in a new challenge and it may seem 

daunting given the fact that we have, as I understand it, 27 legislative days before the end of the fiscal year, given the August recess 

and other impediments that I am sure will be there to success, as 

I said in my opening statement, I am an optimist. I believe that 

while there are two speeding trains heading at each other—I have 

always been amazed—none of us has ever seen a real train wreck, 

but we always refer to it as a train wreck around here as part of 

the end of the cycle. There is one, as you said, that was going at 

$953 billion, I believe you said, and one that is heading at $922 billion, and they are heading at each other. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Nine hundred thirty-three billion. 

12 

Mr. NUSSLE. Excuse me; $933 billion. The sooner that these two 

trains can get onto a side track, the sooner you have someone who 

is in place at OMB who can wake up every day to not only work 

with the President but also work with you to build that side 

track—the sooner that happens, Mr. Chairman, I believe the better. 

Exactly how we are going to build that, I have learned also in 

my time as Budget Chairman that you sometimes do not always 

see that clearly, exactly how it is going to come about until possibly 

later in the session. 

But the one thing that we do know, the one thing that is almost 

always clear, is that failure is never the final answer. Our country 

must endure. The Federal Government will continue. We need to 

be able to solve this problem. And I believe it is my role, if confirmed by you and the Senate, to do just that, to wake up every 

day to figure out how we can avoid that kind of final collision that, 

while it will not be the final answer, will be a very challenging one 

for all of us, let alone for the American people to watch. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I appreciate what you have said. Let me 

ask you this specific question: Will you remain open in pursuit of 

an agreement to continue the functioning of our government, which 

is what the public expects from us, to advising the President to 

compromise in any way on spending levels to avoid, for instance, 

a shutdown of the government? 

Mr. NUSSLE. You asked me if I would remain open. The answer 

is yes, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that, and I—— 

Mr. NUSSLE. If I may add to that, though. As you know, it is a 

new role, and I have been told this by others that have come forward that used to be Congressmen or Senators, that had been in 

that position where you were your own boss. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. NUSSLE. I will have a new boss, and certainly my first duty 

is to uphold the Constitution. But I also know that anyone who sits 

in this chair from the Administration has to report back and has 

to follow the decisions made by that Chief Executive. I also know 

I will need to and intend to do that as well. But, yes, sir, I will 

remain open, and I need to remain open if we are going to have 

the conversations we are going to need to have in not only those 

next 27 days but beyond. We have much more work to do than just 

finishing the end of this fiscal year. That is job one. But we have 

much more to do that we need to be able to do together. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Let me ask you a big question, and you 

only have about 2 minutes of my time to answer, but it is a beginning. So I have asked you a question about the short term. In some 

sense, for you as OMB Director, the long term is going to be 18 

months for the remaining time of this Administration. You referred 

to the long-term imbalances particularly in entitlement programs 

that jeopardize what our country has promised the baby boomers 

and those who follow them. 

What initiatives do you contemplate during the 18-month period 

to deal with those long-term imbalances? 

Mr. NUSSLE. If confirmed, Mr. Chairman, I intend to continue to 

be a voice in the Administration that we need to continue to break 

13 

our pick on that rock. It is one, as you know from past experience, 

that may not be solved in 18 months. It may not be solved in a 

comprehensive way in one fell swoop. But it needs to be dealt with, 

if nothing else, with downpayments on a regular basis. It is the 

reason why I, as Budget Chairman, tried every year to have a 

small reconciliation for us to at least begin the conversation of reform. And I believe Congress and the President should get in that 

habit together to work on small downpayments. If nothing else— 

and you know these numbers better than I do, but 2017 for Social 

Security, as an example, used to sound like a long time away. It 

is 10 years; 2017 is when we stop taking in enough money in the 

payroll tax to pay the benefits for Social Security. That used to 

sound like a long way off. It is 10 years. 

And so we have to begin that process, and while many proposals 

on both sides have been rejected, I suppose, we need to keep trying. 

And I hope to be an advocate in the Administration and on behalf 

of the President for that. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. I appreciate the answer, and I will just 

conclude by saying, as you said, that the problems, the entitlement 

balances long term are too big and we took too long to get to this 

place we are at to solve them in the next year and a half. But as 

this term of this President ends with you as his OMB Director, I 

think you do have an opportunity to start some things that will 

lead to a solution, perhaps beginning some institutional processes, 

bipartisan, to work us in that direction and maybe turn some recommendations over to the incoming administration. So I thank you 

for your commitment to do that. 

Senator Collins. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Congressman, I am very impressed with the support that you 

have received today from Senator Harkin and also from Chairman 

Spratt with whom you have worked so closely over the years, and 

they both have attested to your ability to work across party lines. 

You do have some critics, however, who suggest that you are simply too partisan for a job that requires extensive outreach to Congress. 

I want to start my questioning today by giving you the opportunity to respond to those charges. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, first of all, Senator, I appreciate the opportunity to do that, but let me suggest that probably all of us from 

time to time could have those charges leveled at us, particularly 

when you are given the role of leading a charge on probably one 

of the most partisan things that we do around here, and that is the 

budget. 

We have never passed a bipartisan budget. We have passed bipartisan agreements at the end of the year, omnibus plans, funding 

agreements, things like that. But the very first thing we do in Congress, to my frustration and I know to many of yours, is the budget, where we break up into shirts versus skins, Republicans versus 

Democrats, and we form these two teams, and we go at each other 

on the priorities. And as the Chairman said, sometimes we argue 

about 2 percent here and 1 percent there, and maybe just a variation on a reform measure. But it would seem like we would never 

14 

be able to come together at the beginning of the year, but at the 

end of the year somehow we find the ability to do that. 

My role, fortunately—and I appreciated the role—was to not only 

gain the consensus of my colleagues in the House, but also to 

present that. And oftentimes that is presented in a way that seems 

very passionate, as I said in my opening statement, but often perceived to be partisan. 

I believe that the way I would like to be judged is not only by 

how you battle each other on the floor and during debates like that 

when passions certainly can sometimes even get the best of you, 

but it is also how you conduct yourself behind closed doors and 

with colleagues and honoring agreements and working together to 

find consensus when that becomes the opportunity. And I believe 

I have done that as well. 

So I confess to being a passionate person. Sometimes that is perceived to be partisan. But it is never intended to be. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. I now would like to turn to an 

issue that is very important to my constituents, and that is the 

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). If you 

look back at the hearing records for OMB Directors, you will find 

that I raised this issue with every single one of them. 

If we would release the funding for the LIHEAP program during 

the summer months, we would allow it to serve far more people because the cost of home heating oil, for example, is lower in the 

summer months than during the height of the winter. 

Now, last year, shortly after he was confirmed, Director Portman 

in response to my concern raised at his nomination hearing released $80 million in unspent fiscal year 2006 emergency LIHEAP 

funds for the purpose of providing a limited summer fill program. 

And it was a huge success. It allowed us to help more of our neediest citizens before the winter months hit. 

Now, currently there is about $200 million in fiscal year 2007 

emergency LIHEAP funds. It would be extremely beneficial, not 

only to my constituents but to others throughout this country who 

rely on this important program, if the funding were released now. 

I am asking: Would you be willing to take a look at the issue of 

releasing advance funding to see if at least some of that $200 million in unspent emergency funding could be used to help those who 

are really struggling with the high cost of energy to heat their 

homes? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Yes, Senator Collins. If I am confirmed by the Senate, I would be very pleased to not only take a look at it, but to 

work with you to try to address this. My understanding, again, because of our knowledge of your concern in this area and your leadership in this area, is that the Director is looking at that actively 

even this summer. But I do not have that information about what 

he is doing any more than I am able to until I am confirmed. But 

I would be honored to be able to work with you on that, and, yes, 

I would be interested in talking to you about that further. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. Let me now very quickly switch to 

another issue. A mission of OMB’s that is not well known is the 

responsibilities that OMB has for providing guidance to agencies 

for the security of private information that agencies collect, whether it is birth dates or addresses or Social Security numbers. And 

15 

in the last year, we have seen a number of very troubling breaches 

where private information of our citizens has been lost, stolen, or 

inadvertently released by Federal agencies. 

What do you plan to do, if you are confirmed, to ensure that individuals’ sensitive, private information is better protected than it is 

now? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, Senator, if I am confirmed, I will be working 

with the administrator of E-Government that, as you know, is part 

of OMB to ensure that this information is secured. It is troubling 

to me, as well, as I hear of those kinds of reports. I cannot speak 

to them specifically, not having been in the position yet. But I understand and would take it very seriously as the role of the Director to work with those agencies, to ensure that this information is 

protected. I know that is part of the role of the legislation that has 

been passed, and I know that is an important issue for this Committee. And I would work with you and other Committee Members 

to ensure that this mission is carried forward to success. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Collins. 

I have just been informed, in the spirit of the Senate and the 

tempo of the Senate, that the votes will now not occur until 12:20 

p.m. So we can actually have a hearing here. 

Senator Levin, your turn. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me add my 

welcome, Congressman Nussle. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. As Chairman of this Committee’s Permanent 

Subcommittee on Investigations and formerly as its Ranking Member, we have spent a great deal of time looking at what is called 

the ‘‘tax gap,’’ which the IRS has estimated to be about $350 billion. That is the gap each year between the amount of taxes owed 

and the amount collected. 

One of the sources of that tax gap is abusive tax shelters, and 

these are the illegitimate ones that have no economic substance 

other than to attempt to provide large tax benefits to the individuals that are using them. And so we end up with people not paying 

their fair share of taxes, usually upper-income folks, and the rest 

of us then have to pick up the burden. 

Can you tell us your position in terms of going after these abusive tax shelters? Have you supported that effort in the House? 

And, generally, what is your position? 

Mr. NUSSLE. I have, Senator. As you know, it has been an issue 

that has come to the forefront more recently. But during my time 

as Budget Chairman, it was an area that we did look into and continue to be concerned about. And I would not only work with Treasury but also with you, if I am confirmed, to do what we can to ensure that we are collecting the taxes that are due. 

Let me say further, if I may, that I am someone who was a proponent of looking at our entire Tax Code for comprehensive reform. 

I believe that we should consider reforming our entire Tax Code, 

and as part of that, I believe we can and have the opportunity to 

16 

take a look at all of these different areas that you are suggesting 

as part of that comprehensive reform. 

So yes, sir, I think it is an important issue that we should and 

I would be happy to work with you to sink our teeth into. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. We have lost 3 million manufacturing 

jobs in this country in the last 6 years. I know that you, by reputation and by the introductions today, have a special sensitivity for 

rural areas, and that is great. We need to do that wherever those 

rural areas are. But in the area of manufacturing, we have lost 3 

million jobs without much of a peep from this Administration. 

Other countries support their industry. They partner with their 

industry. Our companies are not competing with companies overseas. They are competing with countries that support their industries. 

Have you taken a position on a couple of programs that are important in terms of manufacturing? One is called the Advanced 

Technology Partnership, and the other one is called the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Have you supported those programs 

in the House? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Honestly, I would have to look back in my record, 

Senator, to give you an accurate answer. I am not sure what my 

record would be on that. 

Senator LEVIN. Do you believe there is a very important vigorous 

role that is essential for the Federal Government in terms of support of manufacturing in America? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Yes, sir, and please do not let the name ‘‘rural’’ disguise the fact that Iowa has a number of small rural companies 

and also some pretty large manufacturers as well. We lost just recently Maytag, as an example, in Iowa and over the years have had 

some enormous challenges with John Deere, as an example. So we 

have some small and large manufacturers. I am very sensitive to 

that, represented those areas in my district. I believe in order for 

us to be competitive, one of the areas, as we were just talking, is 

our Tax Code, because one thing that we have always prided ourselves on in this country is that we have an arm’s-length relationship with those businesses. Some countries are very overt in their 

partnerships with those companies. We try and take an arm’slength relationship with them. 

But one of the ways that we can ensure that they are competitive 

is through our Tax Code, and I believe that is an area that should 

be ripe for discussion and for proposals within comprehensive tax 

reform. 

Senator LEVIN. The OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OIRA, has as its primary job the review of draft agency 

rules before they are published. They are published for public comment before they are adopted. Under the existing Executive Order, 

the process of those rules and their consideration during the drafting process is supposed to be a transparent one, and the current 

Executive Order says that it must be disclosed to the public those 

changes in the regulatory action that were made at the suggestion 

or recommendation of OIRA. In other words, the relationship between the agencies and OIRA is a critical one. 

But OIRA has now circumvented the Executive Order by establishing a process of informally reviewing—the word ‘‘informally’’ 

17 

being the key one—agency-proposed rules before the proposed rule 

is formally presented to OIRA. 

Now, changes that are made because of these informal reviews 

are not disclosed to the public, although the Executive Order does 

not make a distinction between changes based on formal presentation or informal presentation by an agency to OIRA. It says 

‘‘changes that are made at the recommendation or suggestion’’ are 

supposed to be disclosed to the public. 

Will you see to it that the Executive Order’s spirit as well as its 

letter is maintained and that changes that are proposed, recommended, or result from conversations between the agencies and 

OIRA are disclosed to the public? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Senator, if confirmed, I will take a look at that. I 

have been made aware that this is an area of concern, and it is a 

challenging area because, of course, you need to have something to 

look at. And until a regulation is formally presented, until there is 

a regulation to discuss, it may be difficult—and I think we are 

going to have to talk to counsel to understand exactly how that 

process works—to know when that Executive Order formally kicks 

in. 

I am not sure I am in a good position, having not held the job 

yet, to do more than say I am aware of the challenge. I am for 

transparency. I believe that our processes should be transparent. 

My understanding is that there is a new website where these regulations are posted so that we have better transparency for the general public as well as you and the staff as to how these regulations 

are promulgated. The Executive Order in and of itself commands 

transparency that was not there prior to the last two Administrations. 

So we are working to become more transparent. That would be 

my endeavor. I would be happy to work with you, if I am confirmed, to ensure that continues. But to jump into the middle of 

that legal, should I say, interpretation at this point without having 

had the job, I think, would be a challenge for me. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Levin. Senator Warner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We welcome, as American citizens, your willingness to return to 

public life and have your family accept the long hours and heavy 

burdens of the office to which you are about to be confirmed. 

Mr. NUSSLE. I did not tell her about that. Don’t—— [Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. Well, I could give a little advice having been 

in a position comparable in my past years. All the decisions made 

after 8 p.m. are usually reviewed and reversed in the morning. 

[Laughter.] 

So get him home. 

My dear friend here Carl Levin and I came to the Senate together 29 years ago and joined the Armed Services Committee, and 

since that time the distinguished Chairman has become a member 

of the committee, Ranking Member Collins, and Senator Akaka, so 

there are at least five of us on this Committee that have the privilege to be on that historic and great committee. 

18 

But we have watched here under the Administration of President 

Bush the repeated necessity—I will use that word for the moment, 

‘‘necessity’’—to have a major part of our defense expenditures processed quickly by the Appropriations Committee and passed on to 

the President. 

That just does not work. It does not work for the benefit of the 

men and women of the armed forces, the overall programming, the 

long-term programming. The Armed Services Committee is an authorizing Committee. It is there for a specific purpose. The Appropriations Committee is to make allocations, important decisions as 

to the quantum of money for the various programs that we authorize. 

We have extensive hearings going into all aspects of defense 

spending, and predicated on our findings in those hearings are the 

decisions made to authorize or not authorize or to authorize at levels that we deem appropriate. 

It has gotten to a point where it has almost broken down, and 

I am not faulting the appropriators. This burden, in a sense, has 

been cast upon them. 

I would like to have your views—fortunately, you have been in 

the Congress, and you understand the difference between an authorizing committee and an appropriations committee—and what 

steps you will take hopefully to correct the major departure from 

the historic way the Congress of the United States has handled 

this all-important budget for our national defense. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, Senator, first of all, for you to ask my advice 

on this matter honors me because there is no one that I am aware 

of that is any stronger advocate and has more expertise when it 

comes to defense matters. And so I am honored that you would 

even ask me the question. 

Let me suggest that this is an area where my passions may have 

spilled over, maybe even in a nonpartisan way. I believe I was the 

first Republican, and certainly the only Chairman that I am aware 

of, that criticized the Administration for the method by which it 

has funded the war going back to the very beginning of that war 

and suggested that appropriation by supplemental after supplemental after supplemental is part of the challenge that not only 

our overall budget has but that we have seen continue as a challenge for giving the kind of predictability you spoke of for our men 

and women in harm’s way. 

If confirmed, I will continue to be a strong voice even if that is 

to the disagreement of others within the Administration that I believe that, as much as possible, this needs to be budgeted. That is 

what a budget is. It is a plan. It is indicating what your priorities 

are. It is indicating how long that challenge or that opportunity 

may be out there. It is recognizing the costs not only from a fiscal 

standpoint, but it is recognizing how it is balanced within those 

priorities. And I wanted to see that built into the Administration’s 

plan. 

The good news—and I am certainly not willing to take any credit 

for this because there were many who have joined in that chorus 

on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan way—is that the Administration now does that to a much better job than it did in year one, 

two, and three of the war. This year, as an example, it does build 

19 

that into the budget, and it does not only build in the supplemental 

into the budget, but also recognizes certain out-year obligations. 

But we could do a far better job, and Senator, I think the challenge between authorizers and appropriators is one that, while I 

would wish you and I would be able to change, is a natural tension 

that has been there for quite some time within the Congress. Sometimes that tension is good. It provides oversight. It provides for the 

kinds of debate and discourse that needs to occur within very challenging areas, such as homeland security, such as defense. They 

are paramount responsibilities of the Federal Government. 

But other times it can be very problematic where an authorizing 

Committee comes in at a very high level of spending, and then 

when the appropriators do not match it, there is confusion over, 

well, wait a minute, wasn’t there supposed to be a little extra 

money there? 

So it is a natural tendency—— 

Senator WARNER. I am fully familiar with that. That has always 

been a historic part of the disagreement between the two Committees. But it is this constant enormity of these supplementals that 

come through without even a glimpse by those of us who spend our 

whole time on defense. Appropriations scatters itself over all the 

issues before the Congress. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, sir, I share that concern. I have been an advocate, as I know you have, in that regard. I may not win every battle that I wage, but when I believe in something, I will be glad to 

tell you that, and I will be glad to tell colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle, or my boss. 

Senator WARNER. Well, there may be some means by which on 

a supplemental the authorizers could take a quick look at it—not 

hold it up, but a quick look—to give its views before it went on to 

the Appropriations Committee. 

Thank you very much. Good luck. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Thank you. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Warner. 

Senator Akaka was next, but he had to leave, so Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Welcome, Congressman Nussle, it is good to see you, and we are 

delighted that you are before us today. 

I would say to my colleagues, I came to the House of Representatives in 1982 following the election that November, and a member 

of our freshman class was John Spratt, who, as we know, has been 

working with Congressman Nussle for some time on the Budget 

Committee in the House. 

I do not know about the rest of you, but when I am trying to find 

out whether to hire somebody, one of the things that my staff and 

I always like to do is call folks, on the Q.T., who have worked with 

the particular candidate and just say, well, what do you think, 

what was this man or woman like to work with. And I took advantage of my friendship of long standing with John Spratt, just to call 

him and say, ‘‘Talk to me about Jim Nussle. What was he like to 

work with? What was he like to serve with? Talk to me about his 

intellect, his honesty, his ability to keep a promise.’’ And I would 

20 

just share with all of you, as I am sure Congressman Spratt will 

share with the Budget Committee, his high regard for Jim Nussle 

and his belief that he will serve ably in this post. It was a pleasure 

to serve with him in the House as a member, and I was privileged 

to be among the folks that served with him on the Banking Committee. 

I want to really ask you to comment on three things. First, I 

want to go back to, I guess it was, 1995 and 1996 when there was 

a meltdown in the budget process. The Federal Government came 

to a halt. We had a President of one party; we had a Congress with 

the majority of the other party. And let me just ask what lessons 

do we take from that experience—not a very good experience for 

any of us. But what lessons do we take from that experience and 

how can we avert that today when we have a President of one 

party and a Congress with a majority of the opposite party? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, as the Senator knows, you were governor, I 

believe, at that time, but I was here for that, and I guess a couple 

of lessons. 

First of all, it wasn’t the final answer, and the one thing that we 

know about it is that it certainly is one of the chapters in the challenge, but it is not the final answer. Even when there is a breakdown, there needs to continue to be the kind of communications 

and conversation, debate, discussion that needs to occur to find a 

solution. That would be lesson No. 1. 

Lesson No. 2 is that we need to start earlier, and every one of 

my reform proposals that I have put forth has always tried to force 

earlier conversations about what we know is going to be a problem. 

On day one, when the President came out with $933 billion, I can 

tell you if the Chairman is as able as I know he is, Kent Conrad 

and John Spratt, I know they knew that was going to be a difficult 

budget. And by the same token, the President was put on pretty 

early alert when the budgets were passed at $953 billion. So there 

was an early warning signal that we had a problem. 

Since then there has not been the kind of communications that 

needs to, I believe, go on. Part of it is because there have been a 

number of other very challenging subjects that have come up. But 

early communication, which is why I am stressing the need to, with 

only 27 legislative days left in the fiscal year, have someone who 

wakes up every day and goes to OMB and works on this problem 

on behalf of the President, as well as recognizing the sensibilities 

of what’s happening here on the Hill, I think, is vitally important 

if we are going to find that answer. 

Senator CARPER. Alright. Thank you. I want to return and visit 

just very briefly with you a matter we touched on when you were 

kind enough to visit with me. One of my focuses in my 6 years that 

I have been here has been how do we provide cost-effective airlift 

in the 21st Century for our country. And we do that with a combination of airlift and sealift. Most of the cargo that we move 

around the world to support our troops we do with ships. Most of 

the people that we move around the world, our military personnel, 

we do it with aircraft. Roughly half the folks go on commercial aircraft and half the folks go on military aircraft. 

I talk about an air bridge that includes C–5s, that includes C– 

17s, that includes C–130s. We are operating currently with a game 

21 

plan going forward of eventually flying 190 C–17s, a wonderful aircraft. We are just getting a new squadron of them in the Dover Air 

Force Base. We are also calling for—the Department of Defense is 

calling for 110 C–5s, and then a bunch of C–130s to supplement 

those aircraft. 

About 2 or 3 years ago, the Congress passed legislation that said, 

before we retire additional C–5s, we want to make sure that a modernization effort is underway to fully modernize the aircraft—new 

engines, new hydraulics, 70 new systems in all, new cockpits—we 

want to make sure that we have the opportunity to update, fully 

modernize three aircraft, flight-test them for 18 months, and evaluate them before we decide whether or not to retire any additional 

aircraft. 

This is probably something you have not given a lot of thought 

to, but I want you to keep your eye on this ball, and I would just 

ask that you do that as we go forward. 

Mr. NUSSLE. I appreciated the conversation we had, Senator, and 

I would be very happy to work with you on this issue. I thought 

your arguments were very compelling. But you are right, I do not 

have a lot of independent information about that, but I would be 

very happy to work with you because I know it is a concern to you. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. The last thing I want to say in the 

few seconds that are remaining, we are going through a time in our 

country—and one of our colleagues has already mentioned, I think 

Senator Levin, the loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs. We are 

seeing a diminution, almost a scary diminution, of our manufacturing base with respect to automobiles. 

One of the things that several of us—Senator Voinovich and myself, Senator Levin and others on the Committee—have focused on 

is how do we, on the one hand, reduce our reliance on foreign oil, 

how do we reduce the emission of harmful stuff into the air, and 

how do we maintain a manufacturing base, including an automotive manufacturing base. 

As I see it, there are several roles that the Federal Government 

can and should take. One of those is R&D investments, including 

investments in new battery technology, to make available the creation of plug-in hybrid vehicles that will enable us to compete 

around the world; second, using the government’s purchasing 

power to help commercialize new technologies and advance the 

technology business, both on the civilian side and on the defense 

side. Maybe a third is to use tax policy to incentivize folks to buy 

more energy-efficient vehicles in this country and to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, to clean up our air, and to try to make sure 

we have a manufacturing basis. 

Your thoughts on those three roles: Again, R&D investments, including new battery technology; using the Federal Government’s 

purchasing power to help commercialize new technology; and, lastly, a tax policy to help incentivize people to buy more energy-efficient vehicles. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, Senator, I know of your leadership in these 

areas, and I agree with all three. If I may be permitted to add one 

more in addition to that, I would add education, and I understand 

that the States take the primary lead with regard to education, but 

science education and entrepreneurial mentoring, if you will, beVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:13 Dec 01, 2008 Jkt 037363 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\37363.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
22 

cause we need to create not only the jobs of the future, but we also 

need to create the job creators of the future if we are going to be 

successful. And certainly within that atmosphere that you are creating, with energy policy, with R&D through a more competitive 

tax policy, we have to make sure that our young people, and others, 

through non-traditional ways are constantly learning and keeping 

up with the skills they are going to need to be able to not only take 

those jobs but create those jobs. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much, and good luck. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

Just for the information of my colleagues, the order in terms of 

arrival is Senators Sununu, Tester, Voinovich, and Coleman. 

Senator Sununu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUNUNU 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is great to 

see Mr. Nussle here. I am only a little bit disappointed that he 

brought up our campaign to be Budget Chairman, although that 

probably worked out very well for both of us. He did a great job 

at the Budget Committee, and obviously the next year was the year 

that I ran for the Senate, and I was very pleased to be assigned 

to this Committee, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to make a few observations about this process, and then 

I have a question about the ‘‘M’’ in OMB, the management responsibilities in oversight and what you hope to bring to the agency 

from that perspective. 

Both you and a few of the Senators, who have already spoken, 

I think made some important points, but they really should be emphasized because, despite the support you may have here, any 

nomination can be a little bit challenging. A lot was made of bipartisanship. Bipartisanship is important. In the legislative process, 

we look for bipartisan relationships because they might help us to 

enact legislation more quickly. 

But as was pointed out, whether we like it or not, the way the 

1974 Budget Act was written, it created a very partisan process. 

I think this Committee probably ought to look at why that is and 

what the shortcomings of the 1974 Budget Act are. Because if we 

are frustrated by the partisanship of that process, then we need to 

look at the law because that is largely what drove it. Under Democrats or Republicans, the budget process has been extremely partisan, and that is certainly not Jim Nussle’s fault. 

In fact, I think the point we have to look at is in a partisan environment, what are the characteristics that we really want in a 

leader. Whether it is the leader of OMB or leader in any other part 

of the Executive or Legislative Branch, we want professionalism, 

we want civility, we want integrity, and we want credibility. And 

if we listen to Senator Harkin, Senator Grassley, and their personal experiences, and Congressman Spratt, with whom I was 

pleased to work with in the House on a lot of partisan matters, 

those are the characteristics that Mr. Nussle has brought to his job 

in the House and I know he will bring to OMB. 

23 

So I think it is at least as important as we talk about those characteristics of professionalism, civility, and integrity as we ask the 

question of what kind of a job Mr. Nussle will do at OMB. 

And as a corollary to that, if someone does not think that Mr. 

Nussle has those characteristics or has not exhibited them to the 

extent that they might have liked to have seen in the past, I hope 

they will be up front, honest, and professional about describing 

those instances where Mr. Nussle may have fallen short. And I will 

say to date what I have heard mostly from the few voices that have 

provided some criticism is phrases like people have said to me that 

they felt Mr. Nussle was ‘‘a little confrontational at times,’’ or ‘‘I 

heard that someone said that they had a problem with him.’’ 

Well, that is not appropriate. It is simply not appropriate to criticize someone’s performance by repeating rumors or secondhand information that you may or may not have heard from someone else. 

If someone has a criticism, I hope that they will absolutely be public and give Mr. Nussle the opportunity to deal with that very directly, as I know he always has. Whether Republican or Democrat, 

as we have heard, if you have had a disagreement with him, he is 

happy to talk to you about it directly and honestly, and that is 

what professionalism, civility, and credibility is all about. 

Finally, on matters of policy, it is important that we bring up 

policy initiatives that we care about as senators or House members 

in dealing with the Director of OMB. But I do hope that a disagreement on a particular vote or a particular issue is not a requisite 

for not supporting the nominee. Otherwise—not that any of us harbor any aspirations to ever be nominated by any executive to any 

position, but if disagreement on one vote one time is a reason to 

vote against a nominee, none of us are going anywhere. 

So I think this is a terrific nominee from personal experience, but 

also observing from afar the work that Mr. Nussle has done in his 

past. And as I said, I want to come back to this issue of management. There is responsibility for financial management within 

OMB, for transparency issues and accountability, for the financial 

systems that other departments and agencies bring. I want to give 

you an opportunity to talk about one or two areas that you think 

we can really improve the way the Executive Branch goes about 

day-to-day management and oversight and accountability on the financial management side. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, Senator, first let me say thank you for your 

comments, and I, too, while I have observed people on the other 

side who have disagreed with me from time to time, cannot think 

of a time where I have ever questioned their motives. They sincerely disagree, and they sincerely and very passionately disagree 

with me on issues. That does not mean they are partisan. That 

means they have passionate disagreement. And that is healthy for 

our system. In some countries, that spills out into the streets. 

Thankfully it only spills into a committee room now and then, and 

sometimes to the floor. And while we find that distasteful, it is better left there than on the street. 

With regard to management, I have had a chance to be briefed 

on a number of these, and I would be very interested, if I am confirmed, to work with you and others on this Committee who I know 

are very concerned about the ‘‘M’’ in OMB, and appropriately so. 

24 

The three that I observed and have asked questions about maybe 

more intensely than others: 

First, the fact that in the next 10 years, 60 percent of our Federal workforce will be eligible for retirement. We are going to lose 

a lot of good people to retirement, appropriately so. How do we replace them? How do we find the kind of quality individuals who are 

willing to be in public service and serve the needs of our country, 

our communities, and our constituents? 

Second, keeping up with technology. The whole E–Government office that is part of OMB has a monstrous task; $66 billion is the 

number I was told that the Federal Government is purchasing and 

has under its control, assets involving information technology. It is 

a daunting task, and if you are in a small business in Iowa just 

trying to keep up with the advances in technology, it is hard 

enough. Trying to do it as a Federal Government with $66 billion 

plus in your ledger for financing, making sure they communicate, 

making sure they are adequate, making sure they are doing the 

things you wanted them to do, all of that is very important. 

The third is financial management in general. I remember one 

of my very first hearings on the Budget Committee, a hearing 

about some of the financial management challenges at the Defense 

Department, as an example, and others where we are just not able 

to do an audit. People find money all the time. They find that they 

lost money all the time. I picked up the paper the other day, and 

dead farmers are getting farm payments. We pick up the paper, 

and we find that ice is shipped some place away from Hurricane 

Katrina and melted at taxpayers’ expense, according to the GAO 

report. I mean, we find this all the time, and we wonder why can’t 

we do a better job of managing those billions, let alone the nickels 

and dimes that go around. 

So those are the three big management challenges, and they involve enormous sums of money. We will argue and debate and discuss and hopefully come to a conclusion over this 2 percent. But 

I can tell you, we probably and unfortunately waste more than that 

in the Federal Government just this year alone. And the President’s budget has a number of areas that I have been informed 

about that work on these improper payments, and there has been 

some savings—I believe $9 billion just in the last 2 years have been 

saved through some reforms in improper payments. But much more 

work needs to be done there, and so those would be the three huge 

management challenges, I would say, that confront the next Director, and I hope I am confirmed to be able to take those on and tackle them. 

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Senator Sununu. I was thinking 

as Senator Sununu was raising the question of the allegations of 

your partisanship, some say from your record in the House you 

were quite bipartisan. Others say you were quite partisan, and 

they cite a single incident. So I think to make the record of this 

hearing complete, I should ask you, if confirmed, whether you 

pledge never to put a paper bag over your head again. [Laughter.] 

Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, everyone is—at least I have always 

thought everyone is allowed at least one freshman mistake. It is 

one of those incidents that—I am proud of the fact that it rooted 

25 

out what was, I think, a bipartisan scandal. It was not a partisan 

scandal. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. NUSSLE. It actually was a bipartisan scandal. But I believe 

I can safely commit to you, Mr. Chairman, that I will not be doing 

that. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is very reassuring. [Laughter.] 

Not just to the Committee, but I am sure to the Administration. 

Mr. NUSSLE. And to my family as well, I would have to say. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Tester. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Jim 

Nussle for being here today. 

I appreciate your comment on Senator Warner’s question about 

the war in Iraq being funded not through the regular budget process but through supplementals and how you would fight to make 

sure that changes back. At least that is what I heard you say. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. And I would be interested to know, just on a 

side note, if you could tell me why it was done that way. It does 

not make any sense. You were chairman of the Budget Committee 

in the House for most of the time that was going on. Why did they 

go the supplemental route? I could see it maybe the first year, but 

4 years out, 5 years out? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Senator, I can only give you the answers that I was 

given at the time and that you have probably been given as well, 

and I will not dwell on them except to say most of the reason for 

having a supplemental ever is because during the normal budget 

process, something could not have been budgeted for. It was an 

emergency. But let me get to why I was frustrated. 

Senator TESTER. Sure. 

Mr. NUSSLE. But that is the argument that is always made: We 

do not know how much it is going to cost; we do not know what 

the exigency will be; we do not know what challenges will lay out 

there. 

But it was never zero. The challenge I saw was they would fail 

to fund it in the year, and then in the out-years pretend as though 

they were not going to be there. And that was frustrating to me. 

So I agree with you that at least there ought to be some acknowledgment, and that is what was not there until this year. Finally, 

there has been, I think, some good work in acknowledging that 

challenge. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I appreciate your leadership in pushing 

that forward to make sure it is done right in the regular budget. 

On veterans, there has been a lot of talk about the funding for 

veterans. There has been a lot of talk about the needs in the Veterans Administration with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom, the war in Afghanistan, on and on, disability claims, 

health care. The list goes on and on. 

Your perspective? Where are we at? Are we headed in the right 

direction as far as veterans benefits and the allocation of the dollars? And is it getting to the veterans on the ground? Are we moving in the right direction? 

26 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, Senator, in a bipartisan way, together with 

members of my committee, I never saw a President’s budget that 

we were not willing to plus up a little bit for the veterans because 

of their service. This was true during the Clinton Administration; 

it was true during the Bush Administration. It will probably be 

true for a time to come. We need to honor their service. We need 

to make sure that their benefits are paid. We need to make sure 

that they have adequate access to those services. 

But I also believe we should constantly look at ways to deliver 

those services that recognize a changing world. I represented a 

rural area, and you, obviously, probably represent one of the most 

rural areas in the country. And access to veterans’ services is challenging. 

We came up with this clinic system as an example where outpatient clinics could be put forth. Those are bipartisan discussions 

as a way to be able to serve veterans in a new way than maybe 

the outdated ways that were done during the 1960s and 1970s. We 

need to constantly look at reforming the system to make sure those 

dollars are delivered to the veterans. 

Senator TESTER. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your commitment to the people who served, making sure they get the benefits 

that are owed. 

Native Americans, the trust responsibility, the fact that we had 

a hearing in the Indian Affairs Committee not long ago where a 

person from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) said, ‘‘I have to 

choose between allocating dollars to abused children and roads.’’ 

And the question is, there has been a lot of funding, whether it is 

Indian health, whether it is roads, whether it is social services, 

where a lot of those funds have been reduced. 

What is your perspective? Do you think that is reasonable? Do 

you think that the BIA is accountable enough? What is your perspective on that budget? And do you think it needs to be bumped 

up or maintained? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Senator, this is an area in which I have to admit 

not having a lot of personal knowledge during my time in Congress, but I would commit to listening to you and working with you 

to understand the challenge that not only you have but that Native 

Americans have throughout our country. So let me commit to doing 

that rather than try to fumble through a guess. 

Senator TESTER. Outstanding. You talked about a path to balance the mandatory spending. I assume you are talking about Social Security and Medicare in particular. What are your suggestions? What are you going to advocate? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, it is not so much balance; it is recognizing 

that the amount of revenue that has been obligated for those 

amounts are either running out or we know they are inadequate. 

They are unfunded in the out-years. As I say, we have 10 years to 

solve Social Security. We probably do not even have that. 

Senator TESTER. Undeniable. What would you advocate? 

Mr. NUSSLE. I think at this point in time the proposals are imperfect on both sides. Both sides have rejected proposals that the 

other sides have come up with. More than anything else, we need 

to continue this conversation. We cannot just assume that we will 

wait for the calm of a non-election year. As you and I both know, 

27 

it is always an election year, it seems, and if we are waiting for 

that calm, my guess is that calm will never come. We need to recognize the storm and get to work, at least talking to one another, 

all of us, about the kind of proposals that could work to solve that 

problem. 

Senator TESTER. OK. Well, I certainly appreciate it, and I think 

the priorities of listening, learning, teamwork, and honesty are 

good foundations to work off. 

I am new to this body at the Federal level. You were Budget 

Chairman from 2001 to 2007. The national debt has increased from 

$5.8 trillion in 2001 to $9 trillion, about a 50- percent increase. 

You were chairman of the Budget Committee in the House. You 

had Republican comrades in the Senate, a Republican administration. Can you explain how we have had a 50-percent increase in 

our national debt under folks who claim to be fiscally conservative? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, Senator Tester, let me just recount for you— 

and this is probably why I like a challenge. I was elected at a time 

when we had the dot-com bubble burst; we had the corporate scandals that put shivers into the marketplace; we had the attacks of 

September 11 during one of my very first months as Chairman; we 

had the emergency spending that came after that; of course, the 

war on terror; Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And the list goes on 

and on, and that drove up enormous amounts of spending. 

I will tell you, though, that one of my very first experiences, in 

addition to submitting a budget, was to work together with Republicans and Democrats in the aftermath of September 11 to respond. 

And I can tell you, there was never a brighter moment, even 

though it was deficit, even though it was a struggle, even though 

people had differences of opinion, we came together in a bipartisan 

budget way that people forget about and responded. And I think it 

was one of the foundations that has kept our country moving in a 

positive direction, which would have been a gut punch to other 

countries that they would have never gotten up from. 

Senator TESTER. And I appreciate that, by the way. I think just 

a closing comment and then I will shut it down because I know my 

time has run out. But on my farm, I look at income and I look at 

expenses. I just don’t look at expenses. I look at income, too. And 

the fact that income tax has been static for the last 7 years tells 

me something is going on there, either that the schedule is flawed 

or we do not have the kind of growth we need or we have reduced 

our ability to get those funds. 

But I do know one thing. If I continue to increase my debt by 

50 percent over 5 or 6 years—you know this, too, coming from 

Iowa—you are not going to be in business long. And my concern 

is for our kids and our grandkids in this country. 

I want to thank you very much for being here. I want to thank 

you very much for making your answers as concise as possible. And 

I appreciate your candidness. 

Mr. NUSSLE. I look forward to working with you. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Tester. Senator Voinovich. 

28 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous 

consent that my statement be made part of the record. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH 

Good morning. I would like thank the Chairman for this Committee’s timely consideration of the nomination of Jim Nussle to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). I had the privilege of meeting with Mr. Nussle last 

week and was impressed with his understanding of the fundamental issues facing 

our nation. If confirmed, Mr. Nussle would come to this position as our nation faces 

some of the most daunting financial challenges in its history. 

I arrived in Washington in 1999, and in the eight short years since, our national 

debt has increased by over 50 percent from $5.6 trillion to a staggering $8.7 trillion. 

It represents 67 percent of the GDP—the worst number in 50 years. This means 

that each man, woman, and child in the United States owes $29,000 of the federal 

government’s debt. And yet, these numbers pale in comparison with the budget 

problems looming in our future as the Baby Boom generation begins to retire 161 

days from now, on January 1, 2008. Reality is setting in that this is not just a faroff prediction. It’s a growing storm on the horizon that threatens to overwhelm our 

economy if we do not act now. 

In today’s dollars, we face a long-term fiscal imbalance of $50 trillion; that’s such 

a big number it’s hard for any of us to even grasp, but it works out to $440,000 

for every household in the United States. When I warned of our fiscal problems last 

year, the fiscal gap was $46 trillion, or $405,000 per household. In just that one 

year, our future debt obligations have grown by $35,000 per household. Every year 

that we wait and do nothing, this debt continues to grow. Just six years ago, the 

fiscal gap was ‘‘only’’—and I put the word ‘‘only’’ in quotes—$175,000 for every 

household, less than half of what it is today. This is not a can we can kick down 

the road. 

What is of growing concern to me is that 55 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors—mostly foreign central banks. That’s up from 

35 percent just five years ago. Foreign creditors—including China and OPEC—provided more than 80 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001, 

according to the Wall Street Journal. Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from 

foreign governments puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that hold our debt do not 

control our future. 

Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to ignore the fiscal crisis confronting our nation. The Comptroller General of the United States has been participating in a series of fiscal wake up tour events—including one in Columbus, Ohio, that Mr. 

Nussle’s predecessor, Rob Portman, attended; and another in Cincinnati that I 

helped organize—to discuss with Americans the real state of the nation’s fiscal 

health. I share the Comptroller General’s concern, which is why I have partnered 

with Representative Frank Wolf to introduce the SAFE Commission Act. The SAFE 

Commission would establish a bipartisan commission to propose tax and entitlement 

reforms. Congress would be forced to consider those proposals under fast-track procedures similar to BRAC or trade promotion authority. 

Furthermore, I believe Mr. Nussle and I agree that for a long time, the M in OMB 

had been forgotten. Under strong leadership from Deputy Director Clay Johnson, I 

believe this Administration has brought much needed focus to management. Of particular interest to me are the challenges confronting the federal government in recruiting and retaining the world class workforce necessary to lead this nation 

through the 21st Century. OMB has a partner in this endeavor with Director Linda 

Springer at the Office of Personnel Management. In addition, during the last two 

and a half years, I have been working with OMB and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and various federal departments, including the Department of 

Defense, to address GAO’s High Risk list. The High Risk list identifies federal programs that are highly vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. In developing partnerships among all involved, the government has crafted a strategic 

plan for all but one of the 21 programs identified on the High Risk list. Mr. Nussle, 

as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I would expect you to continue 

this partnership, ensure resources are available to address problem areas, and hold 

departments accountable for progress. 

29 

A great challenge in government is for organizations to retain appointees in key 

leadership positions. As executive branch agencies begin to prepare for the 2009 

budget cycle, I hope Congresses recognizes the need for a Director of Management 

and Budget to be in place to communicate funding priorities through the government and to the Congress. 

Thank you. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Nussle, thank you very much for taking 

time out of your schedule to visit with me in my office. You have 

come to Washington to continue your public service at a very important time for our President and also for our country. 

As you know, I am very interested in management, and one of 

the things that you ought to know is that the agency you have been 

nominated to lead, the Office of Management and Budget, ranks 

very low on the President’s Management Agenda. Are you aware 

of that? 

Mr. NUSSLE. I am. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Yes, OMB received red marks on all categories but one where it received a yellow rating, and I hope that 

this something you will focus on during your term. 

This Committee has worked hard to re-establish the ‘‘M’’ in 

OMB. I think about management in terms of working harder and 

smarter and doing more with less. I think about having the right 

people with the right knowledge and skills at the right place and 

time, and also being able to recruit, retain, and reward workers. I 

believe Clay Johnson has done a pretty good job in this area, but 

there is still a whole lot more that needs to be done. I would hope 

that you would particularly look at the need to reform our security 

clearance process, which has been on GAO’s high-risk list for a long 

time. I would also call your attention to the work that Senator 

Akaka and I have done on the issue of supply chain management. 

It looks like maybe we are going to make some progress there. And 

what I hope you will do is look at the high-risk list, review the 

strategic plan that Clay Johnson has put together, and then make 

sure there are adequate performance metrics in place. 

In addition, I would like you to look at whether we need a Chief 

Management Officer (CMO) for certain agencies. I would like to see 

one in the Department of Homeland Security. DHS continues to 

face numerous challenges as it merges 22 agencies and more than 

200,000 employees. DHS will remain a mess unless we have somebody who is going to pay attention to management. 

I believe the Defense Department is another agency that would 

benefit from a CMO where I think maybe we need someone with 

a 5-year term to ensure the Department’s business transformation 

finally gets done. 

I also, as you know, have been interested in tax reform and in 

entitlement reform. I remain very disappointed in the Administration that they did nothing with the report that came back from the 

Breaux-Mack Commission. 

As you know, Congressman Frank Wolf and I also have introduced legislation, the SAFE Commission Act, to try to put a BRAC 

process in place to do tax and entitlement reform. I would like your 

opinion on the possibility of advancing reform in either of these 

areas. The alternative minimum tax (AMT) needs to be dealt with. 

How do you feel about these issues? Will you be an advocate in 

the Administration for tax reform? 

30 

Mr. NUSSLE. Senator, I happen to believe that the alternative 

minimum tax may very well be the fuel that could help us with 

this project that you and I have visited about in private as well, 

and that is on reforming the Tax Code. It unfortunately never 

seems to have the critical mass behind it that it needs in order for 

the engine to start running toward reform. But AMT is probably 

one of the more challenging issues, budget issues, tax issues, that 

all of us are grappling with. And it is possible—I am suggesting 

that this could be the fuel that fuels that. 

So, yes, sir, I will be an advocate for comprehensive tax reform, 

to work on that with the Secretary of the Treasury, whom I also 

know is interested in that, or I have been told that and have read 

that, as well as a number of Members of Congress on both sides 

of the aisle who recognize, as Senator Levin suggested, that competitiveness is at issue, and so many others that recognize that our 

Tax Code is broken and needs to be overhauled. 

So, yes, sir, I would be an advocate and would enjoy, if I am confirmed, working with you on not only the tax reform issue, but also, 

knowing of your interest in the management area, any help we can 

get from you and others to help us push through continuing management successes and improvements I think would also be important for this Administration. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Well, I can tell you that in terms of tax reform, we have not really been encouraged. Your predecessor and I 

talked about it over and over again, and I know he was very interested in it. I think if you want to do something that is relevant at 

the end for the American people, at least get started with tax reform. It is so needed today. Everybody that you talk to says we 

have to do it. And I think that this Administration as part of their 

legacy could lay the groundwork for real reform. 

I think that would resonate with the American people, and it 

would be so important, I think, as part of this President’s legacy 

to this country. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Thank you. As I say, I would be happy to work with 

you on that. I happen to agree. One of the things I have learned 

in my 16 years in Congress is that oftentimes you need a little 

extra push, a little gas for the engine, so to speak. The engine of 

reform does not always run on its own. It needs a little fuel, and 

sometimes that fuel is negative reaction from our constituents. I do 

not know of one that could be any more negative than the AMT, 

and it may very well be the engine’s fuel that we need to help push 

this forward. 

So I would be honored, if confirmed, to work with you and others 

on that project. 

Senator VOINOVICH. By the way, Breaux-Mack included AMT reform. Thank you. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. That is true. Thanks very much, Senator 

Voinovich. 

I would like to ask the indulgence of Senator Coleman and Senator McCaskill. Senator Akaka was here earlier and had to go to 

another committee, so he did not get his round of questions. I 

would like to call on Senator Akaka now. 

31 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

It is good to have you here, Congressman Nussle. I also want to 

welcome your wife, Karen, to this hearing. I know how important 

a role she plays in all that you do. 

I understand that you were a part of the 2000 White House political transition team. However, from a management perspective, 

preparing for goverment-wide departmental transitions, which will 

occur in just 18 months, is an even bigger task, especially at DHS. 

Do you have any plans to have OMB begin laying the groundwork 

to ensure that agencies are prepared to carry on management initiatives into the next administration? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Thank you, Senator. I do not have any specific 

plans today that I can report to you. Having had an opportunity 

to be briefed on the part of the staff, Clay Johnson, and others who 

are working in this area, the management legacy is one that will 

be carried on, in part because of the bipartisan support it enjoys 

on Capitol Hill as much as anything. 

I believe that the next administration will ignore the management piece of OMB at their peril. I think it is smart from a business standpoint. I think it is smart from a budgetary standpoint. 

I think it is smart from a political standpoint. How embarrassing 

is it to pick up the newspaper and hear of waste, fraud, and abuse 

within your administration? And so ignoring this peril of managing 

these resources, I think, would be to the detriment of any administration, and having the backing of yourself and so many others 

with regard to the ‘‘M’’ in OMB, I think, will be a legacy that will 

live on almost regardless of who takes the directorship or who 

takes the Presidency. 

Senator AKAKA. In many of your pre-hearing questions, Congressman, you focused on budgetary issues, with little emphasis on 

management. What do you see as the relationship between OMB’s 

dual roles of directing management and formulating a budget? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Management is how you get it done. You are so 

right. The dollars are what usually grabs the headlines. The dollars 

are usually what we fight about and where we oftentimes see problems come up. But it really can be alleviated with better management. 

As I was saying before to a previous question, we are talking 

about a potential challenge in ending this fiscal year and beginning 

a new one over $20 billion—please do not misunderstand me, that 

is a lot of money. I am not suggesting it is not. But we have more 

than $20 billion that have been identified in overpayments in the 

Federal Government that through better management needs to be 

dealt with, needs to be alleviated, needs to be eliminated, and those 

resources redirected to either the appropriate parties or be plowed 

back into savings that can go to help reduce the deficit and pay 

down our debt. 

So I believe the management side of this equation is very important. The ‘‘M’’ comes before the ‘‘B,’’ and everybody who is in business recognizes that you cannot be successful in your business or 

in your personal life if you do not manage those resources properly. 

Senator AKAKA. You are very correct on that. Many of the problems we have relating to fraud and waste are usually due to poor 

32 

management. This is something that would be your responsibility 

if confirmed. 

I would like to ask one final question. Under current rules for 

contracting for services, contractors can be hired to develop, manage, and even oversee other contracts or contractors. At a hearing 

last week, Comptroller General David Walker said that it was time 

to redefine what we should consider inherently governmental functions. 

Do you think that the Federal Government relies too much on 

contractors? 

Mr. NUSSLE. It is a fair question, Senator, and I am not sure in 

the aggregate I am able to answer that, if it is too much or not 

enough. But I would say that you are correct—at least I agree with 

you that there should be a concern about particularly contractors 

managing contractors managing contractors in some instances it 

has been, as I understand it. I saw that question in the hearing 

packet that was sent to me, this is an area that we have talked 

about in my briefing, and I am told that this is an area that is not 

intended as anything but an inherently governmental role, meaning overseeing taxpayers’ dollars, the spending of those dollars, the 

management of contractors, where contractors are appropriate. 

That management is inherently governmental. 

I am not confirmed yet. I cannot negotiate with you what that 

definition would be. But let me say to you, Senator, that I believe 

that to be an inherently governmental role, and I would be happy 

to work with you, if I am confirmed, to make sure that definition 

is clear so that in our oversight from OMB of contracts, my responsibility and role is clear in making sure that there is oversight of 

those contracts. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate 

your responses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

I would like to welcome Congressman Nussle and his family to this hearing. With 

the fiscal and management challenges facing our nation, finding someone capable 

of strong leadership and a spirit of cooperation is essential for heading the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

With a budget approaching 1 trillion dollars, on top of a spiraling national debt, 

it is only natural that the Office of Management and budget focus on the ‘‘B’’ in 

OMB. However, the management responsibilities of the Director of OMB are every 

bit as important. In fact, government management is tied very closely with the 

budgetary powers wielded by OMB. 

There are now 27 areas on the Government Accountability Office’s High Risk List, 

which are indicators of programs across the government at risk for waste, fraud or 

abuse. Almost all of these areas are tied directly to poor management at the agencies. 

It is the responsibility of OMB to set guidance for the Federal Government to ensure sound management. The Federal Government now faces weaknesses in contracting management, human capital management, and financial management. As 

Chairman of the Oversight of Government Management subcommittee, I have witnessed first hand how a failure to manage effectively can waste taxpayer dollars and 

harm government missions. 

I understand that the nominee has little experience in management. I look forward to hearing how he intends to address management issues effectively in light 

of this inexperience. 

33 

I am also greatly concerned over the budgetary crisis this country now faces. 

While you will face more questions on this on Thursday before the Budget Committee, budgetary issues are also of very great importance to this committee. 

The Federal dollar continues to be stretched to meet the needs of the wars in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, the Global War on Terror, the continuing aftermath of the 2005 

hurricane season, and our other domestic priorities. At the same time, this Administration has attempted to push through tax cut after tax cut. Adding over $200 billion a year to the national debt is simply not sustainable. 

This heavy burden should not and cannot be laid at the feet of our children and 

our grandchildren. I am hopeful that Congress has finally started to right the fiscal 

course, which I have not been satisfied with throughout the current Administration. 

However, the Administration has threatened to veto many of the spending bills 

that Congress intends to pass in the coming months. This Administration must understand that in a divided government, it is essential that we all work together. It 

is my hope that whoever is at the helm of OMB will understand this imperative 

and work cooperatively with Congress on spending. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thanks very much, Senator Akaka. Senator Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start off 

by saying I am very pleased the President has nominated Representative Nussle for this position. I think he brings the expertise 

and he brings leadership. I think he brings the judgment that we 

need at this time. And so I look forward to supporting this nomination. 

I just want to respond to a comment my colleague from Montana 

raised and asked about, which is how did we get in this deficit situation with folks who are supposed to be firm against deficits. I 

could respond by saying, well, when I was in the majority I voted 

against a trillion dollars of additional spending by my friends on 

the other side. I could say that right now the deficit is only 1.5 percent of the overall economy, the 40-year average is 2.4 percent. I 

could say a lot of things. 

I am reminded of the ‘‘Pogo’’ cartoon that said, ‘‘We have seen 

the enemy and it is us.’’ The reality is—you are going to be in a 

position where there are programs that are important to us that 

you are going to come in and recommend spending less than we 

want to spend. I have had battles with OMB over community development block grants (CDBG). You have been a champion of that 

during your time in the House. 

I say that because—I have also used the position as Chairman 

of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to fight waste, 

fraud, and abuse—significant waste, fraud, and abuse. I want to 

make sure that we do not bring green eyeshades to the equation, 

that there are things that we invest in, like community development block grants (CDBG), that then promote economic growth in 

our communities. 

And so as we go through this process—and we could play political football one way or the other. But I am not looking for an answer on this because I know you have been there. You have been 

in the trenches. But there are those things that do generate 

growth, that are investment, that are infrastructure, and I hope we 

do not forget that. 

When you were talking about the ‘‘M’’ in management, the second piece was technology. Congress passed the Federal Information 

Security Management Act in 2002, and it focused on cyber security. 

34 

I believe Federal agencies scored an average of C-minus in the last 

year’s information security card. This is a critical issue. This is a 

national security issue. 

Can you tell me as Director of OMB what you would do differently to address cyber security? I do not want the FISMA thing 

to be simply seen as a patchwork responding to a report. I think 

we need a real commitment to cyber security; otherwise we will pay 

a very big price. Can we hold agencies more accountable? Can we 

do more things with the private sector? Do we need additional resources? I would love your perspective on that issue. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Senator, all of those answers that you just gave or 

particular potential alternatives may be correct, and I am not in 

a position, having not held the position of OMB Director, to be able 

to maybe give you enough wisdom or advice on exactly how that 

should be dealt with. But let me suggest to you, if I am confirmed, 

I am certainly much more in tune to that than I was as House 

Budget Chairman, not only how much responsibility lays within 

OMB, but how much the Director has to be personally committed 

to that. 

I am still learning the role, I would have to suggest, and so I 

may not be clear on all of the ways that I can apply pressure. But 

I would suggest that, first and foremost, I need to work with those 

different department heads, secretaries, agency administrators, 

etc., to ensure they understand—I believe they do, but how we can 

ensure that the resources that have been allocated deal with those 

challenges, work with Congress to make sure that we provide the 

kind of oversight and lessons learned, best practices, so that when 

there is an agency or a department that goes in one direction it 

should not, we can quickly snap that back and learn from that experience and move in a more positive direction. 

So I would commit, if I am confirmed, to work with you on this 

issue and to work with our E–Government Office to ensure that 

this is a commitment that is held throughout the government. 

Senator COLEMAN. My concern is that this becomes more than a 

paperwork drill. We had the VA reporting stolen external drive 

hardware impacting 26 million veterans. I think Commerce, Agriculture, and TSA have all reported incidents. I just think it is important. 

And then a last comment about technology. One of the comments 

I have heard from a number of agencies has been the difficulty in 

meeting—when we did the Hurricane Katrina hearing, we had a 

situation where FEMA said they knew stuff was in the pipeline, 

but they did not know where it was. And my comment was, ‘‘Why 

don’t you call FedEx?’’ I mean, the 21st Century, you should not 

be losing anything today. You should know where it is. And the response has come back a number of times of the difficulty in getting 

IT personnel, the level of expertise, in the Federal Government. 

The problem is that consumers really expect us to operate like the 

private sector does. They put the bank card in the ATM machine, 

and they get money out right away all over the world. And I have 

heard this from a number of agencies that it is difficult to get the 

level of talent, and so when the GAO says you need to come back 

with a change in 2003, they are still looking at getting it done in 

2006 and 2008, and maybe later. 

35 

So I raise that again, without looking for an answer right now, 

to simply raise the issue that in the end these are things that will 

make us cost-effective, that will make us safer, and apparently we 

are facing some grave challenges in getting the talent and moving 

forward at the level of the private sector. It really should not be 

way ahead of government on these things. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, thank you, Senator. It is the reason I made 

my comment to Senator Sununu that I did. I think it is one of the 

most important management challenges that OMB has, and that is 

the fact that we are losing—it is not only recruitment, but we are 

losing the ones that are experienced, too. So there are both sides 

to that coin, and so I appreciate that, and I appreciate your highlighting that with me. And if confirmed, I would be glad to work 

with you on that challenge. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator Coleman. Senator 

McCaskill, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Thank you, Mr. Nussle, for being here today. My colleague from 

Montana talked about the deficits under the watch of President 

Bush and the Republican-led Congress. I would like to talk about 

earmarks. 

It is unbelievable to me the growth in earmarking in the last 

decade. In 2005, when President Bush traveled to Illinois to sign 

the highway bill into law, it contained more earmarks in one piece 

of legislation than the entire history of the Highway Trust Fund 

going back to 1956. So in one stroke of the pen, the President enacted more—including the Bridge to Nowhere, which was later 

pulled out after people figured out it was in there. But there was 

lots of other stuff in there. 

In 1995, when the Republicans took over Congress, there had 

never been up until that point an earmark in the Labor, Health 

and Human Services appropriation bill, and look at it now. 

Just this year, the Republican Party in the House has requested 

10,000 earmarks in this budget. And the President is now making 

noise—this is the big irony. You talk about hypocrisy. The President is now making noise about earmarks, and he has been earmarking at a record pace for a President. 

I understand that people in Congress want to fund special 

projects at home. I think they incorrectly believe that most of their 

constituents want them to. I think they are wrong. I think most of 

their constituents want them to have the discipline to not participate. And, by the way, it has gotten to the point, as you well know, 

Congressman, that there was a spread sheet in the back room. I 

mean, this is a spread sheet. People are going in a back room, and 

you are told, ‘‘You get this much money. Tell us what you want.’’ 

And that is it, and then it got in the bill. 

Now, you were here as that process really took root. And I am 

not saying that Democrats aren’t doing the same thing. This is a 

nonpartisan criticism. 

As the Chairman of OMB, what can you do to say the emperor 

wears no clothes? I mean, the idea that now we are talking about 

36 

vetoing appropriation bills because of earmarks? Give me a break. 

I mean, he signed a thousand of them with all kinds of earmarks, 

and yet never said a word about earmarking. And it has become 

this political football, which, frankly, there are a few Republicans 

who do not participate in the earmark process. You probably know 

who they are. There are not that many of them. There are even 

fewer, probably, Democrats who do not participate in the earmark 

process. I am going to try to be one of them. I had over 300 groups 

come to my office saying they had been promised earmarks by my 

predecessor. 

Now, how are we going to get a handle on this? How are we 

going to push everyone away from the trough? Because this is not 

only bad budgeting, it is bad management. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Senator, I recall even my own thoughts in that regard, and the challenge, of course, comes up when those 300 constituent groups come to your office and they tell you that—and I 

do not have knowledge in this instance—the last person they 

talked to, the last Senator they spoke to, or your neighboring district Congressman promised them the same earmarks, why aren’t 

you supporting Iowa, or Missouri, whatever it might be? 

So you are right, it is not only the pressure that comes from 

within the Congress, but it is also the pressure that comes from 

home when they don’t quite understand why they can get the same 

commitment from someone else in the delegation. And I think all 

of that is runaway. 

I would say what I tried to do—and I do not come to this with 

clean hands. I am not suggesting I do. If you got that impression 

from me, I will admit to the fact that I cheerfully attempted to get 

earmarks for my district and was successful and issued press releases hoping to take a little credit for that. 

But what I will say is that I did suggest during that same period 

of time, those 2 years, those two cycles when I was House Budget 

Committee Chairman where this became an issue, that we stop the 

practice for everyone, that we have a moratorium on any new earmarks. I did not want to prejudge, let’s say, an earmark that someone had gotten that had gone through the process and had been approved. But I said no new ones, let’s just have a moratorium, and 

even that was not acceptable. 

So I do not come to this with clean hands. I also do not come to 

this with a certain amount of success in doing that. But we have 

to start somewhere, and I believe the most important part of what 

the President has put out there is one other area that you did not 

mention that I would just throw out for your consideration, and 

that is transparency. 

The one thing that I believe your earmarks and my earmarks 

should be able to withstand is the light of day, whether it is the 

light of day from our constituents or maybe more importantly the 

light of day from our members and colleagues that we serve with. 

Too often, I think the challenges with earmarks are the ones that 

no one ever saw, the ones that were dropped in at the last moment, 

the ones that seemed to go to certain members of committees or 

certain people with fancy titles. That is where people get frustrated, or at least I got frustrated as a member. 

37 

So I would think that the transparency of the goals the President 

has laid out is the most important goal that we need to live within, 

and if we do that, I think that transparency, that disinfectant of 

the light of day will solve much of this challenge. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Are you willing to advocate that the President make all of his earmarks transparent as he submits a budget? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Yes, ma’am, and—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Because frankly, Congress looks like pikers 

in this budget compared to the President in terms of how many 

earmarks are in it. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, if I may offer to you, the one difference that 

I would suggest to you is that, of course, the President has to put 

all of that on the table in the budget to start with. So if you want 

to call it an earmark, I certainly respect that. But you know it is 

there. The difference, as I was saying, that I think is frustrating 

to people is they do not see them. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, but sometimes you cannot tell it is 

there, though. I mean, you know that knowledge is power, and you 

know the reason this process has grown and there has been no accountability is because—and frankly, I have been critical of some 

of my colleagues on my side of the aisle. The idea that we need to 

vet earmarks internally—I will tell you who are the best people to 

vet earmarks. It is the public. That is the best vetting of earmarks. 

It is not Chairman Obey and it is not a committee—it is not a subcommittee chairman of an Appropriations Committee in the Senate. It is the public. And if the President is willing to put his name 

with specificity on projects that this is one he wants, then I think 

the public can—and I do not care whether it is a Democrat or Republican President. I think you are right. I think that would go a 

long way because, frankly, some of this stuff people are going to be 

embarrassed to put their name on. And so I think that might help. 

Then just briefly, if I could, Mr. Chairman, just one more question. Besides the earmark issue, noncompetitiveness. There was 

$200 billion in noncompetitive contracts in our government, which 

is more than 10 times the amount of earmarks. We have seen a 

growth in noncompetitiveness in terms of contracts in this Administration unlike any other. 

What will you do, if confirmed as OMB Director, to reverse the 

very dangerous trend, which is the worst kind of management you 

could ever have in a public body, of letting all of these contracts 

without competition? 

Mr. NUSSLE. If I may first just say one thing for the record, I am 

told by a note that was passed to me that the President has not 

specifically threatened a veto based on earmarks. I am not interested in arguing. I know what your point is, and I respect it. 

Senator MCCASKILL. The politics has already started on this. 

Mr. NUSSLE. I understand. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And it is all of a sudden the Democrats are 

the big bad boys in spending, which is just nuts. 

Mr. NUSSLE. All I am saying is I do not think any specific threat 

has been made based on that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. 

Mr. NUSSLE. But I take your comment very sincerely, and I appreciate it. 

38 

As far as the contracting goes, I, too, have been frustrated by 

some of that, and I have done some research on it to learn a little 

bit about why the government does these sole-source contracting or 

contracts that are not competed for. There are some situations 

where, because of an emergency, because of the exigency of getting 

a job done, you have to do it that way quick, and go get it done. 

The other, of course, is that there are some instances where there 

is only one source that makes a particular product or provides a 

particular service. Those are maybe rare, but they do happen, and 

there are reasons why that would occur. 

I think the goal here should be even in those instances where 

that might be the first order of business, we should look to constantly work toward a more competitive model. And so when you 

ask me what I would do, I would say to the gentlelady, if I have 

the opportunity to be confirmed, I will take that very much as a 

priority that we need to work toward a more competitive model and 

do so across the board where that is available, and that it should 

be transparent so that oversight not only on the part of the Administration through OMB as well as the primary contracting agency 

can provide oversight, but so that you can provide oversight as a 

Member of the Senate. 

So both of those need to be part of the commitment that I make, 

and I am happy to work on that with you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

Mr. Nussle, you have been excellent and given good responses. 

I am going to exercise the prerogative of the Chair and ask you a 

few more questions. 

Mr. NUSSLE. Please. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. The first is on defense spending and defense budgeting. It seems to me—and it is there in the numbers— 

that one of the most significant reasons why we have added to the 

Federal debt over the last 5-plus years is that we have increased 

spending on defense and homeland security post-September 11. 

Personally, I am on record as having said and still believing that 

I wish we had adopted a special war on terrorism tax at the outset 

post-September 11 to both fund increases in spending that were necessitated for homeland security and also particularly after we got 

into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have been very costly, and that we had asked as effectively as we could every American to pay something according to their tax bracket. 

But that has not happened. Defense spending has, nonetheless, 

increased necessarily quite significantly, and yet I think on the 

facts there is a very compelling argument to be made that we are 

still not spending enough. 

I can tell you as a member of the Armed Services Committee 

that the service chiefs presented to us more than $50 billion of 

what they consider to be unfunded priorities. These are not just ‘‘it 

would be nice if I could have them.’’ These generally fall into the 

category of ‘‘I really need them and the troops need them, but it 

is not within the budget limits that you have given me,’’ either in 

the President’s budget or in the congressional budget resolution. 

39 

Now, as you know, some Members of Congress in both parties 

have looked at possibly tying defense spending to a percentage of 

the GDP on the argument, which is a factual argument, that we 

are spending significantly less as a percentage of GDP on defense 

now than we did certainly during Vietnam, which was about twice 

as high a percentage. Korea was extremely high, much higher. We 

are at about 4 to 5 percent—now closer to 4 percent, probably; Vietnam was over 9 percent; Korea was 13 percent; and, of course, the 

Second World War was over 33 percent at one point. 

So I know that in the questioning with the Committee staff you 

rejected that kind of tie to a fixed percentage of GDP. I wanted to 

ask you to speak a little bit about defense spending, whether you 

think, in fact, there are priority needs that are being unmet, and 

if you don’t accept the goal of getting to a certain percentage of 

GDP, what is the metric, what is the standard that, as the Director 

of OMB, you would apply to defense spending? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, first of all, Senator, it is the most important 

priority of our government to maintain our freedom, and so we 

should take this very seriously. And I think it is illustrative to 

compare it to GDP because GDP is one denominator that we can 

use to compare a number of things, whether it is health care costs, 

defense, or taxes. I think it is a good measure. But the reason I 

saw it as maybe too imperfect was it seems to me to be arbitrary 

to tie it to a number and take the prerogative either away from the 

Commander-in-Chief in determining whether it should be higher or 

lower or, for that matter, from the Congress in its Article I responsibility of the power of the purse to make that decision, again, outside of that arbitrary match to GDP. 

Second, GDP is hard to measure. In fact, I should not say it is 

hard to measure, it is awkward in that you will get a new GDP 

number here shortly, and the number, let’s say, will come out with 

growth at 2 percent. And then it is adjusted 6 months later, and 

adjusted after that, either up or down, imperfectly making it a 

match to use as a denominator here. 

Finally, you asked me the direct question, are there needs that 

are being unmet? Yes, sir, I am sure there are. There are also 

areas where money is being wasted and not accounted for. I am 

sure they are there as well. And it is a constant pressure or tension 

on both sides that I think we need to grapple with. When you say 

what will be my metrics, obviously the Commander-in-Chief’s judgment and that of the Secretary of Defense in concert with the authorizing committees will be an important measure in determining 

what those priorities should be. I will do my best to balance those 

priorities with all of the rest in making my recommendations to the 

President. I do not have a magic bullet metrics I can whip out for 

you and say this is exactly how it is going to be measured. But I 

would end where I started, and that is, it is the most important 

thing we do, and that is providing for the security of our country. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. On that we agree. I want to talk briefly 

about PAYGO. As you know, one of the ideas in legislative statutory proposals we had for a considerable period of time through the 

1990s is PAYGO, that anytime you raise spending or cut taxes, you 

have to cover that so that we do not go into deficit. And I gather 

from the staff interview that you support PAYGO for spending but 

40 

not for cuts in taxes, and that the reason—and you correct me if 

I am wrong—is that you believe tax cuts pay for themselves. There 

are obviously a lot of reasons to adopt tax cuts, either because they 

are fair or because they stimulate some other general activity that 

is good for the country. But where is the evidence, if I am quoting 

you correctly, that they pay for themselves? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, that quote was one of those passionate moments where we were debating tax policy, and I would, if I may, 

rephrase it slightly. There are some tax cuts that are much more 

dynamic in their economic effect in stimulating the economy and 

bringing more revenue into the Federal Government than others. 

That is not true across the board. If I made that blanket statement, 

it was in error. 

Having said that, though, the whole notion of PAYGO, as you 

know, Senator, is a congressional rule. The President has come out 

against PAYGO. My position on PAYGO has generally been negative. But I will tell you, I have entertained the possibility of extending PAYGO within a comprehensive model. If you looked at the 

proposed legislation that I drafted together with Ben Cardin in a 

bipartisan way, we actually extended PAYGO as part of a comprehensive model. 

What I see as problematic is when you use PAYGO almost as a 

way to try to get Congress to do what it might normally not be in 

favor of doing. It is a political speed bump to a process which is 

political, small ‘‘p’’—meaning if the Congress works its will and decides to reduce taxes, as it did, I believe, in a couple of instances 

throughout the 1990s when PAYGO was in effect, PAYGO was 

waived. 

So PAYGO is there as a speed bump. We know it is there. 

Whether or not we spring over the top of it or allow it to stop the 

vehicle in motion is still a political decision. And that is why I 

found it to be imperfect as a way to determine whether or not legislation ought to be considered. 

Within an overall comprehensive reform package, I would keep 

an open mind with you, Senator, as we would possibly consider 

that; not to prejudge that, but I believe it is a spending challenge 

that we face in our country more so than ensuring more revenue 

is coming into the Federal Government. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. OK. Last question, and this takes me 

back to the beginning, and I present you with this hypothetical, but 

it is in all likelihood a probable scenario: that appropriations bills 

begin to be passed, and one reaches the President which takes us, 

by the projections, over the $933 billion that he has in his budget 

as the top line for domestic discretionary spending, so he vetoes it. 

As OMB Director, what do you do next? 

Mr. NUSSLE. Well, and your question presupposes what I stated 

to begin with as well, and that is, that is not the final answer. It 

cannot be. Our government must continue. Our country must be 

successful, and in order to do that, the Congress and the President 

must work together to work out their differences. And I would hope 

that we do not get to that first scenario. The first veto is what we 

need to avoid. 

There is always this comment about the fact that the President 

never vetoed these bills in the past, and I would just relate that 

41 

one of the reasons why I believe that is true—and I cannot speak 

for the President or read his mind—is that during those times, 

even when there was Democratic control of the Senate during my 

time as Budget Chairman, we held the line in the 302(a) number 

to the discretionary number in the President’s budget. It was awkward, it was challenging. We had fights, we had discussions, we 

had debates. People were not exactly satisfied, but we always held 

to that number. 

The challenge this year that we have is that the President is suggesting that this number is being breached, and I believe that is 

the reason why Rob Portman has made the suggestions he has 

made to the President about vetoing it. 

We are going to have to work through that, and I do not have 

a silver-bullet answer for you on exactly where that is going to end 

up. But I know, as I said to start with, it has to begin with conversation and communication in the 27 legislative days that we 

have remaining. And you have been very considerate to me, not 

only in working through this process with your staff and questions, 

but in meeting with me and giving me a timely hearing. I appreciate that because I know that, as I say, having watched this process, I believe one of the things that could help is having a Director 

in place that wakes up every day and works to resolve this. 

Chairman LIEBERMAN. Well, I thank you for the answer. That is 

exactly the challenge that you are going to have, and I think your 

background in Congress, and particularly some of the bipartisan 

work you did, will enable you to take action that will avoid crises 

that are unnecessary and, most of all, that will allow us to dispatch 

our responsibility to the people of our country. 

So I thank you for your testimony today, for your willingness to 

accept this responsibility, for your wife’s willingness to be supportive of you as you do that. 

The record, without objection, for this hearing will be kept open 

until 12 noon tomorrow for the submission of any written questions 

or statements. In the meantime, I thank you again and look forward to working with you. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(43) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR OBAMA 

The position of Director of the Office of Management and Budget is critical to the 

effective running of our government. On issues of fiscal policy, regulatory compliance, and government management, the Director of OMB must work with all Executive Branch departments and agencies, the White House, and Congress to ensure 

adequate and transparent budgets, satisfactory compliance, and the effective and responsive performance of government functions. 

I approach this nomination, like all nominations, with an open mind because I 

believe a President should generally get the benefit of the doubt in assembling his 

or her cabinet. The nomination process is not the best place either for petty political 

squabbles or major substantive debates. Our duty to advise and consent on nominations requires us to judge the competence and qualifications of nominees and to ensure that they have the character and commitment to uphold our Constitution and 

respect their role within it. Basically, will a nominee be an asset or an obstacle to 

the important work the American people expect us to be doing? 

It seems to me that a successful Director of OMB needs good policy judgment and 

political sense, integrity, and effective working relations with leaders in Congress. 

I believe that a successful Director also needs to prefer evidence to ideology, collaboration over confrontation, and concern for the common good over special interests. 

Congressman Nussle comes to us with a significant amount of Federal budget experience. He is not new to the political debates of the annual budget process and 

not unaware of the steps involved and compromises required in getting from the 

President’s Budget Proposal to a Concurrent Resolution by both houses of Congress 

to Conference Committee Reports on the various Appropriations bills. He understands the tasks that will confront him if he is confirmed. 

Whether or not Rep. Nussle has the appropriate appreciation for the regulatory 

and management functions of the job and whether his budget experience demonstrates the capacity to effectively perform the key functions of the job are the 

questions that will be probed today by the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and on Thursday by the Budget Committee. 

I had the opportunity to submit some questions to Rep. Nussle prior to the hearing and I have just a few more questions that I’d ask unanimous consent to submit 

today for the record. I look forward to reviewing his answers to my questions and 

the questions of my colleagues before reaching a conclusion on this nomination. 

44 


37363.001
45 


37363.002
46 


37363.003
47 


37363.004
48 


37363.005
49 


37363.006
50 


37363.007
51 


37363.008
52 


37363.009
53 


37363.010
54 


37363.011
55 


37363.012
56 


37363.013
57 


37363.014
58 


37363.015
59 


37363.016
60 


37363.017
61 


37363.018
62 


37363.019
63 


37363.020
64 


37363.021
65 


37363.022
66 


37363.023
67 


37363.024
68 


37363.025
69 


37363.026
70 


37363.027
71 


37363.028
72 


37363.029
73 


37363.030
74 


37363.031
75 


37363.032
76 


37363.033
77 


37363.034
78 


37363.035
79 


37363.036
80 


37363.037
81 


37363.038
82 


37363.039
83 


37363.040
84 


37363.041
85 


37363.042
86 


37363.043
87 


37363.044
88 


37363.045
89 


37363.046
90 


37363.047
91 


37363.048
92 


37363.049
93 


37363.050
94 


37363.051
95 


37363.052
96 


37363.053
97 


37363.054
98 


37363.055
99 


37363.056
100 


37363.057
101 


37363.058
102 


37363.059
103 


37363.060
104 


37363.061
105 


37363.062
106 


37363.063
107 


37363.064
108 


37363.065
109 


37363.066
110 


37363.067
111 


37363.068
112 


37363.069
113 


37363.070
114 


37363.071
115 


37363.072
116 


37363.073
117 


37363.074
118 


37363.075
119 


37363.076
120 


37363.077
121 


37363.078
122 


37363.079
123 


37363.080
124 


37363.081
125 


37363.082
126 


37363.083
127 


37363.084
128 


37363.085
129 


37363.086
130 


37363.087
131 


37363.088
132 


37363.089
133 


37363.090
134 

Æ 


37363.091