[Senate Hearing 117-381]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-381
NOMINATION OF NEERA TANDEN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOMINATION OF NEERA TANDEN, TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
__________
FEBRUARY 9, 2021
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-584 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ALEX PADILLA, California MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
Zachary I. Schram, Chief Counsel
Claudine J. Brenner, Counsel
Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director
Andrew Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director
Meredith Pohl, Minority Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Peters............................................... 1
Senator Portman.............................................. 3
Senator Johnson.............................................. 14
Senator Lankford............................................. 17
Senator Hassan............................................... 20
Senator Padilla.............................................. 22
Senator Sinema............................................... 24
Senator Ossoff............................................... 27
Senator Hawley............................................... 29
Senator Scott................................................ 32
Senator Rosen................................................ 34
Senator Carper............................................... 42
Prepared statements:
Senator Peters............................................... 51
Senator Portman.............................................. 53
WITNESSES
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
Hon. Amy Klobuchar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota... 5
Hon. Cory A. Booker, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey. 7
Neera Tanden to be Director, Office of Management and Budget
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Biographical and professional information.................... 58
Letter from U.S. Office of Government Ethics................. 94
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 98
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 134
Letters of support........................................... 170
APPENDIX
SW Border Apprehensions chart.................................... 169
NOMINATION OF NEERA TANDEN
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:19 a.m., via
Webex, and in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon.
Gary C. Peters, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Peters, Carper, Hassan, Sinema, Rosen,
Padilla, Ossoff, Portman, Johnson, Lankford, Scott, and Hawley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETERS\1\
Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix
on page 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am honored to preside as Chairman of this Committee for
the first time today, and I am looking forward to working
closely with my new Ranking Member, Rob Portman, who I see on
the screen here, and with all of my colleagues to tackle the
really tough challenges that our Nation is now facing.
I am also excited to welcome our Committee's two newest
members, Senator Alex Padilla, great to have you with us here
today and on the Committee going forward. Alex is from
California, and he is joined by Senator Jon Ossoff from
Georgia. We welcome you again and are thrilled to have both of
you on this Committee.
This Committee has a longstanding tradition of
bipartisanship, of coming together to get things done, and
given the many serious challenges facing our Nation, we have a
lot that we need to accomplish. I look forward to working with
everyone on this Committee to find common ground, to find
common-sense solutions, and to strengthen our national
security, and also to ensure that government is working
efficiently and effectively for all taxpayers.
Today our Committee is considering the nomination of Neera
Tanden to serve as Director of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Welcome, Ms. Tanden, and it is certainly good to
see you with us here today, and it is wonderful to see your
family. I had an opportunity to meet them earlier, and it is
great that they are all here to support you, not just today but
in the years ahead as well.
Also, congratulations on your historic nomination, and
thank you for your willingness to serve this great Nation of
ours.
The Office of Management and Budget, plays a central role
in developing and implementing the President's budget and
policy agenda across the entire Federal Government. To put it
simply, the Director of OMB is charged with ensuring that every
part of the Federal Government is effectively serving the
American people.
Ms. Tanden, this is a job that, let us say, is not easy
even in the best of circumstances. Once confirmed, you will
step into this role while our country continues to grapple with
a historic public health and economic crisis. However, after
our conversations that I have had with you, I am confident that
your decades of experience in public service have prepared you
to tackle this incredibly vital role within our government.
You know firsthand the struggles of working and middle-
class families in Michigan and across the country and the
challenges that they face every single day. Your experience has
taught you how much the Federal Government can help support
hardworking families and create opportunities. In fact, you
have devoted much of your career in public service to
championing economic policy that benefits all Americans.
We are nearly one year into dealing with a pandemic that
has decimated our economy and the livelihoods of too many
Americans. We need strong leadership at OMB to coordinate
additional support families across our country need. They need
emergency relief, they need vaccines, and they need guidance to
help swiftly and safely open our economy. As Director of OMB,
you will play a key role in steering our country toward a
national recovery.
You also are going to be responsible for coordinating
efforts to address many of the long-term challenges our Nation
faces, including protecting our cybersecurity infrastructure,
growing domestic manufacturing jobs, and even fighting climate
change. Communities in my home State of Michigan and across the
country are also struggling to address widespread
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. I hear from
Michiganders every day about how exposure to these harmful
chemicals are affecting their homes and their families, and
once confirmed, you will be responsible for coordinating the
Federal Government's response to this monumental problem.
You will also play a critical role ensuring that taxpayer
dollars are spent responsibly. That is why I appreciate your
robust commitment to transparency, accountability, and working
with Congress in a bipartisan manner. Given OMB's role at the
center of the Federal Government, you will be charged with
ensuring government is addressing the unique needs of
communities of color and most vulnerable populations.
You will also be a key player in the effort to reinvigorate
the Federal workforce that has been decimated in recent years.
Your perspective and your commitment will be critical to
ensuring that OMB and the Federal Government is delivering for
the American people each and every day. That is why you have
received support from numerous organizations such as the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, and over 100 public health experts have
written the Committee in support of your nomination, and
without objection, I will enter those letters into the
record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letters of support appear in the Appendix on page 170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's hearing is an important opportunity for me and my
colleagues to have a thorough discussion about how you plan to
lead OMB and how we can all work together in a bipartisan
manner to address the very serious challenges facing our
country.
Ms. Tanden, thank you again for your willingness to serve
and for being with us here today. With that, I will turn the
meeting over to Ranking Member Portman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN\1\
Senator Portman. Thank you, Chairman Peters, and I
appreciate your holding this hearing today. We have been
looking forward to having Ms. Tanden before the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Portman appears in the
Appendix on page 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me start by saying welcome as Chair. This is your first
official responsibility as Chair of this Committee, and you
mentioned earlier that we have a tradition of bipartisanship on
the Committee. That is mostly true. In fact, you and I have
worked on many issues together.
One indication of our relationship I suppose would be that
before we knew who was going to be in the majority in the
Senate, you and I had a meeting. It was several weeks ago now.
And whether it was going to be me as Chair or you as Chair, we
agreed to a number of items on our policy agenda, much of which
you have talked about this morning, and I will mention some of
it. But our Committee has this broad swatch of
responsibilities, a lot of which has to do with good government
oversight, some of which has to do with our homeland security
and our border, and there is always room for figuring out a way
forward, as you and I have done on a number of issues in the
past.
I look forward to having the opportunity to work with you
in your new role, and we will have our differences at times. We
will do so respectfully as we disagree. But we also have a
great opportunity to work together with the other Members of
our Committee. It is a strong Committee. I also welcome our two
new Members, Mr. Padilla and Mr. Ossoff. I think we have an
opportunity here, again, with the membership of this Committee,
to do a lot of good for our country over the next couple of
years.
At the hearing today, we will be hearing from Ms. Tanden. I
appreciated our telephone call last week. Ms. Tanden, as a
former OMB Director, I know how incredibly important this role
is. It is crucial that the Director have a broad understanding,
including of regulatory law and government management, since
those are all responsibilities at OMB. Much like this
Committee, it has a broad swath of responsibilities. But you
also in this job need to have a broad awareness of an array of
policy issues that come before you because you have a
coordinating role in so many of them. Because of that
coordinating role, it is imperative that the Director can work
productively both within the administration, across agencies,
and with the White House, but also with Members of Congress on
both sides of the aisle.
Cooperation across the aisle is especially important as we
confront several crises at once. One, of course, is we need to
work together to address the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-
19) pandemic, as we have previously. In fact, we passed five
legislative initiatives here over the last year in the U.S.
Senate and the House of Representatives, signed into law by the
President, all of which were not just bipartisan but strongly
bipartisan. I am discouraged that the current administration
seems not to be interested in pursuing the bipartisan solution
but, rather, has moved ahead with the idea of what is called
``reconciliation,'' which would not require in theory working
with Republicans. It is too bad, and I am part of a group that
helped put together the last $900 billion package and part of a
group that has made suggestions as to how we could work on a
bipartisan basis going forward. My hope is that there will be a
change of heart, and perhaps, Ms. Tanden, you could be part of
that. We should work together. We have to work together to make
it sustainable, to ensure that we are doing the right things,
and good ideas come from both sides of the aisle, as we have
found out again in the previous five COVID-19 packages that we
have passed in this Congress.
Of course, you also will be responsible, should you be
confirmed, for coordinating much of our cybersecurity, and the
cyber threats are growing, both to the public sector, our
government agencies, but also to the private sector. This
massive cyber attack called ``SolarWinds'' is an example of
that, and OMB's critical coordinating role here is very
important to us and the Committee, as was mentioned by Chairman
Peters.
We also cooperate to build on the economic and regulatory
progress we have made over the past several years. We have
prioritized reviewing the efficacy of regulations and traded
processes to ensure that the administrative state is engaged in
rigorous cost-benefit analysis. I spoke to Ms. Tanden about
this, and I know she agrees with cost-benefit analysis, and
that is important because it has been one of the reasons we
have seen some economic gains, particularly more opportunities
in our economy. Going into this pandemic, we had not just
relatively low unemployment, but we had the lowest poverty rate
since we started keeping track of it back in the 1950s. So we
had a number of things going right, and part of it was because
of the regulatory changes that helped job creators,
particularly small businesses, be able to get more people to
work and keep them at work.
The Council of Economic Advisers estimated that after 5 to
10 years, the regulatory approach that was taken over the last
several years would raise real incomes by $3,100 a year. I hope
the new administration will build on these efforts to reduce
the regulatory burden and not unduly expand government
interfering in people's businesses and their lives, because,
again, it was working. A year ago February, we had the 19th
straight month of increases in income of 3 percent or more on
an annualized basis--the first time that has happened in a few
decades in my home State of Ohio, and it was very welcome.
I hope the new administration and OMB will work with me on
lifting the sunset on a bipartisan bill I offered back in 2015
called Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST-41), which
helped coordinate the Federal permitting process for some of
the largest infrastructure projects. It has been a very
successful endeavor; it has been a bipartisan endeavor from the
start. My hope is we can continue that. Again, this would allow
us to gain more good jobs, and our infrastructure, of course,
badly needs investment and improvement. My hope is we can work
together on that as well.
Ms. Tanden, I look forward to hearing your thoughts today
about these and so many other issues, and I want to hear about
your goals, should you be confirmed as OMB Director. With that,
I turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Portman.
Today we are joined by two of our Senate colleagues who
will be introducing Ms. Tanden. First, I would like to
recognize Senator Klobuchar. Senator, welcome to the Committee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HONORABLE AMY KLOBUCHAR, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Chairman Peters.
Thank you for your leadership. Thank you, Ranking Member
Portman, for those strong words and for your work. I know
together you are going to do an incredible job leading this
Committee.
We all know that the oversight that we are going to see
from this very important Committee and all the Members,
including the new Members, is going to be so key as we look at
what happened January 6th and, most importantly, how we move
forward in fighting terrorism, a deadly pandemic, cyber
attacks, and, of course, working toward government reform,
which this Committee does every single day. So, it is an honor
to appear here.
To take on all of these major responsibilities, you need a
partner in the Office of Management and Budget who will put our
Nation's priorities first and your priorities first. I am proud
to join you today to introduce my friend Neera Tanden, a woman
who is smart, organized, and tenacious. Those are good
qualities for this job. And if confirmed, she will make history
as the first woman of color to lead the Office of Management
and Budget.
This morning I want to acknowledge a few people who have
seen Neera's compassion and perseverance and, yes, her ability
to balance a budget firsthand. That would be her family. I want
to introduce you to her husband, Ben, as well as her 18-year-
old daughter, Alina; her brother, Raj; and her mother, Maya,
who is with us right behind me today. Her 15-year-old son,
Jaden, could not join us in person, but I know wherever he is,
he is beaming with pride.
It is an honor to tell you Neera's story. Not only is her
story characterized by hard work and determination, but it
actually shows the power of the American dream. Neera is the
daughter of Indian immigrants and grew up in Bedford,
Massachusetts. Raised by her mom, Maya, Neera learned the value
of perseverance at a very young age. Determined to succeed like
so many immigrants, Maya put her kids first, and as a single
mom, she first relied on food stamps and public housing to make
ends meet.
Maya than found new footing and began working as a travel
agent, forging her family's path to the middle class. It is her
mother's work ethic and resolve that all of us see in Neera,
and it is those same qualities that I know will serve her well
as our next Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
As she started out as a travel agent, Maya may not have
ever thought that her daughter would one day be asked to serve
in the Cabinet of the President of the United States. But after
years of never taking no for an answer and setting high
expectations for Neera, somehow we all ended up here today--
Maya, Neera, her family, and all of us.
Growing up, Neera understood the circumstances of her
family's struggle and watched social programs work. Because of
that personal connection, she knew from a young age that she
wanted to pursue public service. She thrived as a student.
After graduating from Bedford High School, she continued her
studies at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and
then went on to earn her law degree from Yale Law School.
I have been honored to call Neera a friend for years.
Throughout her career, she has shown a passion for improving
people's lives. She brings years of government experience,
unmatched policy expertise, and a personal mission to ensure
that everyone can follow the American dream like her family
did. Neera understands that inscribed in any budget is a set of
priorities, choices about ensuring everyone gets a fair shot.
She knows that the work of the Office of Budget shapes the
lives of millions of American families just like her own. She
is an experienced manager who will be ready to help take the
helm of the Office of Management and Budget on day one.
In her near decade at the Center for American Progress
(CAP), she led teams in promoting bold solutions to 21st
century problems, including the pandemic. And, no, not everyone
in this room will agree with every solution that she has put
forth in her career. I do not agree with every solution she has
put forth in her career. But what matters, my friends, is her
devotion to her country and her ability to do the job. That is
why President Biden picked her.
Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Portman, you have both
identified bolstering the Federal coronavirus response as a
crucial priority in this session. We all agree with that
priority, and I am confident that this Committee will ensure
that the tax dollars are used efficiently, and you will have a
friend in Neera.
As President Biden puts it, she is ``smart as hell.'' That
maybe was a simpler way to introduce her, but I had to use a
few more words. I think you will find someone that knows what
she is doing, who understands the Senate, who worked, by the
way, as Senator Clinton's Legislative Director, and as you
know, then-Senator Clinton's time in the Senate was marked by
her bipartisanship, her accessibility, her ability to get
things done across the aisle. That is the background that Neera
will bring to this office. She will lead from her heart, but
she will also forge practical solutions to the immense
challenges facing our country.
I know all Members of this Committee can trust her to hear
you out, to negotiate when necessary, and to do so in good
faith. She will be a phenomenal Director, and I urge the
Committee to support her nomination.
Thank you very much, Chairman Peters and Ranking Member
Portman. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, for those
remarks.
Next we are joined virtually by Senator Booker, who has
recorded a video introduction for us.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE CORY A. BOOKER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Hi to all my colleagues and, of course,
Senator Peters and Senator Johnson, thank you for giving me
this what I consider a really precious opportunity to introduce
President Biden's nominee to serve as the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden.
I want to first just be candid with you all. I have known
Neera for decades. I do not like to admit that because it shows
that both of us are old, but we go back a very long way. Neera
is a friend in the truest and deepest sense of the word, and I
want to tell you, when we first met and went to school
together, she struck me as someone who had a powerful trifecta.
She is a person of deep heart, authentic caring and empathy.
She is a person of fierce intellect who I have learned a lot
from, even back then in our days of study. And then, finally,
she is a person who has this spirit, this abundance of love for
this Nation, its ideals and its principles, and she has lived a
life where she has been fiercely adherent to the highest ideals
of patriotism, of service, of being there for others.
I know that Neera's public career has been not only
impressive, but she lived a life of extraordinary impact. She
was involved in both the Clinton and the Obama Administrations.
She served in the White House, in the Senate, in the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), and most recently, she has
led the Center for American Progress, providing critical
analysis and policy research that has informed many of my
colleagues and my office itself.
Part of what has made her so impactful is that, to Neera,
policymaking is not an academic exercise. It is a powerful
force that has deeply personal implications on the lives of
millions of people. She understands the decisions we make all
have consequences, and often unintended consequences, and that
we and the work we do, which she honors so much, has a
potential to change life trajectories and make this Nation more
real for all of her people.
Now, Neera--there is a great poem that is by Langston
Hughes about a mother giving a message to her son, and she says
in that poem, the line is, ``For me life ain't been no crystal
stair.'' In other words, life has not been easy. Neera's climb
to impact and influence has been difficult. Neera was raised by
a single mother who emigrated from India like so many others
seeking a better life. America was a light unto her nation, in
her nation, and Neera's family came here. Neera has said that
when her mom could not find work, they had to rely on America's
social safety net to keep them afloat. They relied on food
stamps. They relied on rental assistance. And because they had
the support they needed when they were struggling, Neera's mom
was able to get them on their feet, and she got a job and she
bought a house, and she achieved so much of the American dream.
But as we all know, the greatest part of the American dream is
seeing your children do better than you, go on to heights that
you might not have thought possible.
As my mom often said, behind every successful child is an
astonished parent. Neera, she went on to college and then law
school with the likes of people like me. She has led a life
that has given her mother great pride and maybe even a little
astonishment.
Neera saw firsthand what this country can do when it
invests for its people, and in her example before us today, we
see what a country that invests in its people can do, can
accomplish.
As leader of the Office of Management and Budget, Neera
will be tasked with overseeing the office responsible for
implementing the Biden administration's agenda and making the
government work for people. During a time of a dual crisis in
public health and the economy, Neera will be asked to help
oversee our Federal Government's response and plan to rebuild
and restore. She will be tasked with helping to ensure that the
American people are being served by an accountable government,
that it is transparent, and that it is truly committed to them.
If confirmed, Neera will accomplish this American mission.
She will offer the kind of vision that is reflective of her
brilliance, of her huge heart, and of her commitment and spirit
for this country. She will continue to be truly a public
servant and a servant leader. She will lead with empathy. She
will lead with skill and understanding of our economy and of
our country's challenges. She will lead with love. She will
lead with love of country and all of her citizens.
I urge my colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee and
in the Senate to swiftly confirm Neera Tanden's nomination.
Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to share
with you why I so believe in my friend. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Booker.
I have been informed that Senator Booker also wishes to
thank Senator Portman. The omission in his recorded video was
not intentional.
Ms. Tanden, it is the tradition of this Committee to swear
in witnesses, and so if you will stand and raise your right
hand. Ms. Tanden, do you swear the testimony you will give
before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Tanden. I do.
Chairman Peters. You may be seated.
Ms. Tanden, you may now proceed with your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF NEERA TANDEN,\1\ TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Ms. Tanden. Thank you so much, Chairman Peters, Ranking
Member Portman, and Members of the Committee. I am humbled and
honored to be here today as President Biden's nominee to serve
as Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I want to
begin by thanking Senator Booker and Senator Klobuchar for
their gracious introductions, and by recognizing my family: my
husband, Ben; my daughter, Alina; my brother, Raj; and my
mother, Maya--all of whom are here with me--as well as my son
Jaden, who is supporting me from his school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Tanden appears in the Appendix on
page 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I owe my presence here to their love and support--and to
the grit and resilience of my mother, an immigrant from India
who was left to make it on her own in America with two young
children after her divorce from my father.
Back then she faced a harsh choice: stay in the United
States and rely on the social safety net, or return to India
where she knew her children would face the stigma of divorce.
She had faith in this country and made the courageous decision
to stay.
We relied on food stamps to eat and Section 8 vouchers to
pay the rent. At school, I remember being the only kid in the
cafeteria line who used 10-cent vouchers from the Free and
Reduced Lunch Program. I remember using food stamps in the
grocery store.
Within just a few years, my mother found a job, and a few
years later she was earning a middle-class salary. Soon she was
able to buy a home, and eventually she saw her children off to
college and beyond.
I spend every day grateful for a Nation, and a government,
that had faith in my mother and in me, that invested in our
humanity and gave me a fair shot to pursue my potential.
As I sit before this Committee, I am mindful that my path
in life would never have been possible without budgetary
choices that reflected our Nation's values--many of them made
in the very agency I am now nominated to lead.
That recognition and gratitude has been the North Star of
my career. I have spent the past 20 years at the forefront of
some of our country's most important policy debates. For the
past decade, I have led a major think tank that engages many
areas that OMB handles every day--from budget plans, to
regulatory proposals, to efforts to make government more
effective and efficient.
My experience also extends to both the legislative and
executive branches, having served in the U.S. Senate, at the
White House under President Clinton, and at an agency under
President Obama.
I believe that experience provides me with a strong
foundation to lead OMB.
I also know that the role of OMB Director is different from
some of my past positions. Over the last few years, it has been
part of my role to be an impassioned advocate. I know there
have been some concerns about some of my past language on
social media, and I regret that language and take
responsibility for it. I understand that the role of OMB
Director calls for bipartisan action, as well as nonpartisan
adherence to facts and evidence.
OMB will play a vital role in addressing many of the
biggest challenges we face, from beating back the virus, to
delivering aid that will help ensure a strong economic recovery
for all families, to ensuring we build back better than before.
If I am privileged to serve as the Director, I would ensure
that OMB uses every tool at its disposal to efficiently and
effectively deliver for working Americans, small businesses,
and struggling communities.
I would vigorously enforce my ironclad belief that our
government should serve all Americans--regardless of party--in
every corner of the country.
I would ensure that our budgets reflect the values of a
Nation built on hard work, human dignity, common purpose, and
boundless possibility.
I would work in good faith with all Members of this
Committee to tackle the challenges Americans are facing; to
address duplication or ineffective programs; to be responsive
to you and your staff's inquiries; and to assist the Committee
in its important oversight role.
Let me finally say this: As a child in line with my mom at
that grocery store--feeling shy and a bit embarrassed as my
mother used foods stamps instead of money--I never dreamed that
one day I would be sitting in this august room, with great
leaders like all of you. I am so incredibly grateful for the
opportunities this country has given me. I am profoundly
honored by the possibility to serve and to help ensure we
provide real opportunities for those who come after us.
Thank you for inviting me before this Committee, and I look
forward to your questions.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Tanden.
Before we get started, there are three questions that the
Committee asks of every need. So for the record, let me just
ask you, and if you would also respond very quickly to these,
it would be appreciated.
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?
Ms. Tanden. No, sir.
Chairman Peters. Second, do you know of anything, personal
or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated?
Ms. Tanden. No, sir.
Chairman Peters. Last, do you agree without reservation to
comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before
any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are
confirmed?
Ms. Tanden. I do, sir.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Tanden.
Now I want to turn to the pandemic, clearly on everybody's
mind first and foremost. Every day I hear from Michiganders who
are struggling to put food on the table, pay their bills, make
ends meet because of this incredible economic and public health
crisis that we are in the midst of.
President Biden has made it very clear on many occasions
that we need bold action, not just action but bold action, to
help families and communities who are still hurting.
Ms. Tanden, my question to you is: How important is it to
deliver COVID relief immediately for families and small
businesses and provide the resources needed by State and local
communities to defeat this virus and to reverse this economic
crisis?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you so much for your question, Chairman
Peters. I think there are really two critical issues in front
of the country. One is the virus itself, COVID-19, and the
second is economic recovery. While the numbers have improved in
the last few days, we remain in a dark winter with the virus,
and so it is absolutely critical to ensure that we have vaccine
distribution at its highest potential. That is important for
saving human lives and ending human suffering, but it is also
important for us to actually economically recover and recover
as aggressively as possible.
The President has put forward the American Recovery Plan
(ARP) which is designed to address the COVID crisis, ensure
that we are distributing the vaccine as effectively as
possible, reaching as many Americans as possible, while also
addressing particular challenges. As we saw from the
unemployment numbers on Friday, the economy is still deeply
challenged, and we have 10 million more people unemployed than
we did a year ago. That is a lot of human suffering. We also
are continuing to see increased small business failures, and
that is also a deep challenge going forward.
The American Rescue Plan is really designed to address the
virus itself and deal with the human suffering and economic
challenges that families are facing every day to speed our
economic recovery.
Chairman Peters. The State of Michigan is working extremely
hard right now to deliver support to the struggling families
that you mentioned in your answer, but it certainly needs
support from the Federal Government to address this crisis. A
national crisis requires a national response working closely
with States.
I understand you have some experience working on COVID-19
response at the State level, working in New Jersey. Could you
tell the Committee a little bit about your work? From that
experience, what are some lessons that we should take?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator. I was privileged to serve
on the New Jersey Restart and Recovery Commission. Its focus
was on addressing COVID-19 and economically ensuring that New
Jersey recovers. I learned many great lessons while I served on
that commission. One is that States bear an incredible
responsibility, but it is deeply challenging to have States in
a sense go down this road alone. The virus does not see any
State borders. States are subject to the actions of other
States. So it is critical to have a national response to the
virus, and it is important that we have a national plan to beat
back the virus.
States are continuing to see economic challenges, and it is
important to have a partner at the Federal level who is really
working to address the virus. I think that is one of the
reasons why it is important to have a national vaccine plan.
States are leading the efforts, but a Federal partner that can
ensure vaccine distribution is happening everywhere, even in
places that are harder to reach. The whole country is better
off when everyone is getting vaccinated as quickly as possible.
Chairman Peters. In that answer, you mentioned a number of
challenges that States are facing. Is there one thing that
really stands out in your mind as to what they need from the
Federal Government? What would be a priority in your mind?
Ms. Tanden. Obviously, States are concerned about resource
allocation, and, I think we should recognize States are seeing
very different issues, depending on their own tax base. But
almost all States are seeing rises in spending that they have
to make to address the crisis--spending to shore up hospitals,
spending to essentially ensure testing, and spending for
vaccines themselves.
I think a partner that recognizes those challenges is a
Federal partner that recognizes those challenges is something
that States across the board throughout the country can look
forward to.
Chairman Peters. Ms. Tanden, communities of color in
Michigan as well as all around the country have faced
disproportionate health and economic impacts as a result of
this pandemic. The evidence is clear. It is overwhelming. For
example, many communities of color did not have equitable
access to COVID-19 testing or relief for minority-owned small
businesses. Now I am seeing similar issues arise with the
disproportionately low numbers of black and Latino Americans
receiving the vaccine.
If confirmed, how would you approach these inequities and
ensure that communities of color have access to vaccines, to
relief, and to other assistance that they so desperately need?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Chairman. If I am privileged to
serve in this role, I would make the equity concerns a real
focus, and I think that the first and foremost step is to
understand the data and have a real representation of what is
happening, whether it is communities of color lacking access to
resources as you mentioned, both in terms of Paycheck
Protection Program (PPP) but testing, vaccines, understanding
what is happening, what the barriers are, and how we redress
those barriers. I do think it is important as we think through
issues like vaccine distribution, making sure that we have
distribution in places that have been harder to reach, and
communities, urban and rural, where we have less access because
we have challenges around rural hospitals, for example, with
rural hospitals closing we do need to take extra steps to make
sure that we have vaccine all throughout the country in every
corner of every State.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Tanden. I am going to
reserve some of my remaining questions for later and now turn
this over to Ranking Member Portman.
Senator Portman. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it. Ms. Tanden, again, thank you for taking time to
speak with me last week. We had the opportunity to go over a
number of different issues, including a bunch of policy issues.
Let me focus today at the outset on the issue that many of
my Republican colleagues have raised with me. As we discussed,
the OMB Director has to be able to work with Members of
Congress on both sides of the aisle. This is true with Cabinet
officials generally, but specifically with OMB because you have
so many interactions with them, both on the budget and on the
oversight responsibilities.
Typically, the OMB Director is not a partisan in particular
because you have to have these kinds of relationships. I
believe that the tone, the content, and the aggressive
partisanship of some of your public statements have added to
the troubling trend of more incivility and division in our
public life. And in your case, I am concerned that your
personal attacks about specific Senators will make it more
difficult for you to work with them.
Just to mention a few of the thousands of negative public
statements, you wrote that Susan Collins is ``the worst''; that
Tom Cotton is a ``fraud''; that ``vampires have more heart than
Ted Cruz.'' You called Leader McConnell ``Moscow Mitch'' and
``Voldemort.'' And on and on.
I wonder specifically, how do you plan to mend fences and
build relationships with Members of Congress you have attacked
through your public statements?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I very much appreciate that question.
I recognize the concern. I deeply regret and apologize for my
language and some of my past language. I recognize that this
role is a bipartisan role, and I know I have to earn the trust
of Senators across the board. I will work very aggressively to
meet that concern. I know the last 4 years or the last few
years have been pretty polarizing, and I hope that we can work
to address the country's challenges in a bipartisan and
nonpartisan manner.
I appreciate that it is upon me to prove that to this
Committee and to Members, and I will work as hard to address
the concerns of Republican Senators as Democratic Senators and
will be accountable. I want the OMB to be accountable to
Congress and work effectively with you.
Senator Portman. There are media reports that during
November 2020, after the election, so late last year, more than
a thousand tweets were deleted from your account. Some of these
public statements have been tweets. Are these media reports
that you deleted more than a thousands tweets in November in
advance of your nomination accurate? And if so, why did you
delete them?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I appreciate people's concerns about
my tweets, and I have regretted them, and I deleted tweets
because I regretted my tone, and I have deleted tweets over
many months. But for those concerned about my rhetoric and my
language, I am sorry, and I am sorry for any hurt that they
have caused.
Senator Portman. So you did delete the tweets. Did you
delete them because you believed you might be nominated for
this job or another job?
Ms. Tanden. I deleted tweets over many months because I
regretted the tone of my tweets.
Senator Portman. OK. But specifically after the election,
you deleted a thousand tweets, according to media reports. I
take it from what you are saying today that is accurate. Is
that true?
Ms. Tanden. I do not actually know, but I completely
concede the point.
Senator Portman. OK. I guess the question is: Is that the
right thing to do, to go back and try to cover what you had
said, given that you might be in a different position, which
would be a nomination for a Cabinet-level job? With the removal
of more than a thousand tweets, there are still a lot of harsh
partisan tweets on your account. I found through my staff there
are still nine pages with tweets about Senator Ted Cruz, for
example. How did you choose which tweets you wanted to delete
and which ones you wanted to keep on your on your account?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I mean, I just thought of some of my
language and deleted my tweets. But I would also just say again
that, to the extent people are hurt by my language, I deeply
apologize.
Senator Portman. OK. Let us move on and talk about
regulatory reform for a moment. We got to talk about this quite
a bit on our call, and as you know, the Regulatory
Accountability Act (RAA) has been bipartisan legislation in the
past that we have tried to promote as a way to create more jobs
and to provide some relief, particularly for smaller
businesses. When you were president of the Center for American
Progress, you called the Regulatory Accountability Act ``a
license to kill,'' among other harsh characterizations--again,
a number of public statements.
Can you talk about that? Why did you think that this
legislation--which, again, when you made that statement at the
time, we had Democrats and Republicans on board. Do you still
hold those views? And why did you say that?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I believe a senior fellow at CAP used
that language. I personally did not use that language. I am the
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Center for American
Progress, so I am responsible for what it puts forth, but I did
not call it--I did not use the language.
I would say on the issue of regulatory reform, we want to
get the balance right. Regulations do need to address the
public welfare, but they also--we should continue to use cost-
benefit analysis, and I look forward to working with you on
regulatory reform and other issues and concerns around
regulations that you may have.
Senator Portman. And cost-benefit analysis, as you know, is
the core of RAA. It also deals with independent agencies. Do
you think independent agencies should be more accountable to
OMB and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)?
Ms. Tanden. I think the relationship between the Office of
Management and Budget and the Executive Office of the President
(EOP) and independent agencies is a different one from other
agencies. I appreciate the concerns raised about the regulatory
process with independent agencies, but I do want to recognize
that independent agencies are independent for reasons and that
we have to try to get that balance right between the
independent nature of those agencies and the rules and
regulations that they are putting forward.
Senator Portman. Increasingly, regulations are coming from
these independent agencies that affect jobs and the economy,
and the question is: Do you think independent agencies should
be subject to a cost-benefit analysis?
Ms. Tanden. I think cost-benefit analysis is critical for
the rulemaking process, and E.O. 12866 is a still very
important rule or Executive Order, and so the question really
is should, one question, not the only question but a question
is whether OMB should be implementing cost-benefit analysis
with the independent agencies. But that does not take away the
importance of cost-benefit analysis for rulemaking.
Senator Portman. I am over my time. I will be back in a
second round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Portman.
I will recognize Senator Johnson for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Tanden,
welcome. I appreciated the 30-minute phone call we had, and we
talked a little bit about the Guidance Out Of Darkness Act
(GOOD Act), which passed this Committee twice, was put into
regulation by the Trump administration, and was eliminated
immediately by President Biden now in his Executive orders. Did
you get to the bottom of exactly what the thinking was on that?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, as the nominee, I was not part of the
process, and we did discuss what was behind it. I have not been
able to discern that.
Senator Johnson. OK.
Ms. Tanden. I would just say that transparency in guidance
is an important principle and one that I think we should
uphold.
Senator Johnson. OK. I appreciate that. Real quick, in
terms of Senator Portman's questions on the deleted tweets, did
you have any help deleting those tweets? Did the Office of the
Transition advise you on that? You just did that personally?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, nobody advised me at all.
Senator Johnson. OK. As Director of OMB, speaking of
regulations and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), do you
believe it is the responsibility of the Director of OMB to
ensure that the Administrative Procedures Act is followed with
new regulations being implemented?
Ms. Tanden. It is my belief that they should follow the
APA.
Senator Johnson. OK. Because this is the Committee on
Homeland Security and Government Affairs (HSGAC), we did an
awful lot of oversight on the border and the crisis we have had
really since I would consider Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) was passed. DACA was ruled by the Supreme Court
as violating the Administrative Procedures Act, and it has not
gone well ever since. I have a chart\1\ here I would like to
provide a quick little history lesson before I ask a couple
questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
on page 169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to the implementation of DACA, we were probably
averaging 2,000 to 3,000 unaccompanied alien children (UAC)
coming across the border illegally and being apprehended per
year. It took awhile for the coyotes to communicate that the
policy had changed in the United States, but I believe DACA was
the catalyst that created what President Obama referred to in
2014, the first peak here, as a ``humanitarian crisis.'' That
was the timeframe, by the way, when then-Deputy Secretary
Mayorkas was instrumental not only in forming DACA, but also
setting up the facility in McAllen, Texas, that had the chain-
link fences that folks on the other side of the aisle always
referred to as ``cages.'' That was done in the Obama
Administration.
That humanitarian crisis caused the Obama Administration to
do things like family detention, and it worked. You can tell.
The illegal immigration came down in terms of unaccompanied
children in red and family units in blue.
Unfortunately, a court reinterpreted the Flores decision
and included accompanied children as well. Again, it takes a
little while for that to be communicated through the coyotes,
and we ended up with a further surge. President Trump got
elected in 2017, dedicated to controlling the border, and the
border--again, we had far fewer people coming into this country
being apprehended, coming here illegally. But, again, when
people took President Trump to court and his actions to secure
the border proved unable to--he was unable to really implement
those things, we ended up with a crisis, I mean far greater
crisis culminating in May 2019 where we had more than 3,000
people, unaccompanied children and family units, come across
the border illegally and being apprehended. They basically
turned themselves in--per day. That is a caravan per day. You
throw in single adults, it was over 4,000 people per day. Then
the Trump administration enacted policies, including building
the fence, Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), and you can see
prior to COVID hitting, we were getting the border back under
control, which I personally think is a good thing.
I appreciate your story. I appreciate legal immigration has
made this country strong. We cannot have illegal immigration,
certainly not at these levels.
I think my question is: Now that President Biden is in the
midst of a massive number of Executive Orders, some of them
affecting the border, one of them is suspending or potentially
canceling the contracts on building the fence.
Let me give you a quick history lesson on this. The Secure
Fence Act was passed in 2006. It passed the Senate by a vote
margin of 80-19. Among the 26 Democrat Senators that voted for
it were then-Senator Obama, Biden, Clinton, now current Senator
Schumer, Feinstein, Carper, Wyden. That fence called for 700
miles--or that act called for 700 miles of double-layer
fencing. In the end, only 36 miles of double-layer fencing; the
rest was vehicle barriers. It was basically a sieve which
allowed that type of crisis to occur.
President Trump had--and we appropriated about 700 miles of
fencing. We built 450, and we have 250 miles of fencing
contracted, and we will pay probably billions of dollars in
penalties if we do not build that fence, which will cost the
American--waste a couple billion dollars. It will put about
5,000 people out of work and leave our border less secure.
My question for you is: First of all, what is your opinion
of canceling those contracts? And do you recognize the problems
we have when the Administrative Procedures Act is not followed,
for example, in something like DACA? It does not fix the
problem. It leaves it just lingering and festering for years.
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I would say first on DACA, I think a
legislative solution to DACA is the optimal solution. That is
my view, and I appreciate the challenges you are raising. I
would also say that as a nominee I have not participated in the
decisionmaking process so far, just to say that. I also
recognize the importance of borders and having a border. I
think there are some questions about technology versus other
mechanisms versus a wall, but I appreciate that it is important
that we ensure that we have humane immigration policies that
respect the rule of law and also enforce the borders that we do
have. I think there has been a robust debate in the Congress
over many years of whether a wall is the most effective
strategy or technology or other means. But I also appreciate
the point that you are raising, which is money has been already
allocated, and if I am privileged enough to be confirmed, I
will examine these issues and work--and I will work with you to
understand your perspective and whether we should move forward.
Senator Johnson. So based on the fencing with concertina
wire surrounding the Capitol right now, apparently somebody
thinks fencing actually works, and I would agree with that.
My final question is: Do you commit to me, as Secretary
Mayorkas did, to continue to provide this Congress, this
Senator, the data on exactly what is happening at the border in
terms of unaccompanied children, family units, and single
adults so we can kind of track what I think is--by the way, it
is already a crisis. We have got 3,500 people per day being
apprehended. That does not even count the got-aways and the
turn-backs. This is going to be a growing crisis and another
disaster based on, again, no deportations, we are not going to
build the wall. The signal to the coyotes and to the people in
Central America is come on into America because there will be
no consequences for coming to this country illegally.
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I absolutely believe that accurate
information is important to policymakers everywhere, and so I
will 100 percent commit to ensure that you have the information
that you need to make good policy and that we can be a good
partner--the Office of Management and Budget will be a good
partner in sharing information.
Senator Johnson. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Lankford, your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Chairman, thank you.
Ms. Tanden, thanks for being here and going through the
process, all that you have done. I do want to clarify some
things, though, that a couple of my colleagues have mentioned
as well.
President Biden, on his very first full day in office,
stood in front of the staff at the White House and said this
statement: ``I am not joking when I say this. If you ever work
with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect,
talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the
spot. On the spot. No ifs, ands, or buts.''
The challenge you have, obviously, is walking in some of
your previous statements, as you have already mentioned. You
actually have tweeted more in the past 4 years than President
Trump tweeted as far as just numbers, and it has been pretty
hostile, obviously. You have called Republicans ``criminally
ignorant,'' ``corrupt,'' and ``the worst.'' And as you have
already mentioned, over a thousand tweets have actually been
deleted by you as you tried to clear. There are still a lot
that is there as well.
All that is partisan. I get that. I do have a concern,
though, because some of the statements that you have made seem
to drift out of the partisan issues. One statement that you
made about people that have the personal religious convictions
about contraception, like Little Sisters of the Poor and
others, called them a ``successful political cudgel, helping
isolate extreme advocates from the mainstream.''
That one seems to cross a different line for me, so help me
understand how the personal religious beliefs of some Americans
could be a successful political cudgel?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, first of all, I want to say that for
anyone offended by my language, I feel badly about that. I
think in that regard, I was more speaking to people who
politicize, not people who believe in religion, and political
leaders who politicize religion, not people. I am a person of
faith myself and deeply respect people of all faiths and all
faith traditions.
Senator Lankford. The context did not seem to be about
people that use religion as a cudgel. It seemed to be that the
personal beliefs of those individuals became the cudgel. That
is the part that threw me in that. So we can talk more at
length on this, but obviously President Biden has talked a lot
about tone. You walk into this being hired with a very
different tone than what President Biden says that he is
looking for on that. So that kind of stood out in this process
to us, and we are hopeful that, if confirmed, that this is a
very different thing. Something that this Committee has asked
pretty frequently of nominees is, ``Will you commit to working
across the aisle?'' And that is one we have to ask you a little
more blunt than others because it has been pretty clear that
has not been your position in the past?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I very much appreciate that question.
I do. I want to say that I do think the last several years have
been very polarizing, and I apologize for my language that has
contributed to that. I would also say that in previous times I
have worked across the aisle on issues like support of the
transatlantic relationship, immigration, support for small
businesses, worked even in the last few years with institutions
like AEI and Cato on these important issues. I know it is on me
to demonstrate to this Committee and to Republican members and
Democratic members I can work with anyone. And that burden is
on my shoulders, and it is one that I plan to take on, and I
will do my best to work with you on any issue that we can and
where we can make progress for the American people.
Senator Lankford. Great. Let us try to figure that out.
Guidance documents is one of the key issues we have talked a
lot about. I was quite shocked that the first week of the Biden
administration they took away an Executive Order that did
something pretty simple. It just told agencies to collect all
their guidance documents and put them all in one place so a
small business could find them. It did not seem to be partisan.
It seemed to be a pretty good idea to say, ``Do not hide your
guidance. Put it all in one spot so a small business owner does
not have to search for it; they can actually find it.''
Is that something that you would work to reinstate so small
business owners do not have to play hide and seek with agencies
on finding the guidance that applies to them?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I absolutely believe that guidance
should be transparent and very easily accessible. I can commit
to you that if I am privileged to be confirmed, I will try to
understand the rationale behind the action taken and work with
you, but it is absolutely----
Senator Lankford. Yes, that is one we are all pretty
surprised about, to be able to figure out why suddenly good
government was a bad idea. I assume just because it had Trump's
name on it, but we cannot seem to figure out any other reason
that would be taken away at that point. We have worked very
hard to try to pass something called the ``Taxpayers Right to
Know.'' It is a bill I have had for years. It passed
unanimously in the House. It then passed at the end of the year
in December both House and Senate, signed by the President.
Taxpayers Right to Know focuses on one simple thing: How do
we actually expose duplication in government? How can we see
each program, actually identify each program, how many staff
are assigned to the program, and if it is evaluated, how it is
evaluated? Obviously, this is going to take a couple of years
to roll out, but that would fall on your desk to be able to get
that out.
The goal is that the American people and Members of
Congress could actually type in a search and to be able to see
where there is duplication in government. Currently, we have to
go to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and it takes
a year and a half to be able to find out what we should be able
to get in 18 seconds on a quick search. This is going to be a
major project, obviously, and I hope to be able to work with
you on that to be able to get that done if you are finished up
with your nomination and appointed on that one.
Another one that Senator Hassan and I have worked on
extensively is dealing with ending government shutdowns. It is
a problem that we have worked on for years. It is a problem
that we think needs to be resolved on it. It is one that we
would need the cooperation of OMB to be able to make sure the
language is right. But every time there is a government
shutdown, there is a loss of finances for the taxpayer,
obviously uncertainty for everyone in the Federal family of all
those Federal workers across the country. It is a very big
issue that we have to be able to resolve.
The next one is an issue of budget numbers. We have to
figure out how to be able to actually get numbers out to us in
a transparent way. It is a challenge right now. I would tell
you, working with the Biden team, we are trying to just find
out how much has been spent of the $900 billion that was
allocated in the December bill, how much has already been spent
on that. So far we are not getting answers. They are just
saying, ``We need $1.9 trillion more.'' But we cannot get an
answer of how much still remains from the $900 billion. That
cannot be that way. We have to actually know.
As you know, Larry Summers, who came on your team at Center
for American Progress while you were there and that you made
glowing remarks about him as a leader and as an economist, he
has now made a pretty public statement to say, hey, if we put
$1.9 trillion into the economy, this could actually push us
over economically. We have to be able to resolve that. It is
the responsibility of Congress to be able to know what has
already been spent, and so we cannot spend more when there is
still billions of dollars remaining. That will be on your desk,
obviously, and it will be very important that we actually get
rapid information and get accurate information. We would count
on you for that process.
Ms. Tanden. Chairman, may I respond?
Chairman Peters. Yes, you may.
Ms. Tanden. Thank you so much. Thank you for raising a
series of issues that I think are really important. I
appreciate the leadership you have shown on the Taxpayer Right
to Know. It will take some period of time, but I do want to
work closely with you and your staff on ensuring that OMB is
doing what it needs to do, which is a central role in making
sure that this law is realized.
I 100 percent believe that it is critical for policymakers
and the public to have information about services, the
government, where their resources are going. There has been a
lot of advances with USASpending and other information that is
provided at the Federal Government, but the Taxpayer Right to
Know is a critical piece of work, and I look forward to working
with you on that.
I also recognize that government shutdowns hurt economic
growth, frankly, and really do mean significant dislocation. I
would just say as we are trying to recover economically,
government shutdowns are a particular problem and a sort of
self-inflicted wound. I would welcome working with you, Senator
Lankford, and Senator Hassan on these issues, as well as the
Committee. In terms of transparency, I also would say again
that I appreciate that policymakers need information to make
good policy, and on COVID or any other area, I will work with
the Committee to provide you with information that you need to
make good decisionmaking.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
Senator Hassan, you may ask your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Chairman Peters, and I also want
to thank Ranking Member Portman and congratulate you both on
your new positions, and I look forward to continuing to work
with you both over the next 2 years.
Thank you to you as well, Ms. Tanden, for your testimony
today, for your willingness to serve, for taking the time to
meet with me a couple of weeks ago. I want to thank your
family, too, because this kind of service requires full family
support, and I found your testimony about the influence of your
family on you quite compelling, and I just wanted to say thank
you to them as well.
I will also add that I am a cosponsor on the Taxpayer Right
to Know and the End Government Shutdown bill, so I would look
forward to continuing my work with Senator Lankford and others
on this Committee and with you on those issues, among others.
I wanted to start my questioning today on the issue of
wasteful government programs. As the lead Democrat on the
Federal Spending Oversight Subcommittee, I introduced
bipartisan legislation to implement several recommendations
made by the Government Accountability Office to eliminate
duplicative Federal programs and improve efficient spending.
However, a barrier to doing more to eliminate duplicative waste
is the lack of a complete Federal program inventory.
If confirmed, will you renew efforts to complete a Federal
program inventory?
Ms. Tanden. I will. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. Will you work with me to develop
legislation to better identify wasteful programs and work to
eliminate them?
Ms. Tanden. I absolutely will, Senator. I recognize that
inefficient, ineffective programs really do not help anyone.
Senator Hassan. Thank you.
Now on to our legacy information technology (IT) systems.
The Federal IT infrastructure is woefully out of date. This not
only opens Federal systems up to cyber attacks, but also fails
to provide the level of customer service that the American
people expect in the 21st century.
Of particular concern is the fact that the Federal
Government spends more taxpayer dollars on maintaining old
legacy IT systems than investing in new, agile, and secure
systems.
So what are your top priorities when it comes to
modernizing the Federal IT infrastructure?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
leadership and the leadership of this Committee on the issue of
technology. Obviously, we have multiple challenges in
technology. One is cybersecurity, and the recent SolarWinds
incident tells us that we have a lot of work to do. I would
say, if I am privileged to serve as OMB Director, one of my top
priorities will be to work on the issue of cybersecurity and do
so with this Committee.
It is also important that we make our government more
consumer friendly. One of the big differences between the
United States and other countries is the fact that our
government can be woefully inefficient and ineffective because
we do not really use technologies effectively. It is an irony
that in the United States we have the greatest technological
innovations and some of the most technologically innovative
companies, and our country, our government, you still cannot
access information; small businesses cannot find out if they
can get access to a small business loan as efficiently and
effectively as possible.
So the consumer dynamic and also the Federal Government's
ability to understand its own resources and allocate resources
is also woefully inadequate. There have been innovations on
technology. Funding the Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) has
been a way in which we can allocate resources to pull down for
these kind of modernizations, and as you know, the President in
the ARP plan has proposed additional funding for the Technology
Modernization Fund and ITOR because we recognize the importance
of this modernization, also during a global policymaker where
we need to make sure that our agencies' information and
essentially the public's privacy is protected and protected
well.
So modernizing our systems and allocating resources so that
we modernize our systems is really, I believe, a way in which
we can make the Federal Government much more efficient, much
more effective, and much more directed to the needs of
customers, the American citizens.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. You have laid out some ways that
I think Congress can help with this effort, but is there
anything else that you would like to add about ways Congress
can help agencies realize their modernization goals while
moving away from wasteful legacy IT systems?
Ms. Tanden. I guess I would add that, there is bipartisan
legislation that has been passed to really ensure agencies can
do things like move to the cloud, really move away--as you
know, we have within some agencies systems that are 30, 40, or
50 years old where we spend a lot of time and energy and money
kind of patching their systems rather than really fully moving
those to cloud or other mechanisms.
I think the real challenge here is, frankly, it takes an
investment of resources, in one year, because we do not have
capital budgets or other systems that create some
disincentives. But I appreciate the resources in the Technology
Modernization Fund (TMF), and I think it is one of the reasons
why the President has proposed a substantial increase in that,
in TMF as well as ITOR.
Senator Hassan. Great. Thank you.
The last issue I want to touch on this morning: As head of
the Office of Management and Budget, you will oversee the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs which reviews
agency rulemaking decisions. As the Biden administration works
to undo dangerous regulatory rollbacks from the previous
administration, the American people need to know that any new
policies are fact-based and not politically motivated.
If confirmed, how will you work with the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs to ensure that it reviews
agency rule proposals using reliable data and science to
support rulemaking decisions?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I think this is a critical issue. OIRA
and OMB should both--the policymaking and decisionmaking
process should really always be guided by facts and evidence,
analysis of real impact, real impact on people's lives. I
commit to Members of this Committee to ensure that that is the
process going forward and that we use up-to-date evidence, the
newest information, reliable science. We are committed to an
evidence-based approach, and getting that evidence from all
Members of Congress, regardless of party. I believe everyone's
information is critical, and so I look forward to working with
Members of the Committee on this.
Senator Hassan. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
Senator Padilla, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PADILLA
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Tanden, thank
you for sharing your story and that of your family's journey
and your willingness to serve.
The COVID-19 pandemic has made clear what many of us have
known for a long time, and that is that in many ways there are
really not just two Californias in my home State but two
Americas--one that has the luxury of remote work, of a stock
portfolio that is surging, and many other privileges; and the
other that is on the front lines of this pandemic comprised of
essential workers that go home, many to low-income and diverse
communities, that have long suffered from lesser access to
health care, to affordable housing, to good schools, healthy
food, clean air and water.
I was raised in one of those communities. I was raised in
Pacoima, California, which has been referred to recently as
``the epicenter of this pandemic'' that has ravaged communities
across the Nation. Pacoima's positivity rate, for example, is
five times higher than that of Santa Monica. In fact, the death
rate for Latinos in California is 21 percent higher than the
statewide average. But the unequal spread of the virus among
America's communities of color is not unique to California. It
can be seen in cities and States across the Nation.
Ms. Tanden, as Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, how will you ensure that there will be equity when it
comes to fighting this pandemic? How will you ensure that we do
not see vaccine deserts in our communities like we often see
food deserts, for example? More broadly, how will you ensure
that Federal grants, agency actions, and new regulations
actually address the glaring inequities that have been exposed
by the pandemic both in California and across the Nation?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator Padilla, for your question.
I very much appreciate it. I do recognize that the COVID-19
crisis has, as you said, exposed many deep inequities in our
country, and it is not just on one dimension. As you outlined,
it is on COVID sicknesses, COVID death rates. The economic
challenges have been borne disproportionately by communities of
color, and we have to carefully monitor that we do not see the
same kinds of inequities in vaccine distribution, which is a
matter of life and death.
So equity has been a central component of the President's
COVID response, writ large. That is why the White House has a
COVID task force that has as a critical component equity issues
in it, racial equity issues in it, because it is vital that our
government address the needs of all communities. The President
has also outlined how equity issues should be central to our
policymaking process and to our rulemaking, and one of the
reasons--one of the aspects of his Executive Order on the
rulemaking process is to ensure issues like equity are front
and center, that we should do cost-benefit analysis, but we
also have to recognize how the rulemaking process can affect
subpopulations, can affect particularly communities of color,
underrepresented groups, and that we should be mindful of that
and the impact that it has, rules and processes and policies
have on the country, writ large, but also on subpopulations.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Let me actually combine a
couple of issues and questions into one. California is home to
12 percent of the U.S. population. However, under the previous
administration, California often found itself being
shortchanged by Federal Government grant programs, particularly
those that are discretionary. For example, California received
3.6 percent of the Department of Transportation's (DOT) BUILD
grants in fiscal year (FY) 2020 and 0 percent of the
Department's Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA)
grants.
I want to ask for your thoughts on ensuring that every
Federal agency does not politicize the awarding of grants,
especially discretionary grants, and California receives fair
treatment. But let me also underscore one specific as it
pertains to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Given the increasing threat of wildfires, floods, earthquakes,
and other natural disasters facing California, FEMA has come to
play an increasing central role in the lives of my
constituents, and that was even prior to this pandemic. I think
I speak for all my colleagues in this room when I say that many
of our cities, counties, and States are struggling to get this
pandemic under control and restore the economic vibrancy of our
communities.
One immediate step that the administration could take to
relieve the burden on our communities would be to increase the
Federal cost share of FEMA-eligible expenses from the standard
75 percent to a higher figure, maybe 90, 95, or let us shoot
for 100 percent, and make it retroactive to the beginning of
the pandemic.
Will you commit to taking a look at the possibility of
doing that? Again, comment on FEMA and then fairness in grant
and funding more broadly.
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator, for both questions. I
believe the administration is committed to ensuring that FEMA
is providing 100 percent of funding for COVID-related
expenditures, but I will absolutely commit to working on this
issue with you, if I am privileged to serve as OMB Director.
On the issue of grants and processes, let me say this: that
decisions on funding, decisions on grants, it is my view--and I
know the view of this administration--that it should follow the
facts and evidence and the needs of States and should not
matter at all the political orientation of a State or, who
voters voted for. These decisions really should be guided by
the needs of the State. California has many needs, and that
should really determine.
I will say it is my orientation that--as I said in my
remarks, it is my orientation that the Federal Government is
the government for all Americans, regardless of party,
regardless of State, and really should address what it is doing
based on the needs of people and not their political
affiliation.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Ms. Tanden.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Padilla.
Senator Sinema, you are recognized for your questions. I
believe you will be coming to us remotely.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA
Senator Sinema. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Tanden, as Arizona's senior Senator and the Chairwoman
of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal
Management (RAFM), it is important that I closely examine the
management, efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal agencies'
programs under regulatory process. I am interested in hearing
how you will approach OMB's mission of implementing President
Biden's policies across the government, communicating the
administration's values through the President's budget, and
your opinions on the regulatory process.
My first question: Arizona businesses have suffered greatly
because of the coronavirus. Government programs such as the PPP
have provided a lifeline, but this help has been uneven. To
speed relief, Congress waived the rulemaking requirements of
the Administrative Procedures Act and allowed the Small
Business Administration (SBA) to utilize interim final rules.
There have been 25 interim final rules issued to govern the PPP
over the last year, not counting the three rules issued in
response to program changes included in the December stimulus.
Most of these alterations came in the first 3 months of the
program.
Sometimes these new rules clarify confusing directives, but
in other cases, they altered eligibility and formulas with
significant consequences for real people. For example, I have
been helping an Arizona small business owner who saw the rule
change after her loan had been disbursed. When she applied for
a loan, the PPP did not properly account for her situation. She
wrote it off as another government program that was well
intentioned but missed the mark.
In January, during a meeting with my office, my staff
realized something in her story did not sound right. Sure
enough, if she had just waited a little longer to apply, her
PPP loan amount would have increased by $70,000 due to rule
changes.
Now, she did not wait around. She is trying to make the
best of a situation, because that is what Arizonans do--they
keep moving forward--but this is unacceptable. She did not get
the help that she needed, and if it happened to her, I know it
happened to others. If it is happening at SBA, it is happening
at other agencies, too.
It was important to get the rule out quickly and make
changes as necessary, but these changes have real consequences
for business owners, and no one took the time to adequately
communicate these changes to program participants.
One of OMB's duties is interagency coordination. As
Director, how will you make sure that changes in eligibility
and program rules, especially those that are not required to
comply with standard rulemaking requirements, are promptly and
adequately articulated to the real people who are participating
in these programs?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you so much, Senator Sinema, for that
question, and I appreciate your leadership and focus on the
COVID response, the COVID response in particular, and the need
for more resources in Arizona. I think you are highlighting a
central concern that has been discussed with PPP, which is how
it is actually delivering to small businesses. That is a focus
for the Biden-Harris administration, to ensure that the PPP
resources are going to small businesses. Guidance and
information should be accessible to all consumers, to the
American public, to all small businesses. You are absolutely
right that as we have allocated resources relatively quickly
with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES
Act), that guidance can be confusing, and that we need to make
sure that it is as consumer friendly and really oriented toward
quickly delivering resources to those in need, making sure that
small businesses are in the front of the line, not in the back
of the line with PPP, and ensuring that we are really getting
to resources to Main Street as quickly as possible.
So my orientation is to have guidance go quickly, but
really to do it in a way that is as customer friendly, as
targeted to the real needs of small businesses as possible.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. I have a couple other topics I
want to get to, so I am going to ask you a series of ``yes,''
``no,'' and short-answer questions on the rulemaking process in
order to save your time.
Ms. Tanden. OK.
Senator Sinema. First, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs functions best when it is an independent
arbiter of agency regulations. There have been times when
agency heads and the OMB Director have overruled the
determinations of the office. When this happens, the quality of
agency rules suffers.
So will you uphold the tradition of independent analysis at
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Sinema. President Biden's Regulatory Modernization
Memo tasks the Director of OMB with reviewing the regulatory
process and recommending updates. In your opinion, what are the
most important changes that must be made to the rulemaking
process?
Ms. Tanden. I think the orientation of the President's
memorandum is to just add to the information that is important
and look across dimensions, like equity issues that have been
raised by other Senators here. The idea is to not take away
from cost-benefit analysis but make sure that we have a truer
picture that really makes clear the impact of the rulemaking
process on real people.
Senator Sinema. This memo indicates that the OMB Director
must engage stakeholders as part of the effort, so my question
for you is: Will you recognize our office and this Committee as
a stakeholder and work with us accordingly?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator. I look forward to doing so
if I am privileged enough to be confirmed.
Senator Sinema. Thanks. Last Congress, I introduced the
Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act with
Senator James Lankford. We plan to reintroduce this legislation
this year. Our bill requires that agencies include a framework
and a timeline for regulatory review when they publish a major
rule. I would like to ask you to commit to working with us so
we can better ensure those rules are achieving their
objectives.
Ms. Tanden. Yes, I absolutely look forward to working with
you on that issue, on that legislation, Senator.
Senator Sinema. Great. Some policymakers have argued that
we need more targeted recovery efforts that meet our country's
immediate public health and economic needs without exacerbating
our long-term debt and deficit concerns. Many of my
constituents in Arizona share these concerns. They balance
their checkbooks, and they make tough choices to keep food on
the table and pay their bills. And they expect their government
to do the same.
So as OMB Director, what steps will you take to address
these types of concerns?
Ms. Tanden. I very much share those concerns, and I think
one of the roles of the OMB Director is to ensure that Federal
resources are targeted efficiently and effectively, that we are
meeting the needs of consumers. You raised the issue of PPP.
Making sure that small businesses are really receiving those
resources, that the resources are targeted to the small
businesses that, it is make or break whether they receive that
support versus larger entities, that is a major focus of mine.
I would welcome the opportunity to work with you and all
Members of this Committee on these issues.
Senator Sinema. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has expired. Thank you for
hosting this hearing and thanks to Ms. Tanden for appearing
with us today.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Sinema.
Senator Ossoff, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR OSSOFF
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you also
to Ranking Member Portman. Ms. Tanden, thank you for joining us
today. Thank you for the discussion that we shared prior to
this hearing.
The first question for you: In Georgia, as in States across
the country, working-class and middle-class families have been
crushed by this pandemic and the economic crisis that has
resulted from this pandemic. That is one of the reasons that I
and so many members of this body have been urging that we
swiftly pass the direct economic relief, the economic impact
payments or stimulus checks that families are counting on to
stay on their feet and avoid eviction or foreclosure, cover
vital costs like extraordinary child care costs that have been
incurred while schools are closed.
Will you please explain to the panel and to the public what
steps you will commit to taking to ensure that once Congress
does its job and passed that direct economic relief, that the
Biden administration as swiftly as possible sends that relief
directly to the people?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, you are absolutely right that families
are suffering right now. As I mentioned earlier, the
unemployment numbers on Friday demonstrate that we still have
10 million people who are unemployed, and we face a hunger
crisis in this country, as many as 12 million children who are
going hungry. And so that is why it is important to act, and to
the extent Congress acts, I can commit to this Committee to
work as expeditiously as possible to ensure those resources are
going out the door as quickly as possible, recognizing the
issues raised by Senator Sinema in terms of making sure our
guidance and information is as transparent to the public and
rational to the public as possible. But it will be a priority
for us to--if I am confirmed, it would be a priority for the
OMB to ensure that resources, working with agencies, resources
are getting out the door as expeditiously as possible because
we recognize that families are hurting right now.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you. One of the challenges is that
many of those who are in the deepest economic distress right
now also have difficulty accessing basic financial services.
They may be experiencing homelessness. They may not have a
permanent address or be in temporary housing. They may not have
access to the banking system.
Will you commit to working with my office and the Treasury
Department to ensure that low-income Georgians who face some of
those challenges can still access the economic impact payments,
the stimulus checks to which they will be entitled as U.S.
citizens once Congress passes such legislation?
Ms. Tanden. I will absolutely work with you and Members of
this Committee on these issues, and I will just say, Senator
Ossoff, that I know that when a family is in distress how
critical that government aid is and how critical it is to
making the difference, whether a family will--kids will eat
that night. I understand from my own personal experience how
important it is that our government work effectively and that
resources are targeted to those people who need it and that
those resources get delivered in a timely manner. I understand
that completely.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Tanden.
Georgia hosts some of the most renowned historically black
colleges and universities (HBCUs) in the country, and HBCUs
play a vital role not just serving the black community but as
gems in our Nation's higher education system. Will you commit
to working with my office to ensure that as the administration
develops its budget requests in upcoming years, the needs of
HBCUs are proportionally represented and well represented in
the President's budget request?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, as a candidate, President Biden did
discuss the vital role HBCUs play amongst higher education
institutions, on equity, from an equity perspective in higher
education, and essentially wealth building over the long term.
And so it is a priority for the President and the Vice
President, and I would welcome the opportunity to work with you
on those issues in support of HBCUs and the vital role that
they play.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Ms. Tanden.
Inspectors General (IGs) throughout the Executive Branch
play a vital role in identifying waste, fraud, corruption, the
abuse of power. Will you, to the fullest extent that you have
authority, issue direction, guidance, or memoranda to agency
heads that they should instruct their employees in all cases to
comply with Inspector General investigations, to promptly
provide their agency IGs with such information, evidence,
documentation as those Inspectors General may request?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator. I recognize and I really
appreciate the leadership of Members on this Committee on
support of Inspectors General. I recognize the role they play
in ensuring agencies are fulfilling their mission and the role
that they play in ensuring that resources are delivered where
they need to go. I can assure this Committee that, if I am
confirmed, if I am privileged enough to be confirmed, I will
support the work of Inspectors General that is vital work for
the American taxpayer and vital work often for Members of
Congress to fully understand how our agencies are operating and
achieving their mission.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you. You will issue written guidance
for agency chiefs to that effect?
Ms. Tanden. Yes. I will obviously have to work with OMB,
understand our forms and processes, but I can commit to working
with you on that.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much.
Just touching briefly on cybersecurity, which is something
where OMB has significant responsibility and jurisdiction, we
continue to see intrusions of Federal networks, attacks and
intrusions of sensitive private sector networks. Can you, in
the remaining 40 seconds--and then I will yield my following
Ms. Tanden's remarks here, Mr. Chairman--outline some of the
steps you intend to take to strengthen cybersecurity within the
Federal Government across the country?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, and as I said, I believe SolarWinds
really demonstrates the challenge of ensuring cybersecurity. It
is a high-risk area that sometimes agencies have not
sufficiently focused on. GAO and others have really talked
about cybersecurity as an issue year-in and year-out.
I am appreciative that the President has proposed
significant resources to shore up cybersecurity. I think we all
recognize that this is not just some far-off risk. It is a real
risk to the American public and their own data, and it is
increasingly one that other countries are weaponizing. It is a
high priority. If I am privileged enough to serve, it will be a
high priority, and I look forward to working with this
Committee and appreciate the work this Committee and others
have done to innovate in funding mechanisms for cybersecurity
through the Technology Modernization Fund and other mechanisms
as well.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Ossoff.
Senator Hawley, you are recognized to deliver your
questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Tanden, thank
you for being here. Congratulations on your nomination.
Let me start with a question about corporate special
interests, if I could. This question relates to your broad
view, I think, of the economy and society. Let me just ask you,
do you think that Wall Street and Big Tech companies have too
much influence in our economy and society today?
Ms. Tanden. Yes.
Senator Hawley. I am glad to hear you say that. I agree
with you. I have talked for years now about these
concentrations of power, how they stifle competition, hurt
small business, and ultimately hurt working people.
I want to ask you about a report from the New York Times
and other outlets suggesting that you solicited tens of
millions of dollars in donations from Wall Street and Silicon
Valley companies as president of the Center for American
Progress, including very large contributions from Mark
Zuckerberg. I understand that in early 2019 Senator Sanders
actually wrote to your organization suggesting that these
corporate interests may be inappropriately influencing your
work.
Can you just give us a sense of, if you are confirmed as
OMB Director, how you will advocate for working people given
this history of soliciting tens of millions of dollars from the
biggest and most powerful corporations on the planet?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, the role of OMB is to serve the
public, and I am 100 percent committed to that role. Let me
say, just to be clear, that I believe that the Center for
American Progress took funding from the Chan Zuckerberg
Foundation, not Mark Zuckerberg directly, but I completely take
the point about concerns about funding. I can commit to you
that I will always uphold the highest ethical standards. I will
work with career folks at OMB to make sure I do so. But I will
also say that no policy or position I have taken has been
determined by the financial interests of any single person.
Senator Hawley. $665,000, I think, from the personal
foundation of Mr. Zuckerberg; millions of dollars from Wall
Street financiers, big banks, foreign governments, Silicon
Valley; $1 million from the managing partner at Bain Capital;
$2.5 million from the UAE--that was between 2016 and 2018.
Given this record, how can you ensure us that you will work
to see that the Silicon Valley and Wall Street firms do not
exercise undue influence, frankly, influence that they have
already got in the making of government policy and the control
of our economy? How can you assure us that you are going to be
an independent actor when you have been so close to them to
raise so much money over all these years?
Ms. Tanden. I really appreciate that question, and I would
say I and the Center for American Progress aggressively take on
the positions, take on the role of Facebook and tech companies,
have called for higher taxes on companies, regulations of Wall
Street, a financial transaction tax. I am proud of the record
of the Center for American Progress and policies that will
limit the power of Wall Street, limit the power of tech
companies. I would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and
work with you on those ideas, because I do agree with you that
corporate special interests have too much power in our
discourse. Whether it is a financial transaction tax or other
proposals, obviously I take on--my role as OMB Director would
be one in which I follow the tax policy of the President, but
it is my orientation that we need to rebalance power in our
economy, and I hope there are ways you and I could work
together in those arenas.
Senator Hawley. Good. I will hold you to that. Thank you.
Let me switch topics: China and government acquisitions.
Should you be confirmed, you will have a leading voice in the
Federal acquisitions process. In that capacity, will you
investigate and work to ensure that Chinese-based products are
removed from sensitive government networks considering the
security threat that these can pose due to the spying activity
of the Chinese Communist Party?
Ms. Tanden. I absolutely believe that we have to ensure
real security in our supply lines from products from China--and
elsewhere, but China, there are products like Huawei that there
have been real concerns about security. I would welcome working
with you and other Senators on ensuring the security of our
supply chains.
Senator Hawley. Let us take TikTok as an example. TikTok is
an app that I think represents a national security threat. I
think that it is safe to say that has been the view of this
Committee. TikTok is owned by a Chinese parent company, of
course, that is subject to Chinese law under which they have to
share--their intelligence-sharing law, they have to share
information potentially gleaned from Americans with the Beijing
government.
Do you share the view that TikTok represents a potential
security risk, particularly if it is downloaded and used on
government devices?
Ms. Tanden. I think we should absolutely be concerned about
any entity that takes information and shares it, private
technological information and shares it with a government. To
the extent TikTok is doing that, I would share that concern.
But I think we should be concerned about any technology company
anywhere in the world that is taking your private information
of what you are looking at, what you are reading, and share it
with any government.
Senator Hawley. Is that something you would be willing to
look into, that you would commit to looking into if confirmed,
TikTok in particular, but also, as you just said, any app based
in or controlled by a State that we know is hostile to the
United States, represents a national security risk, that may
collect Americans' data? Is that something you would look into
and use your position and the Federal acquisition process to
scrutinize?
Ms. Tanden. I will definitely commit to looking at our role
in the acquisition process to scrutinize. I am happy to work
with your office on those issues. To the extent we have a
policymaking role across the board, I would also welcome
working with your office on those issues.
Senator Hawley. Very good. You anticipated my next
question, so I will hold you to that as well in terms of
finding ways to use Federal procurement policy to make sure
that security risk products do not infiltrate it.
Let me ask you just in my few remaining seconds here, you
said in your written testimony that our budgets should reflect
the values of a Nation built on human dignity. Let me ask you
about the views of human dignity held by tens of millions of
Americans who consider themselves pro-life, describe themselves
as pro-life. For years now, the Hyde amendment has reflected a
bipartisan commitment not to spent Federal tax dollars on
government-funded abortions, recognizing that Americans have
different views on this issue, but one thing that
overwhelmingly Americans have agreed on is we should not use
Federal tax dollars to support or to fund abortions.
If you are confirmed in this role, will you advocate that
the President's budget request to Congress next year preserve
the Hyde amendment?
Ms. Tanden. President Biden has supported repeal of the
Hyde amendment, and so, I will anticipate how that operates in
the budget process. But that is a position that he took in the
campaign and has held.
Senator Hawley. I want to ask you also about the Weldon
amendment, another very important pro-life protection that has
been widely supported. I will do that, however, for the
record,\1\ Mr. Chairman, given the lack of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information referenced by Senator Hawley appears in the
Appendix on page 167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Ms. Tanden, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hawley.
Senator Scott, you are recognized to ask your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT
Senator Scott. Thank you very much.
Ms. Tanden, welcome to the Committee and thank you very
much for your call last week.
Ms. Tanden. Yes, thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Scott. In an op-ed in December, the Director of
National Intelligence (DNI), Director Ratcliffe at the time,
declared China to be our No. 1 national security threat. So do
you agree? Disagree? What are your thoughts--did you hear me?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, I did.
Senator Scott. OK.
Ms. Tanden. On China is our No. 1 national security threat.
Senator Scott. Right. What do you think about that?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I would defer to the national security
team, but just to say my perspective, I recognize that China is
a security threat, and it is a real competitor for the United
States. It is a competition that we can win, but we do have to
act across domestic policy, foreign policy, and national
security.
Senator Scott. I guess you have written a lot in the past,
so I will ask you about one of them. In regard to President
Trump's trade deal with Communist China, you wrote, ``Much like
the Trump tax cut, this deal is designed to deliver for Wall
Street and big companies while doing nothing for working
families.''
So my concern about the trade deal is they do not comply.
Ms. Tanden. I am sorry. That they do not have to comply?
Senator Scott. No. They just do not.
Ms. Tanden. Yes. They do not.
Senator Scott. They never comply. China has never complied
with anything. But can you talk a little bit about your
opposition to tax cuts and then the things you would do to hold
China accountable? And then what do you think about the
sanctions that the Trump administration put on China, and do
you believe we ought to keep those going or stop those?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator. I will try to take those in
tow. Opposition to tax cuts, my view is to focus on whether
those tax cuts are being effective. I would note that business
investment did not dramatically increase with the tax cuts that
were passed, and it is President Biden's policies to redress
some of those tax policies for upper-income Americans and, of
course, leave intact everything--the tax cuts for middle-income
Americans. I appreciate this might be an area of divergence in
views, but I always want to be focused on facts and evidence.
I would also note that we did pass those tax cuts at a time
where perhaps we should have been thinking about the impact on
debt and deficit, and that was one of my criticisms. But I
always want to work with Members of the Committee on issues,
and if there are ways in which we can form tax policy going
forward in a way that allows us to economically recover and
address concerns, I welcome those ideas.
Senator Scott. So what do you think of the China trade deal
and what do you think about the existing sanctions?
Ms. Tanden. My concern that I expressed on the bilateral
relationship between China and the United States in the last
several years is one where China did not uphold its end of the
bargain, so to speak. I do think there are questions about
whether a bilateral trade mechanism is going to be effective. I
do believe that it is vital that we ensure that China change
course. In many ways, China benefits from the sort of--how do I
say this? Both ends of the bargain and the global system. They
are a large global economy but sometimes act like a
mercantilist economy. And so it is important that we think that
we marshal allies to put pressure on China to ensure that they
have a fair trading system where American companies can truly
compete in China, which has not been the case.
To the extent that our policies and practices are actually
trying to accomplish that, I think that is an important goal.
My questions about the bilateral trade system has been that it
has not been effective. So as we think through steps going
forward, whether it is sanctions or working with our allies,
allies in Europe, some of whom have not been as strong on these
issues----
Senator Scott. Almost none.
Ms. Tanden. One could argue weaker on these issues. We need
to marshal the world to make the case that it is unfair across
the board what has been happening.
So, that is something that I would have to work with the
U.S. Trade Rep (USTR) and other members, if I am confirmed, but
I would say my orientation is that we do need to recognize how
unfair the present system is, not just for American companies
but for American workers as well.
Senator Scott. Right. What do you think about, there are a
million Uyghurs in prison and taking away the basic rights of
the Hong Kong citizens and threatening Taiwan and harvesting
organs. How should those actions--what would you do to try to
combat some of those things that are just disgusting to any
American that knows about it?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, and I would say, Senator, we discussed
this, and I really appreciated our conversation. I appreciate
how it is vital that American leadership express to the world
how important human rights are. I would just share with the
Committee that a few years ago at the Center for American
Progress, we hosted some of the leaders of the Hong Kong
protests, and I was really taken and struck by how the leaders
of those protests really look at American leadership. They
talked about Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy as sort of
their icons for their protests. I think that is in many ways
what is at stake here, which is basic human rights and basic
human protections. I am hopeful that we are seeing new
generations of leadership in Hong Kong really fight for those
protections.
Senator Scott. Thanks. We do not have much time left. We
see our higher institutions, which get a lot of money from our
Federal Government. They have had a lot of China infiltration
through people that have relationships with the Chinese
Communist Party and with the China military. What would you do
to try to stop that?
Ms. Tanden. Actually there has been, I believe, bipartisan
leadership on the Committee to focus on the grantmaking process
and to ensure that that kind of negative influence,
particularly negative influence on issues where Americans'
innovations are at stake, should be a top concern, and that is
one that I would follow through if I am privileged to serve as
Director.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Scott.
Senator Rosen, you are recognized to ask your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chairman Peters, of course,
Ranking Member Portman, and Ms. Tanden for your willingness to
serve our country. I really appreciate you being here today.
I want to speak a little bit about nuclear waste. Nearly
four decades ago, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
and its later amendments to select Nevada's Yucca Mountain as
the Nation's permanent geologic repository without our consent.
I just want to repeat that: without our consent.
Due to a variety of factors, including strong local
opposition, due to health and safety concerns, the Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste repository has not been completed. But
Yucca Mountain has economic potential beyond becoming the
Nation's dumping ground for the rest of the country's nuclear
waste. Instead of wasting taxpayer money on this unsuccessful
and misguided project, we should find alternative uses for
Yucca that creates jobs.
That is why last Congress I introduced the Jobs, Not Waste
Act, which will prohibit the Secretary of Energy from taking
any action relating to licensing, planning, development, or
construction of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain
until the Director of OMB studies and reports to Congress on
the economic viability and job-creating benefits of alternative
uses of the Yucca Mountain site. The bill would also require
Congress to hold public hearings on OMB's finding.
If confirmed, will you commit to working with me and the
rest of the Nevada delegation to explore alternative uses for
the Yucca Mountain site?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator. I would really welcome the
opportunity to work with you on this issue, and I recognize
your leadership on Yucca Mountain and the way in which we need
to ensure that we are keeping the whole country safe as we
think through these issues.
Senator Rosen. And so building on that, I have two yes-or-
no questions. Will you commit that in future budget requests
you will not propose any funding for licensing, planning, or
development at Yucca Mountain and to ensure that there are no
regulatory or agency barriers to researching alternatives to
nuclear waste disposal that do not include storing waste in
Nevada without our consent?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, I absolutely will, and, President Biden
has made a similar commitment.
Senator Rosen. Thank you.
I want to move on. Now, of course, we are in the middle of
a pandemic, and we know that there has been provider shortages
across the medical health care spectrum. In the December COVID
relief and appropriations package, Congress included a much-
needed increase of 1,000 graduate medical education spots,
something I have advocated for since first coming to Congress.
In Nevada, we have provider shortages in every single part of
our State. Of course, it is a particular problem now during
COVID. We have faced it for a long time.
Many physicians will continue to practice in communities
near where they do their residencies, and so it is critical
that these slots reach the areas that need them the most.
OMB has the final oversight of regulations coming out of
HHS. So how do you plan to use your position to help address
these critical health care issues such as ensuring a clear and
equitable process for those new diabetic macular edema (DME)
slots so that they are distributed across areas that need them
the most like mine in Nevada?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, thank you for raising this issue. I do
recognize that during the COVID crisis we need to act--OMB
would need to act expeditiously on these issues. Areas like
nursing shortages, doctor shortages, doctor and nursing
shortages in particular communities, rural communities, should
be a top priority for moving guidance and regulations
expeditiously. We will absolutely recognize how COVID-19 issues
and the regulatory process around COVID-19 issues should take
priority because lives are at stake. I would absolutely commit
to working with you and your office on these issues and really
welcome your input and feedback on how the process is working.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I want to build on that, too,
because a lot of our physician practices across the country and
in Nevada are small businesses, and we have seen many of them
close during this time of COVID for many reasons. And so not
only estimating a physician shortage of maybe over 135,000
physicians over the next 12 years, Nevada ranks 46th in the
Nation in primary care to patient ratio, primary care doctors.
So how do you see the role of OMB to help support the
stability and recovery of those physicians practices, so the
ones that may have had to close or are struggling now, the
small businesses, and, again, what is your role in creating new
opportunities?
Ms. Tanden. I really see the role as twofold. One is a
budgetary role and thinking through how we support GME and
direct support for doctors. Obviously, there are programs that
have existed for doctors and nurses to go into high-need areas,
and so those are two elements. Of course, there is the
regulatory side as well in which we develop guidance for how
dollars are spent and the rulemaking process.
So in all of those areas, I recognize that the COVID-19
crisis means that doctors and nurses are on the front lines of
saving people's lives and addressing the crisis and ensuring
that we do not have any communities facing dire shortages, and
particularly rural communities that have faced really tough
challenges all throughout this crisis as well as many urban
communities would be a priority of mine. I have been proud to
work in the health care sphere before. I know how important
these programs are in delivering needed care all throughout the
country, and I would be honored to work with your office on
these issues.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I am going to go very quickly.
Senator Hassan--and I just have a few seconds left. Many of my
colleagues on this Committee, we talk about modernizing IT at
every level. It has to be a huge priority. Some of those
unemployment systems across our country, they are old; they are
outdated; they need to be modernized. In Nevada, of course, we
have some of the highest unemployment in the Nation, and we
have lots of cybersecurity issues. I am just going to kind of
get right to the point. As someone who has spoken so
thoughtfully about your background growing up, relying on
social programs, that, of course, need to have IT to get
services out there, unemployment and other things, what do you
think is OMB's role in helping Federal agencies like Department
of Labor (DOL) and State agencies to upgrade their technology
so we can move more quickly and we can be more nimble in times
of crisis like this or potentially other natural disasters in
the region, wildfires or hurricanes, whatever that is? How do
we do that, and how do you see your role?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I think this is an area which I am
really excited about. I know that technology and IT systems may
not seem super interesting to people, but I do think that you
really drive to the central point, which is how can citizens,
consumers, small businesses really understand what the
government is offering them, the resource and support, and how
it can do it in a very efficient and effective way, whether
agencies can use apps, whether there can be bots, tech bots
that really explain programs to you, small businesses. I think
this is an area--I know Senator Portman has legislation on the
issue of the use of artificial intelligence (AI). There is real
potential for AI and the use of AI in Government programs to
make sure resources are targeting where they need to go. On the
other side of that, we do need to make sure that privacy is
protected.
So there is a critically important arena, and as you said,
I recognize the importance of how the government works for
people from my background and want to ensure that we use
technology to really best target resources to families, to
people, to small businesses, to communities that need those
resources. I think there is a real wealth of ways we can do
that going forward.
Senator Rosen. Thank you so much for that. As a former
programmer, I look forward to modernizing the IT with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Rosen.
Ms. Tanden, we have completed a first round of questions
from Members, although we are still expecting one other Member
to come to ask his first round. So we are going to move to a
second round. There are a number of Members that have
additional questions. We are going to move to a second round,
although when Senator Carper arrives, we will give him the
floor. So I will start.
Ms. Tanden, the toxic forever chemicals, known as PFAS, are
a significant health concern for communities in Michigan as
well as around the country, and we spoke earlier about these
chemicals. Although Michigan has over 200 sites, we expect we
will be finding many more sites across the country in the years
ahead. While Michigan and other States have been making
progress setting drinking water standards, unfortunately the
Federal Government has not set those standards. And as you
know, OMB has a significant role in reviewing and clearing
public health protections and supporting other PFAS actions.
So my question is: If confirmed, how will you manage the
Federal Government's response to the PFAS contamination crisis
and ensure communities that have been dealing with this
challenge for far too many years have the support that they
need to get moving on with some cleanup?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator. I really appreciate your
leadership on this issue, and as we discussed, this is a
challenge in Michigan but not Michigan alone. It is a problem
and concern--PFAS is found in communities across the country,
and I appreciate how Michigan has done tremendous work, ahead
of the curve in many ways, to address PFAS. You are absolutely
right that this is an issue for Federal concern because of the
national scope. And President Biden has committed to ensuring
that PFAS is designated a hazardous substance. As we look
through the procurement process, we can make sure that we are
looking at substitutes for PFAS and that we can make sure that
we are enforcing safety, basic safety protections as we
approach a regulatory process which really understands the
impact of PFAS on communities, on health of people, and that
the Federal Government is a real partner on this to address
this real public health concern. I would very much welcome the
opportunity to work with your staff and the Michigan delegation
that has shown so much leadership on these issues.
Chairman Peters. I appreciate that, and if confirmed, the
commitment that I would like to hear from you right now is that
we will get a quick OMB review of this current administration's
actions regarding this. Speed is of the essence.
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator, I would look forward to a
very expeditious review and working with your office.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. To me it is common sense,
particularly in the middle of this economic crisis, that when
the Federal Government spends money, taxpayer money, that they
should be spending that money on products that are made here in
America to help support American workers and businesses, which
are by far the best in the world.
I was pleased to see President Biden's Executive Order
strengthening Buy American provisions and creating a Made in
America Office (MIAO) at the OMB.
If confirmed, what steps will you take to implement this
incredibly important Executive Order? And what are your plans
for leveraging the Made in America Office to ensure that
American workers, businesses, and their families benefit by
this action?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I really want to say how much I
appreciate your leadership on Buy America and the leadership of
many Members of this Committee on the issue of using Federal
resources--the real idea behind the Executive Order was that
when we are using Federal resources, that those resources
should go to help create jobs in the United States, good-paying
jobs in the United States. And so the Executive Order outlines
a new office within the procurement office, the Made in America
Office. There is also analysis of publishing all waivers so
people actually understand, the public has an understanding of
these issues, and also may create some incentive structures
within agencies to ensure that they are really doing the work
of trying to find American companies when we are allocating
Federal resources. That is a top concern. But I also look
forward to working with you and other Members of this Committee
on this topic, and to the extent we can push agencies and
really create the right incentive structure for agencies to
service the needs the consumers and the public have, but do it
in a way that employs Americans with good-paying jobs, that is
a central focus for the President, one of the reasons why the
Executive Order was one of his--one of the Executive Orders he
put out in his first week.
Chairman Peters. I appreciate that answer, and we will be
working closely together on this very important topic.
The other issue that has been raised by a number of my
colleagues and you have answered questions related to
cybersecurity and how important it is. It is a major focus for
us here in this Committee to make sure those systems are
secure. But a challenge has been hiring qualified cybersecurity
professionals to work in the Federal Government as well as ways
to fully utilize the expertise that does exist in the
government.
Last Congress, I introduced the bipartisan Federal
Rotational Cyber Workforce Program Act which would create a
program that allows cyber professionals within the Federal
Government to rotate into positions with other agencies
temporarily, to be able to move around, something where we have
seen models in private industry and other places that have been
very successful and making sure that individuals do not get
siloed to wherever they may be, whether it is a Federal agency
or a particular department within a large organization, a large
company, for example. When they share that information, they
develop new skills. It helps us attract talent because of the
excitement of being able to see many different aspects of
cybersecurity and allows us to retain experts as well. The bill
passed the Senate unanimously, and I am going to be working to
reintroduce this legislation in Congress.
My question to you is: If confirmed, will you commit to
working with me to see this legislation enacted and then
implemented? Second, what other steps would you take to ensure
that Federal agencies are able to hire the talent that they
need to deal with this growing threat?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I really appreciate your leadership in
recognizing that one of the challenges with cybersecurity has
been the expertise of the workforce and the skills of the
workforce, and being able to attract cyber experts, security
experts into the Federal workforce is one of the ways that we
can actually redress this problem. I would absolutely commit to
working with you in this regard, also with your legislation
that you have proposed. We have learned a fair amount from the
U.S. Digital Service (USDS) that you can attract top talent to
solve problems in the Federal Government. The USDS has been
effective in working with agencies on what I would describe as
``killer challenges'' around technology, and that that has been
an innovative mechanism in how we share information and
actually use resources like that to affect cybersecurity, not
just the delivery of services. I think it is something that I
am very interested in exploring, but I really welcome the
opportunity to work with you on your legislation because I do
believe at the end of the day it is a manner and mechanism by
which we will actually protect our information of the agencies
themselves and the information of the public.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. I know in our past
conversations we have talked and I mentioned in my opening
comments your focus on transparency and how we need to make
sure that we are as transparent as possible. In the CARES Act,
I actually worked closely with Senator Johnson to create
detailed reporting requirements related to transparency in the
pandemic relief spending that we are seeing. I would certainly
hope that you would lean in heavily on that issue so that the
American taxpayers have faith in how money is being spent for
their best interests.
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator, and I will just briefly
say that I very much appreciate and welcome the oversight role
of this Committee, and I appreciate information is important
for oversight, and so not just on CARES Act expenditures or
COVID-19, but information this Committee is seeking, I will be
a willing partner, and I will always--if there are, as I have
said to various Senators in my meetings, if there are
challenges with getting information, I will always work to--I
will call you. I will talk with you directly about what those
challenges are and the timelines, because I appreciate that
policymakers need accurate information in order to make good
policy.
Chairman Peters. Absolutely. Thank you for that statement.
Senator Portman, I know you have additional questions.
Senator Portman. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
Tanden, I can guarantee you there will be some challenges
getting information. There always is. And this Committee in
particular, with our oversight responsibilities, needs that
kind of transparency to do our work well. As I said earlier,
most of what we do in that area is not just bipartisan; it is
kind of nonpartisan. So we need that, and we have not always
gotten it.
On the regulatory issues, we talked earlier a lot about the
need for cost-benefit analysis, and you and I disagreed on
independent agencies, I think, in terms of where they should
fit in. But I hope you will take another look at that.
Ms. Tanden. Yes, absolutely, Senator.
Senator Portman. On permitting reform, you and I talked
about this quite a bit in our conversation. This is an area
where we have not been able to find that sweet spot between
Republicans and Democrats. In 2015, legislation was passed--
bipartisan, Senator McCaskill and myself--that creates this
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting
Council) because it was part of the transportation bill,
Section 41, and it has been amazing. It has helped a lot of
good projects get across the finish line, and it saved a lot of
money. It has created a lot of jobs. It saved over $1 billion
in costs, we know. I know that is a very low, conservative
estimate.
I will give you an example. There have been four recent
projects that have saved substantial funding. They support
20,000 jobs, by the way. They have saved more than 10 years in
permitting delays just these four projects in the last year. So
this is one that works. I spent some time with the Council
itself, and OMB plays a coordinating role here.
I appreciated your commitment on the call to work with me
to ensure that we can lift this sunset that is on FAST-41 now
without making policy changes to the law so that the Permitting
Council could continue its good work past 2022.
Will you commit today to working with me to pass a sunset
removal for FAST-41 that retains the current law?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, Senator, and I do want to appreciate your
leadership and the leadership of this Committee. You are
absolutely right. This has been a very successful program, a
60-percent reduction in time for permitting, 60 percent since
2018. A 60-percent reduction in time is also a big savings in
resources, a big savings of resources to the government, but
also for people who are trying to build major projects. As we
talked about in our discussion, I recognize that the long time
it can take for permitting is actually a real challenge in the
United States, and as you----
Senator Portman. So at a time when we are all talking about
infrastructure, it is very popular. It is very unpopular to
talk about how to find the money for it, a big challenge. This
helps the Federal dollar go further.
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely.
Senator Portman. So can you answer my question on whether
you support taking off the sunset?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, I do.
Senator Portman. OK. Thank you.
On Buy America--we talked about this earlier--the Made in
America Office and so on. I was pleased to see the Executive
Order strengthening the Buy America Act. In some ways, by the
way, it mimics the bipartisan Buy America Act that we would
like to work with you on, which would codify some of those good
ideas.
In other ways, this new E.O., though, does weaken the
domestic content requirements, and it is troubling to me to see
on Section 8 replacing the component test, so-called, with a
new value-added test, replacing the component test whereby 50
percent of the components must be made in America. It appears
contrary to the Buy America Act, which explicitly references
that test.
Moreover, replacing the component test in order to count
labor costs sounds nice, but it is counterproductive. Labor is
already counted in the cost of the component. In this way, the
E.O. risks reducing the amount of U.S. content being procured.
So what sounds like a noble assist may actually end up throwing
American workers under the bus.
What authority in the statute do you believe gives the
Federal Acquisition Regulations the ability to replace the
component test as a way to calculate the qualifications of
U.S.-made goods?
Ms. Tanden. First, let me say, Senator, that I really
welcome any--I really welcome the opportunity to work with you,
and the intent here is to not weaken protections to ensure that
we are creating jobs in the United States and helping companies
in the United States. So if there is some way in which we can
work with you on this, we would welcome that opportunity,
because I want to say that the goal of the Buy America
provision is to strengthen the ability of us in the procurement
process to select American companies----
Senator Portman. Thank you for taking a look at that.
Ms. Tanden. But I just welcome that opportunity----
Senator Portman. Yes, I think you will find this component
one was running the other way, and I do not think it is
advertent.
On the Buy America Executive Order that President Biden
blocked on day one that President Trump had put into place, I
also have concerns. This was a rule that increased the amount
of content required to be made in America from 50 to 55 percent
for iron and steel products, to 95 percent from 50 percent for
iron and steel in particular. This was viewed as a big victory
for American manufacturing, and especially for producing the
steel industry. I understand a blanket regulatory freeze was
put out in the beginning, but can you commit to adopting these
improvements on behalf of American workers?
Ms. Tanden. I would absolutely work with you to ensure that
our Buy America provisions are as strong as possible.
Senator Portman. OK. I think, again, it may have been
inadvertent, but the impact of it is to hurt manufacturing here
in this country.
On the IT front, we talked about the need to modernize, and
we did pass this 21st Century IDEA bill to modernize our
Federal websites, but we need to do much more. On the AI front
you mentioned earlier, there are two issues. The previous
administration launched a process at OMB, as you know, to
articulate guidance for the regulation of AI in the private
sector, and they also signed the AI in Government Act, which
created a similar process to regulate our internal use of AI.
So we have two things going on. Both were broadly supported by
industry and civil society.
Would you commit to continuing these popular OMB processes
so we can quickly and effectively get guidance out to agencies
regarding the regulation of artificial intelligence?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely.
Senator Portman. On cyber issues, this massive breach we
talked about earlier, SolarWinds, confirms what we have known
for a long time. Our Subcommittee here called Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) did an investigation and a
report that I led which was, unfortunately, a wake-up call
saying that agencies have failed to comply year after year with
the basic cybersecurity requirements, you know, basic hygiene,
as they say, primarily with the Federal Information Security
Modernization Act (FISMA), Federal agencies, to notify Congress
if they experience a major incident.
OMB is charged with developing this guidance, by the way,
to determine when a cyber attack is a major incident.
Unfortunately, in the area of SolarWinds, again, a massive
attack, the worst breach we have ever had in the history of our
country, only a handful of agencies reported major incidents,
which is one reason, frankly, the U.S. Government was not on
top of this sooner.
Can you look at that current standard and would you believe
that it needs to be revisited?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, and I would say transparency to the
Congress and the public around cyber incidents is really vital.
Obviously, consumers are affected, the public is affected by
these attacks, and information is really a cornerstone.
Senator Portman. I have more questions in that area with
regard to OMB's role on cyber, because, again, unfortunately
this latest attack has just magnified the fact that we are
woefully behind in our agencies, and, again, the private sector
needs guidance as well.
One final question. I understand from my staff that you
discussed the need for us to create an environment where we can
be more honest about the problems facing Social Security. I
would agree. It seems, however, that we need to build trust
across the aisle in order to get people out of their partisan
foxholes here to at least discuss these issues seriously.
Can you commit to me today that you will work in good faith
to help us educate the American people about the problems
facing Social Security and give Members of both parties some
running room they need to start laying out potential solutions?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, Senator. I would say President Biden has
put forward ideas on Social Security solvency, lifting the
payroll cap for families over $400,000 of income. But I
appreciate the bipartisan interest in these issues, and I
welcome a conversation about these and any way I can be a
partner in that, I would welcome that opportunity.
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Portman.
Senator Carper, you are recognized to ask your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Tanden, nice to
see you. Welcome. How are you?
Ms. Tanden. Nice to see you, Senator.
Senator Carper. When I was 29, I was elected State
treasurer of Delaware, and a guy named Pete du Pont IV was
elected Governor that same day. He turned out to be a great
Governor. He assumed the leadership of the State with the
highest marginal personal income tax rate in the country, 19.6
percent. We could not balance our budgets for nothing. We had
no pension fund; we had no cash management system; we had no
cash. What little we had was in a State-owned bank that was
about to go under. We had the lowest rate of startups of new
businesses in the country, and I got to be State treasurer. And
people have referred to me sometimes as--well, they call me
many things here, but among the kinder things, they called me a
``recovering Governor.'' But I am also a recovering State
treasurer, and I believe if things are worth having, they are
worth paying for.
We have a great partner in trying to make sure we get our
dollars' worth, the value from the tax dollars that we do
spend, and one of the primary jobs of this Committee--as
Senator Johnson knows well and Senator Peters knows well and
Senator Portman knows well, one of our major jobs is to do
oversight. And we have Subcommittees that focus on that here,
and we have a great partner in GAO. We have a great partner in
the Inspectors General.
Every 2 years, at the beginning of a new Congress, I think
in February, GAO puts out what they call their High-Risk List,
and I describe it as a ``high-risk way of wasting money.'' One
of the things that GAO has harped on for years was improper
payments, including improper payments sending money to dead
people. When we sent out the first round of direct payment
checks, we sent out about $1.4 billion to dead people. And that
is just one of many items on the High-Risk List for GAO. They
are going to come up with a new list. I call it ``my to-do
list.'' When I was Chairman of this Committee, I said, ``This
is my to-do list. We will just work together.'' We had the
opportunity to work with the administration, with GAO, with the
Inspectors General to go after real waste. There really is
waste. People say, oh, waste, fraud, and abuse, there is none
of that. There is plenty of that. We know that.
I would just say one of the items on the High-Risk List is
improper payments, sending money to dead people. We have done
that. We actually did the legislation. I am proud of working
with Senator John Neely Kennedy on that legislation, and
Senator Rand Paul, a Member of this Committee.
But another issue, in addition to that, is payment
integrity. Payment integrity makes sure that the monies that we
are paying out are focused on where we need to focus.
Are you familiar with the High-Risk List?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, I am, Senator, and I appreciate--I would
actually think of the High-Risk List as a to-do list for OMB as
well. It is a has a lot of issues we have talked about today,
cybersecurity, the needs of the--specialization of the Federal
workforce, other areas involved that have been on the High-Risk
List, and I think it is--I should be able, as the Director of
Office of Management and Budget, to ensure that list is----
Senator Carper. Let me just interrupt you for a second.
Thank you for that. Thank you very much for that. One of the
items that has been on the High-Risk List for a long time is
giving the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) the resources they
need so they could actually collect the taxes that are owed. I
do not mind paying my fair share of taxes, and I do not think
any of us do. We want to make sure that other people, including
people a lot wealthier than us, are paying their fair share,
and that is one of the perennial items on the High-Risk List.
But before we start raising people's taxes in order to right
our financial ship, our fiscal ship, which needs to be righted,
let us do a better job of collecting money that is owed by
people. My hope is that we will get our colleagues to support
doing that, including the Finance Committee that Mr. Portman
and I serve on.
I want to mention postal reform. The Constitution, as you
know, spells out the creation of the post office--calls for the
creation of the post office really to unite us as a country,
and the first Postmaster General was a guy named Ben Franklin,
as you may recall. Over time, I remember, when I was a naval
flight officer (NFO) in Southeast Asia, how important the mail
was to all of us in my squadron. And for folks that are in the
military and around the world, the same is true. But it is not
quite like it was, 30 or 40 years ago.
Having said that, during this last election, with the
pandemic and a lot of people afraid to go out of their houses
in many cases, the idea that they could actually vote by mail
and know that their vote would be counted, tabulated, and it
would be safe is something that sort of renewed confidence that
maybe the post office is an idea that we should not relegate to
the graveyard. And the idea that people could have packages,
all kinds of stuff, including food, delivered to their homes
gives the Postal Service the ability to deliver at the last
mile, to partner with the folks at Federal Express (FedEx), at
the United Parcel Service (UPS), and so forth. So there is, I
think, a role for the Postal Service.
I just want to put this on your radar screen. This is
something that needs to be addressed, and it can be. We have
studied this to death. We have a pretty good idea what needs to
be done. I would like to get some time on your schedule
literally in the weeks to come and whoever you want to drag
along with you to talk with us about this further. There are
several others who share my interests, but every now and then
you feel like there is a time when the time is ripe to address
a particular issue, and I think this is the right time to do
that. We would love it if you could be a good partner.
Long-term fiscal sustainability, the question I have there
is: It took only 2 years after the end of World War II for our
government to run an annual stimulus. Two years and they were
back in the black. Given the need to effectively respond to the
pandemic, it will likely take longer than 2 years to get our
Nation back on a fiscally sustainable path.
What are the actions that you think we should take in the
long run to return our country to a more sustainable fiscal
path? Go ahead. I would say I think one of them--I had this
conversation with the President-elect about a month ago, and we
have a saying in Delaware: ``The main thing is to keep the main
thing the main thing.'' And for us, the main thing is--and we
actually talked about this. The main thing is to get on top of
the pandemic, to make sure the vaccinations--that we have ample
supply, we have the delivery systems, working with State and
local governments and other entities, that we actually get
people vaccinated, vaccinated, vaccinated. If we can do that,
that is the main thing, and we are on our way to an economic
recovery. But go ahead, please.
Ms. Tanden. Senator, thank you for----
Chairman Peters. Ms. Tanden, would you double-check your
microphone to make sure it is on, please?
Ms. Tanden. Oh, I am so sorry. My apologies.
Senator, I really appreciate the issues you raise, and just
on the last one, I do recognize and I think the administration
recognizes that economic recovery is our central obligation
going forward, and, truthfully, a strong economic recovery will
help the financial picture of the United States and redress
long-term sustainability issues. I think there is various
analysis of where we will be, but a stronger, more robust
recovery will put us in a better financial footing going
forward. We do have other challenges, the aging of the
population; fiscal sustainability over the long term is a
critical issue.
I have appreciated the bipartisan action over the last year
to address the COVID crisis in the way we address crises, but I
also recognize the importance of long-term sustainability. I
would welcome the opportunity to work with you on the post
office, IRS resources. It is critical that we have resources
for the IRS so that we have a more equitable assurance that all
Americans are paying their fair share.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, my wife says
that I focus way too much time on postal issues, and she also
says I do not focus nearly enough time on like planning for my
death and my burial. The other day she was bugging me while
driving home from church, and we stopped at a traffic light by
a cemetery. I knew as soon as I saw the cemetery and we were
going to be there for a few minutes, I knew where she was going
to go. And she said, ``I do not know where you want to be
buried. I do not even know what you want on your tombstone.
What do you want on your tombstone?'' I said, ``Martha, just
drop it. Just let it go, just let it go.'' She would not.
So then I said, ``How about this?'' I thought about and
said, ``How about `Return to Sender'?'' ``Return to Sender.''
[Laughter.]
And that was the end of the conversation.
Ms. Tanden. I am sorry. Is it OK that I laughed?
Chairman Peters. Senator Carper, we all appreciate your
passion for the Postal Service.
Ms. Tanden. Yes, absolutely, sir.
Chairman Peters. Indeed, it is wonderful.
Senator Johnson, you are recognized for your additional
questions.
Senator Johnson. In Norway, there is a common phrase on a
gravestone: ``Takk for alt.'' ``Thanks for everything,'' which
I think is pretty appropriate.
Sorry I had to step away a couple minutes, but I appreciate
the conversation on fiscal sustainability. The last time I
checked, a couple days ago, the gross Federal debt is at $27.85
trillion; 21.7 is debt held by the public. It represents over
130 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP), the size of
our economy. With the passage of another $1.9 trillion COVID
relief package, that will put it up, combined with additional
deficit spending this year, over $30 trillion, over 140 percent
of GDP. If we just returned to our 40-year average interest
rate, somewhere around 5 percent, that is going to add more
than $1 trillion per year just in interest payments.
I guess my first question for you: Do you find that
troubling? Is that something that concerns you? Because it
concerns me a lot. It does not seem to concern a whole lot of
people here in Washington, DC.
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I think we should absolutely be
concerned about--oh, sorry. Senator, I think we should be
absolutely concerned about long-term fiscal health for the
country. You focused on interest rates. Interest rates are
currently at historic lows, and I do think we should recognize
that even in 2018, 2019, where we had very low unemployment,
relatively high GDP growth, particularly compared to the last
several decades, really, interest rates remained low. Whether
that is a new phenomenon or, an anomaly, I think I would say to
you and commit to you that, as Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, interest rates are something we would
monitor very closely. Secretary Yellen the other day discussed
the importance of monitoring interest rates very closely, but
it has been the case that we have not experienced high interest
rates or high inflation in many years.
Senator Johnson. So one of the things that can spark higher
interest rates, first of all, is if we are no longer the
world's reserve currency. And as China gets larger and other
people try to replace us as the world's reserve currency, that
is where we become Greece or worse overnight.
The other thing would be inflationary pressures, and there
have been some pretty interesting articles written by Jason
Furman, Lawrence Summers, former Treasury Secretary under
President Clinton, and, of course, Jason Furman worked for
President Obama. I think it is fair to say that they expressed
concerns about overheating the economy. We have already passed
$4 trillion in COVID relief. That is about 18 to 19 percent of
our economy. We are contemplating, it looks like, another $1.9
trillion.
I thought a very interesting article was published by the
Wall Street Journal by Senator Phil Gramm, and let me just
quote some of the figures. Again, I find his figures very
credible. The Wall Street Journal does a pretty good job of
fact-checking this as well. But let me just kind of run these
by you here.
Real per capita disposable income is up 5.5 percent year
over year, 2020 versus 2019. Savings is up $1.6 trillion in
2020. Private business investment is up 25 percent. The Federal
Reserve right now is estimating 2021 growth at 4.2 percent. The
IMF has increased their estimate to 5.1 percent for the U.S.
economy.
By the way, that disposable income growth of 5.5 percent is
before the $900 billion COVID relief package even kicks in.
I think one of the interesting stats that was in that
article is that average households in the bottom 20 percent of
earnings--OK, the bottom 20 percent of earners--got on average
$45,000 of transfer payments during 2020. $45,000. I imagine
all that stuff was tax-free.
So, again, when you have Jason Furman, Lawrence Summers,
and Phil Gramm concerned about overheating our economy,
potentially sparking inflation, which then would have the
spillover effect of driving up interest rates, again, there are
still people suffering. There is no doubt about that. But I
think that speaks more of the fact that the $4 trillion we
spent was not directed very well.
I just kind of want your comment in terms of your concern
about overheating the economy with another $1.9 trillion when,
quite honestly, I think we probably have not spent or even
obligated some of the other past COVID relief.
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I appreciate the points you are
making, and I would say the following: First, on GDP, the
estimates on GDP growth that, we all hope take place are
estimates that, 5-percent GDP growth for the latter half of
2021 would take place after a 2.5-percent contraction in 2020
from the COVID crisis. But I appreciate the points made about
inflation, and inflation is an area that eats into wages and
economic growth.
On the other hand, we have strategies to deal with interest
rates and inflation. As you know, the Fed has tools that it no
longer has to--it really has no tools to deal with economic
growth, but it has tools to address interest rates and
inflationary pressures.
Now, I will say to you, both myself, speaking for myself,
but also Secretary Yellen discussed this the other day, which
is we have to be concerned about inflationary pressures, but
the real challenge right now is that we can face a potential of
significant scarring in this economy, and it is vital and I
believe the President recognizes it is vital that we act.
Senator Johnson. Again, I think our economy is just poised
to take off. There is such pent-up demand. There is a dramatic
increase in savings and disposable income. It is going to take
off on its own.
Again, there are people hurting, so I want to talk a little
bit about targeting, for example, the direct payments. The
first two rounds were just shotgun out to everybody, and I will
give you the facts on that. The depth of the COVID recession,
we were down about 25 million jobs from a record number of jobs
in January 2020. Right now we are about 9 million jobs down,
but those direct payment checks went out to 166 million
Americans, about 115 million households. According to a study
by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, only 18 percent of
that first round of stimulus checks was spent on essential
items; 11 percent was spent on donations nonessential; 36
percent on savings; 35 percent on debt payments. The second
round, even less would be spent on essentials.
So wouldn't it make sense in this next round as they are
crafting this bill to really target any direct payments--by the
way, we spent about half a trillion dollars on direct payments,
and, again, a very small percent went to essential payments,
$45,000 on average to the bottom 20 percent of income earners
in terms of transfer payments. Can't we do a better job, when
we are $30 trillion in debt, of targeting?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I hear you on some of the--there is
targeted support within the American Recovery Plan around
unemployment insurance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP), and other areas. I do think that one of the
benefits of the CARES process is that we learned that direct
payments did insulate a lot of suffering, and it is sometimes
hard to target our resources to the families who are
struggling.
I think what we learned in the CARES package, we were able
to insulate a lot of the suffering from the actions that were
quick and to some degree really directed checks to a broad
swath of the public.
Senator Johnson. Again, I would love to work with the
administration to try and target this, and, again, I know it is
not easy, but I think it is essential. Thank you.
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Ossoff, for your additional questions.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Tanden, we are in the midst now of this debate, as we
just heard from Senator Johnson, regarding these direct
payments and what the income thresholds should be. I want to
just paint a picture of a story that I think is all too common
in our country right now.
A nurse in Georgia who has been working on the front lines
of this pandemic for the last year, working extraordinarily
long hours, at grave personal risk, many front-line health care
workers who have themselves been infected, who have then had to
isolate from their own families, many front-line health care
workers in Georgia like so many workers across the country who
have had to bear the burden of child care obligations amidst
the full or partial closures of public schools, all of the
stress, anxiety, and costs that have been crushing working-
class and middle-class families in this country for the last
year.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the
average annual salary of a registered nurse in the United
States is $77,000. Do you agree with me that nurses in this
country need and deserve economic relief?
Ms. Tanden. I do, Senator, and I would also just
acknowledge the incredible role they have played in saving
lives and keeping our society together during this COVID
crisis.
Senator Ossoff. And that working people in this country at
those income levels need the kind of relief that has been
promised to them? I commend the President and Vice President in
their Rescue Plan for proposing to provide direct economic
relief to people making incomes at those levels. Do you concur
with the President's Rescue Plan?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, and I do think is recognizes that
families are suffering in many different ways, and that is why
this support is so critical.
Senator Ossoff. How do you think it might reflect upon this
institution, if I could ask you to comment as you see fit, were
we to ignore the pain and suffering of nurses in this country,
teachers in this country who are making working-class and
middle-class incomes, who have gone through all of the pain of
the last year, were we in the Senate--were we not as public
servants able to summon the will to deliver the direct relief
that people so desperately need right now?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I would just say that I think for all
policymakers, the fact that the Congress has acted in the past
quickly and aggressively has given some people hope, and I
think we should try to continue at this very scary time for
many families to provide that hope with real resources to all
families that are in need.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much.
I want to discuss rural health care with you for a moment.
Georgia has lost nine rural hospitals in the last 10 years. The
hospital in Cuthbert, Georgia, closed in October in the middle
of the pandemic.
Will you commit to working with my office to determine
which Federal programs are available to surge health care
capacity and resources authorized by Congress for the provision
of rural health care and rural health clinics in Georgia and
rural communities across the country?
Ms. Tanden. I will absolutely work with you in this regard.
This is an important priority also for President Biden, and if
I am privileged to be confirmed, I would welcome the
opportunity to work with you on this. I would also just say
that rural hospitals, the importance--rural hospitals are
important institutions at all times, but during the COVID
crisis, to ensure that we are reaching rural communities, it is
vital that we buildup the health infrastructure in rural
communities. I really welcome the opportunity to work with you
on this topic.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much.
I would also like to discuss the port of Savannah in
Georgia. This is one of the most vital transportation
infrastructure components in the United States. It handles
around 10 percent of all containerized cargo in the United
States. It is one of the largest and fastest growing ports in
the world. It is vital to Georgia's economy, to the U.S.
economy; it is also of geopolitical and strategic significance.
The project to deepen the port of Savannah is now nearly 40
percent over budget and 2 years behind schedule, and I was just
discussing this this morning with Savannah Mayor Van Johnson.
It is currently scheduled to be completed in January 2022.
Will you take personal responsibility for and commit to
working with my office and with Mayor Johnson and local
officials in Georgia to ensure that Federal resources to
complete the deepening of the port of Savannah flow is swiftly
and precisely as possible?
Ms. Tanden. If I am confirmed, I would welcome the
opportunity to work with you and the mayor to ensure that we
are working as expeditiously as possible on this port.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you so much.
A final question for you, Ms. Tanden. This is about
corporate influence in the regulatory process, and I think
although there is a lot of partisanship in Washington and the
Senate, we can agree that corporate influence in policymaking,
in rulemaking, in national politics is something that is a
problem when either party is in power here.
What steps will you take in your capacity as the leader of
OMB, which plays such an important role in reviewing and
overseeing the regulatory and rulemaking processes across the
Federal Government, to ensure that new regulations do not just
benefit the most powerful trade groups and entrenched interests
who have lobbying and advocacy power and who can influence the
rulemaking process and to ensure that regulations, whether they
are new or to conduct a review of existing and past
regulations, are not anticompetitive and damaging to
competition in the marketplace?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator, for raising what I consider
one of--really a critical issue in the rulemaking process and
one that President Biden was, I believe, trying to get to when
he talked about equity in the rulemaking process. Really, to be
frank in the rulemaking process, corporations, special
interests have a big voice in Washington and can overwhelm the
rulemaking process, and really I am absolutely committed to a
rulemaking process that is focused on social welfare, the
public good, ensuring rules are protecting Americans in all
their spheres, and making sure that the voices of real people
and their needs and their protections are primary and not
secondary to corporate or special interests is a primary goal
for us.
Senator Ossoff. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Ossoff, and once again,
congratulations as a new Member of the Committee, and here in
your first hearing you get the last word, so it is a very
auspicious occasion.
Ms. Tanden, thank you for your testimony here today. We
will now be closing out the hearing, and I have a little bit of
housekeeping as we do that.
Ms. Tanden has made financial disclosures and provided
responses to biographical and prehearing questions submitted by
this Committee.\1\ Without objection, this information will be
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information of Ms. Tanden appears in the Appendix on page
58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing record will remain open until 12 p.m. tomorrow,
February 10th, for the submission of statements and questions
for the record.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
Ms. Tanden. Thank you so much, Senator.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]