[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]