[Senate Hearing 117-025]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-025
NOMINATION OF MS. NEERA TANDEN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
February 10, 2021--HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF MS. NEERA TANDEN, OF
MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for use of the Senate Budget Committee
NOMINATION OF MS. NEERA TANDEN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
S. Hrg. 117-025
NOMINATION OF MS. NEERA TANDEN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
February 10, 2021--HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF MS. NEERA TANDEN, OF
MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for use of the Senate Budget Committee
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-901 WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
RON WYDEN, Oregon CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island PATRICK TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
TIM KAINE, Virginia RICK SCOTT, Florida
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland BEN SASSE, Nebraska
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico MITT ROMNEY, Utah
ALEX PADILLA, California JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
Warren Gunnels, Majority Staff Director
Nick Myers, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
HEARING
Page
February 10, 2021--Hearing on the Nomination of Ms. Neera Tanden,
of Massachusetts, To Be Director of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)............................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Chairman Bernard Sanders......................................... 1
Ranking Member Lindsey Graham.................................... 3
WITNESSES
Testimony of Neera Tanden, of Massachusetts, To Be Director,
Office of Management and Budget................................ 8
Prepared Statement of........................................ 38
Statement of Honorable Amy Klobuchar, A United States Senator
from the State of Minnesota.................................... 5
Statement of Honorable Cory A. Booker, A United States Senator
from the State of New Jersey................................... 7
MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Statement of Biographical and Financial Information Requested of
Presidential Nominee Ms. Neera Tanden To Be Director of the
Office of Management and Budget................................ 40
Pre-Hearing Questions from Chairman Bernard Sanders with Answers
by Neera Tanden................................................ 63
Pre-Hearing Questions from Ranking Member Lindsey Graham with
Answers by Neera Tanden........................................ 65
Pre-Hearing Questions from Senator Kevin Cramer with Answers by
Neera Tanden................................................... 70
Pre-Hearing Questions from Senator Mike Braun with Answers by
Neera Tanden................................................... 71
Post-Hearing Questions from Budget Committee Members with Answers
by Neera Tanden:............................................... 73
Senator Charles E. Grassley.................................. 74
Senator Ron Wyden............................................ 79
Senator Mike Crapo........................................... 82
Senator Debbie Stabenow...................................... 86
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse................................... 88
Senator Mark R. Warner....................................... 92
Senator Jeff Merkley......................................... 93
Senator Patrick Toomey....................................... 94
Senator Ben Sasse............................................ 98
Senator Chris Van Hollen..................................... 102
Senator Kevin Cramer......................................... 105
Senator Mike Braun........................................... 112
Senator Ben Ray Lujan........................................ 114
THE NOMINATION OF MS. NEERA TANDEN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF
THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., via
Webex and in Room SD-608, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Honorable Bernard Sanders, Chairman of the Committee,
presiding.
Present: Senators Sanders, Murray, Wyden, Stabenow,
Whitehouse, Warner, Merkley, Kaine, Van Hollen, Lujan, Padilla,
Graham, Grassley, Crapo, Toomey, Johnson, Braun, Scott, Sasse,
Romney, and Kennedy.
Staff Present: Warren Gunnels, Majority Staff Director; and
Nick Myers, Republican Staff Director.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BERNARD SANDERS
Chairman Sanders. Let me thank everybody for being here and
everybody else who is with us virtually. I am delighted to call
the very first meeting of the Budget Committee to order.
As all of you know, we are here today to consider the
nomination of Neera Tanden to become the next Director of the
Office of Management and Budget. We all know that that position
is an extremely important one. It is responsible for preparing
the President's budget, for reviewing Federal regulations, and
for providing the proper oversight of Federal agencies. No
small tasks.
For the past 10 years, Ms. Tanden has served as the
president and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Center for
American Progress (CAP). Prior to that she worked in the United
States Senate as a Legislative Director and served in the Obama
and Clinton administrations as a Senior Domestic Policy
Adviser. Good morning, Ms. Tanden, and thanks very much for
being with us.
Before I go further, let me mention that we have some new
members of this Committee, and let me welcome Senators Lujan,
Padilla, Sasse, and Romney to the Budget Committee.
This Committee has very broad jurisdiction dealing with any
policy that impacts the Federal budget. That is a lot of stuff
out there. And at a time when our country faces an
unprecedented series of crises, this will be a very active
Committee in which we will be exploring many issues, including
trying to get an understanding of what is happening to the
working class of this country, the middle class, and lower-
income Americans. And I hope we are going to have those good
discussions in a civil manner. The American people need to hear
different points of view. They need to get an understanding of
why what is happening in this country is, in fact, happening.
In general, we do not do a good job as Members of Congress,
the media does not do a good job, and I hope this Committee
will have civil, serious debates about some of the most
important issues facing America.
We are going to explore what it means that in this country
today the people on the top economically are doing phenomenally
well, while so many tens of millions of Americans are
struggling right now in America to put food on the table, to
pay their rent, or to have the income they need to go to a
doctor in the midst of a pandemic.
Today in America we are living through the worst economic
crisis since the Great Depression and the worst public health
crisis in more than 100 years. Real unemployment is over 11
percent. Over 23 million Americans are either unemployed,
underemployed, or have given up looking for work altogether.
Unbelievably, more than half of American workers are living
paycheck to paycheck and are just one medical emergency, one
car accident, one lost paycheck away from financial disaster.
In America, disgracefully, we have the highest rate of
childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth. The
COVID-19 pandemic is still raging across the Nation and is
responsible for taking the lives of more than 450,000
Americans, and obviously, all of us hope that we are going to
address that crisis as rapidly as possible. But, meanwhile, in
the midst of that pandemic, over 90 million Americans are
either uninsured or underinsured, and we remain the only major
country on Earth not to guarantee health care to all of our
people.
We have got a climate crisis that is ravaging nations all
over the world, including the United States of America. We have
an affordable housing crisis where so many of our people are
literally paying half of their incomes for rent. We have a
racial injustice crisis in America today that this Congress is
going to have to address, and we have an immigration crisis as
well.
And given all of these unprecedented crises, it is
absolutely imperative that we have an OMB Director who has the
courage at this moment in American history to think big, not
small. We need an OMB Director who is prepared to stand up to
powerful special interests who dominate the economic and
political life of this country, including what goes on here in
Congress. We need an OMB Director who can work with the
President and Congress to create an economy that works for all
of us and not just wealthy campaign contributors.
Now, Ms. Tanden, at a time when the wealthy and large
corporations have extraordinary influence over the economic and
political life of this country, I must tell you that I am
concerned about the level of corporate donations that the
Center for American Progress has received under your
leadership. According to the Washington Post, since 2014 the
Center for American Progress has received at least $38 million
from corporate America, including Wall Street and every special
interest that I can think of. So before I vote on your
nomination, it is important for me and the members of this
Committee to know that those donations that you have secured at
CAP will not influence your decision-making at the OMB.
Further, I would like to hear how you plan to work with
this Committee and the Congress to enact the promises that
President Biden made to the American people. I think one of the
reasons that so many people are disillusioned with politics in
America, have given up on democracy, politicians make promises
and they run away from those promises. President Biden made a
series of promises, and I am going to work with him to make
sure that we implement those promises.
President Biden promised to raise the minimum wage over a
period of several years to at least $15 an hour. He promised to
make public colleges and universities tuition-free for working
families and to substantially reduce student debt. He promised
to lower the Medicare eligibility age from 65 down to 60 and to
also cut the outrageously high prices of prescription drugs in
America. President Biden promised to rebuild our crumbling
infrastructure and create millions of good-paying jobs and
combat climate change. He said he would fight to make pre-K
universal, to make sure that every 3- and 4-year-old in America
has the quality child care and pre-K education that they need.
President Biden promised to make sure that every worker in
America has at least 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave.
And, yes, President Biden promised that he would make sure that
corporations like Amazon began to pay their fair share of
taxes.
The next OMB Director will play a major role in determining
whether those policy proposals succeed or whether they fail,
and I want to hear from you this morning how you plan to work
with the President, this Committee, and the Congress to
implement those promises that the President made.
Lastly, what I simply want to say is that over the years I
have worked with Mike Enzi, who was the Chairman, and Mike and
I had a very, very good relationship, and I look forward to
having an excellent relationship, a cordial relationship with
the Ranking Member, Lindsey Graham, whom I have known for many,
many years. I hope, again, that this Committee can be the
Committee that has--look, we have differences of opinion. We
all know that. But let us have a civil debate, and I promise
you that we are going to talk about the most important issues
that face your constituents. So let us do that, and with that
let me introduce the Ranking Member, Lindsey Graham.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
Senator Graham. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations on being Chairman of the Committee. Two
thousand twenty. was a heck of an election cycle. It will soon
be over, hopefully, in my lifetime, and we can move on with the
Nation's business.
I have talked to Bernie several times about what we can do
together, and there actually is a lot we can do together. I
look forward to that.
Senator Whitehouse is sort of on the fence about climate
change, but if we can ever get him out of his shell, I would
like to talk about what happens if General Motors by 2035
actually converts to all electrical vehicles. I mean, that is
not, you know, some left-wing group saying that. That is
General Motors saying that in 2035, I think it is--is that the
date? Or 2050. I cannot remember now--that they are going to
stop producing gasoline-driven cars.
Well, what does that mean for the country, why they are
trying to do that, and it gives us a chance, I think, to talk
about big things. And there are going to be differences.
Senator Sanders went down a checklist of big things, and one of
my goals is to make sure that all these big things that we are
talking about other people paying for, that we have a sense of,
you know, how do you pay for all this stuff? And from a
Republican point of view, we cannot really say a whole lot
about running up the debt because we did it, too. But,
eventually, it is going to take people like Bernie and Lindsey
and the rest of us around here to figure out what to do about
the debt one day. I do not know when that day comes. But there
will be a day of reckoning, and I know Senators Whitehouse and
Kaine and others have been pretty open-minded about reforms.
From my point of view, that would be revenue, too, to make sure
that the revenue is consistent with what we need up here to
operate the Government.
But from Senator Sanders, I just want to tell you that we
are going to have some real stark differences about
reconciliation. We are going to have some very pointed
differences. But the one thing I want to say about Bernie is
that you believe what you are saying. You have been the most
consistent voice in this body, and the one thing I respect is
people who believe what they are saying. Senator Whitehouse,
you believe what you are saying about climate change. And the
question is: Can we find some common ground given what we
believe?
We have some very talented people on our side of the aisle,
and I would just challenge all of us to fight for our--
peacefully, that is the new word now--fight for your point of
view, but see if there is some common ground here, because the
country needs it.
As to the nominee, I have known her for a while. She is a
very nice person, but not the unity pick that I was looking
for, anyway.
So Ms. Tanden was receiving corporate donations, which is
fine with me. I do not mind if you receive corporate donations
as long as they are lawful and fully disclosed, and I think all
of us receive donations from different groups. That does not
mean you are owned because somebody gives you money, so I am
not going to hold that against you. But you have been a very
partisan figure. You have been a very tough figure when it
comes to political discourse. And that is okay, too. But
calling Mitch McConnell ``Moscow Mitch'' is probably not a very
good thing to say, suggesting that the Minority Leader is
somehow in the pocket of the Russians.
``The GOP's capacity for evil knows no bounds.'' I am sure
a lot of people in America believe that. I am not one of them.
So Senator Sanders was Hillary Clinton's opponent, as we
all know, so her scorn was not limited to Republicans. ``Russia
did a lot more to help Bernie than the DNC's random internal
emails did to help Hillary.'' ``Oddly, when Russia was trying
to elect Trump, they did not attack Bernie Sanders. They chose
to help him. They did this in the Democratic primary. They
attacked the other candidate.'' I doubt if Bernie was Russia's
pick either.
So the point I am trying to make here is that in a time of
unity, we are picking somebody who throws sharp elbows, and
there is going to be a consequence for that, hopefully, on our
side.
As to her management capability, she referred to us the
Glassdoor review of her time running the Center for American
Progress. Again, she is a talented person who has come a long
way in life, but here are some of the reviews.
June 2019, one out of five stars. ``Terrible,''
``absolutely horrible.''
October 2016, ``cool work but absurd management,''
disapproves of CEO.
April 2016, ``influential organization, poorly managed.''
September 2012, two out of five stars, ``bad management.''
February 13th, two out of five stars, ``great experience,
terrible management.''
Two out of five stars, April 2017, disapproves of CEO, does
not recommend, ``what a mess.''
So all I can say is that this is not the unifying pick that
I was looking for for this position.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Lindsey.
Amy Klobuchar, our Senator from Minnesota, is here. Senator
Klobuchar, thanks for being here, and I gather you want to
introduce Ms. Tanden.
Senator Klobuchar. I do.
Chairman Sanders. Please do.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE AMY KLOBUCHAR, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. I want to thank you, Senator Sanders,
Senator Graham. Congratulations on your new roles. To the
Committee, all gentlemen today, I know there are a few women on
the Committee. But it is my honor to be here to speak to you.
The work of this Committee right now could not be more
important. I think you know what is happening with our country,
and I admire the leadership role that you, Senator Sanders, are
taking right now, and this entire Committee.
I am proud to be here today to introduce my friend, Neera
Tanden, a woman who is smart, organized, and tenacious. These
are good qualities for the job, and if confirmed, she will make
history as the first woman of color to lead the Office of
Management and Budget. And I appreciate--I am sure she will
address some of your concerns, Senator Graham, but I do want to
note that a lot of people have said a lot of things on social
media, and probably people in this room, that they regret. And
so I want to give you just a different sense of this woman and
what she stands for.
First, I want to acknowledge the people that are here with
Neera and that know well her perseverance and her ability to
balance a budget firsthand. That would be her husband, Ben, who
is with us; her 18-year-old daughter, Alina, over there. At the
earlier hearing we had with Homeland Security with Senators
Peters and Portman, which went well, her mother, Maya, was
there with us as well. And I know she is watching from a
distance today, as well as Neera's 15-year-old son, Jaden.
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 a single mom, her mom, Maya, Neera
learned the value of perseverance at a very young age. Maya,
her mom, put her kids first. She relied on food stamps and
public housing. She was on her own.
But then she 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 drive that I 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, Neera's mom 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 her family, somehow Neera ended up before us
today.
Growing up, Neera understood the circumstances of her
family's struggle and saw what worked and what did not work.
Because of that personal connection, she from a young age
wanted to pursue public service.
Throughout her career, she has shown a passion for
improving people's lives. She brings years of Government
experience, including working in the Senate as then-Senator
Clinton's Legislative Director. And while people may have
disagreements about Senator Clinton, I think everyone knows and
I know you know, Senator Graham, that her time here was marked
by working across the aisle, getting things done, respect for
other members regardless of difference in beliefs. And Neera
led that legislative effort.
Neera understands, like you do, that inscribed in any
budget is a set of priorities, choices about ensuring that
everyone gets a fair shot. She knows that the work of the
Office of Management and Budget shapes the lives of millions of
American families. 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, she
led teams in promoting, as Senator Sanders noted, bold
solutions to problems, including the pandemic. And, no, not
everyone in this room will agree with every solution she has
put forth in her career. I do not agree with every solution she
has put forth. But what matters, my friends, is her devotion to
the country and her ability to do the job. That is why
President Biden picked her.
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Graham, I know you both
recognize the severity of the coronavirus pandemic, and this
Committee will and continue to play a key role in taking it on,
and you will have a partner in Neera.
She graduated from UCLA and Yale Law School. As I noted,
she worked for former Senator Clinton. She has the background,
and she knows how to forge practical solutions.
As President Biden put it succinctly when he announced her,
she is ``smart as hell.'' And maybe that is a good way to end.
I know that 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 give her utmost consideration and respect and
support her nomination.
Thank you very much, Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member
Graham and all members of the Committee.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Klobuchar, thank you very much
for those remarks.
Now we have a brief statement, prerecorded, from Senator
Booker.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE CORY A. BOOKER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. 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 has 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, 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.
But 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. Well, 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. And she will lead with love. She will
lead with love of country and all of her citizens.
I urge my colleagues 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 Sanders. Thank you, Senator Booker.
Ms. Tanden, under the rules of the Committee, nominees are
required to testify under oath. Please rise, if you could. Do
you swear that the testimony that you will give the Senate
Budget Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
Ms. Tanden. I do.
Chairman Sanders. If asked to do so and if given reasonable
notice, will you agree to appear before this Committee in the
future and answer any questions that the members of this
Committee might have?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you. Please be seated. Now it is
appropriate for you to give your opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF NEERA TANDEN, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member
Graham, 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. Chairman
Sanders, I am grateful for your visionary leadership, and,
Ranking Member Graham, I look forward to working with you if I
have the privilege of being confirmed.
I want to begin by thanking Senators Booker and Klobuchar
for their gracious introductions. And I also want to recognize
two members of my family who are here with me today--my
husband, Ben, and my daughter, Alina--as well two who are not:
my son, Jaden, and my mother, Maya.
I owe my presence here today 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 decision--I believe
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 at 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 see her children off to
college and beyond.
I spend every day of my life 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 our
potential.
As I sit before this Committee, I am mindful that my path
in life would never have been possible without the 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. And 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 our Government more
effective.
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 the 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 in
social media, and I regret that language. And I also want to
say I express that regret to Senator Sanders and other members
of this Committee. 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
country's biggest challenges, from beating back the virus, to
delivering aid that will help ensure a strong economic
recovery, to ensuring we build back better than before.
If I am privileged to serve as Director, I would ensure
that OMB uses every tool at its disposal to effectively deliver
for America's working families, for small businesses, and to
the many communities struggling right now.
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 budget reflects the values of a
Nation built on hard work, human dignity, common purpose, and
boundless possibility.
And I would work in good faith with all members of this
Committee to tackle the challenges, the grave challenges,
Americans are facing: the COVID pandemic, as I said, the deep
economic pain in our country, climate change, racial inequity,
and the broad issue of inequality in our country.
Let me finally say this: As a child in line with my mom at
that grocery store--feeling shy and a bit embarrassed as we
stood in line and my mom was using foods stamps instead of
money--I never dreamed that 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. And I
am profoundly honored by the possibility to serve and to help
ensure that 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.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tanden appears on page 38]
Chairman Sanders. Ms. Tanden, thank you very much. And as
the son of an immigrant, I understand some of what you are
talking about.
Let me begin by picking up on a point that the Ranking
Member, Lindsey Graham, made, and that is, we understand that
we are a divided Nation, and on this Committee there are people
who have very, very different political points of view. But I
think most of us understand that it is important we debate the
issues and try to minimize the level of personal and vicious
attacks that seem to be so prevalent all over this country
today.
I have a letter in front of me, which I am sure you have
seen, from a number of Republican Members of the House
concerned about some of the things you said as the head of CAP.
But, of course, your attacks were not just made against
Republicans. There were vicious attacks made against
progressives, people who I have worked with, me personally.
So as you come before this Committee to assume a very
important role in the United States Government, at a time when
we need serious work on serious issues and not personal attacks
on anybody, whether they are on the left or the right, can you
reflect a little bit about some of your decisions and the
personal statements that you have made in recent years?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, Senator. I really appreciate that
question, and I recognize that my language and my expressions
on social media, you know, cause hurt to people, and I feel
badly about that and I really regret it. And I recognize it is
really important for me to demonstrate that I can work with
others, and I look forward to taking that burden. And I
apologize to people on either the left or right who were hurt
by what I have said.
Chairman Sanders. As you know, it is not a question of
being hurt. We are all big boys--and I do not see too many
girls here, but big boys who get attacked all the time. But it
is important that we make the attacks expressing our
differences on policy and that we do not need to make personal
attacks, no matter what view somebody may hold. So can we
assume that as the Director of the OMB we are going to see a
different approach, if you are appointed, than you have taken
at CAP?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely. And I would say, you know, social
media does lead to too many personal comments, and my approach
will be radically different.
Chairman Sanders. Good. Thank you.
All right. Let me get to another issue that concerns me
very much. I happen to believe that big money interests have an
undue influence over the economic and political life of our
country, and that too often campaign contributions are what
determines policy rather than the needs of ordinary Americans.
And according to the Washington Post, since 2014 the Center for
American Progress has received roughly $5.5 million from
Walmart, a company that pays its workers starvation wages;
$900,000 from the Bank of America; $550,000 from JPMorgan
Chase; $550,000 from Amazon; $200,000 from Wells Fargo;
$800,000 from Facebook; and up to $1.4 million from Google. In
other words, CAP has received money from some of the most
powerful special interests in our country.
How will your relationship with those very powerful special
interests impact your decision-making if you are appointed to
be the head of OMB?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I thank you for that question. It will
have zero impact on my decision-making. I am actually--CAP took
a number of positions that disagreed vigorously with the policy
decisions of those institutions. But I appreciate this
question, and it is my role--it will be my role to ensure that
I am only serving the interests of the American people, the
administration, and its agenda to address rising inequality and
address the needs of working families.
Chairman Sanders. Ms. Tanden, will you at this point commit
to doing what President Biden and I and many others want to see
happen, and that is, help us move to end starvation wages in
America by raising the minimum wage over a period of several
years?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely.
Chairman Sanders. Will you do what President Biden and I
and many other Members of Congress want, and that is, move to
make public colleges and universities tuition-free for families
under $125,000 a year?
Ms. Tanden. Yes. As you know, President Biden has committed
to make college affordable, truly affordable, tuition-free for
middle-class families.
Chairman Sanders. President Biden has stated that he would
like to see the eligibility age for Medicare go from 65 down to
60. Is that something you will help him implement?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, absolutely, and we know that that can
actually help save money because it will over the long term
recognize--lower the costs, per beneficiary costs, of Medicare.
Chairman Sanders. We pay by far the highest prices in the
world for prescription drugs. That is an issue I intend to take
a hard look at as Chairman of this Committee. President Biden
has indicated that he wants Medicare to negotiate with the
pharmaceutical companies to lower drug prices. Is that
something you will help us move forward on?
Ms. Tanden. Yes.
Chairman Sanders. President Biden has said that he wants to
guarantee 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. Is that
something you will help us move forward on?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, absolutely, and I have worked for over 20
years on the issue of paid leave.
Chairman Sanders. Okay. President Biden wants to provide
universal pre-K education for every 3- and 4-year-old in this
country and make child care more affordable for working
families, an issue of enormous importance in general,
especially now in the pandemic. Is that something you will help
us move forward on?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, absolutely, and I think over the long term
those investments help us address both racial and income
inequality.
Chairman Sanders. President Biden has said that he wants to
triple Title I funding for public schools to make sure that
lower-income kids in this country are able to get the education
they need. Will you help us move forward in that direction?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, absolutely.
Chairman Sanders. I know this is not necessarily
universally held on this Committee, but I happen to believe
that climate change is an existential threat to our country and
the world and that we have the opportunity to create millions
of good-paying union jobs as we transform our energy system. Is
that something you will help us move forward on?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, and as you know, President Biden
agrees with you that climate change is an existential threat.
Chairman Sanders. Lastly, I think where there is an area of
agreement--and Lindsey and I have chatted how we can work
together--I do not think anybody on your side denies that our
infrastructure is crumbling and that we can create millions of
good jobs, rebuilding our roads and bridges and wastewater
systems and water systems, et cetera. Will you help us go
forward creating the jobs rebuilding our crumbling
infrastructure?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, absolutely, and I hope we can work in a
bipartisan manner on infrastructure.
Chairman Sanders. Good. Lindsey, it is yours.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Bernie.
One, congratulations to your family. You have lived the
American dream, seem to have an incredible background, and I
want to congratulate you.
So let us talk about policy. In the education debate, is
there any room for school choice in the Biden administration?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your
question. So the President has supported charter schools, and
to the extent that we make sure that those charter schools are
delivering, that they are accountable to the public, that they
are as accountable as public schools. And so there is room for
charter schools, absolutely, but they need to be accountable,
and I think many charter school advocates recognize that.
Senator Graham. Anything beyond charter schools?
Ms. Tanden. Well, I mean, obviously, in the country today,
people, parents have access to private schools. I think it is
one of the inequities we actually have to recognize, that
upper-income families have access to private education, and
sometimes those have much more resources than public schools.
Senator Graham. Okay. So let us talk about fair share of
taxes. What is the fair share? What should be the corporate
rate in America? What is fair for corporations to pay?
Ms. Tanden. The President has supported restoring the
corporate rate to, I believe, ordinary--to a higher rate. I
believe it is 35 percent, but I should double-check that.
Senator Grassley. 28 percent.
Ms. Tanden. 28 percent. I am sorry.
Senator Graham. Well, let us get this right.
Ms. Tanden. You are right, 28 percent.
Senator Graham. Well, that is what Grassley says now. Do
not let him speak for the Biden administration.
Do you think 35 percent is a fair rate for corporations or
is that too high?
Ms. Tanden. I would follow the President's policies on
these issues.
Senator Graham. Okay. What should the individual rate be?
Ms. Tanden. It depends on the income of the individual.
Senator Graham. If somebody makes $10 million.
Ms. Tanden. I believe we should restore it back to 39.6.
Senator Graham. Is that enough?
Ms. Tanden. On the income, yes. There are other----
Senator Graham. So 39.6 is fair in your belief?
Ms. Tanden. Well, my role is to address President Biden's
policies, and he has----
Senator Graham. I am just talking about you as an
individual. Would you go up higher? Would the Center for
American Progress support individual rates beyond 39.6, do you
think?
Ms. Tanden. My role in this, if I have the privilege of
being confirmed, my role is to address the President's
priorities. And the President's priority has been to restore it
to a 39.6-percent rate.
Senator Graham. Okay, so that is fair. Do you believe
raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour will cost millions of
Americans their job?
Ms. Tanden. Actually, the most recent data on this--and
there have been studies over the last few years, 2018, 2019--
indicate that the minimum wage--analyses that have looked at 40
years of minimum wage increases have found that the elasticity
rate is different than previous understandings, and that
actually job loss rates are relatively low.
Senator Graham. So you think 1.5 million people losing
their job would be relatively low?
Ms. Tanden. No. Actually, what I am saying is that more
recent studies--I appreciate that the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) looked at several years----
Senator Graham. But you do not accept it.
Ms. Tanden. I think that there are--I think that the
important thing is to be guided by facts and evidence, and
there has been a discussion about more recent data being more--
--
Senator Graham. Have you ever run a restaurant?
Ms. Tanden. I have not run a restaurant.
Senator Graham. Okay. Well, you need to go talk to people
who have because I think they will give you some facts.
Ms. Tanden. I would say respectfully, Senator, we should
also talk to the waiters and waitresses.
Senator Graham. Yeah, I think they want their jobs. I think
that the tip--doing away with the tip wage is probably bad for
them. The best thing you can do for a waiter and a waitress is
open up a new restaurant and people hire you at higher wages
because a new restaurant in town needs good workers. So that is
the way I believe to increase wages. But this is why we have
elections.
Simpson-Bowles. Do you support a Simpson-Bowles approach to
dealing with the debt?
Ms. Tanden. I think the Simpson-Bowles approach--I think
there are deep challenges with the Simpson-Bowles approach. I
think what we should really decide is what----
Senator Graham. Do you support that concept of trying to
find a bipartisan way to deal with the debt?
Ms. Tanden. Oh, I think we should try to find bipartisan
ways to----
Senator Graham. Do you support----
Ms. Tanden. --deal with the debt.
Senator Graham. --entitlement reform?
Ms. Tanden. That is the idea of the Simpson-Bowles. I think
there were some things that we found were not----
Senator Graham. Do you support entitlement reform?
Ms. Tanden. The President, President Biden, has put forward
particular ideas on Social Security. One is to raise the
payroll cap for people earning over $400,000.
Senator Graham. All right.
Ms. Tanden. That is an idea he has put forward to address
Social Security solvency, which would also address the debt.
Senator Graham. Okay. I got you. So, real quick, on
immigration, here is what has happened thus far in the first 3
weeks. We stopped building the wall; we have halted
deportations; we canceled the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy;
withdrew from asylum agreements with Triangle Nations; we
eliminated advance vetting for terrorists, reinstated catch-
and-release; we are considering canceling the public charge
rule; we are ending travel restrictions with countries with
national security concerns.
Do you believe that the sum total of these policies will
lead to more illegal immigration?
Ms. Tanden. I do not, and I would be guided by facts and
evidence about----
Senator Graham. Okay. Here are the facts: so a 178-percent
increase in single adults coming across the border this year
versus last; 50-percent increase in unaccompanied minors. So
the fact that you do not see this as a problem is very
disturbing.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Bernie.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much, Lindsey.
We are now going to hear via video from Senator Murray.
Senator Murray?
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and let me start by saluting you on becoming Chair of this
Committee. I know you will do great things in this role. I also
want to congratulate Senator Graham on becoming Ranking Member.
I look forward to working with you both.
Now, to our nominee, Ms. Tanden, I think she is an
excellent choice for this role, and I was thrilled when then-
President-elect Biden announced her as his nominee to lead the
Office of Management and Budget. I have known and worked
closely with Neera for many years, and I think she will excel
as OMB Director because she brings both practical experience as
well as knowing how to get things done, as well as the personal
experience that is so important on the programs behind these
budget numbers and how important they are to our families and
to our communities. And now we need more than ever both sets of
experiences.
Neera brings a deep familiarity with a broad array of
policy, including areas of great importance to me such as
health care and child care and paid leave and income
inequality, as well as extensive managerial experience from
overseeing a very large think tank.
I know she will also bring a high level of energy and
engagement to the role of Director that has been sorely
missing. I had many complaints about Russ Vought as Director of
OMB; chief among them was the complete lack of engagement and
leadership shown by him at OMB during the coronavirus pandemic.
I can assure my colleagues that these will not be issues if Ms.
Tanden is confirmed as Director.
Whether or not you agree with her on every issue, you will
not be able to question Neera's passion, her knowledge, or her
engagement. This pandemic has put a spotlight on the everyday
challenges that many families face, from finding affordable
quality child care, to having access to paid leave so they can
take care of themselves or their loved ones without fear of
losing a paycheck or their job; simply earning a living wage
for themselves and their families; and [inaudible] for
communities of color.
So my question to you today, Ms. Tanden, consists of two
parts. First, can you tell me how you see this administration
prioritizing investments in these core areas for families?
Second, [inaudible] the economic case for prioritizing and
making those investments?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you so much, Senator. I would note that
as we experience the deep economic challenges we are facing,
women are disproportionately being impacted by that: 4.2
million people are leaving the workforce, 2.4 million women are
leaving the workforce primarily because they are facing high--
they are taking a disproportionate impact--the recession is
having a disproportionate impact on caregiving. Women are
leaving because they need to take care of children who are not
in school, amongst other reasons. And so I do think that is a
reason why it is important that we invest in child care, that
we have robust paid leave programs. Those programs are part of
the American Recovery Plan, but it is also--I do think those
are important areas for us to prioritize as long-term
investments. As part of the President's Build Back Better
agenda, he has put forward a caregiving agenda that has long-
term direct support for child care and paid leave in which the
United States--I would just note on paid leave the United
States would rejoin 99 percent of countries on the planet if we
adopted a universal paid leave program.
Senator Murray. Thank you for that. And real quick, before
I close, I do want to briefly raise an issue of critical
importance to my home State, which is the cleanup of the
Hanford nuclear site. We talked about this in our calls, but
the Federal Government has a moral and legal obligation to
clean up the Hanford site and to make sure that our workers are
doing that very difficult cleanup work given the resources and
protections they need. So I look forward to working with you in
partnership to make sure the Hanford mission is on a cost-
effective trajectory, without compromising that critical
cleanup mission.
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator, and I would very much look
forward to working with you on that issue.
Senator Murray. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Murray, thank you very, very
much.
Next up is Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Congratulations, Senator, for your
chairmanship. Congratulations to you.
The issue I want to bring up I discussed with you on the
phone, and pretty soon you will have 3 minutes to figure out
what you are going to answer because I only have one question.
In 1981, President Reagan issued an Executive order issuing
a common-sense directive. Regulations promulgated by Federal
agencies should have more benefits than costs. I think that
most Americans would agree that the benefit of a particular
action should outweigh the cost of taking that action.
Regulations should be a net positive for society and should
have more benefits than doing nothing or taking another action.
The emphasis on cost and benefits was further codified through
Executive Order 12866 issued under the Clinton administration.
This order also required agencies to submit significant rules
to the Office of Independent Regulatory Analysis for review
accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis. I do not think any of
this would strike the average American as unreasonable.
However, President Biden recently issued a memo entitled
``Modernizing Regulatory Review.'' This memo threatens the
important role that cost-benefit analysis plays in the
development of a regulation and creates a framework that could
unleash a torrent of burdensome and overreaching regulations
under the guise of improvement to society that cannot be
measured or proven. It instructs OMB to update its guidance to
agencies to ``fully account for regulatory benefits that are
difficult or impossible to quantify.'' It also instructs OMB to
provide suggestions on how the regulatory review process can be
used to promote vague concepts such as social welfare, racial
justice, and human dignity--all goals that we should all seek,
I guess, but it is kind of hard to quantify it. There is no
mention of taking into account more nonquantifiable benefits--
or costs, only benefits. The Executive order seems designed to
take nonpartisan, objective analysis out of the rulemaking
process in favor of subjective claims of social benefit that
could be used to justify virtually any cost, economic or
otherwise, on the backs of everyday Americans. This sounds like
writing any regulation for any rationale can be justified, and
I think it opens the floodgates.
So here comes my question: Existing OMB guidance already
outlines how costs and benefits should be quantified and
compared. It outlines a process for agencies to consider impact
on a regulation that may be hard to put into numbers and how to
evaluate those costs and benefits against more concrete.
So to you, in what ways is the current guidance
insufficient to capture qualitative costs and benefits? And
going forward, how will agencies be instructed to compare
quantitative and nonquantitative benefits and costs?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator Grassley, for your question,
and I would just note that President Biden's recent Executive
memorandum does not limit the power of Executive Order 12866,
which outlined cost-benefit analysis. So it is my orientation
and it is the process behind--the process here would indicate
that we continue cost-benefit analysis. But the memorandum
outlines why it is important to have more information, and I
think that is really the idea behind this Executive memorandum,
is to ensure that we have up-to-date and more information.
And if I may, I might just give an example of what I think
the Executive memorandum is driving at. So as part of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, there were rules promulgated
around access to bathrooms and ensuring that people with
disabilities have access to bathrooms. And there is obviously a
cost-benefit analysis to access to bathrooms, but there is also
a dignity interest in people with disabilities having access to
bathrooms. And I think that is really what the Executive
memorandum is trying to outline, is that we take into account
that dignity interest, which, you are absolutely right, is
intangible. And I would agree with you, when we are discussing
issues like those kinds of intangible qualities, that we would
look at them both on the cost and benefit side. But I also
think we should analyze how rules are impacting
subpopulations--communities of color, rural communities.
Sometimes regulations can disproportionately impact rural
communities, and we should understand what kind of impact that
has.
Senator Grassley. This is not a question, and I will close
with this. I think in our telephone conversation you spoke
about transparency.
Ms. Tanden. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Grassley. And transparency on this would be very
important because that sort of transparency is only the way to
which I can judge you are following what you just told me.
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, and I would commit to you, Senator
and members of this Committee, to be as transparent as
possible, not only on the rulemaking process but in budget
discussions and elsewhere regarding the whole work OMB does.
Senator Grassley. Thank you.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Grassley, thanks very much.
Senator Wyden is going to join us virtually. Ron?
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Chairman Sanders, and it is great
to see you in this position. You have a chance to work with
Senator Graham. And suffice it to say, Ms. Tanden, I have
worked with you often in the past, and it is very good to have
you here today. The time is short, so I am going to dig right
in.
Millions of Americans are unemployed this morning, and
expanded unemployment insurance expires on March 14th. Across
the political spectrum, there is a recognition that in helping
those laid off through no fault of their own, expanded
unemployment insurance packs an exceptional bang for the
economic relief buck. It is weekly. It is spent on groceries,
on rent, on medicines locally, and it literally has kept
communities afloat since the spring of 2020.
The program has got a major limitation, though. It allows
politicians to pluck an arbitrary end date for coverage. With
that, it satisfies the political agenda of the politician, but
it does not meet the needs of those who are suffering. To meet
the needs of those who have been laid off through no fault of
their own, it is time to tie unemployment insurance to real
economic conditions on the ground. And it just defies the
principle of good Government to empower politicians rather than
empowering the unemployed who, through no fault of their own,
overwhelmingly want to work and want to get ahead in the
economy and help their families.
So I proposed legislation to fix this, and it is through
something called ``stabilizers,'' which is really fancy
Government talk to say when unemployment is high, the insurance
benefit should reflect what is needed to pay for rent and
groceries and essentials. When you have better times, the
benefit can taper off. And I decided last spring we had to do
this because the unemployment system is in a time warp. It
really goes back to the 1930s. So what I am talking about is a
crucial next step for the program.
My question to you, Ms. Tanden: What can you do as OMB
Director to help us secure this crucial unemployment insurance
reform?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you so much, Senator, and I do recognize
how critical it is that we have more stability and more
security in essentially our social safety net, and having
automatic stabilizers would provide more stability to families.
It would provide more security to families. And, obviously,
there would be more planning we could do.
I appreciate that unemployment cliffs have become an
action-forcing event, but I consider that an unfortunate aspect
of where we are. And I think we have seen in this pandemic
particularly that people are suffering because of completely
extraneous events like a global pandemic. So if there is a time
to move forward with automatic stabilizers, it is in this
moment where so many people are subject to so much pain at the
whims of a pandemic and how it is raging. And as we know, right
now it is raging with significant impact across the country.
Senator Wyden. I appreciate your answer, and you are, if
anything, pretty diplomatic, because this idea of forcing folks
laid off through no fault of their own to kind of lurch from
one cliff to another--we saw this over Christmas time, and we
saw on the TV news parents were giving up their meals in order
to help their kids. We have got to have a good Government
approach along the lines of what I have described, and I
appreciate your answer.
Let me ask one other question, if I might. Rural
communities were hurting even before the pandemic, and now the
rollercoaster they are on, particularly in the rural West, has
just been devastating in terms of their being able to lay the
foundation for a brighter future.
Senator Crapo, Senator Merkley, Senator Risch, and I have
made a proposal for reforming a law that we wrote with the help
of the Budget Committee sometime ago to reform the Secure Rural
Schools Program and, in effect, to take it off this rural
rollercoaster where, for example, the County Roads Program
cannot even predict what kind of funds it might have and
established an endowment program to try to grow the payment for
the counties.
My question here is: Will you work with us on this
bipartisan proposal that has received an enormous amount of
support from rural counties all across America?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator, I really appreciate----
Chairman Sanders. Ms. Tanden, if you can make your remarks
brief, because we have got a 12 o'clock impeachment engagement
we have got to get to, and I want to hear from everybody. So
please----
Ms. Tanden. Yes, absolutely, Senator, I appreciate the
bipartisan leadership on this Committee on this issue.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We had a very engaging conversation. I think it went over
half an hour and covered a broad array of topics. I think it is
worth it for the public record to cite a few things. I have
come from Main Street, built a business, a real little one,
that over many, many years was able to turn into that American
dream. From my point of view, a lot of the policies that were
in place had kind of hit the sweet spot pre-COVID. A lot of
that had to do with, I think, unleashing the entrepreneurial
spirit across the country, looking at the productive side of
our economy in a way that is different from how you treat big
corporations that generally have had their way here in terms of
impacting not only statute, Tax Code.
The rest of us have none of that, and I think it would be
wise to look at understanding the difference I think we have
talked about when it comes to personal income tax, which is
currently all thrown into one category where wage and 1099
income is treated the same as business income. One is liquid;
one is illiquid. And sooner or later, we are going to have to
have the discussion for those here, which would be most of
everyone that love the place for what you can do through it.
I have been amazed mostly in the little over 2 years of how
many businesses, entities, all organizations that are
interdependent with the Federal Government think that it is
just going to go on the way it is. And I advise them maybe look
at getting a new business partner until we recognize that we
borrow over 20 percent of what we spend here, over half of our
structural $1 trillion deficit--and I am sure it is more than
that now--driven by Social Security, Medicare, actuarially
things we have seen coming for a long time. And I will never
forget, in my first Budget meeting, Chris Van Hollen said the
thing we are lacking most is political will.
We were generating record revenues pre-COVID, but were at
record levels of spending. And in all other places that work in
this country, from households, which are laughed at when you
use that analogy, school board, which I have been on, State
government, especially running a business, there is
accountability. And we have none of that here. We have got a
Budget Committee where I do not think we have actually done a
budget that we have adhered to in over 20 years. So you have
got a lot, I think, to work on.
I would also cite that, regardless of the tax rate in this
country, we basically had revenues in a group of about 17
percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); spending has been
closer to 20. So I do not think you can keep this place healthy
unless you look at the spending side of it.
Health care, I have been the loudest Senator on reforming
it. It is a broken industry. I agree with the Chairman on that.
But before we throw more Government at it, I would like to see
transparency, competition, engaging the health care consumer,
things that would fix it to make what we pay for through the
Government for health care and the private sector a better
value.
Is that something that you would work with me on?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator. I want to really just note
issues of health care costs in the country, per capita costs
are very high in the United States. It is one of the reasons
why our health care system is so expensive. And I would just
note to you that, you know, the issue of transparency and
competition amongst large, concentrated interests in the health
care system is a big challenge. Market concentration within
health care is a big challenge, as well as the fact that we do
not have transparency around pharmaceutical costs, hospital
costs, and work in this area can have a huge impact.
If you go back to 2010, CBO projected that we would be
spending 6.4 percent of GDP on Federal health care costs. It
actually was 5.4. That is a savings of over $1 trillion over
the last decade from some of the reforms around bundling and
other issues.
So I would just say I would look forward to an opportunity
to work with you on issues around price transparency,
particularly in pharmaceuticals and market concentration.
Senator Braun. Thank you.
Chairman Sanders. I apologize, but I am going to try to
keep people to 5 minutes, because we have a number of folks who
want to speak and we have a 12 o'clock impeachment engagement.
Ms. Tanden. And my apologies.
Chairman Sanders. No, not at all.
All right. Senator Stabenow is going to talk to us
virtually.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations to you, Senator Sanders, and to Senator Graham.
I look forward to working with both of you on this Committee.
And to Neera Tanden, Ms. Tanden, congratulations on your
nomination.
I might just say as an editorial comment, when you were
asked to respond to what would be your mean tweets over the
years, that we have endured 4 years of the ultimate mean
tweets. I know we were all thinking that. And certainly I do
not want to hold you to a higher standard, but we certainly
want to turn the page on how we move forward together and wish
we had seen those comments consistently over the last 4 years.
But welcome. Welcome, welcome, welcome, and I want to focus,
first of all, on something I have spoken with you about, and
that is strengthening our Buy American Act and the jobs that
can come with that. And I know this is a priority for you; it
is a priority for President Biden. I am very excited about
that, that we ensure that the Federal Government spends
taxpayer dollars on American products that are made by American
workers.
What we are seeing now is that we need to strengthen those
laws and, frankly, close some of those loopholes. Over the last
years, due to loopholes and outright noncompliance, Federal
agencies have bypassed Buy American Act provisions in order to
purchase products made by foreign entities without good
explanations for why they are doing that.
Two years ago, my office issued an oversight report that
between 2008 and 2016, Federal agencies spent over $92 billion
on foreign contracts because of loopholes, and the Department
of Defense was one of the main drivers of foreign contracts. So
we were bolstered by the Inspector General for the Department
of Defense at the time, which found numerous instances of
noncompliance with the Buy American Act and Berry Amendment,
and this is jobs, this is American jobs.
So I am so glad to see President Biden take aggressive
action through an Executive order within just his first week on
Buy American requirements, and I appreciate what that means as
well for so many small and medium-sized manufacturers like we
have in Michigan.
But my question is this: His Executive order is a great
first step, but do you believe that Congress has a role to play
in this area in terms of ensuring Federal taxpayer dollars are
used for American industries, American jobs? And if so, what
additional steps can Congress take to bolster our shared goal
of strengthening Buy American laws?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, thank you so much for the question and
for your leadership on the issue of Buy America. I would say
that it is always the case with Executive actions, you know,
they can be limited from administration to administration. So
to set permanent policy, that is really an area for Congress,
and so I would welcome the leadership of Congress.
You are absolutely right that there have been many waivers
granted in the last several years by agencies, and part of the
Executive action is to publish those waivers so that there can
be real accountability around issues around Buy America. And it
can also provide information to domestic manufacturers about
how they can better compete in the future.
So I would really welcome an opportunity to work with you
to make these policies permanent and welcome ideas from this
Committee about the Buy America provisions. Obviously, one of
the aspects of the Executive order is to have a Make It in
America Office within OMB within the Office of Federal
Procurement. So I would welcome ideas from you and other
members of this Committee.
Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you so much, and, in fact, I
will be soon introducing legislation with my Budget Committee
friend and colleague Senator Braun that is going to make much-
needed reforms in the Buy American Act. So we look forward to
working with you. There is accountability, tightening up some
of the waivers, also training, also making sure that basically
we are doing everything possible to bring those jobs, that
manufacturing, and all the things that we can do to make things
and grow things back to America. I am excited about what we can
do together and very much am excited about your having the
opportunity to serve in this role, Senator. Congratulations.
Ms. Tanden. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Senator Stabenow.
Senator Toomey via video. Pat?
Senator Toomey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Tanden, many people, myself included, have been
critical of Donald Trump for casting doubt on the legitimacy of
the 2020 election that he lost. You yourself have a long list
of statements casting doubt on the legitimacy of the 2016
election. In January of 2017, you tweeted, and I quote, ``Why
does he''--meaning Donald Trump--``lie about this? Because he
knows people have intuitive sense, Russians did enough damage
to affect more than 70,000 votes in three States.''
The 70,000 votes certainly appears to be a reference to
Hillary Clinton's losing margin in the three States of
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, which would have
resulted in her victory had she won those States.
You also tweeted, and I quote, ``Why would hackers hack
unless they could change results? What is the point?''
So these are just two of the statements that you have made
that certainly undermine the faith and the integrity of the
2016 election. So let me just ask you directly: Can you tell me
this morning that you believe that Donald Trump was
legitimately elected President in 2016 and his Presidency was
legitimate?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, and I said that on November 13,
2016, so immediately after the election, I said President Trump
was duly elected and that he legitimately won the election
immediately after the election itself.
Senator Toomey. Okay. But after that, you subsequently
suggested that the Russians manipulated the results in the
three States that were decisive, so I am----
Ms. Tanden. No, no, I----
Senator Toomey. --glad to get clarification----
Ms. Tanden. My apologies, Senator.
Senator Toomey. We get very few minutes. Let me just run a
couple of things.
Following up on Senator Graham's question on school choice,
you made the point that wealthy families have access to private
education, which is exactly correct. It is also the case that
in many, many school districts--Philadelphia, most across
Pennsylvania--the average expenditure per student in the public
system is greater than the cost of educating kids in many of
the private schools, especially Catholic but including others
in those systems. If we gave parents the money that we force
them to utilize through the government-run schools, if we gave
the parents that money to choose a school for their child, that
school would have to be accountable to the parents, wouldn't
it?
Ms. Tanden. Sir, I think one of the challenges with private
schools in other areas is broad accountability, but I do not
take away from the fact that wealthy parents can be
accountable--can hold schools accountable.
Senator Toomey. Right, but the point is that if you were
to--if we could pass school choice, we would give poor and
middle-income families the same choice that wealthy families
have today.
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I would----
Senator Toomey. Let me just--I have got very little time. I
just have a quick question on unemployment insurance benefits.
If unemployment insurance pays people more not to work than
they can make by going to work, does that have any incentive at
all on their inclination to go back to work?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, there have been several studies over
the last year of this phenomenon, of this question of whether
the unemployment levels of support is discouraging work, and
they have found that actually people are more concerned about
their personal safety, and that is why they are--we have
discouragement of work. That is the analysis. I will always be
guided by facts and evidence on these questions.
Senator Toomey. But you did not answer the question. The
question is: Do you think if a person can make more money by
not working than they can make by working, does that affect
their incentive to go back to work?
Ms. Tanden. I would say that we should really look at why
people may not be working, and it may be because of concerns
about safety during a global pandemic.
Senator Toomey. Okay. Last question for you. You have been
an advocate for free college for, I guess, middle-income folks.
It is the case that college grads on average make nearly $1
million more over the course of their lifetime than non-college
grads. How is it fair to a blue-collar worker who did not go to
college to have to contribute tax dollars to cover the cost of
tuition of someone who is going to make $1 million more on
average than he or she makes?
Ms. Tanden. I would say broadly, Senator, that you could
extend that argument for high school or other forms of
education, and we all benefit----
Senator Toomey. We require----
Ms. Tanden. --from a system in which people have access to
good quality education.
Senator Toomey. That is not true. We require people to go
to high school, at least through the age of 16, and virtually
everybody does go through high school. So I have to--my time
has expired, but thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, and
congratulations on assuming the gavel here. I look forward to
working with you and Senator Graham.
Ms. Tanden, welcome. Good to have you here. I am going to
give you two presents today, and I am going to describe them
both to you. The first one is going to be this graph, which I
think you have seen before. As you will recall, in 2010 the
Budget Committee, off of CBO information, did an estimate of
what Federal health care costs were going to be.
Ms. Tanden. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. And that is this top line right here.
Ms. Tanden. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. But we passed the Affordable Care Act
back here, and what happened actually is that health care costs
came down substantially below that projection. So, again, 2020,
did another prediction, and based off the actuals, this is that
prediction. If you simply move that extrapolation to what was
originally predicted, so it is apples against apples here, you
will see that in the next decade, 2020 to 2030, the difference
between what was originally projected and where we are on
health care spending saves over $5 trillion. No benefits were
cut. Nobody got taken away their right to have some procedure.
I think that what happened is that we changed the way we did
business in health care. We set up the Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), the Center for Innovation. We set
up the accountable care organizations that many providers have
profited from. Proudly, the two best are probably in Rhode
Island--Superscores, so a little home-State props there. And we
have helped move the health care system off the fee-for-service
treadmill.
I want to give you this and I will give you this because I
want you every day you are at your job to be thinking of what
more can we do that got us that $5 trillion in savings. I
fought constantly with the Obama administration about things
that they did that would have actually damaged this process.
Ms. Tanden. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. And in the Trump administration, there
is no point even having that conversation. But now I think we
have got enough of a record that it is really worth fighting to
figure out, because in these Accountable Care Organizations
(ACO) in Rhode Island, you have got happier customers, you have
got better care, you have got more support. It is not just the
triple aim win. It is like win, win, win, win, win across the
board, and they are sending checks back to Medicare for the
savings. So let us work on that, huh?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely. I mean, that is what I was
referring to with Senator Braun, of the $1.4 trillion----
Senator Whitehouse. Yeah, I am kind of a segue to Senator
Braun on that. I got that.
So, second thing, this volume, this is a bunch of reports
warning of economic crash due to unconstrained climate change.
Some are from like Freddie Mac, which has warned that coastal
property is vulnerable to a crash worse than the 2008 mortgage
meltdown that would cascade through the whole economy because
of the additional threat of sea level rise and storms and what
that does to insurance and what that does to a 30-year mortgage
and all of that. But it is other groups as well. It is Moody's.
It is the Bank of International Settlements. It is Standard &
Poor's. It is McKinsey. It is BlackRock. There is a report by a
Nobel Prize-winning economist that he filed under oath and
subject to cross-examination in all of that.
In February of 2019, I sent this to every single one of my
colleagues here in the Senate--with very little effect,
apparently--but I want you to be aware of it, and I would like
you to comment briefly on how seriously you at OMB are going to
take these warnings. If there is a crash from the carbon bubble
bursting, if there is a crash from coastal property values
collapsing, it will have been the most warned of crash in
history. And what are we going to do about it? And do you take
these warnings seriously?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I absolutely take them seriously, and
the President himself recognizes the deep, cataclysmic crisis
of climate change. But I would also say I am really excited by
the possibility--if I am privileged enough to be confirmed, I
am excited by the possibility of taking into account the cost
of inaction on climate and the impacts of what the Federal
Government is doing by its actions and inaction on climate and
the economic impact of those decisions over time.
As you so clearly stated, markets, insurers, people who are
assessing----
Senator Whitehouse. Not greenies. Hard-eyed, flinty
economic people are warning.
Ms. Tanden. Wall Street Banks, et cetera, are all taking
into these challenges.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did come back
and one of the reasons is I wanted to express to you the fact
that I really do appreciate the fact that you want to use this
Committee, have open, honest debates. I do not think we use
numbers enough around here. I realize I am an accountant, but
we really do need to look at facts and figures.
One of the things I want to throw out on the table here,
this is from an article that Phil Gramm wrote for the Wall
Street Journal. I think we realize he is pretty good with
numbers and has his facts straight, but in 2020, last year, the
average household in the bottom 20 percent of earnings got
$45,000 in transfer payments. Now, I would imagine those things
are tax-free.
Now, I think we all agree--I think you start with, you
know, what do we agree on? We all realize people are hurting
and people need financial help. And there has been a lot of
financial help, $4 trillion worth. My concern--and I think this
is shared by not only Phil Gramm but Jason Furman and Lawrence
Summers--is the potential of overheating our economy with
another $2 trillion when the per capita disposable income is up
5.5 percent; savings, $1.6 trillion higher last year than 2019;
private business up 25 percent; Federal Reserve is estimating a
4.2-percent growth rate for this year; International Monetary
Fund (IMF) just increased their estimate to 5.1 percent.
So, listen, I realize we had a natural disaster, COVID, in
2020, but there is so much pent-up demand, so much excess
savings, it is just going to be coming, you know, bursting
forth in economic activity, and we do need to be concerned
about overheating our economy.
In addition to that article and some other articles written
by, as I mentioned, Jason Furman and Lawrence Summers, Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) just came out with their 2018 tax data,
and I have got the Tax Foundation summary of that, Ms. Tanden.
They have got some interesting notations on what the IRS
presented.
The first one was in 2018, the first year after the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act, the decrease in taxes paid was $65 billion.
Now, the static score on the tax plan was $1.5 trillion. If you
just multiply that times 10, that would be a reduction in
revenue of about $650 billion. So I would argue that those of
us that supported that, because we were looking for economic
growth to make up for that static revenue loss, dynamic
scoring, I think this indicates that we were maybe on the right
path here, because it was really going to be $1.5 trillion, and
you would think that revenue loss would have been $150 billion
rather than $65 billion.
Would you kind of agree with that assessment?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I would actually have to look at that
data. One of the concerns about the tax cut was that it
disproportionately impacted higher-income people and used
deficit spending to address it at a time where we were not
facing an economic crisis. So I would have to look at that
data.
There is other data, like business investment did not
increase after the law. Some of the promises around wages did
not follow through. But I obviously would welcome looking at
that analysis.
Senator Johnson. One thing I think I agree with Senator
Sanders on is I am concerned about growing wealth disparity in
this country. But I think we also have to look at it honestly.
Other work that Senator Gramm has done is oftentimes when we
look at that, we look at pre-tax income and we look at income
before benefits. And when you add benefits, like $45,000, and
you take away taxes, that disparity is a lot closer than what
it looks before taxes and before benefits. So we need to look
at that honestly. And I realize this is an old survey, but it
was done in 2012 for The Hill and really asking the right
question when it comes to what the public's opinion is of tax
rates. I know Senator Graham was talking to you earlier about
that. Oftentimes you think the rich ought to pay more, and
people go, ``Yeah, you know, as long as somebody else is paying
more, I am all for it.''
But then you ask a fairer question: What should be the top
tax rate on any dollar of income for people making over
$250,000? And here are the results: 61 percent thought it ought
to be 25 percent or less; 75 percent thought it ought to be 30
percent or less; only 4 percent thought it should be--actually,
6 percent should be 40 percent or higher.
I think Americans are pretty fair. They realize we all need
to pay a fair tax rate, but at the same time, we need to
provide incentives for economic activity so people can invest
in businesses and create jobs.
So do you kind of agree with that assessment, that kind of
a 30-percent top tax rate seems to be pretty fair to the
American public?
Ms. Tanden. Well, I would not--you know, I will take the
data that you are offering. I would also note, though, that the
Tax Code has many ways in which upper-income people can avoid
taxation, stepped-up basis, you know, capital gains is taxed at
a very different rate. So I would just note that what people
are actually paying and what their income rate paying is not
the same. And so what they are actually paying----
Senator Johnson. And I am all for tax simplification and
tax rationalization. That makes sense.
My final point is the top 1 percent made 20 percent of the
income, and they paid 40 percent of the taxes, a 1.9-percent
ratio. Thanks.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Warner will join us on video.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me first
of all say that it is great to see you, Neera, and let me say
to my colleagues I have worked with Ms. Tanden for years. We
have not always agreed, but she is incredibly smart, she
engages. I would say to my Republican colleagues you will not
find a smarter, better partner than Neera Tanden and someone
that I hope you will through this confirmation process, you
know, give her the benefit of the doubt. She would be, I think,
a great OMB Director, and I look forward to voting for her and
confirming her.
Normally in these settings I would launch into my whole
future work and how we fix capitalism issues. I am going to do
a little home cooking on a couple of issues, Neera, on my
questions. So here is that. I have got two or three I would
love to get through.
One, one of the things that is really important to the
Commonwealth of Virginia is the Army Corps of Engineers work
particularly around our new starts in terms of harbor
improvements. Over the last few years, we have seen the Army
Corps of Engineers civil works program, which has been
extraordinarily bipartisan, a thorough review of projects come
forward, get evaluated, and then on a basis of points, usually
get added into that precious new start category.
Unfortunately, over the last couple of years, we have seen
that process politicized. We have seen a project, for example,
in my State, Norfolk Harbor, which has far and away over the
last 2 years, particularly in the last year, clearly been
qualified as the top project to get funded under any kind of
objective analysis. Then at the 11th and a half hour, that
objective analysis was thrown out the door by the previous
administration's OMB, and a political process took over. So I
hope that you will be willing to conduct a full review of the
Army Corps work plans to make sure that we can get back to a
fair evaluation. We sometimes know the Army Corps of Engineers
operates on its own, kind of a separate branch of Government,
but in this case, you know, the review process has been
thoroughly vetted, both parties generally agree with it, and we
should not have at the 11th hour projects that suddenly appear
magically on the list and trump over all of the projects that
have been waiting patiently making their cases. So I hope you
will be willing to commit to that kind of review process and
get it back to a fully nonpartisan, objective review.
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, and I would say that, if I am
privileged to be confirmed, I will commit to every member of
this Committee that the work we do at OMB will be nonpartisan
guided by facts and evidence, and I will look forward to
working with you on this particular question.
Senator Warner. Thank you so much.
Another area that is bipartisan, I know the previous
Treasury Secretary, one of the areas that he regretted that we
did not more fully address in the final package, and that is
the whole effort of upgrading the technology capacity of the
Federal Government. The Technology Modernization Fund, which
President Biden has at least proposed, I believe, $9 billion
put in to make sure that we can upgrade our technology. You
know, part of that ought to be at least $1 billion to the IRS.
Some of us on this Committee have different views about who
ought to qualify for the stimulus checks going out. I strongly
believe checks ought to go out. I think they ought to be
targeted in a fairer way. But part of the challenge is I have a
lot of folks in my State and I am sure every Senator can
recount these stories where there are still people, because
they have not gotten the 2019 tax returns done in a timely way,
they did not receive the benefit from the last set of stimulus
checks we did. We have not gotten everything validated.
You know, my fear is that there are already efforts by some
up here to take away that necessary long-term, I would call it,
capital investment in upgrading our Federal Government
technology, in particular an emphasis on IRS technology. This
would clearly come under your purview as----
Ms. Tanden. Yes.
Senator Warner. --OMB, and we are going to need a fighter
to make sure that--we all complain about the inefficiencies in
the Federal Government, but when our technology is 20 years
old, we should not be surprised at how----
Chairman Sanders. Thanks. Thanks, Mark.
Senator Warner. Can you address that?
Chairman Sanders. I think not because we have to, Mark,
just get to a lot of Senators to make the 12 o'clock
impeachment trial
Senator Warner. Okay.
Chairman Sanders. I apologize.
Ms. Tanden. I will just commit to----
Senator Warner. If you could take that for the record.
Thank you.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Bernie.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Mark.
Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman Sanders. Thank you for
hosting this hearing.
Ms. Tanden, in an op-ed you published last year, you said
now is not the time for policy holders to worry about rising
deficits and debt as they consider what steps to take in
regards to the coronavirus. We are sitting on $27 trillion
worth of debt, and the deficit going forward looks like it is
going to continue, and we are starting to see long-term
interest rates go up. They are still low, but they are going
up.
So what is your perception of how much debt we can have?
And do you have concerns about the amount of debt we have and
the fact that long-term interest rates are starting to move up?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I would say I very much appreciate the
bipartisan action in the Congress, amongst this Committee and
the Congress to address the COVID crisis. I also--address the
COVID crisis without contracting the economy by having pay-
fors. I mean, it has been deficit financed, and that has been
bipartisan, and the crisis continues.
We should absolutely monitor interest rates. It is the case
that interest rates have remained low. They have remained low
in 2017; they have remained low in 2018. And, in fact, you
know, when we had relatively low unemployment, interest rates
remained low. We obviously have to monitor that very carefully.
We should also recognize, though, that the Fed has tools
for high interest rates. It does not have tools for
expansionary economic policies any more. It essentially cannot
lower rates any more. It could increase rates.
I do think we should--it is incumbent upon all of us as
policymakers to monitor these issues very, very closely, but I
would also say that our unemployment numbers from Friday
demonstrated that we still have a lot of economic pain, and in
this moment we do have to ensure strong economic recovery,
which over the long run would make us stronger--it would put us
in a better position to address deficit issues. But as a matter
we should all be concerned about long-term fiscal
sustainability.
Senator Scott. So do you have a number that we should not
go above? Is $30 trillion too much or $35 trillion? If you look
since George W. Bush was elected President, the unbelievable
increase in debt, if we continue on that path, we are not just
talking about $30 trillion or $35 trillion. We are talking
about unbelievable amounts of debt here. And the 50-year
average for long-term rates is over 6 percent. I mean, that
would be a $1 trillion increase in interest costs for the
Federal Government a year.
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely. I mean, I did serve towards the end
of the Clinton administration when we had a surplus. At that
time our revenues were 20 percent of GDP, and our spending was
20 percent of GDP, and that is basically how we managed our
surplus. So I recognize that we have to be concerned about
long-term health. The case is that over the 10 years, the next
10 years, we do see increasing deficits towards the end from
issues like the aging of the people, and we do need to manage
those.
I think the data that I am most focused on in terms of debt
is the cost of borrowing itself. Now the cost of borrowing has
declined because interest rates are so low. You are absolutely
right, though, that we face high interest rates. That cost goes
up. So that is an area where I think we should monitor closely,
but in this particular moment, the concerns I think are
significant about scarring in the economy and basically growing
at a low level for too long. If you look at CBO's analysis, I
mean, they say we would not--without further action, we would
not get back to pre-pandemic levels with our GDP for several
years.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
In 2012 you said, ``If we are going to have a deal to
address long-term deficit reduction, we need to put both
entitlements on the table as well as taxes.'' So can you
address what you anticipate with regard to that? You know, that
the Medicare Trust Fund and the Social Security Trust Fund are
going insolvent over the next few years, and so what would you
do?
Ms. Tanden. So I would say just about my 2012 comment, that
was at a time where people were not putting revenue on the
table, and so I was making the case that we should have revenue
as part of the table--as part of the discourse. The President
has proposed--as I said earlier, the President has proposed
lifting the payroll cap to address Social Security solvency for
families over $400,000.
You know, I think there are a range of ideas here. I do
think we should recognize how important the benefit structure
of these programs have been as a lifeline for needy families,
particularly in this crisis. So as we think through how we
address them in the long term, I would welcome a bipartisan
conversation about that. The President has his own proposals. I
do think on the Medicare Trust Fund issue, the Medicare Trust
Fund solvency was expanded dramatically by many Affordable Care
Act (ACA) reforms, and there are many areas we can build on in
that area as well.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
greetings, Neera. Great to have you here. I will try to get
through a whole bunch of questions very quickly.
Will you make sure that in the budget we fund the
Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Merkley. And will you take a close look at rules
the Trump administration put forward that were trying to
undermine the Flores Settlement Agreement which required the
humanitarian treatment of children?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, we will absolutely look at those rules.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
In the past, OMB, particularly the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has really delayed rules. It has
been kind of a place where rules go in and nothing happens. An
example would be the vaping rule. And as a result of inaction
for years, we had an epidemic of addiction in new forms. Great
for the tobacco industry, terrible for American health. Will
you make sure that we do not have OMB become kind of the
obscure pit that things fall into and we can never get them out
again?
Ms. Tanden. Yes, and I think that is one of the reasons for
the President's Executive memorandum, which is to really
focus--have OIRA focus on general welfare, public good.
Senator Merkley. Great. And, also, I had experiences in the
past where we appropriated funds for particular things. One was
to rebuild villages that had been wiped out by dams on the
Columbia River. We had worked with the Corps of Engineers to
get the right language and so forth. Mr. Mulvaney then said
basically, I do not care about rectifying these historic
wrongs. I am going to just block the money from ever going out
the door.
Will you be fair to Democrats and Republicans alike on
issues that have been passed by legislation?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator, and it is my focus to not
be concerned about the party affiliations of people asking
questions and the need to put appropriate--properly appropriate
and apportion funding.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. And OIRA has not always used a
cost-benefit analysis that incorporated the cost of carbon and
damaged the externality, if you will, the negative externality.
Is that something you can help address?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, and I would say that we are
committed, as I said earlier, to internalize the cost of
carbon, the cost of inaction, and the cost of action as well.
Senator Merkley. Great. And the President has indicated
support for 40 percent of green Federal investments to go to
environmental justice communities, those who have been left
behind before, those who are suffering transition from fossil
fuels to renewable energy. How will you envision OMB's role in
tracking that and targeting that, trying to make sure we help
communities that have been previously left behind, from fossil
fuel communities to urban inner-city communities?
Ms. Tanden. Thank you so much, Senator. OMB will play a
critical role in ensuring that we keep our commitment in how we
are allocating those dollars and how agencies themselves are
allocating dollars to make sure that they go to communities
that have been left behind, tribal, as you mentioned,
communities of color.
Senator Merkley. And when it comes to how OMB interacts
with the power of the Federal Government to address student
debt, I know you mentioned this before I got into the room, but
I would like to just hear again how you envision OMB can help
drive solutions to the problem of massive student debt,
something many other developed nations are saying, ``Hey, it is
so important to the individual's life and to our economy. We
want to make sure people have a track to be able to acquire an
upper education for jobs that require it.'' Do you see that as
important? And do you see debt as a problem? And how can OMB
help?
Ms. Tanden. Great. I do see that as a central problem. I
will say I went to UCLA. It is a public university in a State
where they recognize how it is a public good. But it is also a
good for the country. So the President has proposed an agenda
that tries to redress student debt and the massive levels of
debt that young people are taking on, and that is a deep--that
is not just a challenge for those people, but it obviously
hurts economic growth. It hurts their ability to purchase a
home. It hurts their ability to be economically mobile.
So I know there is a rich, robust discourse about Executive
action versus legislative steps. The President has supported
legislative steps to address student debt and reduce student
debt, and particularly in this crisis, eliminate student debt
where we can.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. I so appreciate you
are willing to bring your vast set of experiences in different
positions in a broad range of issues to bear on a critical
agency to help our Nation build back better. Thank you.
Ms. Tanden. Thank you so much.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Ms. Tanden, congratulations. I think we
are both aware how powerful the OMB position is. You will touch
on just about every social and economic policy.
You are probably also aware that we produce--``we,''
meaning the United States--about 2,000 metric tons of nuclear
waste every year. And we have got it stored ``all over hell and
half of Georgia,'' I think about 80 different locations. It is
dangerous. I would like your personal thoughts, not the
President's thoughts but your personal thoughts, about what we
ought to do about that.
Ms. Tanden. I have studied various issues like Yucca
Mountain and other issues around nuclear waste, and I think the
challenge around nuclear power, personally my perspective is
that nuclear power is cleaner, when we are thinking about
greenhouse gas emissions----
Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am, excuse me for interrupting. I
hate to do this.
Ms. Tanden. I am sorry.
Senator Kennedy. But what do you think, if anything, we
ought to do about the nuclear waste being dispersed around the
United States?
Ms. Tanden. I think we should be taking active steps to
ensure the security of nuclear waste----
Senator Kennedy. Anything else? We want it to be secure. We
can agree on that. Anything else?
Ms. Tanden. Sir, I am happy to work with you and your
office on concerns you have about nuclear waste disposal.
Senator Kennedy. All right. Let me ask you this: Is it not
true that you have told a major news organization in this
country that you support moving that waste to Yucca Mountain?
Ms. Tanden. I do not believe I have, actually.
Senator Kennedy. Okay.
Ms. Tanden. But I am happy to examine some statement I have
made in the past.
Senator Kennedy. Well, you are under oath. Are you saying
you did not say it or you do not remember?
Ms. Tanden. I have to tell you I do not remember making any
comments about Yucca Mountain, but in my long career I may
have, so I am happy to--I do not know--I am not remembering as
of this moment.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. All right. Let me ask you about
Senator Sanders' line of questioning. You were a very
aggressive fundraiser for your think tank, and I am not
suggesting you did anything wrong. Please do not construe my
remarks as suggesting that. But there will be a perception--I
am not saying it is reality, but as we know, in Government and
politics perception matters. But there will be a perception
that if you took Wall Street, given the money you have raised
from them, if you took Wall Street, turned them upside down and
shook them, you would fall out of their pockets.
How are you going to deal with that, I mean, when Wall
Street comes calling and you are at OMB?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, at the Center for American Progress,
we proposed a financial transaction tax. We proposed higher
regulations of Wall Street. We proposed dealing with carried
interest. Many, many, many years ago, we proposed a whole
series of policy proposals that would restrict the power of
Wall Street. I believe Wall Street has too much power in our
political discourse, and I have said that multiple times. I
have said that in every role, so----
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Let me interrupt you, because I have
got to go to another subject. I appreciate your answer.
I have to tell you I am very disturbed about your personal
comments about people, and it is not just one or two. I think
you deleted about a thousand tweets. And it was not just about
Republicans. And I do not mind disagreements in policy. I think
that is great. I love the dialectic. But the comments were
personal. I mean, you called Senator Sanders everything but an
ignorant slut.
Ms. Tanden. That is not true, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. And when you said these things, did you
mean them?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I have to say I deeply regret my
comments----
Senator Kennedy. I understand that, but when you said
them----
Ms. Tanden. --and I feel badly about them.
Senator Kennedy. --did you mean them? I understand you have
taken them back, but did you mean them?
Ms. Tanden. I would say the discourse over the last 4 years
on all sides has been incredibly polarizing----
Senator Kennedy. I am asking about yours. Did you mean
them?
Ms. Tanden. I really feel badly about them, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Did you mean them?
Ms. Tanden. I feel badly about them.
Senator Kennedy. Did you mean them when you said them?
Ms. Tanden. I mean, I would say social media is----
Senator Kennedy. Did you mean them when you said them?
Ms. Tanden. I feel terribly about them.
Senator Kennedy. Did you mean them when you said them or
were you not telling the truth?
Ms. Tanden. I mean, I feel badly. I look back at them. I
said them. I feel badly about them. I deleted tweets over a
long----
Senator Kennedy. Are you saying that because you want to be
confirmed?
Ms. Tanden. No. I felt badly about them, and----
Senator Kennedy. Did you mean them when you said them?
Ms. Tanden. Senator, I must have meant them, but I really
regret them.
Senator Kennedy. I want the record to reflect that I did
not call Senator Sander ``an ignorant slut.'' Okay?
Chairman Sanders. Thank you. I do not know how I should
take that, Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am excited about
your leadership. And to Ms. Tanden, congratulations. I have six
questions that are susceptible probably to yes-no answers,
really short.
If Senators of either party reach out to you or your office
with requests for information, do you plan to respond to the
extent possible in a timely manner?
Ms. Tanden. Yes.
Senator Kaine. If the Government Accountability Office
reaches out to you or your office seeking cooperation relating
to congressional oversight of the executive branch, will you
direct your staff to work with them in a timely and complete
manner?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Kaine. Will you respect the requirements and intent
of the Impoundment Control Act and other laws that govern how
the executive branch spends congressionally appropriated funds?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely.
Senator Kaine. Would you ever facilitate the withholding of
congressionally appropriated funds for political purposes?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely not.
Senator Kaine. Do you plan to respect the expertise of the
career staff at the OMB and follow the facts on OMB analysis?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, and I believe they are a great
asset to the Federal Government and OMB.
Senator Kaine. Finally, should you be the OMB Director at
the end of the administration, would you fully cooperate with
the transition to the subsequent administration's team
regardless of the President-elect's political affiliation?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Kaine. I ask those questions because we have had
some challenges in each of these areas, and I am glad to hear
your answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much, Senator Kaine.
Senator Van Hollen I think is with us on video.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations to you, Chairman Sanders, and to Ranking Member
Graham. I think the Budget Committee can be a central place for
debating and discussing and acting on the big issues of our
day.
To Ms. Tanden, congratulations on your nomination. In
selecting you, President Biden has picked somebody who has both
deep and wide policy expertise and a life story that shows how
the Government can help families when they are most in need and
provide a springboard to success. So I look forward to working
with you on these issues.
I heard earlier in this debate a reference to the rise in
per capita income over the last year, and I think it is
important that we recognize that often references to per capita
income can be very misleading. So, for example, if Jeff Bezos
had moved to Baltimore City in 2020, the per capita income of
the residents of Baltimore City would have tripled from $53,000
a year to $175,000 a year, even though nobody was any better
off as a result. So I hope as we debate these issues going
forward we will remember that.
My question relates to this tale of two economies and the
K-shaped recovery. This is one of the reasons why it is
necessary that we take bold action with the American Rescue
Plan. CBO has told us that if we do not act, we will continue
to see high levels of unemployment until the year 2025.
So can you just talk briefly about the risks of
undershooting here when it comes to emergency action and in
that connection talk about the problem of long-term
unemployment? This is something many of us are very focused on.
We have 4 million Americans long-term unemployed, and I am
worried as the economy does recover that we do not leave
millions of people behind, because all the data shows that the
longer you are out of a job, the harder it is to find one; and
when you find one, you are often at a lower wage that you have
to live with for the remainder of your working life. So if you
could talk about those challenges and your willingness to work
with us to address them.
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator. I will just briefly say I
think for all the statements about overheating the economy, we
should recognize where the economy is right at this moment,
which is we have data that any economic recovery is faltering
with the COVID crisis. Unemployment numbers last Friday
demonstrated that we continue to have 10 million people, some
data suggests it is 12 million people who are unemployed--who
are unemployed today who would not have been unemployed a year
ago.
And so that is a deep crisis that we need to address, and
you are absolutely right about the K-shaped recovery. Lower-
income workers are bearing the huge brunt of this crisis, and
that is why action is required and necessary.
Senator Van Hollen. And can you talk about, as we go
forward, the importance of looking at----
Chairman Sanders. Chris, I am sorry. I have got to cut you
off.
Senator Van Hollen. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Chairman, I
understand.
Chairman Sanders. Okay.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations on the chairmanship. I look forward to working
with you on this Committee. I will try to be brief. I had an
opportunity to ask Ms. Tanden a few questions yesterday as a
member of Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee
(HSGAC), and I appreciate the opportunity to raise a few more
issues and questions here today. And if only there was somebody
else who could ask if they meant what they tweeted later this
afternoon, whether or not they have been taken back.
But let me jump into it here. In regards to the economic
recovery that we keep talking about and COVID, which is clearly
the most front-burner issue of all, the State I represent,
California, as you know, constitutes the fifth largest economy
in the world and the largest economy of any State in the
Nation. The saying is, ``As goes California, so goes the
Nation.'' So we will not achieve a successful national economic
recovery unless there is recovery in California.
At the same time, California, and particularly Los Angeles
County, has been the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most
people will agree, including most economists, that our economy
will not recover until we get through the pandemic. I will call
your attention to a recent New York Times article about the
equity in which vaccine distribution, or lack of equity of
vaccine distribution, has been made and the consequences of
that.
So my question is this, Ms. Tanden: Will you commit to
leveraging the full resources of the Office of Management and
Budget to help California get this virus under control,
particularly when it comes to vaccine distribution?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator, and I would just very
quickly say that I think it is really important that the
administration is taking the steps to ensure that federally
qualified health centers can provide vaccines, provide vaccines
in places that are hard to reach, provide vaccines in places
that are--that communities of color as disproportionately
impacted by, and that is really important, and community health
centers are playing a vital role. And I appreciate Chairman
Sanders' leadership over many years on the issue of community
health centers.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I would love
to submit this article for the record as well.
[The article appears on page 119]
Senator Padilla. Just one other question in the interest of
time. Ms. Tanden, we often talk about immigration in moral
terms, and we should, and I appreciate you sharing in your
opening statement your life story and your family's journey.
The 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country are part
of the backbone of many communities and our economy as well.
They are essential workers in many cases on the front lines of
the pandemic, from farm workers to the restaurant industry to
the health care industry and many other sectors in between. In
my opinion, they deserve not just safety in the workplace but
dignity and a pathway to citizenship.
But immigration is not just a moral imperative. It is also
an economic imperative. I believe you are familiar with a 2016
report from the Center for American Progress where you note
that undocumented workers contributed $4.7 trillion to the
United States GDP, and it has been estimated that undocumented
immigrants specifically contribute $11.7 billion in State and
local taxes and $12 billion in Social Security revenues
annually.
As our country works to recover from the pandemic-induced
recession at the same time that the baby-boom generation is
retiring in droves, it is clear that our Nation needs the
economic contributions of immigrant workers now more than ever.
So, Ms. Tanden, as the Senate takes up immigration reform
legislation in the coming months, will you work with us and
bring the full resources of the office to bear in helping
illustrate the significance of immigrants and their economic
contributions to our Nation?
Ms. Tanden. Absolutely, Senator, and I would note that
there has been much work done in recent years about how
comprehensive immigration reform will ensure broader economic
growth. I am proud of the work I have done on a bipartisan
basis with the offices of Senator Graham and many other
Republicans in the past on the issue of recognizing how
comprehensive immigration reform can build--is not just a moral
issue but an economic case, and as wages rise for people who
have citizenship, that helps America's economy grow and grow
more robustly.
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Ms. Tanden.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much, Senator.
I want to thank Ms. Tanden for appearing before the
Committee today. Ms. Tanden, your full statement will be
included in the record.
As information for all Senators, questions for the record
are due by 5:00 p.m. today with signed hard copies delivered to
the Committee clerk in Dirksen 624. Emailed copies will also be
accepted due to our current conditions. Under our rules, Ms.
Tanden will have 7 days from receipt of our questions to
respond with answers.
With no further business before the Committee, this hearing
is adjourned. Thanks, Ms. Tanden.
Ms. Tanden. Thank you so much, Chairman Sanders.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[Prepared statement, responses to written questions, and
additional material supplied for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Ms. Neera Tanden
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]