. for these reasons we have to get it right. and need we remember that our jails are filled with adults. we are not doing so well at this year it finally come a word about intervention. not every family needs a hammer. some of them need a velvet glove. one of the hard tasks of working as the distinguished cases that need the hammer from those that need the helping hand. we call this differential response. but differentials response takes capacity, science common knowledge about the differences. and this is a hard game. we need knowledge and research to make this happen. finally, senator pcs's legislation opens a door of understanding and invites serious discussion of who should be considered a perpetrator of child abuse. i've had dozens of conversations in recent weeks with knowledgeable professionals about which if any of the penn state officials were mandated

reporters. this ought to be clear to everyone. it certainly should be clear to the prosecutors and other professionals and even they are. we are a curious moment. the attention of the moment to the commission is upon child protection as it should be. it seems attractive to be as protected as kids as children as we possibly can, yet it would be prudent to be aware of unintended consequences. we can be healthier community tomorrow with the victims of yesterday and today to get help. sadly some of today's victims will become of users and themselves to read not to mention drinkers come angry family members come espouses you cannot trust. they are harmed eating away their ability to be healthy and safe. we must get the message out to victims who have not yet disclosed. if you've been abused, tell someone. get help. the healing will come. we can change the stories of these lives. let's do it right.

thank you. >> we are going to move on now to the questions. i'm going to take my time at the end of the panel. i wanted to acknowledge the presence of the two republican colleagues, senator lamar alexander. do you have to go? >> i really want to acknowledge the role of senator alexander and isaacson. senator alexander is a valuable member of this community and the committee as a former governor in tennessee, the president of the university. he has firsthand knowledge in terms of how did you run states and universities to prevent this kind of stuff? so i want to thank him and senator isaacson as a longstanding advocacy in this area and has worked with senator

boxer and their aggressive wait a step forward when we knew that the peace corps volunteers had been accused and then were abused by the peace corps for the failure to take action to protect them. sounds familiar. so you've got a good panel here and one of the best is senator let me turn to you for your question and then senator kc-10 satchel blumenthal and then i will wrapup. >> thank you chairman. very quickly, and i'm going to repeat something i heard you say but i want to make sure that i'm right. if greater had laws had been in place, that wouldn't necessarily solve your problem what it? >> not necessarily. greater law. i look at my situation, and i look at all of the adults, all of the trusted adults that we're in the system and i look at the

victims of this and not only are they being victimized by the perpetrator but they are being victimized by the institution by the adults that are around them the trusted adults because they again are reminded that it must be their fault if none of these adults are standing up for them. so what we have learned is that we need to give our adults the confidence and the courage through education to recognize and respond to these issues. >> i think all of you touched on education to some degree you were very specific. my question is pretty simple. we have an opportunity as we begin to shape legislation that we cast a wide net where we try to cover potentially everybody or we cast a narrow niche and meet the target to individuals that have the contact with kids

where an intense education program, public acknowledgment of what we are doing might have an impact. if you recommended to this committee whether it be to initially start or a narrow network, what would it be? >> welcome you don't have to guess. 25 states are doing the wide net and we should be finding out from them how they are doing. we ought to compare the two types of approaches. we are all about this very confusing question it seems attractive to cast a wide net. we know that there is a higher degree of reliability from the reports that come from professionals involved in the work. so there is something attractive about both approaches. we are all wondering what is the right approach. clearly all of us ought to feel the duty to protect our kids. we all ought to be informed about how to respond. it's quite unclear to me whether

the approach is the professionals should report or every person should have this legal duty with some penalty. and i think it is a mistake to jump in to try to answer that without asking of the data which is the right approach which is working today. >> let me just say to that, i was specifically talking about where we focus the educational component because i think all three of you said education is absolutely crucial. i said in my opening statement on not sure if there is a single piece of legislation that is a magic bullet that solves this problem, but education over a generation starts to affect change and clearly statistically to you know any individuals that abuse children were in fact it used as children themselves, and so, it is a generational attempt. >> now we do not have a federal

lease sponsored mandatory reporting from work. we don't have mandatory training for those of us who are in the business of caring for kids. so, where do we approach it from a training perspective for educational perspective that approach seems to be very compelling. we need to inoculate the entire community. in the business we call this primary prevention. bus cards and the like. to inoculate the entire community but there's clearly a front line of folks we want to be particularly well-trained and well versed on the subject. >> ms. collins you were very emphatic in the recommendations that child sexual reports always the first to law enforcement. have there been instances or issues where reports have been made first in places like child protective services? and then bought immediately

referred to the appropriate places? >> across the state the of different reports to the institutional report to the law enforcement. when the discussion as revolving a sweeping all adults are mandated to reporters and then when you were dealing of really in approaching the various types of abuse whether it be neglect maltreatment, of physical abuse emotional or sexual abuse the sexual abuse component has a crime in every single state that law enforcement would be able to respond and involve the appropriate charnel protection agency's but we were trying to narrow it down to one that would go to law enforcement. >> great. i thank the chair. >> thank you. i wanted to start with mr. mr. servone and some of this is in your testimony already but kind of a basic question of if you had the opportunity to enact

a federal law today that did three things, what are the most important elements of the of the legislation in terms of what we can do to prevent this from happening again? >> as i mentioned, i believe that the mandatory training federally sponsored mandatory training for reporters of abuse for those of us who are considered the man did reporters is essential that we don't have the federal framework and many states quite literally tens of thousands who come into contact are not aware of their obligation and that we ought to make that clear as you know we've been working on the creation of the children's ombudsman's in pennsylvania that each state wants to have a mechanism whereby the person who feels like the system is not

responding, the caregiver, the professional might have an independent place to go so that in the sense of bureaucracy does not victimize them as senator mikulski mentioned earlier. there are services in the system that want to be expanded, the victim's act collects money that provides victims' services and chris caps those dollars releases those dollars. they've released to the streets to provide services and so-called forensic interviewing services you will hear later about and the expertise needed to do the investigations. the services are almost nonexistent for the physical abuse cases in many communities. we would like to see that change. let's do it right as i said. >> and you made the point in your testimony -- i will try to get to it in a minute.

in a very strong point of the urgency of doing the study now. is that -- >> all over the land i can tell you if had conversations with legislators and their staff and dozens of people in the general assembly in pennsylvania legislators want to act. you want to respond yet it would be in a sense on why is and imprudent to proceed without information. this is an area we have knowledge but we are not tapping it. yesterday the national child abuse statistics cannot and suggested it's down thankfully. what we know about that what is the telling of the duty to report? would appear in our reporting statutes are working and we are getting out some of this and i believe our treatment is working. abused kids grow up to be abusers themselves sadly for

many of them but if they get help they turn that around. it appears treatment is working. we ought not turn away from that approach but we don't need to do it blindly. we can study this work now. >> we will be sending a letter to the department of health and human services to conduct that kind of analysis states that have the mandatory reporting for all adults to give to further inform us about that so we can talk more with members of the committee about that. finally, i wanted to ask if we have a brief second to get to questions for the other witnesses but i did want to ask as well about this question of training and what's the best model for that in terms of not just the type of training that the frequency or the degree to which even folks that have some

expertise are trained but half a more so if they are not people that have personal experience or expertise. can you outline what would be the model training program but also the regimen that under which it operates. >> the first is we should rely on the construct we have for the licensor certification. we don't have to create a regulatory structure for every person in the world. there are tens of thousands of professionals who are required to engage in trading to keep their license. if we recognize that part of their profession is to engage kids it seems a small step to say that any requirement of your license is that you learned your responsibility to care for kids to come before you so we should build it into the certification programs. second, the programs don't have to be extensive.

fothen providing this kind of transfer years and we daniel level of knowledge and job retention with several hours of programming. mr. kanaby suggests we might use on-line programming. obviously this is the way the world is going to make it more expensive the available and it makes sense we use distance learning devices where we can. lastly i know we are aware of and mcconnell program that focuses on the experiential slide that puts the story in the context of the experience of these professionals so you have a child, she's in your classroom and she's acting out in this particular way. what might you ask of the situation and to engage the professional in the kind of dialogue that teaches them to be analytical on their own. >> thanks very much. >> i would turn to senator frank

in who worked very hard on this issue. before the congressman i want to acknowledge you've been here all morning. the congressman of california is a longstanding and as of advocate for children. we know you have a parallel bill in the house and want to note the fact you've been here to listen to the testimony was going to acknowledge you but i know you have to get to a vote. we welcome your presence today working across a few so think you for your advocacy and attendance today. >> senator blumenthal excuse me senator franken. >> thank you. the title of this hearing is breaking a silence on child abuse protection intervention and deterrence and i know we are

talking about this legislation on prevention and intervention on, but you mentioned a couple times when that a number of the abusers were were victims themselves so i think the treatment is obviously -- and you mentioned treatment yourself a number of times -- there's one thing we need to add to this. what percentage of abusers were abused themselves? we have an idea of that? anybody? >> we can get that kind of information for you. >> but i think that we really have to focus on the treatment of these children who are abused. that is vitally important because whether they become abusers or not this is

something that will stick with them for the rest of their lives unless they get treated and they can go other places as you mentioned. they can turn to drugs or alcohol or they can become unhappy people who are not good parents etc.. >> the business is using the phrase whole child representation that however the child comes to you that you recognize this is a whole package of a human being and we have to think holistically about what he or she needs so the child that comes in is going to testify, the case isn't over that way. really in the way it just began because after she's done if the abuse occurred and the abuser is convicted now she gets on with her life and part of getting on with her life is to get that healing. sometimes it's hard for her to

shield essentially before the trial. >> absolutely. >> mr. kevin become a talk about 150,000 liters being trained. there's a lot of people around this country who want to serve you for and become mentors and volunteers but when you have 150,000 of them coming you've seen in these high-profile cases that a number of the people who are victimizing these children are children that have injected themselves into the rules of the mentors etc come and as a result in the past we have to protect acted the was authorized in 2003 as a pilot program for non-profit youth organizations to obtain fbi background checks

volunteers and employees, and i support that program. we've renewed every year usually by unanimous consent. this year it's been different. the program was allowed to expire. do you agree that background checks are a good investment? >> shortly after the act was passed our office implemented a protocol for all of our volunteer attorneys. all of the big volunteer programs and mentor programs like big brothers and big sisters and others are using it is absolutely a good investment. it's another of those thresholds we should take it vantage of. we are collecting this information. we have it out there. we should connect the dots. >> this year unfortunately was the first year that this hasn't been reauthorize and i'm -- don't you think we should do everything we can to equate the

youth serving the organizations with fist will? >> absolutely. absolutely. >> i would underscore that myself and this is something i think we need to get done. i know that senator schumer has proposed a bill to make sure that becomes permanent. and i -- this is something i'm not sure has gotten a much attention as it should, but of this is because in the past few use this service, you know that there's like a 6% to count of people who have background checks to have something where you say we can have this person be a mentor or a youth adviser and unless these organizations, these nonprofit organizations are able to reduce the service,

we may not be able to have the mentors. we may not be able to protect the kids at the same time. >> i think sometimes the background checks give the organization a false sense of security and we rely too much on them. i do believe that we need to reach all the members whether they be volunteer based on off and because they may be the best big brother and big sister we have, we are in a position of power and have all of our kids coming to us and disclosing what might have happened to us because we are not in that position. swain to educate ourselves if we have a disclosure we need to know how to handle that. i think they go hand in hand not only the background checks but that educating in power warning message has to happen and this has to happen to every person that works with our youth. >> you would agree these background checks are necessary

but not sufficient, but they are necessary. ceramica absolutely. >> thank you. >> before i go to senator blumenthal, senator frank and was the will you just cited is that just not reauthorize? >> this is the first year it wasn't reauthorize. usually on a renewed every year and by unanimous consent. >> again if it isn't sun said it still exists. this is a real problem i've had people who run the mentoring programs say that this has become a problem because they don't have the funding to do the background checks and they've had it every year. it's not that much. it's like $20 per -- >> but it would save a lot if

you were in a little group. estimate it is absolutely essential, and as i say, usually it is renewed every year by unanimous consent but this year wasn't. i'm quite sure of that. >> let's take a look at it. >> -- >> okay. senator blumenthal? >> cementer blumenthal comes to us also as an attorney general who -- everybody comes to the table not only with their experience and a vote but tour insights are being very welcomed. >> thank you very much madame chair. and i can't think you enough for having this hearing which is not only timely, but to use senator kay c.'s word, urgent, given the magnitude and the severity of the problem in this country, and i come to it with the perspective of a law enforcer for 20 years in the state of connecticut but familiar with

the law enforcement systems and connell law. but i want to particularly thank senator casey to cause he's focused on an area that's critical for law enforcement which is the reporting. you cannot prosecute where you don't know. often as we've heard from this panel and as we know from experience enormous courage and fortitude is required for reporting and training and services, but i want to make sure on that law enforcement aspect because the reporting is certainly a lot less meaningful unless there is effective law enforcement, that is punishment or at least response of some kind commensurate with some of the severity and really the morality of the crime and it is a crime in most state.

ms. collins, do you think that the law enforcement are adequately supported financially and otherwise to do the job that's required here. >> when we are looking at the numbers, you know, that not all of these are the types being reported. of law enforcement is basically a swimming and reports regarding sexual child exploitation being related and certainly many of them not. cooperation has been key and most states by having a law enforcement officers working specifically with child abuse, child -- if they have someone in the region to draw upon law enforcement, medical and the child services to work together given the short resources that were out there trying to do everything they possibly can and

bring together a successful prosecution. but law enforcement certainly needs everything they can get. >> so you should really provide more support to the state and local law enforcement in that regard. >> training and also to these types of crimes. >> and i am struck by the fact that many of these offenses of child abuse really occur across state lines and the difficulty of law enforcement is amplify by the fact a father in virginia may be abusing a child from a mother living in connecticut and the occurrence probably is not a speculative someone. someone met with me literally this morning about such

obligations and maybe it's time we have stronger federal criminal law like we adopted in the wake of the kidnapping and killing that applies specifically to kidnapping, crimes across the state lines. maybe it's time that type of the of child abuse as well. criminalizing it, federal the in some respects to create a greater support for law enforcement. would you agree? >> on a state and local internet, it is to have primary task forces of law enforcement to respond exclusively while i guess not exclusively but primarily to the internet facilitated. with the internet of course being just one subset of the tools that can be used in the exploitation of children but to your point, senator, also can help facilitate individuals across state lines who have similar interest in sexually abusing a child.

there has been great cooperation between the federal law enforcement, the fbi the u.s. postal inspection service to work with the task force's recognizing that in depending upon the type of crime the jurisdiction may be more appropriate the federal than the state level and certainly there's room for improvement if it exists. >> do you think that the internet and i think i know the answer to the question because as attorney-general i worked on internet child abuse and some were stocking and so forth presents a growing threat to children? >> is certainly does. the more children online the more have cameras on their cell phones, the more individuals going on line broadband are certainly giving greater opportunity to many people within the united states have access to the more people online and the more technology tools developed certainly there are risks along with the opportunity

>> i want to thank the panel for the testimony. thank you, madame chair. i hope we will have an opportunity to continue to work together in developing support not only for senator kcci proposal but for other kinds of better protection focusing on deterrence which is one of the subject here. i am also told that the project act of 2003 was a pilot program and it was non-product free vote this year which resulted in its expiration so it wasn't a sunset as much as being a pilot program and so i think senator frank and's suggestion and your support is very well taken. >> sure, let's work together is the main point to minimize and see if we can't get that out. >> we are both on the judiciary zone.

>> thank you. .. first of all, the outermost incident was the so-called danger from the stranger appeared out the number of children who were physically and abused, what percentage of that comes from the stranger danger?

>> that's an excellent question and the number would be difficult to pitch her finger on because we don't know how many instances aren't being reported. >> from those that are, tell me what you know. >> i would have to look that up to get back to your stat. >> watching all the shows on cable, they said 10%. the other then goes to this whole issue of discussion in a very poignant way when the children come forward? there's sometimes tied to the abuser in some some way. if that father. and it's just not like reporting a crime like i've been mad for my pockets been taken. they know it is going to cause a big stir in disruption. it's hard for them to do that. perhaps he could comment on this

as well. somewhere between seven and 10 adult before they are heard and taken seriously. the data are not? ms. collins? >> i'm very sorry. in terms of the children who are not disclosing for the reasons you are saying not believing they're going to be believed. the abused and not have been so settled that the child doesn't know it a point that this is wrong or there was somebody who is going to listen. >> when they ask you how to perpetrate the addendum and then desperation, fear, finite because usually it's not once incident. they are often confused about

what happened and hurt and ashamed. but then after repeated behavior usually from the same predator cover a much used the term predator here. stocking predatory act dvd then the child gets them together and comes forward and people react in a way that is not helpful to the child. do we have data on not? >> i do not have data regarding today's children. we do know from the department of justice study that only one third as individuals who indicate they were abused actually reported it. >> mr. kennedy? to your thoughts on not? we are going to go to mandatory reporting. if you say something, say something. if you know something, do something. it's kind of the policy position i would like to take. but i'm trying to get in on the ground reality.

>> well, i think we brought that stat in. we can forward that on to your colleagues. i think that the people -- the kids are telling. there's lots of education in the schools about rolling, views, et cetera. we've never been given the tools to recognize the staff. rau expected to do the right thing. how can you expect adults to understand the abuse is? if we went around her mama down the street to penn state and i see adults that are in a leadership position, can you give the addition coming you get the radiotherapy or do we expect them to report it. so that's why we say that mass education we have to give people the tools so they can report it. these issues kerry fear. if we can eliminate fear and give people confidence to act on a gut feeling will get a lot more of these parents and coaches and leaders reporting

and listening to our kids. >> well, mr. kennedy, that takes me to my next question for your recommendations. repeatedly in the face you said we need the tools. hey, i am for that. what would those tools via? because consistently, each one of you talked about training and education. two different things, education and training. tell us these tools does she feel so passionate would have a big impact. >> the first time we started trying to do this since we started education and catch the bad guy. get your back up against the law will find out who is a or perpetrator in here. so what we've are we going to youth serving organizations, all volunteers, every adult with her he schools, say the whole national youth football

situation and so forth. it's not what you're different a college coach or little league coach, if you have power of the players. >> what are the tools? >> the tools are brought based education on all abuse bullying, harassment, education believing very good person and position of power and give them tools to recognize them and to act on them. when we go into the organization it's mandatory. first and foremost we must create a standard with an organization that if you want to be a part of the organization you need to take this program and so for three database the whole thing and off the individual is taken appropriate peer they really becomes the risk liability to on the backend. so what we are doing is saying that because we are out there creating posters, policies procedures around all these issues up in all these organizations have not stopped

there. our goal is to deliver on the posters. we're a permanent fun, safe. but take care of johnny and jodi. but the reality is if you walked around the schools and teachers could you give me definition in which you need to look out for that all these parents trust you with coming up with the answer very good. senator, and there's reporting tools, investigative tools, treatment tools. at the profession as a discipline, we have skills in each of these areas. this community a child serving professionals knows how to do this. we know how to investigate cases. we are not fasting or providing sufficient is. we know how to treat trauma but across the land would only begin to make and roads and getting treatment to be trauma bays. at the front end we are reporting. we've talked a lot today that he

professionals who come in contact with kids need to know about it. they need to know what the pack radios. we need to make those pathways were. we need to get the system's capacity to do it. our hotline and pennsylvania drops 9% of its calls. as a colleague recently set up you are one and one in 10 oppose and makes a report and your call gets dropped, how do you feel? you feel unprotected. we know how to do this. >> well, my own time is expired and we want to go to panel two. this is a very very excellent piano. i'm going to send each and every one of you for your experience your expertise. and now it's you hear a if you want to submit additional recommend nation or fine-tuned and amplify what you yourself said in her testimony we really will welcome it and we will come not from you.

so this panel is excused away are going to move to panel two. thank you so much. we are now going to turn to the assistant commissioner for children and families from minnesota who senator franken will introduce. that or block president of the american academy of pediatrics and to reset huizar come executive or of the national children's alliance an excellent advocacy organization. senator franken, do you want to introduce? >> yes, thank you madam chair. thank you for your leadership and for holding this hearing on this very important issue. it is my pleasure to introduce aaron sullivan sutton, commissioner for children and families at the minnesota department of human services. as an attorney, social worker

and instruct tour ms. sutton has dedicated her career to public service and in her position she is responsible for developing policies and administering programs that promote child safety. she previously served as minnesota's director chose safety and permanency, where she oversaw adoption foster care and other children's services. she also serves on the executive committee for the national association of child welfare at illustrators and as a past president of that organization. in all assistant commissioner sutton has spent nearly 30 years in the child welfare feeling i spent more than 20 years with the minnesota department of hamas services. thank you for your service and for all you do to keep minnesota's children safe. i look forward to hearing your testimony. >> we also want to welcome.or

robert block of pediatrics, a respected organization as 60,000 pediatricians committed to improving shareholders whole. in addition to some talented pediatrics, he has an additional specialty in the child-abuse pediatrician unique one, board-certified in this unique subspecialty. we thought it would help to get a clinical. and from essentially the doctor either in the er or the doctor in the examining room sometimes first here's a story we can benefit from their experience, both in prevention and intervention and protection and then also perhaps the one of these treatment things that will come out. we're so glad to have you.

and i may want to recognize therese huizar. who is the executive director of the national children's alliance, which is the accrediting body for 700 child advocacy centers. remember, this is where it gets child-abuse of the comprehensive service from forensic interviews, which is different than a medical interview. but it did give medical evaluation for mental health treatment. the senators and social service and the courts. she comes with a great deal of experience programming or dishonor us and is an international wreck last taxpayer. we really think it's great that you could come here and we look forward to your testimony and we look forward to advice and

recommendations as you hear this hearing unfold. work with us so that we can not at the end of the day not just feel good that we listen, but that we do good with what we've heard. so ms. sutton, one that you start. wilco two dr. block from the air. >> thank you, members of the committee. i am erin sullivan sutton, commissioner of family children services. i'm here today representing the american public human services association and its affiliate at the national says niche in a public busker administrators as well as state of minnesota. we have learned a lot about preventing child abuse and neglect over the years and what interventions result in positive outcomes for children and their families. with your help we can do even better. i would've spent some time talking about the work we've done in minnesota and the work that we have done to recognize

to state child protection systems. we talked about horrific crimes committed against children who come to the attention of child protective services online for a snack, but also to the thousands who are struggling to provide adequate care for the children that we have recognized the need to have a different response system to help them safely care for the system. our recommendation that all three areas. immigration services mandatory requirements and chat busker finance reform. the conditions that led to the development of the regional capital legislation in 1974 had changed significantly in the intervening years. 40 years ago the reality of parents or other children were underrecognized by public insistence of interventions were not prepared to respond. since then three or work in the work of state and local communities, there've been sustained efforts to educate the public and develop a child

protection infrastructure to respond quickly to report of child abuse and neglect. one of the issues that we must address is the capacity of states to respond to the reports coming in a way that works for children and their families. although captain addresses treatment of children, doctors limited to support to fully carry out our requirements and does not adequately account for expenditures to each requirement. our basic state grant receives $445,000 to help us develop an infrastructure for child protection. we very much appreciate that. however, support to recognize or state uses approximately $20 million simply to conduct assessments and reports of ill-treatment. in addition to assessments, it's absolutely imperative that we have the capacity to provide other services to children and parents, keeping children safe and well cared for.

because of the total distribution of funds public health childbirth regencies often have federal funding sources, state funding of local resources to provide the care and summit of a patchwork manner. 90% of all federal funds are used in child welfare for foster care or adoption assistance and the remaining 10% have prevention programs. the imbalance in offending structure indicates the need for a stronger federal role in providing adequate resources for preventing and teaching child-abuse neglect. in minnesota and the past decade we have learned that by investing resources earlier and more flexible ways to meet individual needs of families were able to keep children safe or sooner reduce mistreatment and the need for out of home care. over the past decade, minnesota has made changes in how we address child maltreatment. the majority of our reports in minnesota are driven by poverty

come mostly child treatment involving child neglect. we have learned that the situations are more responsive to services that help families address the needs and provide constant education and connections to community support rather than adversarial approaches to families. we need aggressive law enforcement interventions in situations of child endangerment and horrific crimes against children. however, we also know when he prevention and intervention efforts in minnesota to focus on engagement of families focused on keeping children safely with their families whenever possible. minnesota has been a leader in the development of differential response. we retain a forensic investigation for reports alleging substantial child endangerment, but on minnesota more than 70% of our child reports receive an alternative families and this sets aside investigative activity and focuses on ensuring child safety

by engaging the family and the services and resources they need to keep the children safe. they're structured assessments of safety rest and is connected with families and partnerships in those assessments form the basis of service delivery planning. a random clinical trial in minnesota follett outcomes for a period of five years from 2,002,005. using this approach were able to demonstrate children or made safer by quickly engaging parents and constructive conversations involving child safety that results in lower child maltreatment reporting rates and decreased need for out of home placement, which is one outcome we did not expect to see. we saw the families and child welfare workers identify this approach is creating cooperation and greater satisfaction and we also learn that this approach to family assessment in a series of cases as much or costly in the

long run. minnesota has used that experience to employ further strengthening family approaches in the subsequent years. from 2006 until 2010, introducing a number of programs we have seen a 10% reduction in child maltreatment reports in minnesota facility 24% reduction in the number of children reporting out of home places. in those communities where we have both early intervention services as well as the family assessment services, we have seen it after reduction in the need for reports coming in the first instance. to assure greater well-being for children, federal and state law should invest in a variety of prevention and early intervention activities to support stable families. early intervention programs by child protection agencies have proven to be very effective. for example, minnesota parent support pilot programs in the practice of engaging families

and providers for services to parents needing support before there is a need for child protection investigation. limits are identified as having at risk reporting to the agency and on that given day are not yet meeting criteria of maltreatment. if we intervened they avail themselves of services and again we've made a difference in being able to prevent maltreatment from occurring. i recommendation and improvements to capping should be lined with reform efforts in both federal state by using holistic approach that cuts across historical barriers such as departments, congressional committees or jurisdictions to provide an effect is efficient service array that focuses on positive outcomes as well as accountability. and mentioned earlier the need for finance reform in the imbalance of federal funding for state to provide child welfare services. the recommendations on how to

protect, preventing intervened moving forward. it is critical that congress and states work together to keep kids safe or sooner, particularly when we know who mayonnaise avarice kids are. in order to do that is the same flexibility to use federal funds in a manner that had needs of families coming to her attention. financing should promote flexibility while maintaining an appropriate framework for accountability. we need to be accountable for the work we are doing. because nocturne has many causes stomach internet services needs to include a broader range of community-based emergency programs and support for families that provide treatment for children and promote the general well-being of children who come to our attention. importantly, we need to prevent the incidence of maltreatment as well as maltreatment and improve the conditions that lead to

families being involved in the child welfare system. so we encourage you as you look at changes to also look at federal finance reform, particularly how federal 40 funds are used and are very limited and based on eligibility standards for parents from 1996. and also would encourage you to maintain or increase current levels. nowhere does not exempt from the sequestration under the budget. i'm also work to pressure congress to reduce funding. it is of paramount concern however that this committee to all that you can do to help ensure that the sequestration occurs that programs are not reduced to a level where we can no longer adequately serve the most vulnerable children are your children at risk deserve better than to be placed in harms way for reduction of funding in these very limited resources are critical to our capacity to serve families. thank you. >> thank you free much for that

really content rich testimony. we will go forward with our questions. dr. block the >> thank you chairperson kolsky and children and families for inviting me to speak today on behalf of myself and the over 60,000 members of the american academy of pediatrics. the abridgment comments and hope you find value in my written testimony. one important point not all children will become adult. but it is certainly true that each adult was once a child. experiences and opportunities afforded to each of us in our early years of a long-term impact on our health and development and may create a substantial imprint on the adults that would one day become. in order to get the health and well-being of her entire society, we must not be children and their welfare as isolated individuals were assigned, but

instead recognize children's physical and mental health must be addressed at the beginning of hope across the entire lake course. for this reason i became interested in child maltreatment during residency training 40 years ago. throughout my experience evaluating child abuse cases and testifying in court on behalf of abused children, the question i am most frequently asked is how can you do this work? the answer is how can you not? we now recognize the child abuse and neglect not only damage an individual short-term health but also alter a child's neurophysiology and long-term well-being. children who have suffered abuse or neglect may develop a variety of behavior and psychological issues, including combat disorders, decreased functioning and community impairments and emotional instability and posttraumatic stress disorder and others. the landmark adverse childhood

experiences or studies. also demonstrated between childhood trauma and the presence of adult diseases including heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease and liver disease as well as unintended day, transmitted diseases and alcoholism. based on the study, childhood trauma may be the leading cause of poor health among adult in the united states. pediatricians are an excellent position to detect and prevent abuse because of their unique relationship with families and experience in child development. pediatricians are trained to identify injuries and behavioral changes resulting from abuse or neglect and to understand the physician's role in treating or reporting abuse. however, there were inconsistencies with what is considered suspicious and sometimes limited understanding of the child abuse reporting process, even within the medical community.

as president of the american academy of pediatrics, i can assure you provided the necessary specialized education and training to report abuse in a cloud in serve these children appropriately is embraced at the very highest levels of leadership within our organization. the academy respectfully submits the following recommendations. every one half to report maltreatment to proper authorities could support as you've heard and training is crucial and every adult has his or her responsibility to report and to protect children who may be children of abuse. one common reason mandatory reporters do not report suspected abuse is fear of legal retribution. it was police captain of reauthorization did require secretary of health and human services to recommend potential changes needed to address this issue in the academy looks forward to that report. health care financing must

provide payment to professions for the more complex and lengthy visit that are typical and very very necessary for children who have been abused. in addition, child welfare workers and mental health confessionals are crucial to identifying treaty and preventing child abuse. it would be important for congress to take steps to support these professions and training programs. we have a new child-abuse pediatrics subspecialty which has the potential to expand the number of positions with expertise in this important field. more financial support is necessary to ensure every physician with interest and passion to pursue child-abuse pediatrics is able to do so. the aap has proposed the health child-abuse research education and services or health care network that serve as regional

consortium centers of excellence to bring the medical profession into full partnership in the prevention and diagnosis treatment and research about child abuse and neglect. funding and support for this network is needed. the federal government can create better coordination across agencies and increase funding for home visitation another unfunded -- underfunded programs. at the state level child-abuse definitions reporting requirements and exemptions differ really good the report of suspected or substantiated abuse in one state may not follow a child if he or she moves to another state allowing neglect of children to slip through the cracks. more attention must be paid to interstate reporting and investigation. so as a pediatrician, a child-abuse specialists and father and grandfather i will remind the committee that early experiences matter for the rest of our lives.

every one of the sinister and has an application to insure every child in america has the opportunity to live free from fear from harm so that he or she will grow into a protective happy adult. it's an honor to provide testimony on behalf of myself and i look forward to your questions. >> ms. huizar. >> thank you. thank you for what in this important subset appear in a on the problem of child abuse. national children's alliance and the national association of credit and body for 750 children at b.c. centers. those centers serve more than 267,000 abuse children i shared. children's advocacy centers courtney to multidisciplinary team approach to the investigation prosecution and treatment of childhood abuse. in so doing were close with law

enforcement and prosecutors and protective services, victim advocates, medical and mental-health professionals. colleagues have spoken on the need for improved mechanism can i join them in their car before training for mandated reporters. recent events have asked why individuals to support child abuse. and we know what 95% of americans express deep concern about abuse only one third contacted the authorities when actually confronted with the view. adults do not report because they don't know the kinds of abuse and they worry what will happen when they do and because they don't know how to report. all these problems can be addressed by widespread training and public awareness campaign to 240 million americans adults who should be reporting abuse if they suspect it. and that is something uniquely the federal government's role to do, given the scale of that

task. but we can't forget that perhaps the most important and concerning underreporting occurs among the most vulnerable. that is abuse children themselves. research tell us that only one third of adults who say they were abused as children ever told anyone. many children are reluctant to report the infinite thought must take the approach and children must be trained and body safety information and abuse prevention. children's advocacy center said that the forefront forefront of that word training nearly 400,000 schoolchildren last year. but this work must be extended and expanded to america's 17 million children. emma barriers report abuse are finally receiving well wanted attention, reducing these alone will not save children.

improve child-abuse reporting must be paired with equally strong intervention in order for a abuse children to receive the hope in that they so desperately need. children's fantasy centers play a key role in that response. this model of comprehensive care has been proven to prove investigation while ensuring that abuse children receive needed medical in all the while saving on average $1000 per child abuse case. sadly, this effective response is not available to all of america's children. there are still more than 1000 copies for the u.s. and abuse children have no access to the services. many of those in counties represented by states that serve on this committee. we call in congress to finish good work established a creation of the victims of child abuse that in 1990 by expanding services to america's children. unless someone thinks on primus to report in an intervention of

child abuse are complicated or difficult to achieve in these tight budget times, it's important to be reminded that many are at the door at no cost. improved data collection about the scope of the problem modify and confidentiality laws to encourage information sharing for those that investigate and treat child-abuse and the adoption of model protocols for civil and criminal case court nation take more political will and funds to achieve. finally, child abuse investigations erick a way to services for vick jones. research tells us that the best long-term predictor of recovery views as a political outcome of the case. it is whether the child refused treatment and support. on treatment child abuse has terrible lifelong effects and the maladies that are result of the trauma of abuse. fortunately over the past decade

and through the work of the national child germanic stress network, we now know a great deal about successfully treating trauma in children. evidence supported, focus treatment is remarkably affect that reducing trauma and child victims of helping them to begin to heal the return of who's a victim of abuse deserves access to it. children's abuse depend on proven treatments for recovery treatment in society having failed to protect children from abuse in the first place can certainly work to restore them to wholeness after the fact. if we invest in the treatment outcome that will save ourselves from having to pay for the cost of their compromise physical and emotional health later. it is our collective responsibility to protect children from abuse. when that fails to report it and ensure that those receive services they need to heal and lead productive lives.

the health and well-being of our great nation's children depend upon it and they certainly depend upon you, senators, as well. thank you. >> ms. huizar, let me follow up if they can to devise an effect to prevention and intervention strategies and to know how best to address resources. it is important that we know the full scope of the problem of abuse in children. what is needed to improve the current data collection and reporting across child protective services and law enforcement to claim that data we need to make the right decisions? >> i'm so glad you asked that, senator byrd come in because this at the heart of understanding the abuse. currently they did it turn into a state child because intense

data and that does not include information from law enforcement. in many states, line force and ideally individuals that investigate third-party abuse. that is abuse that occurs by individuals outside the family and of itself. collect the data so that we have a fuller, richer understanding of the problem.

>> thank you for that. ms. sutton on the ground and working with kids who have been abused can you talk more about the confidentiality restriction that capped a and hip both children to not to get the best of for the most informed assistance that they need? or do we have restrictions that don't allow the information sharing we need? >> the confidentiality statutes are intended to protect identity people abused or neglected although there is provision that allows states to authorize disclosure to other entities that they need the information in order to do this work with

children. i'm not sure how many states have gone to far surpass that. we also see issues with respect to hit the ensuring information back and forth between child protective service agencies health care agencies, company l. achieve and for the bastion for the cares of difficulty getting information between education systems and child protection and other service providers that we absolutely need to be talking together could sleep kit and it's our responsibility to make sure they have good education outcomes as well. >> thank you. i want to thank the chairman for designing the year and the way she did when we talked about detection of abuses and now treatments necessary and i hope everybody heard exactly what was said. we've got some stovepipes between law enforcement and

child protective services and stovepipes within -- that limit our ability to share the vital medical information with those making decisions about intervention. i would suggest all of those contribute to maybe not the best decisions about prevention. so i hope the chair will work with me. i know she will issue a with other members to figure out where we can modify those possibly an out wait for all the states to figure out how they can wait for those current requirements. i think the chair. >> excellent comments. senator casey. >> thank you, madam chair. dr., i'd like to ask a couple questions. one relates directly to your testimony. the first with regard to

education and training. he made that a central part of your written testimony associate presentation. you also talk about the chronic underfunding of the child abuse and prevention and treatment act. so-called captcha. i'm looking at pages 18 and 19 of your written testimony about prevention. you go into some link providing examples of strategies to implement a stronger prevention program. can you walk through some of those? >> yeah, senator, thank you. prevention is still an area that we are learning about as we go. sometimes by trial and error. it is difficult to collect evidence across broad populations to demonstrate a certain program works.

i think in the area of child abuse which has been the focus of the hearing, we are trying to do two things. by week everyone involved. but we are trying to educate children about the privacy of their minds and bodies, but more importantly since relying on them to protect themselves is not the way to go we are trying to teach adults in two ways. number one and make them aware this problem exists. one of our big problems is nobody must talk about child abuse or admit the society allows this to happen at the rate it's happening. so we have it continue holding hearings to emphasize the fact that leaders recognize this is an issue not only for children but as i mentioned for the adult they will become later on. we need to train adults to recognize that might be abuse and that requires some pretty careful education because we also need them to understand that is not abuse. as an oil our member now at the

end of every day my third grade teacher, ms. casino gave each of us a hug as for the classroom. that would be held and questioned today and yet her heart was in no way predatory or abusive. it was a signal and bodily touch do we know is part of communicating between adults and other adults as well as adults and children. so we need to define things that we don't mend up making mandatory porters report rings that are not abuse. how do we reach people to educate them about that is a major question. there are programs around the country aimed at anyone who will come to some sessions to understand how this adults can protect children by some common sense things. for example, if you are the last teacher to leave the school of the afternoon after teacher conferences or a meeting and there is -- i don't want to pick on one person, so a janitor or coach or another teacher who is still in the building and there's a little girl sitting on the steps waiting for a late

parrot to pick her up, it's a good idea not to leave the building and perhaps sit down next to her or help her call for assistance. that's assuming you're suspecting everyone around you is abusive. it just means that it's a good idea to be alert to possible situations. that's a long-winded answer, but would attack about prevention efforts with it for some things that were. and physical abuse one of our biggest problems is abusive head trauma and shaken baby syndrome and we know today. it the programs that if we can educate parents to the normalcy of their and they're crying to the fact that they are not bad parents if their infant doesn't quiet when asked them to, that we can protect those babies from people losing their temper and inflicting harm on children. so that might give a couple examples. >> finally, with regard to the training you focus in particular on the mandated reporters.

can you talk a little bit about that in the best approach their? one of the problems we have is not just the debate about who is a mandated reporter and whether that should be broadened. i think it should. but even mandated reporters not having enough training and experience. we ascribe experience and knowledge to expertise to not have the proper training. >> i come from the state of oklahoma that does have a mandatory reporting for everyone phrase at the end result which mentions teachers health professionals and others is mandatory porters and every other citizen. i think that's a good idea. on the other hand it is important for us to acknowledge even among my fellow physicians we don't always report abuse the way it should be reported. some of the reasons for that are unique to us particularly in medical liability issues and now

that is expanded into civil rights litigation. we got funny protection for reporters not only for making a report, the perhaps participating in the process later on process later on if the case goes on to prosecution or some other adjudication. we need to as i mentioned people understand what is child abuse? what does it look like? what does it sound like? what you do when you suspect it is happening? how could we work to her various disciplines to create interdisciplinary approach? when i talk to physicians, one of the leading reasons that they have a suspicious case, they are not quick to report because they have concerns about the system. what will happen in their particular locale with children's protective services? availability in working the case. bubble happened with prosecution? and what will happen to them in terms of their time doubled taken not only indicate the report, but in the fond du lac. we can take care of that within the medical profession if we

continue to need cheap to create the talent two medical schools and communities to help teach about that. we need to learn how to work together across disciplines. we are doing a good job of that right now in centers and are playing a legal rule and not but we can do better. we need to have more opportunity to teach each other about what are disciplines are all about them we need to learn to hold each other accountable for a piece of the puzzle. >> thank you. >> first of all you want to thank all three of you for your testimony. you are cassation represent and recessional c. represent. i have about four questions. the first is about deterrence. i just need a short answer remiss because the answers will be longer policy questions. there is this hope that mandatory reporting acts as a

deterrent to people who are predators, that if they feared discovery through others who would train them in or report them, that that acts as a deterrent or a chilling effect of abusive behavior. i wonder if they did demonstrates the mandatory reporting, which i happen to be an advocate of actually as a deterrent. blushes go down. ms. sutton, what you think? >> to be honest i never thought of the kidnappers did. i think all too often the predatory offenders that we are talking about are not thinking about and dated reporting. i do think mandated reporting over the years has provided a tremendous amount of education across our country's sli was first passed in 1974 and in that

respect has made us all that much more aware of the abuse and neglect and hopefully that has resulted in the prevention as well. >> i think mandatory reporting by itself is not a primary determining but it is a secondary deterrent. if we have people reporting that they suspect we are going to avoid the second third, fourth 20 episodes, particularly in abuse, predators don't limit themselves to one victim losses in the family and they only have access to one victim. it's a yes or no. notice that a primary deterrent, but it is important to get things stop before it gets even more out of hand. >> out completely concur with transcendence comments about that. >> the question is who should report. and we have kind of a consensus on the so-called mandate reporter reporting, but then what is the next circle out

although it to anybody who sees them thing do some thing can see something, say something. there were contemplating and our legislative work, expanding reporting to everybody and masking states tend to develop legislation to implement that. do you think we should keep it limited? and do concentrated training? do you think we should expand it to everybody? do you think we should include everybody, but do extensive education and training to those who need certification and licensing because of their access to a child? we have a core group of people. ms. sutton, what do you think? >> senator -- >> who do you think we should require to report?

>> i think i tend to agree with testimony research. i like to know more about the states for everyone is required to report in minnesota we require certain professionals that encourage everyone to report. i am concerned about and see an increase in false reports as well as with the impact may be on the system and our capacity to respond. without an increase in the availability to respond to more reports, i would be concerned -- >> not get to the kids that could be in danger. >> senator, i agree with your comments in with yours as well. we have a system already in child welfare that is totally overburden. have a daughter who survived four years as a permanency placer worker for chaucer care what should have been 24-ish was 53 with an on call that was

constant, including a call issues on the turnpike from oklahoma city to tulsa a night of of her wedding rehearsal. but she had to respond to. we have to support these programs. we have at any given time 50, 60, 70% of workers in the field in their first year of experience. even though invest in training them, if they can survive the system, we have not got a a good return on investments. we can encourage are going to be reporters, but do we have to shore up the system first and educate to minimize reports that really are your minimal kinds of observations. >> so there is the required -- ms. sutton sexpot language which was require a certain body or population, but then encourage the rest of the population on what to do. i think dr. block company made an important point. if you're going to do this work

and those who are child protective workers, in some specialties such as yours, they themselves did not only education and training, but support because of what they see and experience to prevent burnout with the excessive burden of fear. i just recall for myself that if you proved and someone could die i mean, the fear of screwing up the mountain professionals doing this air base is pretty significant. so tell me who you think should report and the support that needs to go to those charged with responsibilities.

[inaudible] >> anyone can a professional contact which will fully required to do so. i think it is important to start retraining and then move on to expansion of reporting requirements as opposed to the other way around. in other words if we spread the word about these things to the largest body, then you could pacemen based on research you do, other groups you might like to additionally be legally required to report. but in the absence of the research and training i think those would be problematic. and i also think that any increase in expanding the circle of those legally required to report absolutely has to be paired with increased resources. increased resources for state and local one person sent most of my be prosecuted or investigated federally, increase resources in terms of treatment, in terms of medical treatment and mental health treatment in

the services of children advocacy centers. >> that takes me to should investigate. if you're going to report, one of the things that emerges from reporting is the hesitancy of people to report because some people don't know where they go the second they don't want to be mixed up or they think i really don't want to go to the cops about this. and i don't use that -- i use it and the best sense of the word. and i think u.s. professionals would agree the investigation that a child protect its service worker does come at the inquiry that a physician or nurse practitioner does et cetera, is very different than law enforcement. this gathering evidence for the commission of a crime, where you are trying to gather information for the protection of the child two different things. so my question goes that if we had mandatory requirement knowing the child abuse is a

crime -- i don't minimize that. but should the first line of reporting the child protective services or should we go directly to the cops and the cops get the children to protective services? ms. sutton, you ran a pretty big agency. >> in minnesota, or that requires press reporting within 24 hours so an individual -- >> could you see what that is click >> papers can choose report to enforcement of child protection. they are required to report within 24 hours a minute the allegation involves violation of a criminal statute commensurately what would happen if the joint investigation by law enforcement in the agency, the cops doing their role in the agency doing facts gathered to look at service plans and delivery. in certain circumstances law-enforcement man chad protection not to do an assessment that there would be something that could interfere

with the one person investigation. but they do go hand-in-hand. >> a few report come you choose which one you do do you feel comfortable, therefore you know about. but then they talk to each other. because they are highly trained we cannot forget that there's no cost and what we're we're talking about here. then they determine what is the best way to proceed in the interest of the child. is that the foremost question in mind? interest of the child or the interest in that case. the interest in something called the case. >> the interest is in first assuring whether a child is safe. and once we can assure you chad two-phase is doing the investigation or assessment of what has occurred. and also for us it was really distinguishing between the situations that may involve

criminal attachments or children the situations where families are struggling to take care of children. having a punitive investigated approach was not serving as families well. so we needed to develop a balance of those so that we can respond most appropriately given the particular situation that came to our attention. >> in our center we applaud the disciplines housed under one roof including medicine and on the other components. so we are able -- >> is that where or usual and customary? >> i think it's becoming more and more customary. they are limited in number. >> very true. the example i want to give this an optimal way to approach that because regardless of who has received a report the report comes to the multidisciplinary team to see who should be doing that, including the children need for extensive evaluation

and investigation of what have you. so i think supporting interdisciplinary centers and interdisciplinary teams, whether they be housing communities might be a solution. >> i certainly agree that every child abuse case should he investigated by a multiple of multidisciplinary team. wayne and i was going to go on criminally with that as well as was going to protect the child and insurance simultaneously they're getting treatment. i think tennessee has a nice hole in which in the way that child abuse reports come in when they come in through cps can also press portents immediately to enforcement, the a-alpha for other children's advocacy for the state and tracking database. he enjoys the cases involve

democrats. they don't see that within a day or two. it gives them the ability to call on horseback child protective services and say whatever happened to john smith? is that his command and it's one that should have been screaming to the advocacy center in we haven't seen a child yet. thursday's doing innovative things about that. what they brought in the response would be very helpful. >> well, we also have to think legislatively, are we talking about mandatory reporting, encouraging reporting for child maltreatment because literally we talked about different categories. one is the klatch. now back in my day and from when i was discussing it with child protective agencies, the data says that the majority of people who come to the attention i miss not showing up in schools and

don't seem like they've had a good meal. they will need to see a dentist lake we had, et cetera. and that's different what there's physical abuse, all things that show up either in the classroom, the battered child, dr. block spoke about the crying, shaking, et cetera. but then we called it the b. word, in the bad old bruised, burns, broken initially comes into madness and in some way. and one is by reporting and then there's psychological. the child lock in the closet. there's no ethics of physical abuse or just other kinds of

horrific things i don't want to elaborate on the you could give examples. and then there is abuse. and those are different things. ..

as simple as possible so people know what to report and where to report that. and don't parcel without but make sure people know they should report child neglect physical abuse, sexual abuse emotional injury and threatened injury which is what the captain on covered and then give the flexibility and the ability of the system working together and i mean that in the medical community child and efficacy as well as protective child services to look at what is the most appropriate intervention based on the assessment of those individuals circumstances. that is one of the hardest lessons we learned in florida is one size did not fit all and we were creating war trauma by trying to do that so we needed to be much more individualized.

>> one of the things pediatrician's be the free strongly in is the patient or family center medical home. not only the medical physician but other professionals working as a health care team are going to be able to see aberrations and development or physical appearance in a treasure whether it is under or over. so we have places like the medical home where we can do a lot of prevention and a lot of intervention before neglect emotional abuse come poor parenting. not every child has access to those homes particularly if they are supported by medicaid or are not in church whatsoever. but places like that where a children come regularly schools for nexium will can be targets of training to identify behavioral issues that are not

translated into this is a bad child but rather translated into we should look at what is happening in this child's life. >> i don't think we can ask them to be assessors of the responses that should happen. they make the report. i am in agreement keeping the reporting symbol and how they go about this and i think what happens after that interprets differential response is critically important for a simple we know while differential response has been enormously beneficial and neglect cases and physical abuse cases not sexual abuse cases so that is something we should expect mandated a reporter to know and our job this child. >> i could sit and talk all day with you.

i really want to thank each and every one of you being with us today. the work you do to protect and prevent child abuse, in the house and in the senate to those in the judiciary committee to develop a bipartisan legislative framework to address things we've discussed today. there are so many people wanted to submit testimony i will ask unanimous consent nine pieces of the testimony be submitted to the record and again i want to thank warren who was here all day today and her advocacy every day and secretary sebelius the baltimore child abuse center, the american psychological association, the committee for children, stop it now and in

child welfare submitted their testimony. we are going to leave their record open for questions and the congress will be reassessing but upon the return we will be examining all of the proposals to see healthy move forward. listening to the four of you take a back many years ago to my own work. doctor you we and i began at just about the same time and the body of knowledge that's been developed in the financial expertise and all of the main site has been stunning. i fear that in the audience today women who believed in me and the work and they would be so pleased to year to come to

protect our children a and cutting across the red tape. we survived new thinking and the protection of children. focus on the children, not the bureaucracy she trained and encouraged me to go to graduate school. those in america that arf sweating the details and how to do a great job and how they can make sure children are safe and secure. as we have to put our sweat equity and come up with of the right policy. as we look forward to a conversation with you and thank you and say god bless you for what you do. god bless our children and protect them and god bless america. the committee is adjourned.

and all will conversations [inaudible conversations]

de all centers swear to support united and defend the constitution of the united states. i carry a copy of weld with me.

i do believe it is our on the responsibility. but the pending amendments that are on the floor of then constitution freshen for more than 200 years. never in history have we had the to work of our founders to in pos budgetary restrictions require a supermajority for passing yet no legislatiown. theth this seems every member on the jo other side of the ogle was to pr put forth a radical proposal tonds of burden the constitution with both of these kinds of. any other amendment to the desi constitution is not consistent but the designing of our founding document or stands taken by the founding members.

it's a bad idea to write fiscal our policy into the most fundamental it it's simply unnecessary. we don't need a balanced budget amendment to balance the budget. absotely n this amendment does nothing to fi get our fsciscal house in order. can wor t congress can work to continueour ec our economic recovery. we can pass the appropriate federabalanced legislation that leads to a0's. balanced budget as we did the very w 1990's. was i remember it very well this voted body not a single republican nce th voted to balance the budget. sena and it took the democrats in the senate and the vice president of tha the unitedt states to pass the balanced budget. not a single republican voted for the balanced budget in the speeches house. again, a lot of speeches on the a floor everything would come to aappened,

screeching halt. what happened as we passed and his president clinton was able to leave his successor a hugedered. surface. w, wit which he immediately squandered. now when the growing economy what we did buy votes in the house and the senate not by the cre constitutionalat amendment we, pay d were able to create budget surpluses, pay down the debt and until the surpluses are 've do squandered. it we've done it before.ha we can do it again. can i have order, mr. president? >> the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order at the request of the senator from vermont. in the

>> i don't want to interfere in and i the discussions going on in the wait chamber now so i will wait until they are finished. i would ask consent my speech short interruption for the chamber. disorder in the chamber. need >> without objection, so to work ordered. to >> we need to work together to make the tough decisions not to pass something with the bumper sticker kind of item which kicks bumper the can down the road and puts a bn burden on the future congress to a fiscal proposal which isamentallynsound a fundamentally unsound and the derstood consequences of which are not replican understood to be the republicanal proposal of the senate is more radical than the version in the

house of representatives rejected in a bipartisan vote. last month. xtreme the amendment is the most extreme of all of the defending t proposals. will the proposal by its term would neither balance the budget nor pay down the nation's debt everybo something everybody says theyuire super want. require supermajorities to passfirst te in legislation. for the first time in the nation's history did require a supermajority to raise then debt ceiling in the times of economiche disast crisis. did we learn nothing from the disaster which had been a routine lifting of the debt ceiling became a political free-for-all for weeks andaxpayers months and cost the american taxpayers billions of dollars, cost people in their retirementm money and the stock market cost them billions of dollars.

we want to do that again.sal. i hope the senate reject thishe judicia proposal. the judiciary subcommittee in co the constitution hadns a hearing to examine the proposal. all of those witnesses including major those invited by the measures co-sponsors present who faultspons worker cheeks in this extreme con proposal that voiced serious concerns even though it came on this citutio behalf of the proponents of the constitutional amendment and we have not had a full consideration in the committee.repr the house of representativesady vot ed already voted down the less extreme version of the proposal of the bipartisan majority.he you wil sl hear as a center of the vote united states the constitutional

amendment as expected and the company and amendment to america's constitution. there is no way for the senatemendment to proceed on the constitutional amendment. this is not some feel-good resolution.america's this is talking about amendingt's look america's tired.sident. let's look what's happening unfunded washings here. time in we have the to unfunded nabors only the first time in the history d that itid didn't pass but itbut actua actually passed the tax cut and an borrowed the money to pay for the war. we've insisted on the bush tax cut for the wealthy the samefor th time we are borrowing money to pay for the unfunded war squander with the last tour d administration inherited in the i woulremind national debt reminder but you

can vote for the balanced budget. i don't want we've done it before. every every single republican voted noe we had a the last time we had a successful balanced budget. we need to get to work improving the economy getting americans back to work and continuing to recover from the worst economic recove conditions that we broughtg to recov ourselves into four years ago since the great depression.it provi it provides no clear enforcement mechanisms or the standard for the enforcement it assumes the federal courts are equipped to equip enforce this amendment do we sply really want to say we willitutionalower relinquish the congress's constitutional power to the unelected judiciary with noperien budget experience, somethinceg, congress that no conagra's republican or demo democratic control in history is tt

willing to do something the would forefathers never would haveould thought would happen, do we w really wone the judges fiscaludges to policy, the we want judges tor we decide whether we cut social security or medicare?d th er we had a hearing before the senate judiciary committee. recently i asked justice scalia. scali i asked the federal judiciary equipped to quote to handle such aha task the the s same task our friends on the other side of the federalon judiciary to do what do you think and you know how he indicated answered?dget he laughed. he indicated the determinant of the allocation of the resources has not been the judiciary'sight proper role. expect of course he's right and il nine expect this is one area where all nine men received theme. supreme court would have answered the same. the proponents of the effort tong transfer into the budget cut and

in addition to all of these the concerns the american peopledment wod be on need to understand what it would mean on their daily lives.enate ju we've received in the senate judiciary committee alarming aarp testimony of the arp damagingnal affect some the amendment wesecurity m have social security, medicare i and medicaid. constional he testifies in the constitutional amendment we have in the mcconnell hatch amendment the average social security benefit would be cut by 27%. maybe that's what members of the party want to do tax social security.want to i do not. the balance the budget dulbecco balan the hard-working americans buy hardw drastically cutting the safety net i would say that is not the answer to the economic challenge especially as we continue to get tax breaks to millionaires and emsin

continue to fight on from the shouldot worst. o this is a bad idea and even mores to do so we don't understand the weight of the consequence of whosequen is going to bear the burden. cavalie i think there's a very cavalier way of protecting the e constitution. what's show the respect ither than deserves revanche treating it like a blog entry or a bumper let us n sticker slogan. let us not be so vain in thisnow better body the victim we know better consti than our founderstu invading the free market is preserved our liberties for more than 200 oonst years.it a constitutional principal to serve the deserve protection. i will stand with the

constitution of this country ando amen i will oppose this proposal to amend it. i yield the floor and ask thating off my full statement be part of the record. >> the senator from on neola. on >> iyad the fortune of servingy with senator leahy on the ranking committee. he's the chairman and i'm the ranking republican and in that capacity we have jurisdiction over the constitutional amendments, so i rise to support ver y sk riss ten. i'm very pleased we are takingdget a up methe balanced budgetndment i amendment. the the senate has passed a balanced budget amendment in the past. more recently it's come close to passing a balanced budget h amendment. on a agree this hasn't becomended

to all.ire a bal had the constitution bean amendedwould to require a balanced budget we would not be today faced with a dire budgetary situation that is before us.h of $1.5 trillion deficit tot emphasize for each of the last two m or three years and maybe. the budget before us is veryvides total straightforward. it provides a totalha of outrace to not exceed total receiptsds unless each house of congress by the two-thirds votes agrees to do otherwise. it provides spending discipline total outlays cannot exceed 18% produ ct of the gross domestic product unless two-thirds of the houses

of congress vote the way that requi cap. the president will be required to to submit a balanced budget forcing theudget congress. to avoid balancing the budget by imposing tax burdens, new taxes total or increase in the total revenuetw o- can be imposed only by the two l serves vote of both houses and the debt limit will be able to onl be raiseyd only with 3/5 of a vote of both houses. flibility to provide a level of flexibility and the wartime and c i would call for a considerable ner flexibility because they are never predictable the profession's only helped leaves outla anysd receipts less than the by normal two-thirds vote by a 3/5 d vote.is the to minimize disruption the amendment will not take place. sha.

the constitution provides for an amendment process, but it is necessary each generation has amended the constitution.n of when the guarantee of free speech or abolish of slavery or vot giving women the right to vote, all of those require a constition constitutional amendment. no one has said to reference to the constitution was the end of point the matter. we've reached that point ofmendment necessity with a balanced budgetice repts -- amendment, the congressional to research service reports and i want to quote a fairly longear

quote the budget deficit each 2 year from 2009 to 2011 has been the highest ever in dollar terms and significantly higher as an share of gdp and of any time since world war ii. under of the policies it is to the gdp leading observers to term it on an unsustainable as a youth quote eight. rpose the purpose according to its preamble, and a trio will is not governing on what we do with the shows ition supreme court does but it shows attention to the preamble was liberty meant to extend the blessings of already and i want to emphasize bec the word prosperity.in it is because of the growth intion theal d national debt.

receiv our prosperity may not receivedns so f the blessingsar that several generations. a it is hard to imagine an amendment more in keeping with the goals of the constitution they'll this one.that spiral thank you feeds on assault and take we are permanent, a kind of hope not. we take a look at europe today or we all ought to look to learn lessons about the fiscal wn soundness,. defau and they are in thatlt position of almost the fault now. if we are not careful, and our poi country, the united states at some point will face the same

crisis. p it is frightening to complicate and in particular to the blessings we ought to give to the generations after us. now we hear from opponents that congress can balance the budget but th now without a balanced budget amendment but thes fact is it yea cannot.s ha for morse than 40 years, congress ability t has been unable to summon the ability of the balanced budget. sought t statures that sought to provide a path towards an unbalanced budgete field.rsonal let me speak here about a w as personal a involvement that i had body when i was a member of the body working working with senator. the bird was adopted in either 1979 or 1980. was a statute of those few works

collis of the congress won't spend any more money. well, you know what happeneduntil was for several years after that. t in view of the 1990's, congress just delete it for a your time as a part of the appropriationsood process. such suits.so byutting it is repealed.constituon so by putting something in the it' going t constitution requiring a balanced budget is going to be a discipline on the congress that statutes are not discipline in other words for the statutesre field and have proven failure thatan based upon examples law gave plus other examples that can be given. the the exception was when we had three years going into this

century when the financial windf bubble of the windfall revenuesw and we all know about the $560 billion we pay on brown national debt for the fiscalaidown yearon after the republican congress was elected in 1994. anyway, except for that. budget h if congress is unable to control spending it's been in the a nd national debt and its increased. the only way congress willhe exercise is a discipline to balance the budget. if the constitution is to do so.eve that we can see this from experience the particularly if you believe the state's are the laboratories of the political process, the laboratories of the government

policy because 46 state constitutions require their be in budgets to be in balance. they meet that requirement as members of congress we can take we an oath -- we do take the oath to adhere and defend the constitution.if we take that seriously.t of if the balanced budget amendment became a part of the it constitution we will adhere to it or face the consequences. fect this amendment contains effective tax limitation as an integral part. i favored the balanced budget th years with tax limitations for morees fal than 20 years. t for decades federal spending has in t outpaced even the steady sizeable growth of taxes and revenues. raising taxes does not produce that surpluses. the fact is more spending. raised

for every dollar in taxes raisedse since world war ii it seems this for about $1.13 for every dollar that's come in for taxes and don't take my word for that if long you want a person that's studied that for a long time. and yo the has written about that and i think you'll find is to curei, this the same as in world war ii, 1 dollar coming into the.17 treasury was a license to spend a dollar 17 instead of $0.13 i would give you here. raising taxes since then would make balancing the budgeter harder not easier. bring a dollar in the year, dollars and, to read we can't

reach an agreement of how high to be taxes have to be to satisfy the appetite of congress to spend money and that is and just a democratic problem. that is. so it brings us to this issue about a super majority. and the balanced budget increas amendment may well encourage tax cont increases, fuelling and greater spending and the continuation of an costs additional debt in the cost and servicing of that debt. th e the failure to balance the iss o budget is a fiscal issue ofe. greatest importance but getting back to our obligations' under the constitution it is also a it i mor moral issue. the maybe the moral aspect of it in more important than the economicendment

aspect.n without a balanced budget amendment, our children and grandchildren will pay for thislive w ait chronic living. we were high in the walls and about children and grandchildren paying for them. the standard of living of futurey generations will likely toof many icans th point. the fear is many americans will not live as well as this one or t many respects traceable to the fiscal irresponsibility on the congress. amendme the balanced budget amendmentuld mean a would mean a strong for a me.nt, as would surely mean good o government as the response ofent, the deal to be a part of good government. obviously with a concern people have about what they're particularly employers have. pol not having a sound fiscal policy they are not hiring anybody will mean more jobs. prevenuture

the people were doing their part to prevent future generations from being found with anconscion unconscionable level of debtng to do they are willing to s do so even if it means some federal spending the support would be th affected. this is true if our budgeting is tha done fairly. closel to i believe that if one listens closely to the arguments of thewi opponents of the major one will hear more arguments against the bala budget than against a balancede budget amendment and the need to be difficult actions taken.se diffilties that the difficulties in balancing budge the budget those difficulties are there for reasons for the against constitutional amendment, not reasons against the amendment. but balancing the budget is it

necessary and will take anns amendment to the constitution ofo makeure the united states of america to make sure that it's doneneed to run consistently.its we also hear arguments about theon need to run deficits when the economy is in a recession. the brings us where we are now. we've been in recession for three years. a the amendment prevents the congress to run a deficit in that situation but he's skeptical of that argument. if deficits and debt gave us ast of t strong economy. economi right now we would be in thehistor midst of an economic boom in boon. history. obviously we are not in thatf economic boom. $ deficits of 1 trillion plus on the national debt of the 15 trillion arn of stabilizing in time the economy by people who are doing and maybe in a time of depression we ought to have a

lot of deficit spending.nd in fact i believe the size ofperforming wel thel debt is one reason the economy is not performing well.y. he is stabilizing the weak economy rather than the drag onng the economy that's why jobs are not keen created. that's why corporations have a trillion dollars in the treasury in the united states and a trillion dollars in thetr treasury'sth overseas, a 2 trillion that are being spent isn't making the corporations. any money it is leading theiret invest in jobs and machinery and get the economy going and make or l's say some money or how can we make o enfor more money. on the issue of enforcement, the opponent's attack strongly strawme awful. they say either the amendmentt canno

cannot be enforced so it is bof pointless or let the courts cannot enforce it in chaos. true. these arguments cannot be true. this amendment will be enforcedget by the president submitted as comply balanced budget and congress complying in has to state legislatures all over the country. members take an oath and members with rct to will constitutional, and with respect i will raise taxes. and of course the judicial spending requirements rightness that in the doctrine of the questions continue walked the power of the 220 years we have in our

history. mr. prident, mr. president, in the last dozen years, congress has been unable to appellants the budget even when times are good. confront we wouldn't have racked up the we have deficits that now confront us. we've heard in the past that a balanced budget amendment was not necessary because congressown. could balance the budget on its own. today we face one of the worst the debt crisis.n to maintain a fiscal discipline biggt that tells a welder us district a stick, and helpless by the

minority in the past. we warned at that time and plays the balanced budget amendment.or. i yield the floor. from >> mr. president. >> senator from colorado.avor >> thank you. i rise to speak in favor of legislation occurred. budget dment wh the senate debate onic the n amendment which will occur over

the next few days is anat w incredibly important debate thatge will spark a wide range ofy g emotions and do well castoff policy goals to recognize thatstrong the outset we hold strong and differing opinions about thebalancedget am wisdom of getting a balanceds budget amendment to the united states constitution. our we've only amended theistory constitution some 27 times ination. the history of the nation. the founding fathers and the west come in during the line. by they created a hurdle before they could pass before congress.

help r why this balanced budget amendment will restore the fiscal health of the nation, global protect and the global economic race. basic let me start by discussing some basic fact. we borrow 40 cents of every dollar theal federal governmentc spends and the total amount of public debt now held by es and 69% eink will succeed to 69% of the gross domestic product. that reflects a level rarely

seen in the country's history. this year when of the majorting credit-rating agencies downg downgraded were nation'sra credit coness' rating because of the congress w and the devotee to work in in a r bipartisan manner to reduce our i debt. d i don't think i have to tell the viewers of the last thing our struggling economy or job job creation efforts need it was the downgrade. it is a little wonder that inuch americans told us in such will the regard or other countries wonder he what the heck we're doing here in the nation's capital. mr. president, i could go on and on, but i won't. th facts these facts are american mr. families to balance their is checkbooks on a weekly or monthly basis.mp congress is unable to resist the witho attention to spend without let while trying to keep taxes as low as possible.

we have been willing to watch a the debt to grow to a levelnati where national security experts are telling us that our own self created a problem is a bigger o threat than any of our enemies.ry the last several years congress how has taken steps to try to reach pay an agreement on the deficit and pay downour the debt. hour many of us have spent countlessoups to hours working in bipartisan groups to speedup the balanced i debt reduction plan and. to we've reached a comprehensive plan to cut spending reforming the tax code and shore up. before the hard-workingrking americans, we are not serious about ensuring that the american dream was within everyone's even a reach. pl after watching the congress struggle to even spent a basico plan or raise new revenues to need

pay the bill i am convinced weat force need additional tools at the limit discipline. if we don't put limits on how congress does its burgeoning the question won't be whether we can't be stop the bleeding will be howst much we cutop to the bone or even be how m the vital organs and the programs we value. in other words without fundtal refo fundamental reforms now the foundation foundation of the government will be severely weakened leader on i trietts the balanced budget a amendment will solve the problem one its own the reasonably balanced budget amendment would help us ensure we never are in aga this position again. it has in my middle ground, common sense balanced budget fancial amendment which sends a strong signal to the market's. u.s. businesses and the americang our b people there were serious about ng stating our budget for the long term.hem that's the signal they want to see to give them the confidence cre to expand and create jobs. makin

mr. president, before, and moved to i make. pnts i want to make a few pointsg national about how the skyrocketingafcts all national debt affects all of us. as a start, our debt threatens investors the we need to make. it forms are available only to compete we would. it inhibits job growth.and it home and it dampens our innovative spirit. if we don't address our debt now, it would allow the force globe global. mos throughout most of our history, perhaps a sideline all economicstates t create strength has enabled the united states to create an environment that is good. the strictest and helped our ownnities people on the main street to thriving communities oliver colorado and across the nation.uild it's meant every generation has

been able to build on their parents' success. we know this is what has made exconal the united states exceptional. families are wondering whether the american dream is still within your reach or if you recall which gertrude at home because you are unable to find a you'nable job, when a middle-aged factory worker leadoff for the second or factory wor third time now struggling to be p your bills were the economic future seems tougher. of the country has endured a terrible economic slump for over three years now. three yea rs in order to move quickly to turn quily things around we needround, businesses to hire again. and businesses in the community thefidenc leaders. tha they need to know our national to debt is to send our economy off cliff.

the cliff. obam the co-chairman of president defi obama's syvertsenci commission on the debt reduction tap into that acer that sentiment calling our debt is a ou cancel that is eating away at our economic health. but beyond pure economic factors our growing debt burden morea forhairma broadly.n the former chairman of the joint s chiefs of staff with whom we'll eno have enormous respect admiral tha mike mahlon or in the national debt is, quote, the single biggest threat to the nationalhe security. floor these are by now familiar arguments on the floor of the senate. we know the challenges that the pro confront us.ess the problem is that congress ery isn't doing what every economist and every one of us in this room that's acknowledges we must do and that is get our out-of-control budget col. under control. is we all have a were ferias foras why this ise. the case. part of

mr. president, i personally believe part of the problem ins the nature of the congress itself we are all temporary single members of a greater bod body. h we each of your own constituents, goals and responsibilities. and it's tempting to come toell for washington, fight like hell fornd our corner of the nation and big lose sight of or ignore the of bigger picture. as members of congress that to seems like we are hard time to our fight for results important topoliti our constituents and political ideologies. let me give you the example. m there is two words and many of eye my republican friends turned a blind eye to the revenue needed to support the baby boomers the national security needs.privileg my father who had the great privilege serving for 30 years in the house of representatives.eral

the same phenomena several reca decades ago and he used to house recall the fights given to the get a house members. the advice was if you want to thing get as.head in congress can do two bi things come and vote for every e appropriations bill and against every tax bill. deficit we in many ways the federal budget becau deficits we face a dauntings have today because to many members of congress have taken that advice also over the past decade but also it's because it is whatit's onl americans expect it of us. it's only natural. people want the best of both this worlds. but we can't continue down this pat budget toh a path and hope thein results will be different than they have been in the past.by in fact the results get worse by the day. from based on what i hear from phil a lit roetl. bud

it may cause a little budget pain. in the balanced budget amendmentction. to the constitution is serious action. require us to get a larger collective obligation to the no national economy. i will admit my support of thepart balanced budget amendment as it may be particularly popular democrats are not in the pan the amendme there's a balanced budget amendment idea and of the state's democrats are suspicious propos that balanced budget proposals are a trojan horse. to they look good on the surfacems that the figure designed to dismantle government programs. most americans still don't value but this is just a few decadesor ago. my parents were leaving in.

charge for an amendment.rogressi and what's notable.mpion o hef was perhaps the greatest champion and i want to shares and you with you my colleagues and use words some of his words. in debating the balanced budgetsaid amendment in 1993, senator simon addr said the following. which he addressed to progress. i am here to tell you the coursetell you tt t we are on unless it is exchange soon threatens all of the all of the programs that you and i have for and fought for and believed in soe strongly. t we've followed omore than a cro decade it's brought us to aic crossroads. we face a visit decision through our actions that choose what we the courts the will lead us away from the brink. trans

health care, education transportation investments. every needelman national agenda.hat minerals warning for you today is the rising spooks, in both. that is a powerful warning fromespected a very wise and respected ev colleague. his warning is even more serious t when in december of 2011 it wasnow, in 1993. easy answe mr. president, there are not incially our the easy answers your especially since the aging population and post-9/11 national security in needs its squeeze in the ways we've seldom seen in ther us country's history. for americans telling us loanecisions neces and clear make the decisions to

get the national debt under control. so i say to my colleagues. i want to reiterate a point i made earlier which is the balanced budget amendment isn't the sole answer to the problems we face.i rec it's not a perfect solution and won't i recognize that. de for example, it won't help usurrent deal with our current debt much less reduce it. for that we need a comprehensive plan along the lines of thetisan recommendation of the presidentat has b heade obama's president here commission and has been a coupbowl by the chief of staff and senator alan simpson.lower d

its recommendations will awarded by more than 4 trillion over the b pla ce next decade of the place. the it's up to the mistakes of the past and of burgundy for the chooses to faced. s the plan would require all of us to put skin and g the game and it represents the path to balance our budget to the two books. i've also fought for the partisan and proposals to create a presidential veto to mark the death of the we shall also and could be and must be tools in resible our response will budgeting the cou toolbox. even the we have to sign the courage to get the current fiscal house in order we also order need to have stronger rules in place to ensure congress is intended to fall off the wagon in the future.

in my view, passing a balanced from budget amendment will remind us tra how we will never. pro brings me to the balanced budget proposal and didn't u.s. congress today. the u i was surprised to see the united states house oft amendnt that representatives pursue a balanced budget amendment. my was more realistic than some of what might call a.uired of the next i can think offths of almost 3/5 of the house and the w senate agree there was anownturn, a economic downturn natural disaster or other emergency the rate require some expenditurestraightfrd mea su and express deep cuts krises their work more. a it was designed to garner aport. broad range of support.

however, the house fell short by nearly to those in vote largely suppo because it didn't win enough support from democrats it must t be bipartisan. so i was surprised to see that after the house balanced budget find amendment failed and still seeking to find a consensus with those who a could bring along the democratic votes like me my ais colleagues in the senate on the other side of the i'll let liveh, hav my friend, senator hatch, havete. taken an altogether differentpproac route. between the two approaches the senate will vote on this week my some amendment and senator hedge'ss becau amendment. as i want to differentiate between the new puzzles well i we represent two-thirds. proposa later it's obviously idea. we will have to vote on both of these next week. balancing the box is a simples

equation based on the principle that the nation as tall figure and we have a reasonably low level. members of both parties. in number ofan steps further and seems to strengthen the government altogether. un notwi only does the requiredt in two-thirds majority to wave it of in case the national emergency and looks and special-interest tax weaken social breaks and could weaken social vast security, medicare and others supported by the vast majority of americans. by some analysts use. look i see my dear friend of floor cose of and i look forward to engaging with him over the course of this debate. the republican proposal prevents the government from spending prod which more than 18% of the gross than

domestic product which is less than the historical average. than it's been george bush spent, natio ronald reagan, and what is required to venetian santaf against serious attacks.hatch's quite simply my way of looking goes at this the alternative tentia proposal has gone too far and has the potential to the. what am i proposing? mistakem my amendment would allow us tohout take the mistakes in the last an decade with the new requirement it can handle hands in an class emergency. we can make it class. the balanced budget amendment

proposes incorporates a big duffy cents. a it seemed to be finding common ground both parties and a big majority of americans canrequirt support. it starts with a strictbooks. requirement from.ot 3/5 of the house and senate vote a to address serious down terms for a war candelaria urgency. t one of the worst mistakes congress made in the particular outreach. for example would prefer the ducks breaks. amo tax breaks to the wealthiest among us during times we areggregatiebt like n running deficits and hukill getting like never before.ial sec

is what i wanted to see that never again social security is used to remedy the budgeting problems.hould pa my proposal applies the principle that we should pay for our government in a responsiblen manner with waiver authority to be used only in exceptionalnkost circumstances americans could agree to that.colorada .. i encourage all of my colleagues to acknowledge that passing a balanced budget amendment will require some flexibility and cooperation. and my version is designed to do just that. it's meant to bridge the divide between us. mr. president, the american people are demanding that we ged our fiscal house in order --

get our fiscal house in order and as usual they're a few steps ahead of us. we have an opportunity here to catch up to the american people. so i'm here on the floor of the senate today to ask my colleagues of both parties and both chambers to support my proposal. as i've said, amending the constitution may not be the solution desired by many in this chamber, and it's not something to be done without great thought. and i therefore look forward to an honest and spirited dialogue about the balanced budget amendment. i look forward to discussing the best ways to dig ourselves out from under our suffocating debt in a way that will encourage investment and job creation and help americans and small businesses feel secure about their economic future. our children's future depends on it. mr. president, thank you for your attention. i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah.

mr. hatch: mr. president i care a great deal for my colleague from colorado, and appreciate hisxpla unless. >> unfortunately to ratchetwhat up spending and taxing in that is what we are trying to stock. that would be a band-aid on the system. it does not address the cause of the unbalanced budget. an amendment that does not limit spending, does not limit taxes, will never solve this crisis. is just that simple.hat and to use budget gimmicks gimmicks, mr. president want to begin by thanking the ranking member of the judiciary committee's senator grassley. his service on the committee

has been a w champion of theven limited government that is proving himself a strong advocate of constitutional government. of others. 47 to be exact. earlier today senator cornyn highlighted diminishably the threat that our debt poses to the liberty and prosperity of all of american citizens and though he has not spoken yet i know in advance of my colleague from utah, senator mike lee with whom i worked closely in drafting s.j. res. 10 will deliver powerful remarks in support of his amendment -- or this 578d, excuse me, and about the importance of restoring meaningful limits on the power of the federal government. mr. president, today we are engaged in an historic debate. you might not know it from the amount of time dedicated to the

subject, but i am confident when the history of our country is written today will be marked as a turning point. today was the day every republican in the senate stood up for a strong balanced budget amendment that will begin to restore this nation's fiscal integrity. and it is the day that conservatives stood up and supported a constitutional amendment that would reset the limit on the size and power of the federal government that has grown far too large. it is the day the people of this country stood up for serious constitutional limits on congress and the president which has spent with impunity for far too long. we're having this debate for a simple reason. our nation is now $15 trillion -- actually more than $15 trillion, going up every day -- in debt. this chart shows just how much it was just a few minutes ago. now, it's important to put this number in perspective. the nation achieved the

ignominious landmark of a trillion dollars deficit in president obama's third year in office. we're now in our third straight year of trillion-dollar deficits. the federal government is now borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends. the burden of this debt is more than $48,000 for every man woman, and child in america. the congressional budget office projects that interest payments alone on all this debt will total $4.5 trillion. crowding out all other -- or many other national priorities. for 2010, spending on interest on the national debt is greater than the funding for most other federal programs. just look at that. if you can see in one year spending on interest is greater than most programs,

$666 billion. $414 billion for interest expense. $173 billion for the department of labor. $129 billion for the department of agriculture. $108 billion for the department of veterans' affairs. just one other i'll mention $92.9 billion for the department of education. well the impact of this quickly escalating debt burden could prove catastrophic for economic growth and for america's families. in a letter to then-ranking member of the house budget committee, paul ryan, the congressional budget office determined that, quote beyond 2058 projected deficits in the alternative fiscal scenario become so large and unsustainable that could be c.b.o.'s model cannot calculate their effects" -- unquote. that ought to tell us something. in other words the c.b.o. model crashes when it even

attempts to calculate the impact of all this debt on economic growth. and yet all of these numbers might be understating the nation's debt burden. what happens if interest rates rise? right now they're at historic lows. but that will not always be the case. and we're figuring on historic lows right now as though they're going to continue. according to c.b.o.'s alternative fiscal scenario which is in fact our most realistic fiscal scenario, debt held by the public will reach 82% of g.d.p. by 2021. that's if they're right and they've never been right yet over the long term. they're always low. absent real fiscal reforms it will reach 100% of g.d.p. by 2035. but this does not tell the whole bleak story. the fact of the matter is when you include the i.o.u.'s the government has issued to itself intergovernmental

holdings our debt is already at 100% of g.d.p., larger than our entire economy. when are our friends on the other side going to start thinking about these things and start realizing they're taking us right down into bankruptcy in this country? now, this debt burden we have is simply not sustainable. if interest rates go back to their average in the 1990's, our public debt will increase by 77% over even these grim estimates i've just mentioned. we're spending at historic highs and going higher and with interest on the debt taking up a larger and larger share of spending, we need to be concerned we are entering a debt spiral from which we will have a difficult time extricating ourselves. for these reasons admiral mike mullen former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff concluded that our national debt

is the -- quote -- "to quote admiral mullen --" the biggest threat we have to our national security" -- unquote. standard & poor's issued an historic downgrade of u.s. treasuries this summer. the impact is more than action deputyic. it will lead to higher interest rates for all americans undermining the ability of people to purchase a home, buy a car or even start a business. and most importantly it will fundamentally alter the relationship of citizens to their government. it will further undermine personal liberty. it will lead to more government control of the economy and it will jeopardize the livelihoods of american business owners and workers as escalating debt and government spending embolden those who seek higher taxes for this liabathon. the solution is the balanced

budget amendment reported by every senate republican, all 47 of us. in the time i've been fortunate to serve the people of utah, i have sponsored five balanced budget amendments that hit the floor and been an original cosponsor of 18. these amendments have not been eye identical. their provisions have been honed over time. i'm confident this version strikes just the right balance. it is the right amendment for the right time. we face a crisis of spending and a government that is clearly exploded in size. this constitutional amendment is the only one that will be debated this week that actually addresses that crisis and would reduce the size of this leviathon government. the president has strongly opposed not only this balanced budget amendment but any balanced budget amendment. as he said -- quote -- "we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs." unquote. my goodness, that's what he said on july 15 of this year.

i'd like to spend a few moments considering the president's claim. the president claimed that a balanced budget amendment is not necessary because -- quote -- "the constitution already tells us to do our jobs and to make sure that the government is living within its means in making responsible choices." the president's spokesman jay carney elaborated in greater detail on why a balanced budget amendment is not necessary. according to him balancing the budget is -- quote -- "not complicated." all that is needed is that we put politics aside quit ducking responsibility, roll up our sleeves and get to work. yet, all i hear from the white house is we've got to have more taxes and more spending. this is the lament of the tough chooseer. jay carney's lament. let me say that again. this is the lament of the tough chooser, a term coined by the

journalist andrew ferguson. the tough chooser talks a lot about making tough choices but when it comes to making those tough choices the tough chooser goes missing. the tough choosers concerned about deficit and debt voted for obama care even though it increased spending by $2.6 trillion and taxes by over $1 trillion. tough choosers reject a balanced budget amendment because all that is really required in their view is tough choosing by legislators. the problem with this theory is the so-called tough choosers never step up. the past history of the balanced budget amendment is really all the evidence that we need that a constitutional amendment is required to force legislators and the white house to make these tough choices. given president obama's rejection of the balanced budget amendment, it is worth considering his own actions this year and his personal contributions to deficit reduction. that record is a weak one of denial and avoidance.

following the clear statement of the american people last november that washington needed to address deficits and debt, the president had the opportunity to lead with his fiscal year 2012 budget. yet, this is how "the washington post" described the impact of that budget. after next year -- quote -- "the deficit will begin to fall, settling around $600 billion a year through 2018, when it would once again begin to climb as a growing number of retirees tapped into social security and medicare." unquote. so the president who today is telling us that he and congress are willing to buckle down and make tough choices to balance the nation's books gave us a budget that did little to put this country on a path toward long-term fiscal sustainability. the president's budget landed with such a thud and was so unresponsive to the desire of the american people to tackle

the debt that it took an amalagon. in an april 13 speech at george washington university president obama offered a revised budget. true to form, he did not stick his neck out and actually offer anything that could be scored by the congressional budget office. yet, republicans did analyze the president's speech, and after stripping out the gimmicks and rosy scenarios they found far from making any tough choices his do-over actually added $2.2 trillion to the deficit. this avoidance of tough choosing by washington's tough choosers is unfortunately the norm. we have heard the president's argument before. i've heard it now for 35 years. maybe not just him but others as well. we hear it every time a balanced budget amendment comes to the

floor and is debated in the senate. the opponents claim that there is no need for a balanced budget amendment. all that is necessary is that we put politics aside and make the tough choices. so how is that working out for our country? when i introduced my first balanced budget amendment in 1979 the national debt was $827 billion. we thought that was astronomical. in 1982, when the senate passed a balanced budget amendment that i cosponsored the national debt had risen to $1.1 trillion. in 1986, when the senate failed by one vote to pass a balanced budget amendment that i cosponsored, the national debt topped $2.1 trillion. by 1997, when this body voted on a balanced budget amendment that i introduced, the national debt had passed the $5 trillion mark. today it's three times that amount over $15 trillion. look at it.

and this is low right now because it's going up every minute we talk here. the record is clear. absent the constitutional restraint of a balanced budget amendment, congress and the president do not make the tough choices. instead, they take the path of least resistance. they gladly disburse federal dollars today to grateful special interests and then figure out a way to pay for it tomorrow. except they never figure out the way. this is not the political and economic philosophy of america's founders who warned at the birth of our republic against debt and overspending. it is a political philosophy of j. wellington wimpy who would gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today. here he is. j. wellington wimpy. "i will gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today." the balanced budget amendment is

not an abdication of congress's responsibility. on the contrary, it would force congress to live up to its responsibilities. it would force congress and the president to make the choices about national spending priorities that they have thus far been unwilling to make. and i don't think there are many americans who question whether our fiscal situation would be better today if we had enacted and the states had ratified a balanced budget constitutional amendment when ronald reagan was president. this is where we are headed as a country if we don't get our fiscal house in order. there you go. we're headed off a cliff just like that vehicle right there. i could have put up a map of greece but that might have understatemented our predicament. yet, to hear the opponents of a balanced budget amendment talk, you would think that the real problem we face as a country is the amendment not the out-of-control spending that demands such an amendment.

these misplaced priorities fundamentally understate how much government spending is accelerating in this country and the threat of this spending poses, how much it poses for personal liberty. constitutionally limited government. and free enterprise. as i noted earlier our true debt burden is already 100% of g.d.p. already it's 100%. this is very dangerous territory, according to economist car men reinhart and kenneth rogoff, public debt burdens above 90% of g.d.p. are associated with 1% lower economic growth. i ask unanimous consent that a short article outlining their thesis be included in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i thank the chair. one might quibble with the particulars of reinhart's and rogoff's assessment, failure to take it seriously given the recent struggles of the euro

zone amounts to whistling past the graveyard. to be clear the long-term source of our fiscal problem is overspending not a lack of revenue. our friends at the heritage foundation have done an excellent job of putting all this spending into historical perspective. i would like to run through some charts highlighting how unusual and unsustainable recent levels of federal spending have become. any way you cut it, spending is up. federal spending for household is skyrocketing even with the $2.1 trillion in deficit reduction achieved by this summer's budget control act. there you go. inflation-adjusted dollars from -- actually 1965 right on up to the actual projected in 2010. think about that. in 1966, federal spending per

household was $11,431. that's right down there on the left. in 2010, it was $29,401 right there with the line down through it. and it is projected to hit $35,773 in 2020. that's per household. federal spending is growing faster than median income. look at the red line. that's total federal spending, going up plus 299%. median household income has gone up plus 27% in the same time period. federal spending that is far out of line with historical averages is the cause tpof our annual deficits and total debt not the much resraoeuld 2001 and 2003 tax relief extend bid president obama and a democratic congress. historically, as you can see

here revenues have averaged around 18% the bottom blue line. 18% of g.d.p. that is. as the economy recovers, c.b.o. projects revenues to return to that historical average. yet, spending as evidenced by the red line, the top line, is going higher and hire. the end result of all this spending is not pretty to look at. our national debt is going to skyrocket. you can see it there. it's going to, by 2050 up 344%. you can see in the war on terrorism, the yellow spot there in 2000, that's where we were at the time. the problem is that senate -- the senate republican balanced

budget amendment is meant to address its reckless spending. you'll hear many arguments today against this amendment. you will hear that it prevents tax increases. you will hear that it prevents deficit spending in an economic downturn. you will hear that it hamstrings the nation in times of military emergency and that it prevents spending in excess of 18% of g.d.p. it does no such thing. what it does do is require a broad national consensus before congress spends beyond its means. it makes certain that there is deep bipartisan agreement before raising taxes a provision the nation would have benefited from prior to the decision of the president and congressional democrats to drive through $1 trillion in obamacare tax increases on nearly party-line votes. tanned demands wide support for spending in excess of 18% of

g.d.p. as my friends at americans for prosperity put it in their letter of support for the republican proposal, the amendment -- quote -- "strikes a balance between allowing flexibility for some deficit spending in times of national emergency while requiring supermajorities in both chambers to do so." this assures citizens that the federal government will only run a deficit when there is a broad consensus that a genuine crisis demands it. unquote. that sounds like pretty good language to me. i ask unanimous consent that that letter from heritage be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. hatch haeufp mean the letter -- mr. hatch: i mean the letter from americans for prosperity. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: we will hear there is a reasonable alternative they offered but we need to understand this for what it is. it does thought put any spending limitations on congress. it leaves wide the door for massive tax increases to pay for levels of spending that are far outside of our constitutional

traditions. and even the requirement for balance that outlays not skpaoed revenues -- not exceed revenues lacks strength. the bottom line is there is no substitute for the strong balanced budget amendment being offered by the senate republicans. a number of pro-taxpayer groups committed to liberty and constitutionalism have written in support of our balanced budget amendment. let freedom ring, americans for tax reform, the national taxpayers union the 60-plus association, americans for limited government and the council for citizens against government waste just to mention a few. i ask unanimous consent that their letters of support be included in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: i'm pleased ed meese, dick thornburn and ken blackwell stood up in support of a strong balanced budget amendment. i ask unanimous consent that their op-eds be included in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: while a number of

liberal groups committed to more government spending lined up against our proposal, there is hardly a ground swell of support for the democratic alternative. the lack of support for thatproposal demonstrates more clearly than anything i can say that it is a proposal designed with politics in mind. it is designed to provide cover for members who want to say they support a balanced budget amendment while opposing the only amendment that would actually reduce government spending. the bottom line is that not all balanced budget amendments are created equal. the senate republican amendment is one to restore liberty and constitutional government by reducing the size and power of washington. by contrast, the democrats' alternative promises more of the same. it does nothing to rein in spending or address the fiscal crisis that this nation faces. the differences between these proposals highlight very clearly the distinctions between conservatives in congress and

the president and his supporters. though i am ever hopeful, i am realistic about the chances the senate will pass s.j. res. 10 tomorrow. i suspect that the vote for the senate republican amendment will be as low as any the senate has taken on a balanced budget amendment. this vote shows how stark the differences have become between the two parties. the democratic party is now openly the party of tax and spend, the party of bigger and bigger government. that is why today's debate and tomorrow's vote represents what ronald reagan called a time for choosing. as president obama speaks in kansas yesterday, he is not backing away from his goal of fundamentally reordering american society in a way that transforms individuals and businesses into the arms of the state. the president having completely abandoned the political middle and thrown in with the far left to secure his reelection is now

arguing that it is wrongheaded to believe that your success in life is owing to your own hard work. because the president seems to believe that individual success is ultimately not the result of personal effort but instead due to society adherence to and respect for property rights and the simple notion that one owns the fruit of one's labors becomes for him and his supporters a quaint art fact of artifact of an early point in american history. to succeed, the president has embraced the politics of envy and class warfare that is far outside the mainstream of our political heritage. the republicans' balanced budget amendment offers nothing so grandiose. all we seek is a restoration of some limits on the power of the federal government and meaningful reductions in spending.

we give the time to get there too, in our amendment. all we promote is a decent respect for the right to own -- to one's own wages and the freedom promised in our declaration of independence. the senate republican balanced budget amendment secures these blessings of liberty and i urge every one of my colleagues to support it. the opponents of this amendment will say that it is somehow improper to constitutionalize a requirement for a balanced budget amendment. or for a balanced budget, excuse me. hogwash. many of those same individuals did not bat an eye when the five justices on the supreme court rewrote the constitution to fit their own preferred policy goals. yet it is somehow inappropriate for the senate to send a balanced budget amendment to the people in the states for ratification. what are they afraid of? the constitutional ultimately belongs to the sovereign american people. it is only law because of their

sovereign acts of ratification and amendment. what are my friends on the other side afraid of? even if we pass this by two-thirds 67 votes in the senate, and pass it through the house, it still has to be submitted to the states for robust debate around this country by the people themselves. what's wrong with that? and if the democrats don't like having restraint put on their spending and taxing problems, all they have to do is get 13 states to reject this balanced budget amendment. why are they so afraid of that? i think we all know the answer to that. we all though that the states would -- we all know that the states would ratify this amendment because everybody is sick and tired of washington and the way this body continues to tax and spend