a specification, part of finding was overturned. that was always on the advice of a judge advocate would find plain legal error. >> what i will do wrap up quickly, i think that the hearing today shows that the first panel shows the need for the congress to be involved. i think these programs that you're coming up with have a great possibility to pay dividends. it is a culture problem and has to be changed. and all i would urge my colleagues to do there's been a long standing tradition in the military of allowing the commander this authority for the reasons just cited there. generally harding, i would like in private for you to offer to brief the members of the committee about the case. you briefed me. it's an interesting case. i would just ask every member of the committee to spend time, if you could, being briefed about the facts in that particular

case. but as to the climate in the military, the fact victims feel they can't come forward clearly this has to be addressed. i want to thank you, ma'am chairman for bringing this to the nation's attention. the committee's attention, and i look forward to finding a way to continue the progress it seems to be made. >> thank you senator graham. i am extremely disturbed based on the last rownld of question and answer that each of you believes that the convening authority is what maintains discipline and order within your ranks. if that is your view, i don't know how you can say in having 19,000 sexual say all assault and rapes a year is order. i don't understand how you can say of the 19,000 cases to have 2400 even reported because victims tell us they are afraid

to report because of retaliation and the blame they will get and the scorn they will get from the colleagues is order and discipline. i can't understand how 2400 cases only 240 of which go to trial can be result in you believing that authority is give you discipline. and order. it's the exact opposite of discipline and order. and i'm grateful for the changes that have been made. each of you gave opening testimony that was very strong and thoughtful about the kinds of changes you are making. i appreciate it. but i heard from each of you there's a zero tolerance. i appreciate that i hear from each of you about the training you are giving your lawyers, and the training that you are giving your prosecutors, and the trains dwhriew are giving your advocating and that is all well and good. if the convening authority is the only decision maker of whether a case goes to trial or proceeds and the only decision maker about whether to overturn a case, well, then all the training and all the excellent

lawyers and prosecutors so you don't mean a difference. it doesn't make a difference. because the person with the authority is not the one who has that years of training in terms of legal ability and discretion and the understanding of the nature of a rape. that is violent crime. it's not ask her when she's sober. it's no what the issue is about. so i appreciate the work you are doing. i honestly do. but it's not enough. and if you think you are achieving discipline and order with your current convening authority framework, i'm sorry to say you are wrong. and every victim that dmom front of the committee and every story we have heard over the weeks and months shows that we have not even begun to address this problem. so to lieutenant general harding, let's talk about the

case. do you think justice was done in that case? >> i think that the convening authority reviewed the facts and made an independent determination. that was his obligation as given to him by this body. granted it was 65 years ago, but fulfill a statutory obligation. he did so with integrity. >> and do you think the five senior officers that were the jury in that trial did not do justice? >> i can't say that they did not, ma'am. i think both a jury and convening authority did their duty. >> as they reached the opposite decision, in one instance justice was not done. which instance to you believe justice is was not done. >> i'm not going conclude that justice was or was not done. all parties did their job for my

review. all parties did what they were asked to do by the law. >> one of the parties was wrong. and if you are the victim in that case, to have gone through eight months of testimony of providing evidence, i can assure she did not believe justice was done. i'd like to move forward questions concerning how we can evaluate a stronger system. mr. taylor, what do you think of the case? >> i am very concerned about the message received as a result of that case. to backup just a little bit, each of the people at this table gave a response to senator

graham's question, but except for me. i believe that we have to look very carefully about whether there is a continuing value to the authority providing to the -- to reject findings of a military trial of a court-martial. as senator eleven indicated the there is a very robust system of appellate rights that are available to protect the accusers. and i think we have to very carefully reconsider whether there need to be changes to article 60, whether there needs to be further guidance on how

article 60 is to be deployed. but the secretary has charged me to take a thorough and open and searching look in to the continued need for article 60 as it exists today. and i intend to do so. it will be informed certainly by the experience of the very fine lawyers and leaders. and by others to make sure that we don't do damage to good order and discipline. but there is something that seems odd about the power to reject findings that came out of a jury in the absence 77 some

major obvious problem. so i'm concerned by the mess thaj is received. i think we have to redouble our efforts to make sure that victims are willing to come forward. and are willing to entrust the military justice system. i think we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that victims feel supported, and respected and honored for to service they're doing. by coming forward, and saying no. >> thank you. i have many other questions i'll submit for the record for each of you. our next senator is senator

blumenthal. >> first of all, let me thank senator gillibrand not only for the focus on the issue and convening this hearing, but also for the passion and commitment you bring to the issue which i share. and let me begin by saying that you have all given very thoughtful and informed answers, and if i might say border like answers which is to say caution and careful. this issue really demands immediate action. not just tinkering around the edges of young in my first visit to afghanistan. i've been there three times. my mission was to find out what could be done to protect our

military men and women against the ied that continued to cause more than half of all of our casualty. and we have since dealt with that problem more effectively through a combination of body armor, better equipment to detect them, a -- range of actions. when i first visited camp, i was shown what the marine corps. was doing in the absence of the body armor about measures that took time to do. they have rigged up ten-foot long pole with what looked like the end of a coat hanger. which they used very effectively to detect roadside bombs. because they couldn't wait. this problem is equivalent of an ied in every unit of every armed forces. it is the equivalent of a

immessly destructive force. which the case has brought to the publics' attention in a dramatic way. much like the photograph of a roadside bomb going off in the iraq or afghanistan. but i think it is equally potentially disruptive to the good order and displane and most especially to recruitment, to retention, of the best and the brightest and the bravest. that you now have. and i couldn't agree more, lieutenant general harding with that all of those elements are necessary. but people ultimately are our greatest asset in the military. and as i said this morning, i don't know how many of you were here, i truly believe we have the best and the brightest and

the bravest now. and the next greatest generation in the military. we need to continue to attract and retain them. which is why the issue is so important and why the lack of effective action will be the equivalent of an ied for our armed forces. my view is we need to do more than tinkering around the edge of the system. we need do it reform right away. and, you know, chairman levin asked a thought of question about the convening authority's power to overturn a conviction and even we were to remove that power, in my view, it would not really deal with some of the systemic shortcomings of the system. which are not your doing. in part, they're our doing.

one is the lack of sufficient resources. i know, as a prosecutor to gain a conviction, you need evidence. for sufficient evidence that is conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, which is by no means an easy standard, you need really expert investigative elements. and we have an obligation to provide you with those resources. as well as to assist you in dealing with this issue by helping to reform the system. so i want to begin by asking you, mr. tailor, you know, you have a panel, you have various ideas, you said you're considering them. what is your time table? the secretary has directed me to provide relimb their assessment

of need for change and article 60. and the nature of any such changes by march 27th. the panel is necessarily on a much longer time frame. it is a panel that is mandated by the 2013ndaa foreign members are the panel are to be appointed bit chairman and ranking of the senator and services committee and house armed services committee. and so it's -- it will be subject to -- i believe and is on a much more extended time frame. we'll do an internal effort and then will will be this external

independent effort panel. and that, of course, time frame ultimately is up to you. >> is your assessment something that you can share with us at the end of the month? i assume it's nancy march 27th of this year. >> yes. it's up too the secretary. >> i would like to make a request on my behalf others may join. in asking that it be made available. on march 28th or as soon as possible. i don't have authority to issue republicans the -- subpoenas i way did as a prosecutor, i hope the secretary of defense will share the sense of urgency we have in moving forward as quickly as possible. you have been asked about the rate convictions are overturned. do you have any number of rate

of conviction where courts marshall are convened on sexual assault cases? >> i believe that each of the service provided that during the answer. i didn't write down, but very low specifically in cases involving sexual assault. >> can you give me an explanation. i'm not, unfortunately, my team has expired. i have one last question for you. i have others i want to submit for the record. as to why the rate of conviction are so low? the rate of conviction. unfortunately -- well, sexual assault is can be a difficult charge to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt. i think that many of the efforts you have heard about in improving the professionalism and the resources available for sexual assault cases, the creation of special victims prosecutors, and that capability. the increased support to victims may result in improvement until the conviction rate. it's a hard -- it can be hard to . >> well, my time is expired i will submit questions. i would respectfully suggest that the issue be part of the preliminary assessment submitted to the secretary of defense and us. i thank you all for your extraordinary service to our nation. none of this is personal to you or the military, i hope you understand. i firmly believe that you will

solve the problem. you have been so effective at solving similar issues whether they are cultural or strictly logistical or otherwise military in our mystery. and thank you for our -- your service. >> thank you, madam chairman. and thank you to the testifiers. we heard from witnesses this morning, i'm sure you may have been in the audience listening to the testimony from them where they describe going through a very difficult process even reporting their sexual assaults. and you testified this afternoon on the various programs, training, education, your efforts to change the culture in the military. my question is do you know whether all of the focus will to scare chaingt culture to provide

the kind of support, education, and whether that's working? do you ask the victim, the survivors whether the programs are working for them? i talk to survivors on a regular basis. we have other informal mechanisms such as in an anonymous safe help lynn. we had tens of thousands of calls in to over two years sister it's been in effect. one of the things we have been hearing fairly recently in those sorts of informal feedback is that they are encouraged bit reforms, initiative, and programs put in place. but it's something that we need remain persistent on.

we have positive feedback on the training that has been essentially revamped in the past year. the powerpoint slides,ic you heard about this morning are done. they are over. there's no training that solely consistencies of powerpoint slides. they are interactive. they involve in some cases victim testimony. scenario driven discussions. videos that are presented, ethical decision scenarios that presented. i mean, i've been a part of training in multiple different levels and bases, and this is revamped training we're getting good feedback on. it's having some effect in terms of pushing this interest awareness, and education not only at the top level but pushing it through the ranks to the bottom to the influence leaders that we really truly need to effect we're going make this enduring culture chain. >> and i would say that's probably a long process.

in the meantime, we also heard a suggestion today that we should take off the decision to prosecute to investigate from the chain of command and go to an impartial kind of an adjudicatory system and decision making. i would like to ask you can if you can briefly comment on -- do you see do you foresee major problems with that route. other countries have gone that route. either one of or the other? >> i'll answer it first and pass it down. i'm the only nonlawyer sitting at the table. i have commanded infran -- infantry for seven and a half years. i'm speaking from command perspective. my point of view, we want commanders involved not excess. we want commanders paying attention to victims. we want commanders caring for

them, taking the report seriously. we want commanders paying attention to crimes, and other acts of discipline and harassment and derogatory language and the things along the continuum. we want commanders paying attention. we want commanders setting standards for what is acceptable and not acceptable in a unit. where dignity and respect are the only stand in how we treat one another. we want commanders doing that. and, you know, as a commander, i'm responsible for the health and welfare of my men and women in my unit. i take that as my ultimate responsibility and take it very seriously. but both men and women in combat with the same responsibility. and so, you know, we expect and hold commanders accountable for establishing standards in the unit, and then holding people accountable that did not meet the standards. whether they be standards of performance or standards of behavior, and as a commander, i want to know 0, you know, who that offender and perpetrator is

described. that person is degrading the readiness of my unit. it's committing a crime against another human being in my unit. i feel we need commanders very involved in this. >> i think i they should be involved. should there the basically judge and jury? i think that's the question that we are confronted with. and if one -- if you would like to . >> senator, if i can add. >> i visited my counter part that run the system in u.k. and canada and australia. i have visited every one of the judge advocate general from the respective armed forces. the model we have is not a model to which we should aspire this they are not comfortable in any way, way, shape, or form the size, length, or employment. when we have 300,000 shoulders in two theaters of operation in afghanistan and iraq. we need system that punishes

swipt swiftly. under the direction and control and focus of the responsible commander. >> that's it. because we have a huge number of people who are serving, and thousands and thousands of them are being assaulted through the information from pentagon. so this continues, and i would say that we do need to acknowledge and face some facts. i do commend all of you for the work you're doing address what is a large issue. and in fact one of the testifiers mentioned that getting convictions or pursuing sexual assault casings are very -- cases are difficult. it becomes she said, she said or he said he said. that kind of situation. i have some experience in having to actually change a law in hawaii when i was in the state

legislature the law allowed for the victims and the survivors to be revictimmized. which is what we're hearing time and time again from our testifiers this morning. i think that this is a situation another situation where the actual underlying law and the authority probably needs to be addressed. and mr. taylor, i think i heard you say that the authority of the convening officer to be able to just undue a decision, a court-martial decision you think that in the situation where we do have a robust appellate process available to defendants in the military that perhapses this kind of an authority to overturn a decision should not rest in one person's sense who may not have any kind of legal training nap is what we're talking about. these are legal results. these are legal processes.

in my view, anybody what is going overturn a legal process should have legal background. than is not the case. and i'm glad that this does not happen frequently which says to me that perhaps question e eliminate the particular authority on the part of the convening authority. >> we will take a -- yes. we will take a very hard look at that. absolutely. committed to doing so and directed by the secretary to do so. and we will, as i indicated, i have a deadline imposed on me by the secretary of march 27th to give a preliminary assessment. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> thank you. we also have a deadline set by secretary of deference to the secretary of air force of 20th. we have one week to let him know

what our thoughts are. >> thank you. senator ayacht. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. this important issue which -- we we have got address. s if undermining, as you mentioned our readiness, our military is totally unacceptable. it's not consistent with the the greatest military an earth. i want to ask about a gao report issued in january, and mr. taylor, the gao report found that military health care providers don't have a consistent understanding of their responsibilities in caring for sexual assault victims, and because the department has not established guidance for the treatment of injuries stemming from sexual assault.

there are certainly specific steps of care if someone is a victim. steps that have to be taken to protect the considerablety. and steps need to be taken to preserve evidence if they choose between to report we obvious hope they are able to do that report there. victimization and the crime that's been committed against them. where are we in light of the gao report, do you have any established guidance from dod for the treatment of injuries that could be transmitted to medical providers so they properly treat victims of sexual assault in the military? >> senator, i believe that general p -- would be in a better fogs answer the question. >> yes, we have a department instruction. it's very close to being reissued as revised

instruction. a revised instruction i expect them to be out by the end of the month. and the revised instruction addresses in detail some of the inconsistencies that were found in the gao report. i personally have read the gao report and looked at both the two enclosure, seven and eight, i brought them with me here. if you are interested in having them. they are enclosure in the revised instruction which will address the specific points that you were mentioning. ..

but like any other sea, policy only as good as the paper assigned. promulgated and enforced and there has to be training based in that policy and of the medical community i know her assistant secretary has confirmed the surgeon generals, all the services and they are focused on addressing the point in ensuring those changes to privacy are promulgated in that inaction action as soon as

possible. >> general, in formulating the policy, before being msn at iowa is an attorney general. for example, my state there was specific guidance issued from the attorney general's office after having brought together stakeholders including physicians, the dems, basically all stakeholders in formulating line for us to make sure they were appropriate, that favorite area of not sending from the top down, top down, they came from really getting the stakeholders who are involved in that, to make sure they are. how did the process you undertook to put this together, would issue console? there are very good models for this kind even in the civilian. i wonder if you consulted any of those. >> is a very collaborative

process. they were involved in this particular portion of policy. the health affairs staff was involved and we do concur with the experts in the field. one of the women on my staff has been involved in the advocacy and has been working side-by-side in the frontlines of the advocacy and care for vic is for much of her adult life. another women in the formulation of policy was the response coordinator of the year for the air force and has a lot of hands-on experience in dealing with the difference in getting them through not only the difficult step, but also into the medical system as well. i'm pretty comfortable that it's been a broad collaborative

process. like i said, the inconsistencies identified in the gao report, i've made a comparative look return the gao report and then will we have had to revise and i believe it does cover all those areas. >> so when will this be issued? and what are the implementation plans? one of the issues here this morning from the panel of the guns was the culture issue. this is only one component of the culture issue, but how do you implement guidelines to make sure dems are also receiving proper treatment and respect within the medical system? >> the first up is the policy. we expect to have this from the opposite management and promulgated by the end of the month. that's the first i appear the policy then -- the department policy has to be taken by the

services and promulgated in some fashion. this case being a medical component, i would expect the surgeon general would be issuing guidance and reinforcing guidance on those aspects within the service. education programs have to be based on changes in policy so people can be educated and other status of performance of medical practice and care for all types of survivors. lastly it is an assessment said, which is to say we should be out there and we need to be out there identifying how these policies of medical practitioners. i know her assistant secretary of health affairs has a plan he has shared with me.

i don't have a timeline, but he has a plan wants his policies promulgated in education and so forth to audit various medical communities to ensure the standards are being applied and victims are being cared for is the demand. we also hear from the survivors. i disseminate survivors in my office and one of the survivors shared with me a typical tale of how she was treated in the emergency room in a military hospital. those types of inputs are important to how we go about this. >> thank you, general peter i would ask which you provide that policy to the committee. and i would also lastly she provided to the action implementation plan so they can follow up on this issue. thank you for being here. appreciate it. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you.

after meeting with you in many of your colleagues, i've gotten much more familiar with the cmj. i actually downloaded on my ipod and now have it as a nap. i keep coming back to the structure that is very strange the more i think about it. i've tried every criminal case there is come up from a shoplifting burglary to a capital murder and in the criminal justice system cannot we build a fence around the factfinders. we make sure the evidence figure is relevant and judges are in charge of making sure the evidence is relevant and the rules are followed and generally in our system, the only people that can overturn the factfinders are people who of us are the witnesses. unless there is a legal problem without the trial was actually

conducted. your system is much different. in your system, a defendant can refuse to take the stand, which is certainly their right and therefore their character doesn't come in definites because the only way someone's character comes into evidence is if they place it. they are listening to the facts of the case. nowadays bizarre to me that would not be so fair, you begin a clemency process. i'm going to read the quote from the vic done about the clemency process. the comments he process is a travesty. the vast majority of the statements were personal attacks on the judge, the prosecutors than me. a few are actual clemency letters stating the relationship please think of his family, it

better. many of them, especially from the pilot community and their wives or caustic, rich relic letters alleging the system is corrupt and the child was not legitimate. prosecutors are bowling and unethical on the panel by us because they want pilots. the judge made bad decisions. i am a liar, unprofessional. this information goes to this general and he is to look at that contemporaneously with supplanting his judgment for the factfinders. there is no good reason for that. i can't think of one and i would love it if one of you would tell me why in our system after the appeal is finished then there's an opportunity for clemency by an executive authority to commute the sentence, to pardon

someone, but not prior to a decision on whether the case was in fact connect it legally. how can someone's judgment about the factual determination in that case be clear if they are being bombarded with evidence of character of the defendant who had taken a stand for an opportunity of fat binders for his care are to be cross-examined. i would like some explanation is enhanced by the ability of the mixing of those very different deliberations. >> senator, they too try first on the question. we have two distinct suspects on

the findings and sentence. the clemency of course extends to sentence revision in some cases an example might delay the imposition of forfeitures nor part of the sentence to provide continued support financially of the accused family of the spouse and children. that is one aspect or clemency is appropriate from the outset. clemency might be appropriate to address illegal error identified either by the judge during the course of the trial on his or her review, that we know we'll be taking care of by the appellate court. why not clean that up with the action by the convening authority. >> and understand the point you made, there will have to be a stronger argument than that for me not to come down on the side

that clemency belongs at the end of the legal determination, not in the middle of it. i am not somebody who built these days somebody who hasn't heard the evidence presented should be making a determination under this sign that your. a transcript never tells the full story. that's why we have trials. to supplant the judgment for the people who heard the testimony, particularly in these cases because these cases are he said, she said. these are all about believability of the witness and juries are very good at sniffing out this time the truth. i'm not sure a general far removed with no legal training contemporaneously with a dry transcript is given the right information to make the decision that will be for the good order and discipline of the hole. so that is one issue.

another issue i have is that if this power, this amazing power that is given this one individual is about the good of the whole, and we talked about face, general, and my office is general welsh. it appears to me that the general has really failed. if the decision is to have the ability of looking at the good of the whole, i don't think anyone will argue this decision has been terrible for the whole. this decision has turned the military on a theater as it relates to the justice system contained therein. he was not looking to go to the hole. the irony is the very power he has is because of the good of the whole, begat he us narrowly

looking at the facts and evidence in this case and making a decision that we may be back to tailhook at this point in terms of the work you try to do too that the air force forward. mr. taylor, could you comment as to whether or not these cases are being decided on an individual basis of whether or not this good as a whole is being considered. if it's about the good of the whole, i don't know we are doing a very good job this problem it says pervasive in getting worse and not necessarily better. >> senator, i think you have a very good point. it's entirely possible and it's entirely possible there is a disconnect between the rationale for this authority, which is the good of the whole and how it has

come to be utilized. that is one of the things that will need to consider in making my preliminary assessment. but it is a serious issue and it requires a very serious response and hard thinking and i commit to you that i will think hard about that. i think it's a very good point. >> mai tai miss out. they first make sure, if everyone seen on the panel? general ary, i was certain i'd like from you what if any action at the good of the unit have been to any command the military barracks here in washington as a result of the incident. you don't have to tell me now, but i am dying to know what commander was relieved, what

commander was dismissed. clearly the facts around the case has serious implications beyond the sexual soul. i will never look a friday night ceremonies began after seeing that movie and on behalf of the marines, i would think there would be a deep desire to clean that up and show that it is a new day at the washington barracks. >> yes, ma'am. i will get you that response. >> i have a long list of others about investigators in specialized training. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator mccaskill. the second round because there's interest by senator sitting here. mr. taylor, we packed about how other nations have addressed their previous practices of the convening authority. have you had an opportunity to study what they did in those

jurisdictions and whether it had any beneficial effect on increasing the amount of reporting, prosecutions, did it have any effect on unit cohesion come again in a row, did they feel like and to supplant the convening authority clinics >> i've done a little reading on the topic, but as i understand it, the rationales for the actions taken in canada and in great written and some other countries has been focused on protecting the accused and it is to provide a further layer of insulation for the benefit of the accused and whether it has had any act at all on sexual

assault, i don't know. i planned to be talking with counterpart and try to gather some of that information over time. not for the 27th. >> , to talk with each of you about the real challenge of underreporting. and it totally, listening to testimony this morning, each of the incentive they had not decayed early on to tell me what my race where, to stand by, have some authority if i knew i could transferred immediately or the perpetrator could be transferred immediately might give me the courage to stand at 30, 60, 90 days to have a repeated. if i new my allegations to be taken seriously and had a chance to perpetrator could be convicted and held accountable, i might've been willing to

report. to make each of the services to tell me their view of why they think they're so little underreporting and a little more than half our assault against man. if only 2400 is restricted, that's a terrible rate. what do you think the reasons are? was a pm to address it? what is the most important reform is better to increase the number of reports for the sexual souls. >> is one of the reasons we structure that program. that's one of the reasons we structure this special but his counsel program. the majority, the survey tells us our sexual results are not reported. we believe that the dems believe

there is somebody on their side as they go through this complicated process that can be very exhausting, that will see more of them come forward. that's our hope in part. also, when we look at fy 11, the last batch of statistics we gave you, we noticed in the unrestricted reporting site to read 29% of verdict comes who said i want to cooperate with law enforcement cannot walk away and refused to cooperate before the court house story. so we believe that health status encouraged and emboldened to feel less like they've been victimized by that process and they've got somebody there to explain why things are happening the way they are. so i believe there's multiple reasons why people do not report. we know one of them that this is

a difficult process to get through. that's the reason to let you know what that survey revealed and told us among the various reasons why people don't report. >> lieutenant general chipman. >> senator, to follow in the general harding said, these are the most difficult obligations to share with anyone. these fire bodily integrity. there's a nontrivial but it's there in a great desire for privacy to avoid general knowledge among unit members in the community of the of thing inflicted upon them. i think what's different about military service is, the idea you take on this member of the team cohesion, good order, discipline was shown very well

in the documentary the scene. one of the biggest was the assault, but the attitude when it was reported in the lack of support in the finalization of the fundamental belief they were part of a team that would take care of them do not allow this to happen. i think that still plays out in the underreporting. >> vice admiral. >> yes, ma'am. i agree with general chipman and general harding as well. it comes down to the dems knowing they will be supported and cared for through the process. we are in the process of hiring professional full-time advocates, which is different than having a lawyer's third. we are striving to form between prosecutors and investigators to work with the big unseat come forward in a construct of

cohesive way. we're watching with interest the air force pilot on what a special but don't discount the role could be within the system where we don't have one very well defined, that they would not supplant a victims advocate. we ought to institute could approve 79 of them. none were disapproved and if the command of clients, the request goes to know declamations. i think the training we've devised informed the march. by the experiences she is so powerfully in the invisible water is talking at the level for people to understand the resources available, what actually happens when an allegation is made. commanders soon investigate and

that's been given immediately to ntis. commander support the dems. they need to be mindful of the due process of the accused and initiate an investigation. the training has gone to great lengths to dispel myths about this kind, to ensure people understand them as a crime that involves men as well as women, to ensure we protect the most vulnerable among us, that we have the proper training for investigators, lawyers, first responders. we have hotlines that can be reached are taxed, through phone, or e-mail. restrict good reporting is something that i know is difficult to completely understand. the truth is to give options to come forward. ideally we want people to come forward and make an unrestricted report so we can pursue

accountability aggressively. but not everyone as we heard this morning so difficult to come forward, the courage to come forward, trust to come forward. we are working to earn not. until we do and until an individual finds the courage by the people around them, they have the ability can make a restrictive report, which allows them to get medical care, counseling a victims support without going through the accountability process. it is our hope that i support they will find courage to change into an unrestricted. >> attends expired so i will turn now to senator graham. >> thank you. this is an emotional topic so i'll be pushing back some of the things said. having said that, please do not mistake pushback for an understand and the sexual

assaults in the military need to be addressed to me to improve beyond the current system because what we have today is not working. whether or not we the good order and well disciplined military, i would see the answer is yes. you see it in the way they conduct themselves in battle. the enemies of this nation have never faced a finer military force and exist today and we have problems. human beings involved in our military and that's no justification when people act badly in poorly. i want america to know the best test of discipline is from the flag or balloon goes up. we are the best in the world. now, the idea that fighter pilots take care of fighter pilots. we'll take care about that a little bit.

do you know the convening authority quick >> i do. >> is there any suggestion that he set aside the findings because at the career field use on a personal relationship with the accused quakes >> absolutely not. he does not know the accused. >> you may not agree with the general dead, but i actually know these people. they take this job very seriously, and sending people into combat. they take their job seriously as a convening authority to make sure for the missing question justice is rendered. we talk about a handful of convening authority actions given thousands of cases. please don't over indict the system. mr. taylor, i want you if he could to the people in your office to review every convening authority in the military in

terms of special court-martial convening authority and see if you can find somebody who's not up to the task because i believe, ladies and gentlemen that are commanders who get to this rank had been chosen for a reason. now, the problem of reporting sexual in the military, mr. patten, is it any greater in the military and the civilian community? >> chairman connie c. they are on par in both sectors. >> i would say what happens in the civilian community in this area is probably duplicated. i promise you this. there is no cd, no state, no county is going to take it more serious than the man in women

before you. when it comes to defending the military had been a defense counsel and a prosecutor. the civilian world the one thing i never have to worry about defending a military member is cost. i didn't have any overhead to pay anything at hundreds of cases. as the military prosecutor i spend an ordinary amount of time preparing the case that her civilian colleagues and the. either district attorney is that they're not bringing my cases they should quakes absolutely. i just want people to understand in the military justice arena it is a focused effort to get this rate. the defense counsel is an independent chain. i was on 60 minutes trying to take drug labs down that the air force had created that that was producing false positives

they've waited 60,000 results because they were. my boss had met back in the military judge was a real hero. the only thing i can say is that the purpose of this hearing is a good purpose. people are not feeling comfortable with telling what's going on in the unit regarding sexual is sold. convening authorities is not what i see here. i see the system broke in and i do believe if you're going to give a man or woman that powered to send someone in idle and go in die that we should trust their judgment when it comes to that unit. that is just my personal bias. having said that, there's a tremendous amount to build here. i look forward to working with you and the administration to find ways to make the system work better. madam chairman, this is a

difficult issue, but let's please -- i want you to read if you can a summary of the case. you may not come out with what the convening authority did, but i just don't believe he did it in a cavalier fashion. i just don't believe that. finally, mr. taylor as we go forward, what can we do an terms of sequestration? i mean, we are talking as if nothing else is going on out there. everyone is doing more with less. there's less lawyers, more responsibility. so please tell us what you need in terms of -- it to enhance these programs and i think everybody on this committee and senator mccaskill you've been terrific about focusing on this. let's find out what we need the resource and make this a priority because i will end with

this thought. foment a military and in our victims, too. if you really believe there is no place for you to go and are being abused, that's got to be the worst possible feeling in the world. i would not what one member of my family to live under those conditions. so this command climate is beginning to change. nobody wanted to talk about it. nobody wanted to embarrass the command. they wanted to show this stuff under the rug. i believe the new day is here and all i ask is when they find a new way forward duracell preserve the ability of the system to judge every individual case based on the individual fax that we don't paint with a broad rash. everybody is guilty. thank you very much. >> i for sort the agree with

senator graham, the first part of the statement. i'm compelled to be passionate about this because i agree with him. we are the best in the world and my comment about the overall health and good order and discipline of the internet is based on what i believe is a military that is grappling with the problems the military knows he don't have under control. i don't think i've seen anything that most of you don't agree with. i think you know we need to do better. i think you know there's someone out there that feel like because of the facts and circumstances of military service, their ability to get a piece of justice is amended. i know you all want them to. i don't think there is a significant disagreement between

senator graham and me about that. i just think some of the convening authority's power does not appear to be rational to me particularly the way it's set up in terms of the order of things and the ability, which i think most of you are comfortable with the notion that will say this can be done for no reason at all. as general welsch said to me, we are not in a time where dragging people out of prison because many of the warm body. some of these will stay from that time when you didn't have to give any reason at all. i think you explained to me why it was no reason at all. it came from another general eisenhower in a hearing might face or some thing to that effect. let me talk about a couple things i want to get to.

it is my understanding that if a member of the military mr. a security clearance than the self-report counseling around their sexual assault and they do not have to report for combat related issues, grefer family matters. is that true, mr. taylor? >> it generally is true. there's different interpretations, but generally that is accurate. i think very serious issues of question 21 and i were just like to say that the issues are not the men in to those who i receive a daycare that we want them to receive. that is true whether the need for care is the result of

assault or something else. i personally am concerned about question 21 and would like to see some action on it. >> i think we need to look at that because if you're you look at someone's mental health, what you're really saying is if your issues come from, where private and your family, that doesn't have security clearance. but if you've been a victim it does. i can't imagine any of you agree with that outcome. does anybody think that is right for a fair? okay so be sure and let us know if you have a problem with the second that because i want to get that change right away. that was the woman in the military and had a security clearance, that would impact my willingness to come forward in my willingness in terms of giving up my career. what about the situation earlier

if we have probable cause and a sound criminal investigation and the jags are recommending to the convening authority do we go to court-martial proceeding, why are we so focused about moving to the town? by removing the perpetrator at that point? >> senator, we've authority to move the perpetrator to commander installation or unit within the discretion of the chain of command so that is an available option. don't make it more tedious in the sense of the proceedings would have to go forward of any motions hearing so you have to use that back and forth to the deletion holding the court-martial. certainly it's optional to chain of command authority. >> ft bsa would be for the in terms of potentially, although i guess you say defense lawyers could go wherever she is for

interviews? >> that's correct, senator. >> to me, once you've crossed the line of probable cause, the least disruption should occur to them that done, not the alleged perpetrator. that's certainly the way it is in the civil system. they have to bail out under reporting to the pretrial or they are held in jail to stay away from the gun. the notion that david dunn and alleged perpetrator are shoulder to shoulder during this period of time it's going to impact quality of cases to get prosecutions. houston in the process for each branch of the military to your criminal investigators have contact with the prosecutors

that would be responsible for trying the case? if you go down the line in time if you don't know say that. he knows within 30 days or week% requirement to check in immediately her number, i think some scenes from each branch closely dovetails by the investigative efforts with the advice and counsel of a prosecutor is going to direct the evidence in trial. >> thanks, senator. in the case of the coast guard, the contact is almost immediate because of the way a reporting system works, it will, the same chain of the oil spill. those networks are used as well as our attorneys and district league offices or area of the are notified through the communication network immediately. >> is about the same for the air

force. when i was in that role at base level, we knew a report within 24 hours. the last ship with the investigators is immediate. we provide a list of elements they need. they report back to us as the investigation is on going and later we hold in a trial counsel. we've got eight of them that are dedicated to prosecuting sexual assault cases. >> senator, part of our special victim capability is a prosecutor and the assault investigator. a best practice is to have our prosecutor located in the offices of theirs that immediate bloodshed so critical to protecting cases from the outside. >> yes, ma'am, we have that as

well. spin megastars at day one and leo said investigators embedded within the continue to work a liaison as they develop the case in evidence. >> thank you for your patience. one last question if any of you have a good reason why there should be a different period of time you'd keep the restricted report this is not restricted report. i would like all of you for the record to let us know what attempts are made formally when you get a new report on the alleged perpetrator to go back and look at report and we contact victims on reports that the news has been another gunman had to changed their mind. you don't need to do that now, but i want that for the record because i know from experience when a woman does there has been someone else victimized after

her, it changes your perspective about the importance of stepping forward. i want to make sure we have a system in place that is accessing those records quickly and getting back to visit comes as quickly as possible and securing cooperation going forward against defendants. i know you all are trying hard and another general who made the decision i absolutely do not think he did that maliciously or cavalierly, but i think it's time to take a hard look at whether or not the rules of the road can be adjusted to still give the unique aspect of military justice that it deserves. i'm not saying i should be like the criminal system, but there do seem to be some things that make no sense i hope rather than a pushback for the military, we'll get your cooperation supported achiness changes. thank you very much.

>> thank you offer testimony today. i'm very grateful for her determination to solve this problem. there's no problem the military can't solve that puts its mind to it. thank you for your commitment today and thank you for working with this committee going forward. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations].

>> for years, four long years. t that's on kentuckians and americans from coast to coast have had to leave for senatebie. democrats to vote for the most basic of legislativend responsibilities.ey later today, we hope, that while they will come to an end when bt they finally release budget so far, it's obvious why they've refused to release one for so many years. we hear it won't prevent programs like medicare from going bankrupt. we hear it contains yet more wasteful -- quote -- stimulus spending, spending that turns out to be a lot more effective for generating jokes for

late-night comedians than jobs. in order to finance more spending we hear it relies on more than $1 trillion -- that's a trillion with a "t" -- in new taxes, including on the middle class. remember, washington democrats already got more than $600 billion in taxes this year. so where's this new revenue going to come from? charities? the home mortgage interest deduction? will they go after families and small businesses yet again? at least there's one thing we almost certainly know. their budget will never balance. not today, not tomorrow, not ever. if that was my vision for the country, frankly, i'd want to hide from the american people too. look, a budget like that would

be an unmitigated disaster for our country. it would betray those who are going to need medicare when they retire. it would betray the younger americans who would be forced to grapple with the consequences of democrats' failure to get serious about the debt. it would betray the hardworking middle-class families that simply can't afford higher taxes, especially in the obama economy. and if that's really the kind of budget senate democrats plan to offer, it would sacrifice america's hopes for sustained economic recovery at the altar of higher taxes and bloated, unaccountable government. it would also draw an important contrast with the budget republicans put forward yesterday. because here's the thing, republicans believe we should be growing the economy, not the government. growing the economy, not the

government. and the house republican budget reflects just those priorities. it's a budget that does something else too. it actually balances. it actually balances. that's important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it would help unleash economic growth and bring down our country's massive, massive debt load. interest payments on the national debt alone are set to exceed everything we spend on defense. interest on the national debt is going to exceed everything we spend on defense in just a few years' time. so the path we're on is clearly not sustainable. with that in mind, i hope democrats will offer something serious today rather than what i hear may be the case. i hope they face up to the fact that they already got the revenue they're going to get. they already got the revenue they're going to get. so they can start dealing with the real issues that are leading us to fiscal ruin.

i hope they'll finally stop trying to shield the washington establishment from every single attempt to eject a little more accountability and reform because if the reports i've seen are correct the budget they plan to offer would do none of these things. it would only speed up the dangerous trajectory we're on rather than change it. entrench government waste and cronyism rather than route it out and make things worse for the families we represent rather than giving them some hope. and hope is something the american people really, really need right now. they have been battered by the president's economy. they're tired of seeing their money wasted on endless labyrinth of self-perpetuating bureaucracy. so i'm calling on my democratic friends to shelf the extremist liberal budget we've been hearing so much about. why don't we get serious here and start doing the things necessary to make government more efficient, more progrowth,

more responsive and more compassionate. in other words, enact the same priorities republicans have and, frankly, the priorities most of our constituents have too. after four long years, senate democrats should be willing to do more than just protect their buddies in government at all costs. to offer americans something better than a budget that would expand the i.r.s. and crush the middle class. the american people deserve better than that. haven't they waited long enough already for true growth-oriented reform? reform?

>> the story starts in december 1783. the moment is one for the ages. with a perfect sense of the theatrical moment, one of george washington many appreciated

challenge with remarkable sense of the right gesture at the right time. the general stood on the floor of the state house in annapolis, the temporary capital of the country at that time. you could still go to the building stand to eat and stay at stood and return his commission as commander-in-chief of the victorious continental army. the voluntary or of unprecedented power struck observers as the last act of the great historical drama. king george the third apparently declared if washington did that he would be the greatest man of his age. he did that. it was perhaps the greatest exit in american history.

>> the senate budget committee begins work on the 2014 budget plan on wednesday. chairman patty murray's proposal would raise taxes and cut spend them. during the session, senator murray, jeff sessions the top republican and other members of the panel delivered opening statements. this is about two and a half hours. [inaudible conversations] >> this committee will come to order. i understand we have a new pope and a committee hearing to mark up a budget. history twice, netscape. i want to thank my colleagues on this committee for all the hard work is favorite this budget resolution. i want to thank my wiki member,

senator sessions is valid to all members of the public who read it with your ideas until she stories and shared priorities over the past few months. before we get started, i want to dress a schedule and a few procedural issues for today and tomorrow. today we look at opening statement and ask members other than the chairman and ranking member to the misstatements of fact and it. will go in order seniority when senator sessions than i make her remarks. after the opening statements today, we will release our mark. no amendments are numbers that ever they were any posts until tomorrow in committee. tomorrow morning we will have a period of time to rest at all questions you may have about the mark and then became considering amendments tomorrow morning and i would remind would prohibit a voting on amendments on the verse need to be here when the cast is feared for amendments

tomorrow in keeping with this committee spragg case, amendments other than post a best be fully offset after the years covered resolution. members bring copies of their amendments as well. group b. offered to make sure they don't jeopardize the status of the budget resolution. for example, minutes outside the jurisdiction fall into the category. if she advises us that an amendment would threaten i would have to root out of order. my hope is we don't have amendments offered like that. also, as is customary, ask members refrain from offering the senate amendment. those that do not name the demand is traditionally discouraged. the more we can limit the amendments are a come of the more we focus on substantive

amendments and issues to the rest of the process. for planning purposes for tomorrow is to work with vendor schedules, we are going to her best to be stacking those. there's going to view conflicts throughout the day. senator sessions than i have discussed, but my hope is to find time convenient for members to stack those votes and take care of those. we were given notice on windows is there to be expected. i would advise the ball for the prints on friday so we can see to consideration of the resolution on the floor next week. after the conclusion of the market tomorrow, members are welcome to submit minority views to be included in the design no longer than the 15 so that she's budget and also senator whitehouse and senator berkley are unable to be your ticket to rope in a state of severe bouts

that i ask them animus consent they be allowed to do so. i have one final matter of housekeeping. i know members will have scheduling called pixel becoming a going. we have a committee corner there requires at least eight of us to be here in order to conduct business. if senator sessions and other members would agree, it would keep america moving forward, even if they're less than eight of this year. at this point we ask and ask and suffer purpose of opening statements the offering of the men in debate during the markup a quorum requirement be considered for the remainder of the market. >> madam chairwoman, with regard to back him and it's a good policy. i would suggest that to my colleagues that there's no objection i've been according to that. >> without objection, that's how we perceive to be expeditious as

possible. i appreciate consideration of that. what that come up her seat to my opening statement. we live five minutes for a son or by seniority. here in washington d.c., the budget debate is often discussed in terms of abstract numbers and political winners and losers. budgets are far more than that. they're about values and priorities. they are for how the government should serve citizens today and generations to come. most of all they are about people across the country whose lives are affected by decisions they make. today we are going to discuss different approaches to tackling budget challenges. tomorrow we'll continue this discussion about on a plan. that will but this debate to the senate floor and hopefully work towards a balanced and bipartisan agreement with the

house of representatives for the american people have a chance to weigh in. before we can talk about where we are headed, it is very for us to remember where we came from. because our fiscal and economic challenges didn't start today in this debate cannot happen in a vacuum, the truth matters in the context is important. despite the rhetoric you may hear from your republican colleagues, the great recession did not state that a president obama was elect to have the federal budget tip into deficit the day he was sworn in. i've served on this committee since i was first sworn to the united states senate in 1993 over the past 20 years, the country has taken two different approaches to her budget and each of which lead to very different outcomes. turnover the history the first of the year but assume it was critical decisions tomorrow, it's important to highlight the history one more time. in 1992, deer ran for office,

the federal government was running a deficit of under 5%. president clinton ran that year i promise of tackling the debt and deficit responsibly while continuing to invest in jobs and the middle class. since i was excited to have a chance to get additional reality when i came onto the committee. as we all remember, none of us on toward what the balance and responsible approach. when he proposed proposed raising taxes on the wealthiest americans alongside responsible spending cuts, republicans jumped at the data to anyone who would listen how devastating that would be for our economy. ..

>> middle-class workers were getting prosperity. there was a growth spurt, along with balanced and fiscal stewardship can turn our debt challenges around. revenue increases from 17.5% of gdp up to 26%.

responsible spending cuts and a 4.7% deficit was turned into a 2.4% surplus in eight years. our nation was on track to completely eliminate the federal debt by 2010. the work that we did in the '90s should have made it clear that calling upon the wealthy to pay their fair share is not incompatible with strong economic growth. it should have made it clear that a balanced response to deficit reduction that includes spending cuts is the best path forward. many of us saw the surplus is an opportunity for the country to erase the debt and invest and middle-class priorities like education and health care and

infrastructure. we wanted to build on what was working. but others saw as a blank check to cut taxes and increase government spending irresponsibly. president bush and republicans in congress quickly passed to tax cuts that were skewed towards the wealthiest americans. the cost of two wars were added to the national debt. the program is estimated to cost taxpayers $3 billion this year alone. middle-class families struggled as workers lost their jobs and the economy stagnated and collapsed. by 2008, federal revenues have dropped to 17.6% of gdp. spending was back up to 20.8%. our surplus had become a deficit. then we sunk even deeper. and president obama came into office, the economy was losing over 700,000 jobs per month. we were deep into a recession

and we were teetering on the edge of a full-blown depression. the president and congress acted quickly to put more money in the pockets of the most noble families in need of the most. by 2009, positive growth had returned and the unemployment rate decline shortly after. but the recovery wasn't as strong or as fast as it needed to be. millions of workers today continue struggling to get back on their jobs and middle-class families are having troubles keeping their heads above water, and we have some very serious challenges when it comes to our medium and long-term deficit and debt. that brings us here today. the members of this committee will work to tackle our economic process responsibly. this process won't be easy. despite what i believe are clear lessons for the last 20 years of fiscal and economic policy.

there is a serious difference of opinion to keep our economy and national finances moving in the right direction. includes following a path that could economic policies of the last administration and this is the path more tax cuts to the rich and fewer regulations of wall street. more uncertainty for workers unless stability for families. higher health care costs for patients and even higher costs for insurance comings. the decline of our schools and the dismantling of medicare promises to our seniors. this approach was on the ballot last november and voters rejected it. instead, the american people said that they want us to move forward and not backward. they want to put the middle class first. it returns our nation to the fiscal and economic policy that has worked for this country by focusing on jobs and the economy

and cutting spending responsibly and calling on the wealthiest americans pay their fair share. an approach that maintains that government cannot solve every problem. but that it can and must work to create jobs for the middle class and offer any hand up to families in support while they worked to get back on their feet. this is an approach taken by the budget the 12 of us work very hard together. we will be voting on this tomorrow. our budget reflects a progrowth, pro-middle-class agenda that the american people had supported in the last election and i believe it is a strong and responsible vision for building a foundation for growth and restoring the promise of american opportunities. our budget is built on three principles. the first is we need to protect our fragile economic recovery, create jobs and invest in

long-term growth. then we need to tackle our deficit and debt fairly and responsibly. and we need to keep the promises that we have made as a nation to our seniors and our families and our communities. the highest priority of the budget is to create job creation, economic growth, and prosperity built from the middle out, not the top down. we believe that with an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high, we simply cannot afford any threat to our fragile recovery. this budget replaces the cuts sequestration that threaten 750,000 jobs this year alone and economic growth for years to come as well as our national security. these cuts are in a fair and

responsible way and year end deal. replacing sequestration comes from responsible spending cuts across the federal budget. and it is from closing loopholes from the biggest corporations in wealthiest americans. in addition to deficit reduction, our budget policy advice of experts and economists across the political spectrum who say it makes sense to invest in job creation in the short-term by putting ourselves on the strong path responsible and sustainable deficit and debt reduction over the medium and long term. he believed that in order to truly tackle our economic and fiscal challenges in the real world, and not just on paper, we need strong foundations for growth built from the middle out. this invest than $100 billion

worth of economic recovery protection to put workers back on the job. preparing our nation's highest infrastructure and installing critical education technology like broadband that our students need to succeed. this plan creates an infrastructure bank to leverage public funds. and invest in the workers by making sure they have the skills and training that they need to move into the 3.6 million jobs across the country that are trying to be filled. it is paid for by cutting unfair spending in the tax code that mainly benefits the well-off and well-connected. while cutting spending responsibly overall, this budget protects investments in economic priorities like our schools and

our roads and bridges in clean energy and manufacturing industries. this budget puts jobs and the economy first and foremost. but it also builds on what work has been done to tackle deficit and debt responsibly. president obama established the national commission on fiscal responsibility and, commonly referred to as simpson-bowles. this recommends $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years from a balanced domination of spending cuts and revenue. the report points out that this deficit reduction is more than any in recent history. many economists across the political spectrum agree that $4 trillion over 10 years is a reasonable and responsible goal.

since that time, congress and the administration have worked together to reduce the deficit by $2.4 trillion. with $1.8 billion coming from spending cuts and 600 billion from allowing tax rates rise on the wealthiest americans. the senate budget access the rest of the way the 4 trillion-dollar goal and beyond. it builds on the $2.4 trillion deficit reduction marty donovan and positional 1.85 trillion in new deficit reduction for a total of $4.25 trillion in deficit reduction since the simpson-bowles report. it reduces the deficit to below 3% of gdp by 2015 and keeps it well below that level for the rest of the 10 year window in a responsible way and it pushes our debt as a percentage of the economy down and moving in the right direction.

the budget tackles this issue with the american people have consistently said they wanted to have it done. with an equal mass of responsible spending cuts, and new revenue raised by closing loopholes that primarily benefit the rich. this is cut by $970 billion in the midst of tough choices to get there. we think that every program, including the ones we know are important and need to be trimming fat and reducing cost to taxpayers. $500 billion of our deficit reduction comes from responsible savings on the domestic spending side, including health care savings doesn't harm seniors and families. there are no sacred cows. we put everything we can on the table. we will do it in a responsible way that strengthens the program like medicare and medicaid that

the american people strongly support. our budget saves $240 billion by carefully and responsibly reducing defense spending while giving the pentagon enough time to plan and align reductions. this will involve some tough decisions, but it is a responsible path nothing like the across the board cuts from sequestration that would be devastating for defense program and jobs if they are not replaced. the remainder of the savings come at $242 billion comes from the savings on interest payments of debt taking a balanced approach to, the senate budget matches these responsible spending cuts with $975 billion in new revenue, which is raised by closing loopholes and cutting unfair spending for those who need it the least. while locking in tax cuts for the middle-class and low-income working families and protecting

them from paying more. for perspective, $975 billion is less than one 10th of what is spent on tax expenditures of the next 10 years. much of which ends up going to the wealthiest americans there is bipartisan support by making the tax code more fair and efficient. speaker boehner propose that we reduce the deficit by $800 billion by proposing what he calls special interest loopholes and deductions. every group that has tackle this in a serious way recommends much more revenue than the $600 billion in the year in jail. if this budget passes, 64% spending cuts and 14% tax increases on the bridge by coup

untracked closing loopholes. that is a responsible approach. it is a balanced and fair approach. it is the one that has been in endorsed by bipartisan groups and experts and the one supported by the vast majority of the american people. in addition to tackling debt responsibly, this keeps the promises we have made to our seniors and families and veterans and communities. we reject calls to privatize medicare by voucher argument. seniors and families strongly support and have paid into this and are protected and preserved and this budget is focused on doing exactly that. we also think we should be building on what is working in our health care systems. not rolling back things. it would repeal the health care law and would increase the cost of care for seniors is a senior

off their parents plan cause many to be uninsured and this budget rejects that approach. it builds on the health care law to continue to reduce costs responsibly and improving care. the budget maintains the key principle that has been rejected by the house republicans. we don't think the burden should be unfairly borne by the most horrible children and families who have already sacrificed so much. everyone needs to be a part of the solution. but house republican approach treads the safety net of millions of families in america, including my own, and we reject that approach. our budget also makes investments we need to protect our communities and environments and uphold the sacred commitment that we have made to our

veterans. i'm hearing the same thing for my constituents that all of you are hearing as well. we are sick and tired of the gridlock that has paralyzed the budget process in washington dc. and we are looking to end that political brinksmanship that is threatening our fragile economic recovery. and he once worked together to tackle the fiscal challenges that we face as a nation. i believe the senate budget offers a passport to accomplish this. i'm proud of the work that so many of you are putting into this budget with a lot of input from our colleagues outside the committee and members across the country. it reflects the diverse senate serving a diverse nation and guided by the principles and priorities that are supported by the constituents we represent. i'm confident that our country can move beyond this vision and

work together to tackle our fiscal and economic problems fairly and responsibly. our nation has faced greater challenges in our history. time and again, the american people have come together with ingenuity and diversity and compassion to do the right thing. the house of representatives working on their budget resolution today and i know that they will do have serious differences between the values and priorities. but the american people are going to have an opportunity to examine these budgets side-by-side. and they will be able to decide which approach is best for our economy and jobs and for the middle-class. they will let us know what through our economy into a tailspin and whether this approach that we have seen has worked before. we invest in the middle-class.

we built a strong foundation for growth and restore the promise of american opportunity. the senate budget is balanced and responsible and has an approach that will take us down that second half and i am hopeful that the house of representatives will join us at the bargaining table and we can work together toward a budget deal that the american people expect and deserve. with that, i'm going to turn it over to the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you, madam chair. it is a fundamental responsibility to produce a budget. the republican-led house has to fill that legal obligation every year this is a fourth-year about it. if we have a gridlock and it's not because members of the side didn't act and support and

believe in having a budget. now that the house has passed legislation that said no budget, no pay, it is good news that the committee is doing its job. madam chairman, you ought to be congratulated. it will be the first time in four years that we have done so. we are doing our work in public for all to see. maybe progress can be made. we certainly need to make progress. already, the prospect is clarifying the minds of senators on key issues. we still have not been provided certain things in detail. some of the things indicate the different budget than the one you describe here. the chairman has laid out his

plan. everyone has seen the numbers in complete form. this objective, involves what has been dubbed with the budget, it must be the goal of the nation. the open honest budget is what we ought to have here. the primary balance avoids accountability. they are using that phrase to tax and spend and say that that is balanced, but actually abs who is not balanced. using those vague phrases to avoid being able to be held accountable after a budget is laid out.

many would be surprised to learn that balancing the budget would require a modest reduction in the rate of spending growth. we can balance the budget in 10 years if we simply have growth to 3.4% each year. that is something that we should think about. it should encourage us to believe that this is a doable thing. some of my colleagues have asked about reduction in the growth of spending and reduction in spending growth hurt our economy. is that a sturdy that can damage our economy? the answer is this. cutting spending will grow the economy. cutting the rate of growth in spending will create a situation

in which our economy will grow. in february of this year, the gao of this answers the question exclusively. they said that there had been over 10 years, reducing the increase in spending by $4 trillion, closed with a balanced budget requires, would increase economic growth. this is what they said real gdp would be lowered in the fourth quarter of 2014. in higher by 1.7% in 2023 then it would be under the current law. what he was saying there is that if we reduce spending by $4 trillion and that over 10 years and balance the budget

from this baseline, we would have more growth than if we don't cut that trend. finding that over 10 years, the country will get less growth than if it had not borrowed $870 billion at all. for the last 10 years, we have spent $31 trillion. the next 10 years we are projected to spend $47 billion experts tell us how current baseline debt acts, even with the higher taxes in january, is unsustainable.

we are still on unsustainable debt trap. we could have almost a trillion dollars in the 10th year. as the united states prepared to say that we cannot balance the federal budget? if that is so, it's a sad day in america. i ask my colleagues to think about this. can we reach a clear goal that we are going to balance the budget and responsible way. the resulting increase in growth and prosperity in america it appears the majority of the

balance will never balance. and the annual deficit will be again close to a trillion dollars. the majority eliminates the sequester of two years, thereby increasing spending by $1 trillion by there. it uses things like to create false appearances of cuts. the majority's plan is in that spending increase to us. we will see that tomorrow when we have the numbers. spending go down, or did it go up? it does not include any of the form of entitlement. we all know that it is necessary and does not promote the tax reform ideas that have been discouraged it makes new changes

to the new health care laws the majority has found no reforms that we just now that the government believed that the government is perfect? please hear me, gross debt, not public debt reaches 90% of gdp and then the economy slows between one and 2%.

the european central bank has reached independently it finds that our current debt of $17 trillion is housing a drag on our economy. 1% decline in growth is supposed to account for a million jobs. growth has fallen before -- well below what the cbo projected. these studies show that increased spending and more debt must end now. it cannot be continued. it cannot be continued because

it is not good for america to bomb or so we can spend more. every time attempting to reform the government, the chairman, senator reid, they say such ideas aren't compassionate. including a federal bureaucracy that is failing those who needed need it the most. the harsh political rhetoric from the white house and certain leaders is not ample. many of them are hurting badly today. struggling citizens are being heard by the washington establishment many seem to think

spending more money borrowed by government is appropriate. we have even awarded food stamps to people who enroll for benefits that they said they didn't need. they have the pride and self-respect that comes from not. isn't this a superior form of compassion we need to grow the economy and not -- we need to not increase the government.

growth is far below what we would have expected it also to be at this point. we can do things that improve growth without adding to the debt. here's how. a progrowth tax reform and energy production, helping us to restart lives come and defend american workers from unfair trade practices, make the government leaner. our own government leaner and more productive. and enforce immigration laws to ensure fairness to american workers occurs. eliminate every burden from federal regulation that is not needed and destroys jobs. balance the federal budget. that way it will help growth

occur. they will promote family, not bureaucracy. madam chair, we are willing to listen to the things that the president said. we certainly need it. we need the support. >> thank you, senator sessions?

>> by tomorrow night will we will be on the way. i commend you for it. in one respect, this is not rocket science. we know what the two issues are that are keeping us from getting to a significant bipartisan agreement the tax system in america is a broken, dysfunctional map. most importantly, it doesn't bring certainty. the one thing that businesses do is seek rent seeking behaviors

we think of the tax exemptions for matters like helping roads and bridges we have been involved with two very thoughtful republicans. senator gregg and senator coats and senator begich and i are convinced that it is possible for us to build a bipartisan coalition and initiate tax

reform. now our challenge is to step forward and do it once more. let me turn to the question of medicare. we have seen progress in the last year and a half in terms of health care costs. i think everyone understands that the demographic tsunami is all about. how do we hold on medicare costs i think we can have bipartisan support with considerable interest in combining medicare

part a and medicare part b. medicare part a is the hospital portion and medicare part d's the outpatient portion. i think it's impossible to do this in a way that will protect seniors from out-of-pocket costs while saving money in the program. that is one area we ought to look at. the second one, there are bipartisan roots in reforming the chronic care system. millions of them do not have any protections from catastrophic costs. in the medicare database, which is the one place where you can go out and find out patients and

families can find out what physicians and providers are actually getting reimbursed for. we work together to root out fraud and it is actually precluded from the public. senator grassley is going to team up with you on that area. three areas that will help patients and make sense of reforming the program. our colleagues, including senator sessions, talked about reforming government. i would only say that i think that we are all know having served on the committee that the budget doesn't let us get into all of these details so the finance committee and other committees are detailing much of which we are talking about here.

what is appealing to me is that this budget taxes and medicare often come together and use this debate, use what we are doing here in the committee there are limits to what we can do other than offer a big blueprint. i think this gives us a chance in the two biggest areas that have been part of what is so important to our country to move forward. >> thank you. >> i think you'll. we will offer the market after all the opening remarks.

>> senator grassley? >> thank you, madam chair. the president hasn't even proposed this. the house budget chairman, paul ryan has been able to create a budget blueprint. i presume that the majority has stated it will soon give us a blueprint. it is quite remarkable that the president has yet to submit a budget even though the law requires that by february 4.

the facts are that during the past four years, the federal debt has increased in the debt will increase by another $9 trillion over the next 10 years. protein levels where economists agree that it will cause of slower economic growth we never get a definition for fairness and balance. sadly there is no economic

growth will only come through a bigger and more intrusive government. the problem is that raising taxes only creates problems in the case of small business, for 70% where new jobs are created. the higher taxes are robbing the unemployed. the government it supports does not create economic growth or self-sustaining jobs. press reports indicate that the budget resolution will be presented by the budget chair will increase taxes by $1 billion. and it will come from closing corporate and individual loopholes. as someone who has close billions of dollars of corporate and individual loopholes when i

was chairman of the finance committee, working closely with my friend and chairman, i can tell you that there is nowhere near $1 trillion in loopholes. the truth is that you can't raise taxes by $1 trillion without eventually hitting the middle class and targeting popular deductions, such as mortgage interest. i would also like to know when tax reform became a cold word for tax increases. if you want to spin it, the trillion dollar tax increase will affect the middle class and harm the economy and job growth. i'll be interested to hear how the leadership proposal is going to raise these tax hikes while economic location and location and unemployment remains seven points shy mr. sanjay is even

worse, the tax increase and the maggiore proposes to balance the budget. it unfortunately applied to the budget. if you hear the term pro-growth, there is a size and scope of the national debt. their understanding of balance is higher taxes and higher spending. where we know spending is the problem. revenue next year will equal about a percent of gdp. historical averages. it is already above the historical averages and we will

also go higher. but not to balance the budget, but has been even more. after four years of contemplating a resolution, i would've expected a more fiscally responsible budget. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you very much. i want to congratulate you first of all on trip at work that i am putting forward end is a responsible budget being put forward and i appreciate it very much. i believe this budget to flex

our values in america. we are at a pivotal point where we are facing stark choices where to go as a country and choices will have a lasting impact. in 1997, i was in the house of representatives and part of the effort was when we balance the budget for the first time in 30 years and he mentioned that in the opening statements. he made tough choices, we focused on growing the economy. we made smart cards and asked the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share. i have always believed that if you start with common sense and local at what has worked before, maybe you ought to look at using it again, and that is what we did at that time when we balanced the budget for the first time in 30 years. it seems like a good place to start. that is what you have done on this budget.

those efforts paid off and i remember coming here in 2001, my very first year in the united states senate when we were debating what to do with the history of the country regarding the budget. i remember that we had our great chairman tom and the plan was to pay off our debt. it was an amazing discussion. i also remember that at that time, if you just think about it for a minute, the democratic proposal in this committee in 2001 was to look at this projection, i believe it was something like $5.7 trillion over 10 years. and have strategic investments

in infrastructure and innovation and education. the reliability for social security was important. that was the plan in 2001. if we had done that, think about where we would be today. but we did was take basically all of it and put it into economics with tax cuts for the wealthiest americans and we know all of the other things that happened, putting us in the largest deficit in the country. so we cannot afford to do this again. and always the good news is is that after this, we are beginning to see progress.

we also know that about 70% of the deficit reduction has already resulted in cuts in services and investments in the long-term. while we have needed to set priorities, we can't continue can continue to do the same thing we have been doing.

it doesn't sacrifice the opportunity, but it keeps her promises. this budget is our balanced plan. this budget makes $975 billion in responsible spending cuts. and $970 billion in tax code. many are trying to figure out how to pay for college.

this budget will help them do that. we need to make things and focus on manufacturing and agriculture. we need modern infrastructure, bridges, roads, rails, this budget does that. and i thank you for that. this budget does that. we know that medicare and social security are great american success stories. this makes sure that medicare remains a strong insurance program. no vouchers are eliminations of medicare as we know it. we keep our commitment for

future generations. this is a balanced approach thank you very much and i look forward to the markup. >> thank you. eckstein trillion dollar debt figure. it shows what happens when we avoid a problem. the senate is out to lunch. let's make the most of the lost time. for the budget that would recognize our fiscal problem,

out-of-control spending, and address the problem in a serious way, we could begin to write the correct budget. i'm concerned that the budget will not do that. instead i imagine it will call for raising taxes yet again and will not fully address the primary driver of her growing debt. that is without changes. bankruptcy for medicare and social security. i believe the password should include progrowth tax reform that lowers tax rates and broadens the tax base and smart spending cuts so that we can begin to dig ourselves out of the fiscal hole. it was projected to grow overnight chilling hours of the next 10 years.

our nation's deficit is almost $500 billion. we are already a half trillion dollars in the hole this year. spending must be reduced. unfortunately, the president's budget proposal is missing in action. it will either address out-of-control spending what is a fair share, even without the tax hikes, i am an accountant. in 2009, the top 20% of earners

made 61% of the pretax income and paid 90% of all federal income taxes. many of those earners affect small-business owners to plow through those that expand and create jobs. citizens and small businesses deserve better. that tax hits almost everywhere, so it can be significantly scaled back. let's not forget that it is them

and it would balance the budget by 2016. balance the budget at a time when families are still tightening belts. it is simple, effective, and rio. instead we need to start paying for things and cut the deficit. we should ensure that any new

legislation should be required and probably ought to be at least twice the size of the spending increases. spending is paid for and we reduced the deficit. we know that floods and tornadoes and hurricanes and earthquakes will strike. federal funds should be available in the death asters occur. congress do a better job of proactively planning. we should also identify and prioritize activity and services so that when the federal cuts are implemented, agencies can start by cutting the worst first. by doing so, we can maintain what we do well and probably don't. we should identify painful spending reductions rather than cut the high-profile services

that caused a public outcry. i remain hopeful with reigning in spending and getting a balanced budget going. i'm optimistic. i'm an am an optimist with experience. it tells me that this may not live up to my expectation. i am looking forward to a resolution tomorrow. >> thank you, madam chairman. thank you for your focus and hard work. half of that money should come from revenue. at a time when over 14% of our people are unemployed, i

would've put more money into job creation than we did. but overall we have done a good job it is a little bit harder to vote that way. i voted against the war in iraq. which will end up costing us well over a trillion dollars. i voted against tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. if i'm not mistaken, senator sessions and many of my good republican colleagues voted for these tax breaks. but the economy tells us that

that adds to the deficit. if i'm not mistaken, many of my republican colleagues voted for a prescription drug program that wasn't paid for. i went against that proposal. it is has not only caused so much pain, but it has led to unemployment and lower profits. when you add a recession, we are at 15.8% revenue as part of the gdp, the lowest in six years. when you are at the lowest percentage of revenue, you have to look at the revenue issue as well. at the end of 2000, when clinton

left office, we had a surplus. today we have an 850-dollar budget. in billions. so i think that before we go about cutting social security, medicare, medicaid, education, nutrition, we should think twice about how we got where we are today. also, if we are looking at moral values. and i think the senator used the word moral values, let's take a look at where we are in the economy today. today in america we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth. it is worse than at any time in our country since before the great depression. the average middle-class family has seen the income go down by

nearly $5000 after adjusting for inflation since 1999. we are seeing a collapsing middle class. it is really over 14%. a future generation is close to 25%. ..

[no audio] >> you have one family, the walton family has more wealth than the bottom

40 percent of the american people. here is another unbelievable fact. between 2009 and 2011, all the income went to the top 1 percent. 90 percent sought a reduction in their income. so the question we have to address, you really want to go after the elderly person for social security living of $15,000 per year or maybe with huge inequality or ask the largest corporations to pay their fair share. let me say a few things about corporate taxes. where do we get the revenue?

in 2010 bank of america set up within 200 subsidiaries to avoid paying taxes. it daughter rebate for one point* $9 billion and on it goes. where do you get the money? not by social security of medicare but citicorp and bank of america we kid deal with it in a way that is fair after deficit reduction >> we express our appreciation this is the first time in four years we had a markup it is a needed

in the committee but with concerns we still do not have the president's budget he is absent in proposing to this congress a budget and will submit one after congress has done work. so a lot of the discussion has to wait until tomorrow. to get a pitcher but we are dealing with but the budget that is presented will be a balanced approach with increased taxes and spending restraint the not assigned we will try to balance the

budget which is another concern. we need to focus on balancing the budget. one of the most important points, we cannot continue the same line of business over the business as usual but taxing and spending without concern for the way the debt is rising, we cannot spend ourselves into prosperity. i was part of the gate of six a and i still am. not knowing specifically but it appears what is proposed

is far different than two years ago with a $4 trillion reduction of our budget that needs to be a much higher number now. but what we concluded spending was the biggest part of the problem what they're needed to be a revenue solution in the strong commitment to make sure whatever reforms were followed through and in force to. congress has almost a perfect record to break every budget it passes and breaking every deal with fiscal policy. if we don't address that question to the budget

doesn't make a difference. of some symbols commission said with revenue as the tax structure is the most foul the plea could come up with. to create a tax code more unfair, a complex, expensive to comply with and anti-competitive, you'd be hard-pressed to do better. our conclusion is we could have increased revenue but focused with the pro-growth element that is represented to reform the tax code that we would eliminate and adjust for rate reduction or to offset increased spending.

i don't see that coming from the budget. and have a reform was critical. why did they robbed banks? that is with the money is the majority is in the mandatory spending part. we have not seen it but there may be $275 million worth of adjustments for chilean should be a of a bigger plan we had discretionary spending caps to control spending. and finally with pledges enforcement, i have been a part of developing a lot of

budgets faugh that congress will adopt a budget without it will reduce and control spending, reduce the deficit but all hard decisions are in sri -- not year one or two the three through 10 and congress cannot get through your number to. because every year they adopt the new year budget so if we truly do have the tough steps being made as to the out years if we do adopt a budget with their five-year or tenure we need to add to that the enforcement mechanism to make sure congress sticks to

the budget. madam chairman i look forward to bring amendments and thank you for letting this committee to do the proper work. >> thank you chairman murray for this process. getting a budget at of the committee is no easy task for what you have done so far. $16 trillion of debt, and none of it is self correcting. it will have to be reduced and dealt with. the document to put forward is no perfect solution, but if it is credible and a

framework to the boot to our conversation. unfortunately the part where they try to exact as much pain in have embarrassment and score political points. it is ironic we hear ad nauseam we have not produced a budget in their sure they will try to stop us tomorrow. business background and how we grow economies with the balance sheet and on the revenue side, look at spending. i would remind everyone 10 years ago it took four

point* $5 trillion out of the revenue stream with the tax cuts of both parties supported. of a also point* out every bi-partisan group have all included net/net not the baseline but nobody talks about replacing all revenue, it is less than 50%. also said deal cut on news see that was disappointing only replaced half of the low number of what was needed to return to the revenue stream. i urge colleagues to look dapples sides as well. the have not seen all

suggestions but i do want to point* out to a concern that is the house plan that the overwhelming majority of jobs created, but government has to have a business plan to stay competitive. one of the most remarkable things is the house will cut domestic discretionary spending in education, ever structure, are indeed less than 5% of total revenue stream. i would never invest in the business aspect classified% how to stay ahead of the competition or treat its employees. china, brazil, they have a better business plan. i will also save with

consternation from my side that we could do more on the eventual compromise on in time reform. a share the belief medicare and social security are some of the greatest programs invented also basic math does not work. we're living longer. today there only three people working in did 15 years it will be two / one the longer report off inevitable problem and failed to come up with the way it is not just there we do a disservice. my final appeal, keep the process moving forward working with the chair of moving forward we spent

hundreds of hours to wrestle through these issues and i hope it's a good work you do in my colleagues on both sides will get the budget to the floor to reach an agreement with the house but until we do i am not sure we will get anything accomplished. only two seconds over time. >> thank you very much. i was told we would talk about a budget. who would do that? apparently we did when we were republicans. how to explain congress? we're talking about a document we have not seen or shared with each other but that is the standard operating business practice. but thanks for doing a budget.

it is a good start. hide you get $16 trillion in debt? partisanship. [laughter] at don't see how you can't do it with one party alone. obama has his own fair share but we cannot throw too many rocks. it is out of hand we have to see how the movie ends. what does it take to get congress to put on the brakes to look at revenue and entitlement that reasonable people will. if i thought we could do nothing to never make anybody mad, i would choose that passed. i like that path and i don't see how we stop the process until we deal with entitlements or until we deal with revenue. if you don't do anything with entitlements until we

deal with rebel behalf some of you will never deal with entitlements no matter what. some will entice you to the table but there is a growing consensus maybe now is what we do something big. with medicare, how much can we afford to subsidize? with 2010 and 2011 it through all wars combined coming is a good program in jeopardy i wish the committee would answer the question doing nothing on social security and medicare come at what point* in time do they fail that you have to intervene to raise taxes or cut benefits? i went to know when that day comes, when it does happen, at that time we will

have the luxury to make a recent decision. people cannot afford to have benefits reduced will have to suffer. we have a few years first. i don't mind having a means tested program when i was 21 my mom died when i was 22 my dad died in my sister was 13 years old. we owned a liquor store store, restaurant and poolroom. but without social security survivor benefits it would have been very difficult for my family. my aunt and uncle took over the business. my sister got programs to go to college. i am 57 years old, new children, not married, and the problem demographically but at the end of the day i'm in a position to give

back. just ask me. will need to turn so security into a welfare program. it is necessary for me to give up future benefits with my income level. and younger workers should work longer to get medicare but give them 30 years to plan and we need to do means testing and other structural changes. what i am telling my colleagues on the other side we will be a wasted nation if we continue the engagement of the last 40 years for the last big bill was ronald reagan started with a drink at the white house. maybe it was outside the white house with a good start. i can only imagine how tough it must have been to find

consensus but that was before cable tv and 241 negative 24/7 news the idea i sit down with the president offended people put the day i cannot do that i need to quit. i will not quit for a bright ask the budget process move forward. we will vote no then you will vote no because somebody needs to vote yes and that is the right answer. yes. fixing the budget problems before we become greece. >> thank you very much. you will go out of order because senator mccain asked permission to speak before them and they have agreed. i appreciate that. >> we will be with our governor and i appreciate the committee. it is exciting as a new

committee member to be a part of the process. the alternatives to normal order have not worked but we will make it easy but i am glad we're doing a. the budget is good for the country in four virginia. it offers the right values was right of prior become a spending reduction, right approach to revenue. it starts with let's have a growing economy. the house budget starts with a different primary value. we want to see balance in 10 years. i would argue we should except a growing economy as the top value because it is

in real life. you can make numbers on a page show a balance but that can be done and i worry about that, but job growth or unemployment rates, that is real life. that can be tested or validated and we try to kraft a budget with a measurable deal but what we wrestle with does put a strong economy as a top priority. the expenditure of $100 billion with the infrastructure is an indication. second, we try to attack the deficit and debt to do economically responsible way. you can do numbers to balance on a page, but let's use the real-life measure

that economists tend to use that as the percentage of gdp in the budget they have worked hard has a real life measurable to do with the deficit. we were on the trillions of dollars and we do it in a balanced way with spending and revenue. i am very concerned being from virginia with the military and the fact of spending reductions on defense the proposal takes the reduction and cuts in half to make it targeted. the secretary of defence whether panetta or gates or

hegel say let's find a targeted way not to across the board. non-defense, discretionary and health care savings are manageable and targeted but we can get there without breaking promises we have made. but again the budget strikes me as the right way. it is 8 percent reduction in tax expenditures there is a number of ways to come at it. not an increase of rates or a huge change to the tax expenditures and a senator warner mentioned if you add in the one point* $6 trillion of revenue as

part of the overall package which is less than half of the bush tax cuts that were voted to be temporary. the idea was when they were initially voted they would expire as a limited period of time baja. so we end up with the package one point* $6 trillion of revenue and that includes interest. that is a sensible ratio that is well of line with economists' and how to tackle the challenge. know i will finish where i started it is great we're returning to normal order. the risk of a substitute to work better than vigorous debate with the process to produce a senate budget and

the house budget then people have to eyeball each other to compromise for the good of the country. we are up for it. >> thank you madam chair, i agree with senator cane to get back to order and delighted we are attempting to produce a budget that more than a document i hope the first up for what we have to you do. or erskine bowles said we're facing the biggest economic crisis in our nation. he is a democrat who is right. the vatican can choose a pope with the diversity of their cardinals we should be able to figure out to the basics to get deficit and debt under control. i am looking for white smoke from the capital.

this starts the process. we have got to get to it. $140,000 per household that and has gone up by $50,000 per family over the last five years. that is just the start talking about 10,000 baby boomers retiring it grows to a larger and larger levels on the chart and those impossible levels that the cbo stops measuring it because it spins out of control. so look at the national debt exceeds the threshold that if you get over 90 percent gdp has any effect on today's economy.

it is already killing jobs and who is suffering? it is the middle-class and those folks on the bottom rung. will reemployment gradual reforms now or drastic reforms later? or after we have a debt crisis? we have to diagnose their cars for private herd tax cuts, a hard-driving the revenue but there have been history lessons talking about the role i cannot help myself. look at the congressional budget office told us last year if you look between 2002 through 2011 we had a

projected surplus no with $6 trillion with the tax cuts for the rich. what part contributed to that five point* 6 trillion? 4%. it was 4 percent of that increase even with no economic growth and all small businesses got taxes increased, there was economic growth but if you assume there is none it is 4%. not that tax reform should not be a part of this but would get the history lesson and be careful. revenues are now set by cbo to reach record high. 19 point* 1% as a percent of