has been captured. view organizations. there is a good ngo that works on the area of defecters but there is more work to be done. >> host: seamus hughes, deputy director of george washington university's program on extremism and alberto fernandez, middle east media research institute vice president. this is the "the communicators." >> c-span, created by america's cable television company and brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. coming up, debate between new york's 19th congressional district. then rand paul and chris murphy on u.s. policy in the middle east.

later, senate budget committee chair mine ensy talks about proposed changes to the budget process. >> c-span, washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you and coming up tuesday morning national journal hot line editor talks about 2016 and the chance the democrats will retake the majority in the house in november. the vise president for women and families action fund is on to discuss hillary clinton's and donald trump's family care and child leave policy. be sure the watch c-span journal live at 7 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. tuesday, president obama speaks at the united nations general ass assembly in new york city. this is expected to be the

president's final visit to the u.n.as president. >> the smithsonian museum of african-american culture opens doors to the publ llic saturdayd we will be live for the outdoor dedication ceremony. speakers include president obama, michelle obama, former president george bush and laura bush. watch the opening ceremony for the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture live saturday morning at 10 a.m. on c-span, the c-span radio app and c-span.org. >> c-span, created by america's cable company 35 years ago and

brought to you as a local cable and satellite provider. blat blat >> republican john faso and democratic zephyr teachout answered questions on term limits, same-sex marriage and net neutrality. this was hosted by amc public radio and ny news channel 13. it is about an hour. >> now your moderator, dr. alan shark. >> good afternoon.

welcome to the performing arts studio for the debate between the candidates for new york's 19th district seat. we welcome republican john faso and democrat zephyr teachout. we will begin the hour long debate in a minute but first the panel and ground rules. casey silar, the state editor of the albany times union. the coanchor of news channel 13 live at 5:00 and 6:00, and hudson valley bureau chief allison dunn. you can follow the debate on social media using the #ny19debate. we ask the audience to hold the applause until the end of the hour. there is no opening and closing statement as the time is precious. they will alternate questions and each candidate is given three minutes to answer a question and opponent gets a two minute rebuttal you will hear a bell ring when the time is up.

the candidates determine who will go first by tossing a coin. zephyr teachout will begin. our first question comes from casey from the times union. >> thanks, alan and thank you to the candidates. ms. teachout, you site overturning citizen union and public finance is a priority yet your opponent has criticized you for taking donations from the soro family and it shows you raised 1.6 million through the end of june. is your fundraising in conflict to removing or reducing money in politics? >> not at all. first of all, thank you for hosting the debate and thank you for those joining here. i spent my life fighting against

big money in politics. we have a crisis of corruption in our country. there are two basic parts. one is the way congress is funded. congress isn't working and one way is because they spend 40% of their time raising money from rich people and supporting independent businesses and education policy and how week d weekend -- we can do this. another part ahow -- allowed for big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money. these are super pacs.

two new york city hedge fund billionaires have given half a million to a super pac supporting him. my campaign is supported by an average of $19. i am proud of the fact we are grass root funded. i challenged john to a pledge and asked him to join me in keeping all super pac money out of this race so that we wouldn't have hedgefunders like paul trainer who is a supporter of common core putting in half a million in the race and trying to buy a seat. john turned me down saying citizen united was the right decision. when i am in congress, i am going to cleanup congress, change the way campaigns are funded and fight for overturning citizen united and everything i have done throughout my entire life shows i will always work for the people not the big corporations. >> well, it a pleasure to be here as well. i thank wamc and wnyt and my

opponent. i think these forums are important for the voters in the district and our democracy. my opponent is raising big money from all sorts of people who are connected to super pacs. she knows the law as well as i do which is i have no control over what someone may spend or do independently. i would also point out that she wrote a book on corruption. one of the things she said in the corruption was that the founders wanted to guide against adventures moving into the districts they are no connection to. well indeed, ms. teachout is an adventure who parachuted in from brooklyn and arrived and registered to vote this year. i have lived and worked in this district for 33 years. my wife is the school nurse at our local public life for 20 years.

we are deeply enmeshed in the community. you have to say i know this district. this is called the house of representatives not the house of adventures and her own book warned against adventurers moving into the district saying this generated corruption. s i want campaign finance reform. i would like full disclosure of anyone giving money. but soro, big backer, she didn't object when he spent $50 million, way before citizen united, to try to defeat george bush. we are not running for the supreme court. we are running for the congress. her prescription is public

financing which is the thing most taxpayers don't want to v. >> candidates, thank you very much for being here. my question is for you mr. faso. it is a long one so i will read slowly. on wend the house committee on skiens based technology held a hearing on whether new york attorney general, eric synder, is improperly disregarding a subpoena sent to his office in july. the materials contain a multi state investigation of whether exon may have misled shareholders about what its scientists were learning about the potential perils of climate change. do you believe the attorney general and others should be compelled to respond to these subpoenas and do you believe the exon probe is viable or as some described a witch-hunt?

>> i think it present as challenge on the bases of law or the conflict of laws, if you will. what the power of a house committee to compel via subpoena an independently elected official i think is subject to a law review i have not read or written yet. let me say this, there is no doubt climate change is real. there is no doubt we should be trying to take efforts to mitigate it. new york replaced coal with natural gas for the last 20 years we reduced co2 emission by about 20-25 percent in the state all due to market forces and not any intervention of the government. i think we need to pursue an energy policy that is an all of the above energy policy and looks at renewable and i support

those. we have to be aware we make sure any solution we come to is one that is enforceable across international boundaries and frankly i don't really trust the chinese, for instance, to abide by agreements that they enter into relating to climate change. we have to make sure that anything we agree to is not going to hurt our economy. you know, i have a program and a policy proposal to help the small business economy in this 19th congressional district where i have lived for 33 years. i understand this district and i understand the issues that they are facing. so we have to make sure that in a district like ours where people rely on their cars, on their farm tractors to work and their cars to get to work the fact is we need to make sure any agreement we enter into relating to climate change is not something that is going to disadvantage our economy and hurt our upstaters.

unlike ms. teachout who came from brooklyn, and a lot of communities don't have cheap energy and have to drive from work. that is the single most-important thing we can do. >> thank you. climate change and energy sources and protecting our water against big polluters is an area where we have a real difference and voters in the 19th district have a real choice. i am so proud to have been part of one of the greatest environmental bans in history. the fracking ban in new york city state. that didn't happen because of political elites but because of extraordinary grassroots efforts.

people raising the issues of the impacts of fracking on water. the impacts of fracking and com presser stations on air. i am opposed to fracking. by opponent is in favor of fracking and has been paid as a lobbyist and this hits home. i was working with people and i talked about fear that the compression station would harm their kids. faso was a paid lobbyist for the tennessee gas company that was pushing the ned pipeline project. yom going to congress to protect our water and we care deeply

about if the kids can trust their water to drink. we have to care about, like the mom in nasau who was worried about her kids playing. when you talk about exon it is a big polluter who hired a whole bunch of lobbyist like my opponent, john faso, to push through subsidies and exemptions in the law. >> it is now my turn to thank you both for being here. this question is for ms. teachout. inc incumbent is retiring after three years. you said you support term limits but haven't specified a length. will you publically state a maximum number of terms you would serve and just to point

out your opponent doesn't support term limits. >> i would serve five terms. i think ten years is enough to do the work i want to do in congress but not so long i become a career politician. career politicians have not been serving our politics right now. i want to talk about the things i can do in those ten years. one of the most important things is standing up for independent businesses and family farms. and i have released a seven point plan that would do just that. the core of the plan is recognizing that both republicans and democrats have really abandoned the independent business owner and the family farmer over the last three decades. you know, people talk, but when you actually look at what is happening on the ground with it is worse. you see decline as much as 40% for farms across the country.

75% of the subsidies are going to the really big concentrated farms that can afford to hire lobbyists like they opponent. same thing with independent businesses. the true job creators, the maller independent businesses that have essential and the heart and soul of our communities have suffered in the last 30 years. part one is we need to bring jobs home and support local farmer and make things in america again. my opponent is in favor of fast track for the transpacific partnership and i am opposed to fast track and think we need to relook at our trade deals so we can be manufacturing and making things here again. we can be assembling iphones here. we could put another our shoes, clothes and basics we rely right

here. i think we need to renegotiate nafta. we have a ten billion a year trade deficit with china. i think it is absolutely essential when i am in congress i will stand up against the kind of trade deals by opponent supported. the second step is making sure our banks are lending again. i cofounded a group breaking up had big banks and making them loan to local banks. they are not lending. i will be trying to support community banks and making sure our independent businesses with getting what they need. i talk to companies that cannot get bank of america to lend to them because they are too small.

so access to capital is essential and they are not getting it from the big banks. >> the question is term limits. yes, i support term limits. this is perhaps one of the areas where my opponent and i agree. i would like to serve, if elected and honored to serve, i would like to serve no more than five terms as well because i think i could get something done over that period of time. when i ran for governor in 2006 i proposed term limits for the state. it is hard to unbundle all of the untruths and fabrication ms. teachout just spewed. i have never been paid by a fracking company, i have never been paid as a lobbyist for a fracking company. i did work with a pipeline company and she would not know that because she just arrived from brooklyn as you might have heard. the fact is i oppose the ned

pipeline that was a kender morgan problem. 'tennessee gas, years ago i did work for tennessee gas but that long sense ended. it ended well before tennessee gas was acquired by kender morgan. so your fact checkers have to go back because maybe they came from brooklyn because they are misinformed. i am endorsed by the largest small business organization in the country and the reason is because i have a concrete set of proposals to help small business. number one, let a small business expense write off a full deduction in year one but not a deprecation schedule. that will accelerate investment in equipment and machinery they need to operate their small

business. ms. teachout wants antitrust enforcement. after ten years or 20 years that might help but not right away. >> mr. faso, a question at the top of the ticket. you have not officially endorsed donald trump and his presidential bid and have been critical of some of the statements including comments about the gold star parent who spoke at the democratic national convention. you have referred to him as our candidate and said you will support the candidate's nominee and both of you are running on the republican party license plate number. why haven't you officially endorsed donald trump where both he and ed cox, the state party chair, said they want to be competitive. >> the answer from the question is i said from the get-go and announced i was running a year ago today on the front steps of my home i mary and i lived our american dream and raised our kids. a year ago today i announced my

canidacy and i said from the get-go i will support my party's nominee. i said there are specific areas i disagreed as you well executed in your question. the reason i am running has nothing to do with whether it is hillary clinton or donald trump who is elected president. i am prepared into work in the model of chris gibson who endorsed me and supports me with whoever is collected to president. i am not interested in going to washington to be a pundit deciding who is running but i am interested in fixing the problems in the district. new york city state, a million people have left new york state in the last ten years. people are voting with their feet. look around you, folks. our kids and grandchildren leave because they cannot find jobs

and seniors are priced out of their homes because of property taxes. i proposed for instance fixing nelson rockefeller's 50 year old mistake forcing new york city to paid for medicare cost. it was never intended the property taxpayers would have to pay this significant burden and 42% on average of the county property taxes in our district comes from medicaid burden and the counties have no control over it. i proposed that the first bill i will introduce if i am honored to be elected to represent the people of the 19th district is end the ability of a state to impose this burden on local property taxpayers. it is plain this federal law permits states to impose that burden on the county.

new york went well beyond what any state did. in the whole country nine billion is spent on medicare and in new york seven billion. just because nelson rockefeller did it 50 years ago doesn't mean we should not try to fix it now. i have plans to help small business investment, immediately expensing of equipment and purchases for businesses so they can employ jobs, and a plan to reduce the property tax burden that is driving so many people out of state. i think that is what people are looking for; someone who has experience in how to do these things and get things done. i think i am the person who would be best suited to represent the district for those reasons. >> i want to address two different things in the answer. first of all, i support hillary clinton for president. but one of the reasons that i feel so strongly about

representing this district because i have shown in the past i am willing to be independent when i disagree. there is plenty i disagree with the top of ticket on. but i showed years ago i am going to be independent and i think that is important. people are independent. they have been disappointed by the republican and democratic party. that disappointment is real and it for real reasons. when i am a representative in congress you can expect i will be listening only to the people of the district not political parties and not big corporations. second, i want to talk about taxes. the property taxes are out of control and i agree with my opponent on medicaid reimbursement. i think it is important and something leaders have been talking about for several decades and absolutely something new york should do. i talk to people everywhere i go about the property tax burden and how much it is burdening them. i do want to point out that when

my opponent had a chance to represent parts of this district before he became a lobbyist he voted for tax raises 135 times. i also want to point out although he lived 30 miles from albany, he missed 1700 votes. he is taking a paycheck but not showing up. four of the times he showed up he voted against equal pay. he has already had a chance to show what he's going to do when he is paid to represent and what he has shown is he is not going to show up and after missing so many votes he cashed out and became a lobbyist. >> ms. teachout, you were

talking proximity. we will continue with that. you only recently moved into your district. your opponent called you an adventu adventure -- how do you respond? >> i grew up in windsor. a farm county. we had 30 sheep on a good year and neighbors on both sides were dairy farmers. a lot of the issues that are facing the community i came from and were facing the community i came from where similar to the issues facing the rural communities here. but when i hear wherever i go in this district is what people really want to know is are you going to stand up and fight for their interest not lining up with either party line, not selling out to big corporations, are you going to fight for us? do you understand our issues? are you going to listen to us?

part of the reason we have so much support is i have been working with people not just on the fracking ban and standing up against fracking and for our water but also in the opt-out movement which i feel strongly about. common core has been a disaster in our schools and i have been working with parents, teachers and community members around this district standing up for opt-out and recruiting parents and teachers to run for office, recruiting more women to run for office so we can change the conversation about education. i have been working against both the constitution pipeline and the ned pipeline. so you know, last spring i was sitting on church street in chatham talking to 40 people about how can we bring more renewable energy here? i am a ground up grass root personal. i will always represent people not the powerful interest. that is what i hear and what i

will do in congress is continue to be sitting in kitchens listening to people about what they really care about and taking those voices and raising those voices up when i go to washington. my opponent has shown how he represents. as i said before, he missed 1700 votes and in the votes he made it was against equal pay and for raising taxes. >> mr. faso? >> i tell you. it really is amazing. 1700 votes? well, in the time i was in the legislature my voting percentage was 97% which even in professor teachout's room would get an a. ...

this is what it is. this is why she has no basis running here. it's already got 13 congressmen. we don't need 14th. >> the 19th congressional district includes the falls area, where they have been dealing with water polluted. and the state level hearings, have left many residents unsatisfied, and john, what would you do on the federal level to address the situation? >> it's a great question and i have talked to, so many people, about what's they have gone through and what they have experienced and, it shows number

one, the failure of state and federal regulators to take the authority they already had in the law and why the state health department issued a advisory in december of 14 that the water was safe to drink that a google search would have been ever been able to recover information that there was definitely a problem with p.f.o. a. and the accelerated levels. the congress, they updated it, and i think this is an opportunity for us to continue, to make sure that we have the right bureaucratic responses and also that we're investigating the chemicals that like p.f.o.a. were not being tracked. so i think thfers a failure of bureaucracy and at the federal

level. how do we avoid this problem in the future? but, again, it brings to mind, the enact that, i believe in limited government. my opponent believes in big government. she talks about making big bank lend to small business. the fact of the matter is, everyone of her proposals, make it so that the small business person is disadvantaged. she wants a $15 minimum wage which it will kill family farmers, and, because our farmers are going to be priced out of the labor market. they can't afford what she is talking about. it goes again, she's unrealistic in her plans, because she comes from a new york city centric point of view, look at some of the foreign policy. she supports of iran deal.

iran was given a ransom of 400 million in cash, on a pallet that the u.s. sent over there from europe to the iranians, to get our hostages free. we also sent over almost a billion to the iranians nor deal. they cannot be trusted and she criticized schumer, so on so many issues whether it is her faultily research, and tax increases, i'm one of the biggest tax cutters, in the time i was there. and i was also one of the most fiscally responsible people. i was responsible for the first budget to reduce spending and you know what, 19-and-a-half trillion of debt in washington, we need someone to cut the budget. >> it will surprise no one. >> hold on.

>> i believe the question was about the falls which i want to take some time to talk about. because it is, a truly devastating crisis, in the falls and petersburg, and i spent a lot of time talking to community members there. there's a wonderful leader there, who is a mom what she talks about is, those 18 months where her kid was swimming, in the water, where she was like getting a glass of water, and it turns out the state knew that there was something wrong with the water. everybody is to blame. they have been frustrating because there's lost finger-pointing. the state and the federal government have to tariq sponsbility, and i have called for federal hearings with subpoena power and we also need

to move past that and have real concrete solutions, that are going to mean something to people there, that means medical monitoring and when i am in congress i'll be fighting for a fund, to pay for it, because, i mean you talk to parent there, who are really worried about the ongoing levels of p.f.o.a. and, as well i think this is about something more than just the falls. our water is threatened, across the board. i was took to go a young mother, of an 8-month old and she said i've been trying to take a blow dryer and dry the water, and she has come to fear water because of the scandals and we have to do everything that we can do

make sure they pay and we stand up. >> you have discussed what you want to do, with campaign finance reform. what woals you do, to improve the reputation of government if you're elect sned. >> yeah, well, i hate to say it, i share those poll's view. congress is really broken. it's broken, and it's grid locked andfore represent, both at the same time and i believe in that basic promise of representation, raising up people's voices and making sure they are heard. there are opportunities to work across the aisle in some limited areas, when i'm in congress, i'll tell you the kinds of things that i want to work o. independent businesses, and i

tau talked about it, and, which i think are extremely important. another is broad band. wewe have a real crisis with brd band, it is holding back our rural e commies, and f.d.r., in the 1930s, came together with republican rural senators to push through the rural electric act, we're going figure out how to get electricity to every last farmhouse. because of rural poverty. i think it's time for a updated. r. ea, where we focus on getting broad band, and self service everywhere. this is something that should not ab partisan issue. the opponents of that are the big companies like comcast, that have bought lobbyistes like my opponent and paid them to push

for keeping the cable industry tight, if not a monopoly but two big companies. and have more choices between different service providers. this is an area where i have a real history. i was part of fighting for network neutrality, make sure that our big capable companies don't limit, tell you what your politics are and this is an area where there shouldn't ab partisan divide and common core, as i hope you're listeners know, i have been a strong opponent of common core. that's into the partisan issue. bill gates, spent a lot of money to try to push a top down idea, federal overreach. it's not working. it's becoming a reem problem.

when i am in congress, i can work and will be working across the aisle to say, not only, enough with the high stakes testing but what you wa should education look like? what should federal education look like? >> how can we be a supporting safe secure schools for all of our kids? i'm a big believer in sports in schools. in music, and, thank you. >> as a point of information i think your listeners should know that the most prominent client, and i didn't have many, i represented, wases autism speaks. and i represented autism speaks. and add major role in writing a state law which enhanced, health coverage.

and, i was their advocate and i was someone that was out there fighting for them everyday in terms of their needes and needs of autistic children. so, i think that the overall issue that we face in our country today, and the issue that upstate new york faces, how do you get more growth in the economy? we're growing at 1.3% gdp a year. >> it will go for medicare, medicaid, social security and interest on the debt. if we don't get more growth we won't be age to fulfill our obligations to seniors and veterans, much less provide the opportunities for our children and grandchildren to find pros pear righty in our country in or

district, support for bernie sanders, and trump was because of the frustration. but i have a plan to build the small business economy. to end the overregulation which is, bank, it's the little and the medium-sized bank that are getting crushed, from dodd frank. i had one banker who told me i have hired all these two extra people. 80,000 just for combies and they prepare reports that no one reads. that's the problem. you opposed same-sex marriages and abortion. where do you stand on those issues today? >> look, i recognize, that the issue of abortion is a very contentious issue. it always has been for the last 43 years.

my position has always been that i have some moral objection but i have supported exception for rape, and inset of, and i have not supported taxpayer funded abortion exist recognize the law is the law and, row v. wade has been the law, and it's been upheld. i respect it. so i'm not running for congress to change that law. you asked about same-sex marriages. that's the law. it was adopted in new york state. and that's i fully respect the law and i have many friends of mine that have taken advantage of it. but, again, the point, the reason i'm running for congress is not to get in a debating society. the left watches msnbc, and right watch fox. and but, the fact is, people are

talking past one another. we've got get people, come to common ground and just like reagan and tip o'neill came up with a plan to safe social security, that's the kind of model that we have to pursue. we have to find way that's we get more growth. think of it, we have 19-and-a-half trillion dollars of debt. we will never, we are passing these costs onto our kids and grand children. that's what we have to fix. if we do not fix this. we will not be able to be a country that's strong, nor have the strength of our military, in the world which we need for our security and we have to fight isis. my opponent a supporting the iranian deal and the b. d.s. movement which wants to boycott israel.

i think it's an outrange. they're our strongest ali and we have to work with them, where shared intelligence for confront isis and i have not heard anything, about she support the iran deem. she thinks chuck schumer was wrong. she gives aid to the enemies of israel. a month after the two cops were gunned down, in their car, a month after, she said she plays, praifses the black lives movement as a thoughtful movement. you see how antisemitic many parts are. so she's got radical views that are not in tune with the people of this district. she's way to the far left. she would never be effective in congress. >> i think the question was about same-sex marriages and abortion.

>> in 2006 he said that if a bill came to his desk, supported by the legislature, in new york state, he would veto that bill, imposing his own views on new york state. i feel very strongly about civil rights for all americans and i would not have vetoed that bill and i was supportive of same-sex marriages. >> second, the questions about about -- i have and we all have friends who have very different private views on abortion. i really respect those different views. but i feel very strongly, that it is not the government's business to tell women what they

can't do with their body. that it is a private choissments i feel that we have to actively be supporting the work that planned parenthood does, in providing basic held receives, they provide. our basic health services. cancer screening. these are very live issues and they're very live issues in congress. there's a bunch of republicans who are stopping fund mooring for zika, because they don't want any money to go to women's health clinics. >> it looks clear where he would stand. he would be on the side of those who are opposing a funding for zika because of the women's health clinic funding.

>> we're now going to get for a question, and he alluded to it, the so-called boycott movement aims to punish israel for its policies. should congress and/or individual states move against the movement by imposing sanctions on the groups that take part in it? >> thanks for the question. i wanted to clarify, my opponent said something that wasn't true. i oppose t. i am a strong supporter of israel and a two state solution, and i think the united states has a very important role in moving towards t. in foreign policy the united states faces three very serious threats. one is the threat of either iran or north korea getting a nuclear weapon. the reason that i support the

iran deal, is because we cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. it is a year in and it has been successful. the your rainy enstock peoples are down 98%. they're down two-thirds and actual dismantling. we're farther away than we were a year ago. it's important we address the real threat of northfore reand we have to use our leverage with kleinna. the second real threat is terrorism. isis. and, isis is so threatening because it is gaining territory and because it is what is they call an inspir operational movement.

balance of power i neil our trade deals, including our trade with china and nafta and other countries have weakened us. that is problem, that, the core reason that i support renegotiate it go because we have to bring jobs home. i think it is against our interests and israel and i

support measure that's would sanction the movement. we have done this before, in new york state. we have done this before nationally, the apartheid movement. those that companies, and business that's supported apartheid. or did not subscribe to the mcbride principles. and i think b. d.s., we have to rebuild our national defenses and we have to avoid the cuts that are expect oath military. chris gibson has been in the forefront on this. he's been very, very e tbekive

at it and it's one of the reasons why i'm please knowed have his support in this race because he is someone that has been a strong spokesman and he's been able to be a strong spokesman for our military. bernie sanders is saying mr. snow den should get clemency. she belongs to the far left side. she would be like the freedom caucus on the republican side. you have these, in both parties that can't get anything done. because they are not willing to talk to the other side and we have to get tax reform. we have to get end the regulatory mess that we have in washington. that's how we get jobs back here. >> question on two related gun control proposals that have been

floating around, do you believe that individuals whose names appear on the federal no fly list should be barred, from purchasing firearms? do you support legislation to federally close the so-called gun show loophole? >> i support the second amendment. but i don't want terrorists to purchase weapons. the watch list is whether or not there's a due process means by which individuals who are falsely or incorrectly put on the list have a means to get off. that's the question, and that's the issue that has to be confronted. so yes, i think, if we can come up with an approach on this, which will ensure that there are due process rights for people that are incorrectly placed on the watch list i'm for it. there's no way i would say sport terrorists being able to purchase firearms. i don't think that additional federal gun laws are necessarily

the solution to the problem. i would like to see more penalties for trafficking of weapons. i would like to see penalties for people that commit a crime with a firearm. look at the places around our country, which have very strict gun laws, but they have skyrocketing murder rates because they have not been able to police, and get the weapons off the streets. one of the big issues, that we're facing here, which is, very important to me, is the issue of heroin and opioid abuse. i have laid out education, treatment and enforcement to deal with this. there's no doubt. they can work together and agree, heroin doesn't discriminate between male, female, black, white, gay, straight.

it is affecting every community no matter where i go, someone, i will talk about it, and someone will come up and tell me about a situation of, in their family or a friend that has been affected by this. so it's important the other local district, just like gibson is lyme disease. we have the cures act which he got it, in that bill. i'm hopeful that that will pass this year. but it's a issue that i'm going to take up the battle to. make sure that we effective treatment for lyme disease. just to be clear, on the loophole would you support legislation that would close that or not. >> i think that legislation is not going to be effective. i'm not going to be supportive of that.

i think, what we have to do, in terms of violence in, our society, is we have tone force the laws that we have, and the law that's we very not being enforced, and we have to have automatic strict penalties at the state level, with firearms. >> i support closing the gun show loophole. i also think that we should make sure that those who are on the "no fly" list also back on the no buy list. i agree up in a rural county, where my dad add rifle for hunting and all the men hunt. but we also had another gun for getting the raccoons, who were getting into our chickens and it is important that any laws, are respectful, and understand that a gun a tool, and an essential part of our life.

the heroin crisis is devastating. the dids are up three times since 2000. i was talking to a father, he wanted to get help and he spent a week on the phone with insurance companies, trying to find a bed for him. getting approval from the insurance companies. he couldn't get it. his son went back, and his son has since overdosed. part of addressing this crisis is addressing the insurance company's role and our broader health crisis. which is, people not being able to afford basic medication, seniors paying out of pocket, huge amounts or a mother i was talking to, whose daughter has cystic fibrosis.

it costs 300,000 a year. if we're going to be addressing these issues, we have to do what i have always done, raise up people's voices and take on those powerful drug companies, who hire lobbyists like my opponent to allow them to be in a position where they can charge outrange us fees. >> that's all the time that we have for the debate. very impressive debate. i'd like to thank the candidates and our panelists. i want to give a specialize shout out to our ian, who did all the hard work. i'm allen, and now we can have a round of applause for the

candidates. [applause] coming up, senators rand paul and chris murphy on u.s. policy in the middle east and then budget committee chair talks about changes to the bunch get process. later a debate between the candidates running for congress in the district. >> tuesday, wells fargo c.e.o. testifies on the 185 million fine, over fraudulent customer accounts. he's at senate banking committee hearing on c-span 3, later c.i.a. director, moderates a discussion with the intelligence heads of afghanistan, australia, and britain at 1:15.

>> you can also watch live or listen live on the c-span radio app. >> we don't get back to make america strong and great. >> i am running for everyone working hard to support their families. everyone who has been knocked down and gets back up. >> aharyksd live coverage of the presidential and vice-president debate's c-span, and c-span.org. monday september 26th. live from hofstra university. and then on tuesday, october 4th. vice-president candidates, pence and tim kaine debate, in virginia. on sunday, october 9, washington university, in st. louis, hosteds the seconds presidential

debate. leading up to the third and final debate. taking place at the university of nevada vegas on october 19th. live coverage of the debate's c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio app or watch live on demand c-span.org.

>> well, thank you all for come. we're delighted to have senators paul and murphy here. i don't think they need an introduction because if they do, i'm surprised ire you're here. we'll talk about the middle east and relationships with saudi arabia. and the states of the middle east has become complex, over the past few years to the point write think many of our friends have no idea where we or just about any issue.

to give you an example from saudi arabia, sitting, on the one hand you see that the united states is prepared to sell you, 20 billion worth of arms. on the other hand you see that members of the senate, on a bi-partisan basis are concerned about more recent sales, and these two gentlemen are prepared to talk about that. on the one hand the united states is a supporting the operations that they are conduct against the houthis who are sporn sort by iran. united states says to share the gulf with iran. how do you figure that out? the united states said mr. as sad could go, and now it seems to be saying, mr. as sad can

stick around for awhile which saudi arabia gets puzzled about and that's one country israel, egypt, and other countries you see the same degree of confusion. so to help, we have our two senators and i believe senator paul is going to speak first and give us his views and then, mushfy, and, over to you. >> thank you and thank you to the centers for national interest for having us and for this discussion. i think floor lot of aspects, where right and left can couple of together and party doesn't make so much difference. there's been a consensus on foreign policy for a long time. i think it may now be wrong and there needs to be another

consensus talking in another fashion. i'm excited that this week, we will introduce legislation. it's a privileged resolution. this is very unusual, it will be voted on. it has to be voted on within a period of time. so the plan is it will be introduced on wednesday and voted on wednesday. this almost never happens. so it is extraordinary in congress. the power to do this was given to us by the arms export control askt 1976. but this resolution will say to the president, that we disapprove of the sale of arms to saudi arabia. and co veto it. the house could sit on it. but i think it elevates the debate and allows congress to be part of this decision. now some might ask why would congress have anything to do with foreign policy? isn't that the chief imagine, of

the president? >> it was intended to be our bailiwick. war was taken away from the presidency and given to congress. if you look at mad today son's words, he said, that the branch most prone to war is the executive branch, with care the constitution took that power and vested in the legislature and we've got enaway from that. how can arms sale be anything to do with initiation of war? in this case, there is a war going, in yemen, we are refueling the planes that are dropping the bombs, and we have people helping to guide the missiles. so i think we are part of a war in yemen and almost no american know that's we're involved with it. we can debate it, whether we should do it.

but we can't just have no debate. so i think it's absolutely important and i think it's a big deal that we're bringing this forward. this and other issues, have brought us together, and the discussion of whether or not when we go to war that congress should authorize it. so the military force, two, one to go after the people that attacked us, on 9/11 and then the other for the iraq war. neither apply to yes, ma'am minor syria. so about two years ago, they were discussing a water bill, i insist owed a amendment to authorize the use of force, and we had a good debate. without a conclusion, but we began the debate. it didn't go to congress. congress points their fingers.

yet we're at war without a debate. when you talk to our soldiers, every one of them, lots, in fort campbel saw kids, they say they want the people to have debated this. suing if it is a valid order to go to war. i don't think these are arcontain points, and i think ts debate this week, over whether or not we send arms, into sawed sauteed. i'd like to turn it over to senator murphy. >> thanks, very much.

this is my first trip. so i hope it's the first of many. let me just associate myself with everyone of the sentiments of senator paul. we are, as a congress at risk of putting ourselves out of the business of helping to set and conduct foreign policy. it's real easy to declare war when it's a well defined enemy, and there's going to be a peace treaty. it's much more difficult to declare it when the enemy is a shadow and victory is harder to define. but, the responsibility to declare war isn't condition america upon how difficult it is. by congress' refusal to authorize the war against isis, and authnorth rise the current

operations, that are happening inside yemen we are at rirveg have never being relevant, on matters of war making and foreign policy. so i think this is serious. but, let me talk about this arms sale. this arms sale is in part designed to replace weaponry that has been battle damaged, in the saudi led coalition fight, inside yemen. the question is, whether it is in the national security interest to continue to largely back the play, in this civil war. first thing to say this is into the proxy war.

so to view this as a clean, clear fight between the saudis and iranians, misunderstands this conflict. if you talk to yemen, they will tell you that is u.s. bombing campaign. they view every casualty as having an american imprint to it. so we have to take seriously that we own every death, and as much as we have been pressing them to get better, they are not. in a 72-hour periods they bombed another doctors without borders, a school and the house next door. even when we tell them not to,

like a key bridge used for the supplies they ignore us. still bomb. so we barrysponsbility for the way in which this war is being conducted. even if you believe that there's an important message being sent, through u.s. participation in this fight, we all have to ask ourself, what is our chief and primary goal in the middle east? is it to send messages to iran or defeat extremist. it has gained, foot holds inside yemen. it is the most likely branch the al-qaeda to strike again. they were earning more money.

so, from a u.s. national security perspective, if we are helping to rad dallize them and participating in the slaughter, and we are allowing groups who have plans and plots to go stronger, how can that been in our security interest? stopping one arm sale does not put an end to the performance in these hostilities. but, a positive vote poor very strong vote would send a signal that things have to change. >> thanks very much. thank you both for making the case so clearly and allowing a lot of time for the many people

who are here to ask questions. i'll take the prerogative of the chair to start. when you all have a comment or question, please identify yourself. i'm doug zach, i'm the vice-president of the center. >> have you made a very strong case and many merits to the case. as a result, would congress be sending more mixed signals, to the saudis, than they are getting. would it make things worse and not better? would that drive them into the hands of the one man who is more and more influential, mr. putin, who seizes on every opportunity, to push us out, and push himself in?

>> it should not be our goal what message we're second, our first goal is, is it in our vital national security interest to be involved? i view the weapons that we manufacture as not being private. they're not like the items that you see stocked in walmart. the u.s. taxpayer has paid for them. i thirnlgt taxpayer retains a interest, ownership we have sol0 billion dollars. i saw the figure, and i almost didn't believe for saudi, in the last eight years, which

think, it seems to be so shorthand whenever you read anything, people say beneath had to do things that are in the national security interest. butbut that's a debate. we talk about the issues, and then it gets to the specifically, we have to debate whether it is in our interest. we have to debate intended versus unintind. it is such that we are getting the unintended. i don't question the motives of the people, in congress or the president, but we are getting the unintended consequences. one of the syrian war is millions displaced and the same can happen in yemen. saudi arabia should be taking refugees. i like the way, both arsonists and firefighters. they are throwing fuel on the flames in one sense, and they

are also attempting to help. so it may send a mixed message as to their loyalties, and, people hatred of america, they have supported schools, that preach hatred of our country. that needs to end. there's an article by the former ambassador -- >> talking about saudi arabia we're going to do better and holding back the arms may give them a chance to show that they can do better. >> i would just restate this important point that he made about the dramatic increase in arms sales during this administration. we're talking about a 6-8 fold increase in the dollar amount of

arms, in the president barak obama administration. we could, we should recognize that that we are selling more than ever before. so, to argue that there should be some scaling back or some pause, is a recognition that the pace here is very different than ever before. i would argue that we should be sending signals, that our support is conditional. is it consistency is your goal here, then i guess we should answer the call anytime they ask. but if your goal is to create a more functional relationship between the united states exhaust sawed then you have to say no. the fact of the matter is, we won't be with them.

there will be other times where we'll. it may be in their interest to fight this war, inside yemen. it is not in the our interest. i would concur, you have to take a, it's time to take stock of this relationship. every year, saudi arabia representatives tell usthat they, they have made mistakes, in terms funding the wrong people or the story isn't like the newspapers tell t. glass direct relationship to the amount of money that goes into the parts of the globe infielding people that will follow them into the fight in places like afghanistan and the seria. there's a direct relationship between the focus of gulf state actors on creating a bedrock of conservative teaching, in the balkans.

they say they get better on their targeting. they don't. john. >> john, national council. i agree with much of what both of you have said, in terms of that which is reprehendsible. we're charged with being lacking in empathy. we have a deficit. so the question is, how would you try to show a people they if i can view partners views.

does it not have needs or interests, and concerns that parallel ours. not all, that default but when we refer to them sometimes, as free robbers, they could say that, no, we're the free runners. they get 750 billion in our financial system. we don't have a penny in theirs. >> i think there are many places in which our interest align and, this may be, part of where, senator paul and i may differ. but, anytime that i talk about my desire to try to recast this relationship, there are plenty

of very positive things that they do, in the region. counter intelligence is, critical. their ability to facilitate the gc c. and israel. very important to u.s. national security goals. i think we have turned the other way and allowed for the saudis to create a version of islam which has become the building blocks for the groups that we are fighting. we have asked them to stop. and the evidence suggests that they have not. over the course of the last year-and-a-half, we have begged them and toll them the targets not hit.

they have not listened. so i do think it's time to question whether this alliance is as clear and as solid as many of us may have been told it was. they need to show us and i don't see a lost evidence, for that to be the case. there are plenty of other places that we will coordinate. when it comes to the civil war in yemen i have yet to see a reason why it is in our national security interest. >> i would say that we don't only show empathy through arms. i think we can show empathy through trade. i would also propose that the more interconnected our economies are the better. the fact that china owns quite a

bit of our debt, and saudi arabia. and i wish we didn't have so much debt, that's a good thing. the more you trade the less you are likely to fight. but, this is always used with regard to aid. if we don't give more aid, we don't like them enough. maybe it should be about trade as well. but saudi arabia could be more open to allowing investment in american or other ownership of companies within their country. people have talked about you know, a ref formation within islam that there are many people saying things that we're not hearing because we're so busy with bombs. but that we're not hearing the

other side of tolerant islam. i meet many professional muslims, in my workings, who are very tolerant and we live and interact in a way in our country. but saudi arabia doesn't seem to be doing that. they could do a better job. we don't always will have to sell them arms. there can be some better behavior by withholding it. >> former ambassador to syria. it's the popular perception, that, in this town was that the b.r.a.c. break administration agreed to help saudi arabia and yemen to placate them over the iran nuclear deal to insure that

they decreed more waves. and also, in reference to the point, of that kind raised, that the saudis might, putin might find a way to play with the saudi issue, it would seem to me that, the russians and saudis have a long history of distrust and to this day, i think the russians believe that a of their problems were a result of u.s. exhaustdy influence there. so, do you see that with -- that there is chance with spaed sawed

i'm not as concerned about,. and that i do, i do perceive, our initial moves to partner with saudi arabia on the conflict, in yemen, as part of a broader strategy surrounded the iran deal. but i think it stands to reason that the two are interlinked. my preference, would be for congress to make our support for this arm sale conditional. the initial legislation, would have allowed for it to go forward, should there be progress on these issues of the targeting of civilians and clear

evidence that the saudies and coalition were going after al-qaeda and isis targets and they have done very good work, in going after them, but they have done that without the assistance of the saudis. so, i understand, why the administration decided to support them in this fight. but given the fact that they have shown no willingness to listen to our concerns, i think now is the time for us to withdraw that is a sport. had they conducted differently, had they used u.s. refueling capacity to run as many missions as they are against the houthis then we would be having a different discussion today. but that's not been how it is played out. we began the discussion with some of the questions about the unintended consequences.

one is, was creating a space in which isis grew. i don't think anybody, when people talk about who created what, they created themselves. however, i do think it's an unintented, consequence of pushing as sad back and, what would be the unintended, consequence, who takes over? al-qaeda, and/or isis? they have a hold there as well? so, i think we do have to be very concerned with that. and, this was, is this done of the arm sale done to placate them over iran appearing to get money? >> yes. more than just placate mooring it is fueling a arms race. because iran, whether we like it or not will take some of this money, and you can say it was

theirs but they'll buy weapons and saudi arabia will buy weapons to counteract that. one of the great irony says looking at all of the weapons, there, all of the u.s. weapons. there's a certain degree of irony, from turkey and fighting against u.s. arms, in the hands of the kurds, and going to the little town, and seeing pentagon backed exurds, fighting syrian moderates with two different branches, a supporting each side after battle. it's a messy place. we need to step back and be wise about our decisions and doesn't mean do nothing. but we have often done too much. >> the example you just gave was proof that we do have a whole of government, that suggests we support everybody.

>> in terms of arab, is it trying not disengage but less, and enabling the a lives, to be careful enough to take ownership of the region? and does that mean. engaging in it? >> depending so much on it? >> so, in that context, do you give a call for -- canceling arm sales? >> they cannot conduct this

operation without major u.s. tactical strategic support. i don't know what the answer to this question is, but, if the united states had decided not sell them replacements, that they had dropped, did not replace the battle damaged tanks, were not on the ground, were not providing the intelligence, would they be participating at the same level that they are? in and out answer may be yes, and they will tell you that the answer is yes. more people would be dead because the targeting would be worse than it is with our help. but i think that's an out standing question. so, i understand, what the administration is doing, which is pulling back, and i go trying to facilitate sunni problems. and we are still clearly involved in this question.

i think it's problem math particular that we have not, waited on this question, because this looks like acts of war by the united states against the hootedty people. >> i think it goes back to, the only way we have engagement through arms, and so for example, i do want more engagement, but i the also to want see more diplomat kick engagement and i think the most important thing is engagement with russia. when i was active in the debates, you may remember, when they said they want to punch russia and no fly zone -- i was saying, well, i think they can be part of the solution. i'm not naive to think that they're always good or do the right thing. but, they have add base, for what? >> 50 years.

second most important negotiation is between turns and kurds. i always tell people, as i go around the country and talk is, that, isis is like 25,000 people. that's how many fighters they have. the turks have 600 now their army. and, 200,000, and the army has 200,000. and they have a million. they don't like them. it sounds like what we need to do is have a arrangement, where we all are not shooting each other and they are all training their fire on the enemy of peace.

>> you said that the russians have been in serifor decades. i think when i talk to folks in the region, even if they are totally opposed, to

it should have a geographic specificity and they can suggest what those parameters should be, but given the fact isis has claimed affiliates and dozens upon dozens of countries, it would be a massive redistribution if we simply said wherever someone claims to have an affiliation with isis you can now conduct the activities and a technical limitation as well. there should be a prohibition on the ground forces. that would be such a disastrous mistake. if we want to be relative again as a body, it would be appropriate to debate that kind

of resolution. i believe that it should be limited geographically and tactically. i would probably go for a year at a time. people said why would we come back every year congress is so messy. we've been attacked we've been pretty unanimous. after 9/11 congress was unanimous to respond and after world war ii. there are 32 countries that pledge allegiance to isis. my side voted for a resolution.

they had some temporal limits that island island against that one, too mac. it was different against fighting germany and japan. we were not fighting a government that is going to be clear because let's say for example you put 200,000 american troops against isis, how long do you think that victory would take? we could do it in a day, two days or three days. they would disappear, but what we have won and who is going to go on the aircraft carrier and sign the armistice? i think they disappear. it's been my opinion that one, you are fighting a radical ideology, it's difficult to defeat in conventional terms. but number two, i loved the

belief, and some people don't like how i characterize this, but it will have to defeat radical islam or people who i think are truly rejecting the teachings of islam because i don't think they will ever accept it from us because even those that are not radicalized, foreigners were satanic committee won't accept victory from us, so they need to the islamic boots on the ground and i think there are plenty of those that live in the area that don't think isis represents islam and they can't be stamped out and also going back to the article thomas friedman wrote about containment. when we are containing we have our friends over there and that is something i would support that independence. i think over time the kurds have

shown themselves to be the most successful and they probably do better. the 100 billion given in saudi arabia would have been better spent going to saudi arabia. i think also some of the weapons we've been giving him some of the weapons frankly we kind of had a big boat full of weapons and we are passing them out saying if you'd like america raise your hand. we have no idea who the moderates are. we had no idea who they are taking these ships and many of the weapons did wind up in the hands correctly order of isis. so if we look at it limited time and geography i think the boots on the ground needs to be the people who live there.

>> more than 60 were killed and many were wounded [inaudible] under the circumstances they couldn't ask to comply with the cease-fire. then putin made the statement that this was a horrible crime. now the president made an announcement no longer complying with the cease-fire then there was an announcement by both sides. now there is new information

from moscow that they would use the air force. some of these are just announcements at least potentially. would we try harder with putin putin was prepared to use the force and [inaudible] >> that's an easy question. [laughter] spinnaker that question has underlay beneath it the assumption that is ever present and the united states canceled this. if you start with the assumption

you will never come up with the right answer and i think that that is where i'm not going to give you the answer you want here because there isn't an answer that begins and ends with the united states but if you begin with the premise the united states canceled it you may end up getting an answer that is worse, not better because your underlying assumption is fundamentally flawed. so the hippocratic oath needs to apply to the foreign policy as well. first, do no harm. i'm in full agreement with him. we have been so frenzied to provide arms to anyone that we think is ultimately going to fight the bad guys inside that we've now ended up in situations the theory being used against each other and believe me, ten, 20, 30 years from now we'll see more instances that we throw out on both sides to use against each other. when you see those pictures, it

is a totally completely unsatisfactory answer that the united states cannot solve this. but how terrible must it feel to people that the united states isn't at the least helping to empty out that country as anyone that wants to be. at the very least we should be reconsidering our commitment to take an amount of 10,000. we should be putting in every dime necessary to help make sure every refugee wherever they are gets fed. i don't think we can solve this alone. we should stop trying to find u.s. dominated solutions for this crisis. there will be a solution ultimately but it likely won't be led by the united states. and what is most damning is the fact that we are not doing what is necessary to try to provide humanitarian relief and bring refugees to the country and try

to come up with an answer to a question that is fundamentally flawed. >> you did answer the question. the gentle man and in the blue shirt. >> you both repeatedly talked about the extremist ideology that doing so even in this country i wonder if you would favor anything on that especially in america. i know they have a bill that would fund activities in the u.s. [inaudible] >> these are sensitive issues when we talk about restrictions on religious foundations or

churches or mosques. i'm a huge believer not only in religious liberty but freedom of speech as well be leaving the dish almost never be limited. however i think some limitations can occur when you are advocating violence and the overthrow of the government. so, yes you could take away any kind of tax exemptions to any foundation that is advocating for violence but then you have to prove your case. i am not saying i'm not saying that i advocate a specific bill but for me it me it was the beatification of violence into britain in the britain has begun giving this and it's insulting when you find yourself in a country using the system or living off the system that comes from the wealth of the country and then attacking.

>> the gentleman next to the gentleman you had your hand up. [inaudible] i want to cycle back to a point you made they are an active participant the obligations the united states has [inaudible] until they are credible. do you think that either of those two boxes have been checked and if not when?

>> that is a point that needs to be emphasized. we are re- fueling the flames in planes in the air dropping the bombs. to me that sounds like you are intimately involved in the war. we are selecting the targets and re- fueling the planes so it isn't just please don't invade a neighboring country but there's also the point i want to make up the export control act of 76 that allows us to have this disapproval resolution. it says in that resolution that arms that we sell to our friends presumably we are only selling to our friends at when we when we sell to our friends at says they need to be for internal use in legitimate self-defense. i think it was a violation that's not for internal use or self-defense and so that needs to happen but nobody is having the debate and that is what is important about this we need to have a debate and hopefully

people will begin to discuss whether it is a good or bad idea our goal should be able to stay out of the war but to the extent there are the right ways and wrong ways to fight the war i believe i heard today the american bar association issued a resolution through the support of the logistician we are discussing today. they believe we have an obligation to suspend sales when we have knowledge they are being violated and they are inside saudi arabia today. one right way to fight the war is to work with the organizations to make sure that you're targeting is correct. i've heard multiple reports from the organizations sitting in my

office telling me that they are not in contact with the coalition to provide assistance and targeting in the way they have been in other conflicts throughout the world. so there is clearly a right way to fight an engagement and a wrong way to fight an engagement and right now there is an imprint on the deaths in part because of some simple things to reduce civilian casualties. >> we have time for one more question. >> you've got to identify yourself first. >> [inaudible]

those relationships in my view and my estimation go every morning [inaudible] in the state of connecticut many so there is an impact there are jobs looking at the campaign.

how do you reconcile the two? i would never make a decision that compromises the national security in order to grow defense jobs in the state and i think that is the question that we are asking ourselves here. if it is such that they can constitute enough strength to attack the united states the day after another few thousand americans are killed, there's going to be no one that wants to hear that we participated because it created some additional jobs despite the fact that we knew that it was accruing to the detriment of the u.s. national security interest. i don't deny that it is a major

player between the united states and saudi arabia is strong and important but our first job is to protect the country from attack and i believe that we are putting this country in jeopardy is attacked again if we don't get serious about bringing a settlement to the war in spite of yemen. that is my first obligation as a senator. >> our job is to defend and when i think about how i'm going to vote on any discussion or decision i think i've the young man in a neighboring town, that's who i'm voting for is what is in the national interest of our country. we want a strong defense

industry, sure we do. i'm all for it for legitimate concerns and i want the strongest defense in the world and we do and we should continue to do it but we never see it as a jobs programand vote on it based on the jobs in consideration of the individual you are going to send two more. >> i have three takeaways from this discussion. there's been a wonderful sense of bipartisanship that makes me feel good as an american. it should retain its own foreign policy. it's good to know that a few hundred years later it's still important. finally, whether you agree or not you heard the case for it and that's important so i want

to thank both of the senators, thank you all for an excellent discussion today. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

talked about newly proposed changes to the congressional budget process. his remarks were followed by a panel on the subject. this is 90 minutes. it's wonderful to see such a great turnout. welcome and everyone watching on c-span. it's been a great frustration in the budget process for a year and many people have been talking about making reforms on the changes how to improve it. we've had the committee of responsible budgets for a better budget process and many others have put forward ideas.

but the chairman has taken a talk and try to turn into action and several hearings of the senate budget committee. in the budget process and ideas for consideration which hopefully this year or next year so we are pleased to have the chair and here. he's an accountant by background is the training for the position, so served in the legislature from 75 to 96 and served in the united states senate since 1977 and has been the chairman of the budget committee so with that for his proposal. [applause]

i understand the announcement and all of you figured it would be really short. a guy with a trenchcoat and hat set just because i'm an it just because i'm an accountant doesn't mean i'm not dangerous. we do have a broken budget process and it occurred to me that congress is kind of like a binge eater. we want to die it right after the next desert and we have an idea for a recipe it would be different than anything anybody else has done and it will be really good and it will save money. just have to put a little

investment up front. it's 20 trillion in debt ahead of the $29 trillion in debt. i usually don't use the word truly in because that's a thousand billion and one of anything doesn't sound like nearly as much as a thousand of some thing. it's a huge problem. the budget act this past 40 years ago and it's been followed to completion four times in 40 years. i passed a budget last year that was the first one to balance. have to remind you that they were able to stick a lot of social security bonds to spend money but this one had to balance in spite of that. the budget lasted five months and then there was a stick to

their deal to keep the government operating. depending on which numbers you use it would cost about $76 billion to balance to be able to spend what we wanted to spend. 70% of the budget is on autopilot. we don't get to discuss that part at all. the payments are automatic and that forces the other 30% use budget gimmicks. we often take a loan from the future. a bill that we passed on the development that had a little piece for flint michigan. earlier when we were having a bit of a recession, we gave some incentive to automobile dealers but with two electric cars. the incentive didn't work out very well so there's a lot of

money left in the fund but that was an emergency fund. they were asking to use what is left in 2020 and move that forward and spend it right now. $299 million. that was the amount of overspending. there isn't any money to move forward because that was emergency money which means we invented it. incidentally the emergencies never end. there is no ending date for them so we take it from the future and use emerge in.

now, when i came to the senate, i noticed that there were $5 billion worth of emergencies every year from forest fires to hurricanes earthquakes and other things. if you know that you are going to have $5 billion on the expenditures, why isn't that part of the budget? it's too hard to get the money if you don't make it an emergency so you notice we also put in $7 billion a year per roll ten years for emergencies. some years it doesn't cover it and some is more than enough. another problem we have is budget format. the president has a format for his budget which is the same ones we've worked with. but the budget committee has a

different format for the same dollars. and then the appropriations committee. i'm pretty convinced that it's intentional. even within the administration budgets, the audit doesn't work because the department of defense uses a slightly different formula for how they notate within the treasury does this supposed to be keeping track of it. another problem is we don't look at old programs. we have been doing a lot of desert over the years. i noticed on health education i

noticed we had 145 -- 119 preschool programs, 119. i'd like to see what the difference was. they were named for a different senator. and i checked to see how they were working and most of them had have devolved from an education process to a babysitting service. you shouldn't pay the same amount as you do for an educational program so i started eliminating. i got to talk to him one of mothers and children that we got their children but we got them into the babysitting services as that is what they were looking for the educational program usually requires that the mother or dad or both be at the sessions for part of the session so they can learn that in any rate, i got back down with senator kennedy's help and since that time i've gotten it down to 45 programs. the difficulty in reducing the program if they are in all

different agencies. i didn't have jurisdiction over most of those. you can't eliminate something you don't have jurisdiction over. so, two years ago i was able to get an amendment passed almost unanimously but those have to be reduced down to five programs and put under one department of the department of education. it passed but it hasn't happened yet. i had planned for a long time. i figured if we took 1 cent off every dollar the federal government spends and did it until he started balancing the budget, we could do that in seven years. now, i've been talking about this every place including senior centers because it would include all of mandatory spending that the mandatory

spending that we do as well as the other spending. i'm sure people would say that hurt but not that bad if i can save this able go to person. now%. now we've got it down to three years is where we need to be. i've been trying to balance the budget since i got here and sending back 20, 25% of my own each year. it doesn't make much of a dent. they are passed according to the population of the state and the least popular state in a nation so i can at least budget but i was still able to send back 20 or 25%. interest rates are going to eat us alive. that's why we have to do something and we have to do something right now. we are almost at $20 trillion,

20 trillion. it's pretty easy to do the math at 1%. 1% interest is $200 billion a year. doesn't buy anything. that isn't the norm. at the norm the norm is 5% for the government. combine that and it comes up with a thousand billion. do you know how much we get that isn't mandatory spending, that includes defense and highways and almost everything you can think of with irregular expenditure of the federal employees. i don't know how we would spread that $70 billion house. we are not going to be able to. we have to make changes.

i'm from a state that knows how to make changes. we are in a little bit of a throw right now because they've been doing this in the coal mines and my county provides 20% of the nation's coal. so in one week, hundreds of employees got laid off and they did say if you're not a coalminer this won't affect you. the next week they were laid off by the thousands and sifted down through the economy and here's what it's done to the economy. we have a rule that if the legislature can see something coming they have to make the cut during the 20 days to do the budget every year the dubai annual budgeting. so they cut 8% of the budget.

we found out that isn't enough. when they are not in session the governor has to make those cuts. so the governor made another 8% of the cuts. he discovers that it's gone down even more. so he said we have to do another round of those but i think i will leave that for the legislature. the legislature will be meeting in january. i'm sure that they are thrilled. but that will be 24% out of the budget. can you imagine if we could 24% out in one year plaques the whole federal budget. we have to have some solutions that would get things going. another is the gross domestic product.

the interesting statistic that i found on that is if the economy improved by just 1%, the federal government would have 430 billion more to spend without raising taxes. where has the economy going, 2.7 down half a percent. that is a thousand billion dollars that we've lost. i just got the report that the overspending for the series projected to be $90 billion. how significant is that? we told you we would only get to make decisions on the 1,070,000,000,000 so that is a pretty gross overspending. of course it is isn't all out of the discretionary fund is. the other funds have to take the money out of the discretionary

so there's less and less to work with. i don't get invited to speak a lot of places because it is so depressing. [laughter] but there are solutions, and we have been working on those as the committee in a bipartisan way we've been holding a bunch of hearings to see what other countries are doing, how other governments to do, help the states do it. there's a lot of states they control positive solutions but there are some and we've got some. i will start with some of the bipartisan solutions. one of them is to put everything on the budget. let's put everything on the budget that doesn't have a source of revenue sufficient to cover the expenses each and

every year. what it is put everything on budget. none of them had the dollars to sustain themselves out of the revenue that has been dedicated. we are stealing the money from other places not only highways but the other transportation infrastructure. but we decided we don't want to raise taxes so we don't do that. they raise the gas tax and the surprising thing is nobody lost their job over that because they saw the need for the highways to be better and said that is the logical way to fund it. something that is directly related and we don't do much of that anymore around here.

another idea we got for solving the budget crisis has to do with mandatory floor time for appropriations. set aside two or three months each year that you just do a appropriations. appropriations. we ought to skip the cloture motion to proceed to that particular appropriation. we've got to talk about them anyway. there is still in still an opportunity if they want to filibuster to do that at the end of the process. that's after you cover with the spending could be. that's all you can talk about unless you can get a two thirds vote of the people with absolutely no debate. that is an emergency. another thing we do is wave the small order that caused extra votes but for the bigger

expenditures right now in the senate it takes 60 votes to pass the bill. it also takes 60 votes to waive a point of order so if you are going to pass it anyway, you're not worried about the point of order. but sometimes those are huge points of order so both sides have agreed there needs to be a bigger trigger for the violations. another is a table of resources for a portfolio approach that means a connection between spending and results and we create budget committees that would do portfolio reviews. but they give you an example. we have 140 housing programs administered by 20 departments.

you'd think some of them must have seven and some have ten. all 140 are dabbled in by all 20 agencies. nobody is in charge. nobody sets the goals to see where the housing is actually providing for the people that were anticipated because to get housing. we met with some folks from new zealand who went to this portfolio approach and housing was one of the folio areas. and they found they had a lot of homeless people in most of them were ex- military people so they want to build a bunch of housing for military and they did but they have just as many as they had before. maybe we are not doing the right thing.

when they looked into it they said they were afraid of everything or they had a number of issues they just don't watch the enclosed in anything so they shifted to mental health and reduced homelessness. so, we've got to get to some kind of a process where there is a portfolio with somebody in charge, requirements and goals. if they meet the goals maybe we give them more money and if they don't, we take a look at what they were and figure out why they didn't work. another thing we do is eliminate. i don't know if you've witnessed that the code vote in the committee and on the floor, we have a process where you don't have to turn the amendment in in advance. you can turn it in to the last minutes before the final vote and has to be voted on.

unless you personally decide not to have a vote on it and people it's usually wear off after a couple weeks of giving a. they are usually just political points that are being made and have no relation to the increased spending or decreased spending. but we have agreed to eliminate that. when i became the budget chairman and i went to the senator and said i know that the typical way of doing this budget if i get is five against the budget together and we would meet on a wednesday and then i would let you see what the budget is and then the next day we would do the amendments i tell you i will do i will give it to you several days or a week in advance if you will agree to provide the amendments 24 hours before we do the voting city

that can look at them and see what is responsible. i think we have some agreement about now to start doing that so it is a more bipartisan approach to the responsible with some limitations on the amendments. now i talk about some bigger reforms. i think those are pretty big but there are some that we need to do. we need to have a budget commission. i was one of the cosponsors of the original budget commission and was kind of disappointed that some of the cosponsors dropped off there and we didn't have enough votes to the commission. president obama said we are going to do the commission and i

think more participation by more members of the house and senate would give a little bit more agreement and if we were able to break that down into pieces i think there would be more possibility of getting it through and then we could vote on it in pieces. i think that could make some huge changes. another one each year to said the spending guard rails. i would have been sent to this guard rail that would be based on the revenue anticipated and would be a bit to gdp formula

and we would vote on it and then we would have to stay on that until the budget process. i would also like to see us go to the biannual budgeting. there isn't any entity in the world that deals with this many dollars as the federal government does and we don't ever look at it. a couple people will sit down in a room and find out what all the great expenditures are for this country. there is no relationship between the committees and the appropriations subcommittees. i know lindsey graham said he and pat leahy worked out the foreign relations budget in a few hours. they think they ought to have some input into how the foreign relations money is spent.

that's why we have the authorizing process, but the authorizing process is a little out of whack. i noticed that there were 260 programs that were expired that we were spending money on and it was 293.5 billion a year. that's a lot of money. so, i harp on that a lot and the next year we were down to 256 but we spent $310 billion. the you've got to look at the programs on a regular basis. but there is no incentive to do that. who gets any credit for going back and eliminating a program?

it has to be done. so, another thing we can do is have a regulatory budget. in canada the way that it works you've got to eliminate an old regulation and have some incentive to go back and look at the old programs and old regulations that we've done. they didn't get into it having to be the same amount of dollars that would be a good one as well but they started out wanting to get rid of old ones and one of the things they did this to make a regulatory budget where each agency could get credit for ones they eliminated without the new regulation so they had a little storehouse of possibilities when it came time to do the regulation. we thought that was a pretty

good idea. the president gets to allocate how much is spent each year and it is possible to run out of money for the five years even if there there are not cost overruns which usually confuse the process. for capital construction so the capital construction budget would help a lot. essentially we need honest accounting and detailed accounting and timely accounting i think we are on a path to getting that done. i was hoping it would be done before the election. that's part of the reason we had this bipartisan approach. nobody knew who would be the majority in the senate. nobody knew who the president was going to be and we still

don't. but up until we do, we can be reasonable protecting our own rights. afterwards the majority probably want to make some drastic changes on their own. you have to have both sides committed. we left out the fact that we ought to do six budgets each year and we do the six after and before the next and that would give a little more opportunity to put some traction they will also make that two or three months we set aside to give some detail which is something we really need to do. every agency with no for two

years the money that they had to spend and somebody said that should save 5% just on that spending they do right at the end of the gear to make sure year to make sure they use their whole budget is the only do the spending once every year. so we do know what to do. we've got to remember we just want one more before we go on the diet. thank you. [applause]

i'm going to be moderating the panel. i am the editor of the budget appropriations brief. hopefully a few of you are readers and he will reach out and talk about what you like and don't like. going to introduce the panel and

then i will let each of them speak and i'm going to ask some questions then we will take questions from the audience. so please write this down on your card and the staff will pick them up before we come to question time. first week of we have the principle of the federal budget group in the white house office of management and budget. we will discuss the proposals regarding the senate rules and procedures. add the direct fiscal studies for the syndrome of service at george mason university. he's a political scientist at the university of maryland

baltimore county and has been a professor since 1990 as an analyst at the congressional budget office. the research is on the priority setting and transparency in the budgeting and he's going to discuss the budget concepts commission. the senior adviser for the committee of the budget previously served on the staff of the deficit reduction commission and before that, he spent many years as a budget aide first for congressman charlie stenholm and then the house majority leader steny hoyer. then he will talk about setting up and enforcing the fiscal goals. it's hard to believe that i

started my career here in the senate budget committee 33 years ago. tim really does fly. first i would like to congratulate the staff at the committee for the responsible federal budget for turning federal budgeting and responsible budgeting into an important bipartisan issue and i would like to commend the staff for the budget reform and doing so in a very constructive and bipartisan manner. they've gone above and beyond in terms of reaching out to gather viewpoints from both of the sites of the aisle and we don't see enough of that right now so it's highly commendable. i agree with the goals of the germans -- chair man set out.

it's been harder to pass and ignore. ignored. we need to address the long-term debt and we need to add predictability to the appropriations. i appreciate the opportunity today to comment briefly on the very specific proposals. the chairman mentioned the voters reform and that occurred because there is a time limit on the consideration of the budget resolutions but even after all that time expires, senators can continue to offer as many amendments as they want and they are able to force the votes. it wasn't always that way at the beginning but somewhere along the way people figured out this was an easy way to force the political votes on a broad range of issues into the dozens were

sometimes 100 votes for all completely nonbinding and have no impact on anything except tough political votes. so it would be a step to streamline the budget resolution and make it a more sensible document. in my view from working at the budget committee and finance committee and rules committee i think the most effective way is to have a point of order against any amendments unless the impact spending totals and procedures. that would be a thought to consider as the process moves forward.

the proposal for the commission is also a very good idea. the commission last reported in 1967 the proposal to come out of the commission was to create a unified budget work where all the spending and trust funds and everything is included in one unified budget the same with all the revenues and the logic behind the unified budget is that we ought to be able to see the entire impact of the single federal budget on the economy and they like to look at the effect to figure out the economic effects of the budget. but the unified budget has turned out to be a problematic

concept or one that requires some rethinking. we might want to consider reducing the federal budget so that it operates more like state budgets for example, which has separate operating budgets and capital budgets the chairman mentioned having a capital construction budget. this would be a useful and impactful thing for the budget commission to address. all we have to do is look at the one to $2 trillion of infrastructure needs that are outstanding in the country and you begin to understand maybe we are not doing long-range investments correctly. biannual budgeting, this is bounced around the entire time that i'm in the but i'm in the area and it started back in the

80s and it's been discussed perpetually. from the agency perspective, having more certainty for federal managers makes a great deal of sense. i do have a view from the senate's point of view. one could argue that the most effective oversight that has is ever done is during the appropriations process. they go into great detail and before switching to the biannual funding which has its advantages some thoughts ought to be given to the very effective oversight that happens during the appropriations process.

all of the committee work has been done. they delve into each of the bills very carefully. another proposal is to have dedicated time for considering appropriations bills on the floor by reserving the four-time between august and the appropriations bills. i understand the motivation behind this, but it's been my experience that the problem with the appropriations bills is not an adequate for time and the principal reasons for not getting the votes in the individual bills or the filibuster and the nongermane policy writers so if the

objective is to bring all of the bills to a vote maybe we ought to consider ending the filibuster is the same way we don't allow them on the budget resolutions in reconciliations and also the nongermane policy writers a violation of the senate rules. a fifth item that has been discussed as a fiscal commission to bring the debt under control. i was fortunate to direct the task force in 2010 and there was the same symbols commission that could very find work.

turning over the fiscal policy positions to be unaccountable commission especially if there's going to be a requirement to vote up or down on the plan amendments without any filibuster if this kind of of approaches approach is good to be used and there is some merit there needs to be an opportunity to offer the germane amendments and adequate time to consider the plans they bring forth. to mention a few other ideas that could restore public confidence in the ability of the government tasked responsibly and that is what this is all about, one is a joint budget resolution that would require

the president and congress to agree on a budget framework at the beginning of the fiscal year instead of waiting until the 11th hour. those already made by congress going through this routine every year or two or three where we threaten the economic catastrophes it is just irrational and we ought to just eliminate the debt ceiling. automatic cr we also should give some thought on how to prevent the constant risk of the government shut down every october 1. if we put in an automatic it can could allow the government to function and would do a lot to restore confidence in the government by eliminating these

fiscal clips that happen every couple of years. was first adopted in 1919 and it was reenacted in 20, and it's been a very effective way to prevent spending and revenue legislation from making the debt problem worse so some thoughts ought to be given on how to require congress to live according to the pay go and we ought to consider the content of the budget resolution it's not taken grievously right now because nobody understands it. most of the budget resolution and i know this because i had a draft of the budget on the budget committee most of it is allocating among the budget functions. let's make it a short document

that looks at the budget categories, the defense discretionary, social security, health care entitlements, other mandatory spending and interest on the debt. if that was the extent and the debate was focused on that i think we would have a much more robust processing people would understand it and it would help to restore some faith in the ability to govern. i hope i haven't gone to much over my time, and i appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today. plus the many have experience in the federal budget process and as we know most of the time and energy is focused on the marginal choices come increasing the program added and increasing the cut on this policy here and

policy they are of the necessity that's where most of the time and attention is given. the process is also stovepipe. it's divided for convenience and getting things done by the agencies and their programs and by the subcommittees it's also stovepipe in the deliberations tax policy that are separated in the process from spending. it's focused almost entirely on the next tier and not on the decisions that are being made. these are characteristics that are to simplify what would be a complex set of decisions. we have looked at it and we think that there is an opportunity to reconfigure the process to make room each year

considering a small number of national policy objectives and for each of those objectives there is an associated portfolio of the spending programs of tax provisions in the tax expenditures. it's to the government's current strategy for addressing the particular policy objective. so you've heard the senator described it and i will be brief as an example for higher education there is a general bipartisan agreement the federal government has a role to play in expanding access to a good higher education without the

debt in some places they will not be able to pay. it is also satisfaction in many places with current policies and strategies if you like into the major candidates of the proposals to change in in that area so this looks like an area that is right for the review in such a review would take the best available evidence on what works and what doesn't work and apply it to the current strategy would also analyze alternatives to the current policies and different strategies that might be a much more productive way to use the federal resources that might also generate budget savings that could be reinvested in the priority or other priorities including possibly deficit reduction. so, that is the general idea. this is where the proposal comes

into play to organize the subcommittees in the budget committee that would focus on the particular major policy objectives and would lead and organize these reviews. they could return for example for the recommendations on policy areas that are right for the review based on the work of the gao on the overlapping programs and they could seek advice on the set of goals to be reviewed in any given year. they could ask the gao academy of science or public administration to conduct the review of that policy portfolio relative to each goal and make recommendations on how the resources could be used more productive we perhaps if there

is an agreement on the alternative to the current policy than the allocations made through the resolution and their advice could be the way to implement that change policy. that is how the senator's proposal would be a step towards implementing the portfolio budget. for the excellent hearings and the other senators that participated including the senators i hope what the senator and the start start that will lead to some serious bipartisan negotiations in 2017 about how the budget process could

continue. i wondered if he would be involved in that context. as you know the budget process has been broken. i agree with the senator in that regard and one of the indicators is the problem we have right now there are some ways to try to reduce the delays and i agree that it's a combination of the change in the motion to proceed and the filibuster rules and they are all needed. i think more importantly that's not the most important in the process that congress has a difficult time now using the budget to allocate the funds in a way that would improve our collective security and improve living standards. i guess i also want to praise the senator for being brave enough to take on the portfolio

budgeting which is a based introductory reform that is needed in the congressional structure and process. and they are threatening to many incumbents right now but if we don't consider that over the long run we are in difficulty and it's well worth reading. the portfolio budgeting wouldn't eliminate the difficulty we face which is that the parties are polarizing in the different opinions and it's difficult to reach compromises. sometimes that means is the budget process could be difficult as it is but sometimes it has multiplied in the cost of spending for the student loans loans in the family family housing and social security infrastructure and it looks as if the parties agree on anything

we have to spend more money intelligently and i wonder how we are going to deal with the problems we have and accounting for those increases in expenditures if we do them next year. what we should've really want to do is have the parties not to fight over the question of how much a program costs but rather whether they are effective and affordable. the uncertainties focus on the real issues so that's why the budget concept is needed. 49 years ago president johnson appointed to the commission full of experts and they did suggest big changes implemented for fiscal budget which was a great advance and should be dropped. ..

made over time. it is a big issue. with capital infrastructure

expenditures and for that matter leases. when we measure the programs. should it be used for credit programs and major insurance programs in the disaster relief area? to what extent should the continued just season risk be included in the budget. their big ones out there such as global warming. was the most accurate way of preparing tax references to regular spending programs? one thing that was not emphasized was the portfolio approach is not just local spending programs for tax expenditures. for example the housing or higher education you cannot do a comprehensive review of those programs without looking at how we use the tax code to incentivize behavior. finally should fees collected by the government be counted as offset this is netting or grossing issue. i think a new budget commission

is widely agreed to be needed. at least among budget experts. it can work well. it has to be structured well also. to me there's three criteria for success. one a staff of experts on the executive branch of the legislative branch, from outside, academia, interest groups. the second is balancing the composition. another words, not stacked to deliver a particular result. third being open to comments in much the same as the regulatory process is supposed to be with -- having widespread public discussion of some of these issues. to the extent that they can reach agreement or at the very least propose different all turnips let the congress take the report and deliberate. the omb has actually had helpful negotiations over the last couple of decades starting with the budget enforcement act in 1990 to come up with rules. some

of the scorekeeping principles make no sense as far as i'm concerned. and some make a lot of sense. it's time to look at them and see how we can connect to the broader goals that we have for the budget process. if there's a way to make the process successful then instead of being distracted by accounting disputes which are minor issues when it comes down to the congress can focus on big policy choices. so i'm be glad to answer questions you have. >> what the final recommendations the chairman put forward was having a forcible physical targets. i like to talk about these with the federal budget having difficult is a good idea, our president testified before the house budget committee in support of establishing physical rules. a fiscal role can be an important means of enforcing discipline and it's a credible commitment procedures mechanisms

to ensure compliance it can provide assurance to markets and the public. there's no single right level of debtor deficits or single right fiscal goal other than are reasonable fiscal goal should be aggressive enough to approve our condition but be realistic and mets not being unrealistic. setting a fiscal goal is an important first step but it's of little value for not working towards achieving that goal. achieving that a fiscal goal will achieve compliance that'll locking congress for taking action without doing anything. to reinforce the fiscal goal, it is in part it be accompanied by physical rules to enforceable budget process is not a substitute for political will,

putting a place place budget procedures to steer policymakers toward the fiscal can be acceptable and deemed telephone. ideally fiscal rules will be put place for a package us with the case of the act of 1992 established berries to make sure we stayed on the path. alternatively fiscal rules could establish put him in compliance of the fiscal goal. this could be done through the current budget process, the presidents budget and congressional budget resolution could be required to include a deficit reduction within the fiscal goals and the budget resolution could be required to include reconciliation to actually keep that necessary deficit reduction. another approach would be to set up a special expedited debt reduction process that would require the president to submit an congress vote on a plan to reduce the deficit if it

occupied with the fiscal goal. this could be accompanied by a provision allowing a number to vote on proposals by ranking members that would achieve the fiscal goal. if it had sufficient support. virtually congress has been incapable of making tough choices and particle compromises that are necessary to reach agreements. as a result you hear what was suggested outsourcing development of a fiscal plan to me the goals of a commissioner which was idea suggested, this could provide a venue to make the tough trade-offs that policymakers have been unable to make in the legislative process. it's a model of fiscal responsibility and reform. it's added with a requirement

for an up or down vote on the recommendations of the commission. senators joe mansion, david, david purdue and mark kirk have introduced legislation that would establish fiscal commission that would meet every four years to develop policies to put it on the sustainable fiscal course. recently dan cook introduce an act which established a commission to develop recommendations to balance the federal budget. by establishing commission it's important to set rules which ensure the recommendations are bipartisan without setting the bar for support that is unrealistically high. what argue there should be a requirement for an up or down vote on recommendations. of congress disagrees with the mix of policies recommended by the commission can still consider recommendations through the regular process.

the procedure to require action to meet the fiscal goals need to be accompanied by a credible enforcement mechanism to give lawmakers incentive to use the procedures to make tough choices necessary and stick with the plans. enforcement mechanisms can be done as carrots or sticks. the stick approach could take the form of a trigger and if they fail. the trigger should be as broad-based as possible. applied to most if not all spending and revenues in order to policymakers and incentive to an legislation and avoid the trigger. the trigger should at a minimum be the amount of savings required by the fiscal goal but it might be worth considering the trigger that would have more savings than required by the fiscal goal to give congress and incentive to an the savings. a carrot approach could reinforce the fiscal role specifically it could provide suspension of the debt limit for the upcoming fiscal year if the actual debt was at or below the target is a percentage gdp. this could be implemented

through the mcconnell role allowing the president to spend approved by congress of the debt were met. alternative legislation to provide for incremental increases in the debt limit each year and multiple steps consistent with the debt levels by the rule. so for complying the debt limit would not have to be race. the potential to avoid a politically different vote on raising the debt limit would give them an incentive to enact and follow through with them to keep the budget on course with the goal. this is approach would help them act before debt is occurred in order before their raising the debt limit. a fiscal rule is not a substitute for the tough choices to increase revenues in order to reduce the debt. however a properly structured

goal with procedures and enforcement to ensure compliance can be a valuable tool to achieve it. i'd also like to comment on that congress did reinstate in law in 2010 but congress learned they could add a provision at the end of the book bill saying none of this count. so they can avoid it. so a simple rule would be to issue prohibit congress from having that would require separate vote in the house and senate to include that language exempt and then requiring them to raise the debt limit at that time. if we did that then what was in place can be much more effective. >> thank you and i look for to questions. >> thank you so much for panelists. i have a few questions but if folks have questions they should

write them down on their notecards. before i get into some of the individual proposals. [inaudible] >> thank you. so the biggest proponents in this is for anyone and we can have multiple people discuss this. the biggest proponents of the budget process reform on capitol are to be republicans. senate budget chairman is definitely moving forward are trying to move forward on a bipartisan basis. on the house chairman time prices largely alone. i'm wondering, should democrats be afraid that budget process reform is simply a new way for republicans to/spending. is there a way for process reform proponents to say that this is about good governance. we won't won't get excellent reform elicits bipartisan.

>> i'd like to say some budget process reforms can advance a certain policy agenda and that's definitely a concern. but there many reforms that can make the process more transparent and accountable and don't have to be biased. that is why i commend them for having bipartisan discussions. and trying to identify areas that are geared toward trying to advance a certain policy outcome but trying to advance the goal of making the process more transparent and accountable. >> i come with this from a unique perspective. i worked on the republican side have the time is on the hill and a half the time of the democrat. both sides have legitimate and serious concern on the republican side the concern is that unless realistic goals are

set and enforced there is no way the unsustainable role of public debt is going to be addressed. on the other side, democrats have a legitimate a legitimate and serious concern that if you adopt goals outside the context of looking at the implications of those goals on entitlement programs and income support programs, you are not really having a full conversation. i do think there is room for both sides to come together and to recognize that we do need to stabilize both the growth of the debt long term that we do need to examine very closely the implications of reforms to the programs. i think the evidence of that is simpson -- they were both bipartisan and they both made

serious proposals. while both sides have very serious concerns, i do think that it's reasonable to believe a fiscal commission could be successful. >> to start up i disagree somewhat with the description of the position and i think there's some democrats who are concerned about unsustainable that as well. and some proposals are leaving that direction because of tax cut not the democrats spending increases. in both parties there's diversity of opinion the extent to which aggregate fiscal discipline is needed and how it would be defined and how the process could be without goal as well as the other goal that they understandably hold even more

important witches serving their constituents and if you will the micro level of budgeting design programs that work well. so i think your points is correct that chairman prices out there in some sense by himself and there is zero democratic support for his opinion. and the democratic side of the committee says i think this is a partisan game in they really have not participated in the hearings at all whereas in the senate there have been serious participants in the democratic side and they made very clear their desire to have certain positions be included in a bipartisan package so senator winehouse has emphasized for example more intense discussions of how tax expenditures in a situation, i did not see that highlighted in the proposals for them to be truly bipartisan i

think you need to see senators on both sides of the aisle stand up in front of it and so to say that they have reached a deal much like senator hatch did on some issues. so the real curveball that could be coming and i'm not sure which way it will swerve is the resulting election both in terms of who wins the presidency and then what is the balance of partisan control of both the house and the senate. i think we'll just have to wait for the election to occur and then however it shakes out see how we restart negotiations if there are going to be any in 2017. >> steve, port folio budgeting the biggest obstacle seems to me at least is the worst that would come if it was tried against the executive branch but also on capitol hill where you have lawmakers in charge of certain

policy areas and many are both sides of pennsylvania avenue would be resisted on giving up authority on that, do you see the biggest obstacle and how do you overcome something like that? >> i agree first agree first of all it's easier to see this happening quickly and starting in the executive branch because the president can reorganize the process if he or she chooses. i agree though the also that even in the executive branch will be difficult because of the traditional iron grip that treasury has on the revenue policy. it would have to be a white house decision in a presidential decision to change the process there. the congress and i hesitate to advise on reorganizing congress but it would be a difficult task and probably require over time a

major realignment with forces. i think the key would be support from the leadership, perhaps in a reaction to an executive process that is more focused on natural roles taking charge of the agenda and the priorities in the budget process of making the budget committees their instrument. make them leadership committees and put the chairs of the appropriations and revenue committees on the budget committee so it becomes a centralized decision-making process for the branch at which some people thought it might be in the beginning but the appropriators pushed back and weekend and prevented that from happening. it could still get there i'm not saying when. >> one quick point for my finance committee background, we do already have an example a portfolio budgeting at the finance committee because the finance committee has jurisdiction over both the healthcare entitlements as well as the tax expenditures that impact health, for example the

it seclusion of the employer-provided health insurance. there we have an example of one committee having jurisdiction over the spending side and also when there's a reconciliation bill bill when the committee is order to reduce the deficit by certain amount it can actually do that in a way moving savings from the spending site to the revenue site vice versa. i think it looking at broadening the portfolio approach the finance committee provides an example of how that might be expected to operate. >> and and others can chime in afterward, it seems that were currently getting a taste of fiscal goals and difficulty in enforcing them with the budget control act of 2011, the law with spending that are still under by congress and the administration have shown they

can't really live with them and increased spending under bipartisan deals, what lessons do you take from the 2011 budget control act in particular thinking about fiscal goals in enforcing them? >> will will first i need to say that the bipartisan deals that replace some of these under sequestration are have been it a success to the extent that congress have come up with offsets to replace sequestration. it was supposed to enforce congress to make policy choices to reduce deficit and it was some exceptions at least with sequestration it has enforce them to choose savings, but i think the biggest lesson is the need for a mechanism to be broad-based, that the enforcement mechanism for the control act was entirely focused on discretionary spending.

the spending that was actually been declining with the gdp and that mechanism needs to be much more broad-based looking at all spending but also looking at revenues they need enforcement mechanism that's harsh enough that both sides want to avoid it. to the point where some are willing to let sequestration take it in effect. and one that's harsh enough to have people avoid which is why suggest maybe it would be more savings. alternatively maybe the purge of a carrot would work better than trying to avoid the debt limit from goals. and maybe that would work. >> i'm going to disagree somewhat. i completely understand your frustration that led many smart patriotic people to vote for or advocate for the budget control

act and trigger mechanisms and so on, but i do not think it's possible for the congress to and affect force itself to do something it doesn't want to do. scientists have jargon about that, we say rules are in dodge and us. if you can i do it against bad policy eventually change the role. that's why we had the agreement because the discretionary caps going down to the projected level was really not very sensible when you think about effective programs. i would hope that eventually we move away from that likely to fail trigger approach to emphasize what ed suggested as more of a carrot approach. i think to me the real carrot is again, being able to adopt policies that will make the

country and world a better place to live. to allocate funds funds more intelligently. the way to do that is to follow steven's lead and and take the information from the executive branch and elsewhere and have congress if their programs and really decided for their own benefit and for the country's own benefit to fund those programs at a high level. on that is the way we are going to not only reach fiscal discipline but also to a congress is supposed to be doing in the context of a budget process. >> i think the fundamental problem of the budget patrol act as it's lopsided. caps are only a part of the budget that's been under the greatest pressure. and from all the triggers and enforcement mechanisms and rules that the fundamental problem. that suggested that the way to go and thinking about reform longer-term is to consider

putting everything on the scorecard putting everything on the table that would include all spending including spending through the tax code. and having a universal scorecard with targets in savings and so on. i think think that direction would lead to bipartisan support for reform. >> i'll take a few questions from the audience now. thank you for sending these up. first we have one from bloomberg news. with mandatory spending largely seen as taking a more the total budget is a time to consider how to address the drop in important programs in the discretionary budget? for example example research and development as a percentage of gdp is going to keep trapping and making this fall behind other nations. >> that's a very good question. it's kind of the issue is raising when i discussed the budget concepts commission.

the 67 commission created a unified budget and in so doing it created a very odd situation where in order to do any long-term investment because everything is part of a unified annual budget you have to provide most of the money up front. that just doesn't work. you end up subjecting infrastructure, r&d and anything long-term to the annual budgeting. so hopefully if the commission is created and i think there's a critical mass to create it will start taking a look at possibly budgeting the same way states to where there is an operating budget and a separate long-term investment budget. >> clearly the budget process seems to focus on mandatory spending than on discretionary. so much of the debate is about discretionary spending.

an 80% of the growth and budget over the next day kate is going to be in social security, medicare medicaid. if we don't control the growth of those programs will continue to see spending on investments for research and other domestic investments continue to decline arguably the sequestration that were cutting domestic investments because of our failure to enact debt reduction. i would say there's talk about how budget resolution doesn't have a way of looking at mandatory's bending. there's that reconciliation process that requires committees to make changes in programs on the budget and i think a useful step would be to start by requiring them to include those instructions to make changes and what congress is debating a resolution they should spend more time talking about the steps to control mandatory spending instead of it the discussion on just what the spending is. >> one of the general

difficulties associated with budgeting related to both the previous comments is that a lot of decisions may now have effects over the long run. the longer you go out the monster may become in many cases. so you have a dilemma. i think think chuck is right that you could be paid a stupid penalty by expensing or charging big capital investments. in fact those capital investments turn out to be useful to you in the future they are valued and last and work well. but on the other hand, the dilemmas that sometimes we buy things that turn out to be junk or we don't like ten years later. so maybe we we should recognize the fact that we obligate those upfront. so in other words what the budget concepts commission would have to do is wrestle with this on the dilemma and it applies as well to mandatory programs as well. it is true that social security

is underfunded, we have to figure out something to do about that. the sooner the better. but that program is going to be around in the decisions we make now are going to be valued are not valued by future generations, they just can be stuck by what we do regardless of what we do and how we comport. >> our next question comes from sandy davis from the by bipartisan policy center asking for stephen roy to take a look at this. evidence based budgeting is relatively moot numeral of men a policymaking focused on encouraging evidence as a basis for funding. what are your views on how this might work with a portfolio budgeting? >> i see a natural fit between the two ideas as you might expect. it seems to me that the in-depth review you would make of current policy and alternatives for a particular

national policy objective would naturally draw on the well of evidence that some cases exist about what is working. what is generating long-term benefits especially a memo can be much more productive use of resources to try progress toward the same goal. i see a good fit, that's a a good way in fact of getting evidence into the budget decision-making process. >> i agree and i expect him to answer his own question on this issue. but the rhetoric right now about evidence-based policy is primarily about advanced social science methods such as trials which generate much more confidence about how programs are working and cannot be done at a very low-cost and very, very quickly compared to the way they ud