fill. i think the woman on the fiancée visa in san bernardino could have been vetted more carefully. i think that's true, jeh, and with all respect, and should have been. but vetting also succeed. it takes approximately two years to get into this country with the processes that we have. >> there is vetting before, i think with homeland you essential are keeping bad people and bad things out of the country, out of the homeland. ..

i just want to add one quick thing. we also fear counter radicalization bill to set up a multidisciplinary commission to advise congress on where somebody who has every right under our first amendment to risk express views loses to someone who would engage in violent behavior, that gray area where you're trying to deter bad conduct. the bill failed through the house . it got 408 to 35 and then stalled in the senate. why? because all of a sudden one of that has been in the room advising us on how to construct this said no, this is reinventing: tell pro, you are setting up spine when in fact what we are trying to do is give congress good tools to legislate better on these subjects.

we been in various forms calling for these things and i also read through the advisory council subcommittee report which recommended putting hundreds of millions of dollars towards counter violent extremism and yet the partnership program, the committee partnership programs that are supposed to go down at the community level and bring these efforts to people at their doorstep often get mired in the pilot stage. i'd like to submit to some of the problems you all have had getting work for legislation to congress that accomplishes some of these goals. it seems like the end we are talking about it, we don't get to doing it >> and giving a strong complement to chairman mccall and his committee that had very productive partners in our homeland security efforts , in this very political town it's hard to realize this but

most of the day today homeland security work in the executive branch and the legislative branch has little to do with politics and most of what we do, we agree on and mike's committee, a bipartisan basis has been productive in getting us a lot of the authority we need so when you get into congress, that's when you sometimes run into problems but i think that here is more in terms of more grant money, more support for congress in our bipartisan efforts. i think our efforts in countering violent extremism in the homeland are as critical as any of our other security missions. >> what is the main thing that holds you back in getting legislation through the hill? >> political gridlock. and you know, just the back

and forth, very often on issues. good ideas get hijacked by some political dimension to it and i can this better than me but very often in an idea there's something that he and i would both agree is good for national security, good for border security, good for homeland security. it gets hijacked by political finance or some political agenda. >> one of the things that 911 has roughly done is figuring out who has the authority over the department of homeland security? the committee provided us a chart that we've put up on thescreen . you brought it to, yes. this has been in existence for way too long and how many committees?

>> something like 92 to 108 committees and subcommittees. >> let me add to this mesmerizing data here, this congress since 2015, our witnesses, our people at dhs have testified in 200 50 hearings, 50 subcommittees, 199 witnesses and we've had 4010 congressional engagement. i can say personally identified26 times for three years before congress . we testified before multiple committees and subcommittees, some of whom i've never even heard of. and it keeps us very, very busy but the biggest challenge to having so many committees is the report to exercise oversight jurisdiction in addition to the homeland security committee.

oversight is welcomed but it's very difficult to get an authorization bill as mike knows because there's no one committee that has responsibility for signing that bill. there are multiple committees who want a piece of it. and it would be good to have theauthorization bill , a piece of authorization legislation to authorize our missions and identities. >> the department of homeland security has never been reauthorized since its creation. what does that tell you? i really think that says it all. the 9/11 commission, one of its key recommendations was the principle of oversight jurisdiction. to his point, when you are constantly testifying on the hill for multiple committees and subcommittees, it's kind of hard to do your job and i think it paralyzes the

department from its core mission of protecting the american people to constantly preparing for testimony which oversight is important and it should be, this committee should have principled jurisdiction over it. so it's dysfunctional when it comes to the department, when it comes to the congress. we just introduced a bill, dhs that referred to nine other committees on the hill. how in the world can i get anything done as chairman? it needs to smooth once and for all. there's a political compromise as jeh knows. i'm going to propose in the rules package and amendment to fix this problem once and for all. and i think we've got the support of the national security chairman and it needs to be done. i have a cyber security bill that reorganizes the cyber security agency within the department and authorizes, i cannot get that passed in the senate . and there are multiple visa bills that can get past and i can go on and on about

national security legislation paralyzed by jurisdiction. >> felt self organizing the pfc into a cyber protection agency but we have an agency responsible for the us government cyber security missions, or at least it should be a good idea on a bipartisan basis. but you heard the jurisdictional hurdles that have to be wrestled with before we get there. >> i would just add that is not only a problem for the homeland security committee. i served on the intelligence committee for a long time. a colleague of ours chaired that committee for a long time and did have similar problems but in this case, we really think that the biggest threat to us homeland security is self radicalization. it is ridiculous . the problem is that the committee jurisdiction is power. so it is a zero-sum game. it's not a zero-sum game for

the country but it is for the congress. if michael wants to take jurisdiction away from congress which does have jurisdiction over committee and materials used as ingredients for bombs, some of them in this country and they need more protection. the homeland committee which knows you can't move on that in the congress committee, the congress committee doesn't want to give up the jurisdiction because one person loses a little bit of power. and unfortunately, congress has a 19th century committee structure for 23rd century threats. and i think that paul ryan and others are prepared to get a few people mad. >> i think leadership is generally supportive but they understand the other jurisdictions and i cannot function without the state .

the armed services committee has jurisdiction over the defense principled jurisdiction. the foreign affairs committee has just jurisdiction, the judiciary has jurisdiction over the department of justice. the homeland security committee chairs jurisdiction over a department with nine other committees. i don't have principled jurisdiction over the department. most people don't know that. and it paralyzes our ability to do anything with a priority. >> how close are you 206? do you think you can change the rules, go through congress and make it real? >> i'm prepared, this is my last term . to fix this problem once and for all. as chairman. [overlapping conversation] >> congress as well and the way it works is it's better

known by the congress. we think we get some of them out there with members who don't realize we don't have jurisdiction and leadership has dealt with this. it took a special task force by leader mcmurphy to get waiver security bills onto the floor of the house because there had been three in the judiciary committee for years and it wasn't until after paris, after the paris attacks that finally my leadership stepped up to the plate, through the jurisdiction aside and got that bill on the floor but it took paris to make that happen. >> from this moment of agreement, is this on at least in your stated statements. what would you call the militant threat? do you call it islamic

militancy, do you call it violent extremism? the saudi arabian governments and others have asked the white house, starting with the bush administration, please don't call it islamic because you make it part of us. the fight is overseas and you seen it through muslim militants ideology and it's this ideology of us and them. and challenging that in the trump campaign letter is part of a larger benefit. i'd like to take advantage of your meeting with president trump to ask him, where is that in the trump national security stance, is it real? >> rudy giuliani, myself and senate leaders and a former attorney general and a federal judge, we looked at the muslim than issue. and rudy is a smart lawyer.

the constitutional concerns with banning race or religion. what we did is we talk about the extreme vetting in the memo. the vetting, particularly we know to look at the hotspots in terms of the sworn statements that i talked about earlier and it is focused, you can't condemn islam in general but what we do target is radical islam is . islam is a political movement within the religion of islam and radical is a radicalized ideology that basically is behind the terrorist threat. so that is what we target. and it's important to define the threat for what it is. we didn't dance around fascism, we called communism what it was and defeated that. i think we are facing radical islamic extremism today and

is important weidentify that and not be so politically correct we can't identify the threat or what it is and part of that in your vetting process . >> secretary jeh johnson, is it politically correct? >> i look at this in very practical terms. i think that the debate, the political debate about whether we should call it islamic extremism or brown extremism is one i will consult when i leave office at deeper terms. number one, first of all, i've been looking at a lotof baseball cards at the department of defense . it didn't matter to me whether this guy is an islamic brown extremism or whatever, as long as he was part of the enemy force and lawful to your objective and met with the conditions of our law enforcement. here in the homeland, in very practical terms if i walk into a community engagement

with american muslims to work with us on our homeland security, i prefer to isis as islamic violent extremism, i will get nowhere. i will get bold over and what i hear uniformly from american muslims and the diverse community is islam is as diverse as christianity is. what i hear from pakistani americans in new england, from syrian americans in houston, from a whole group of communities cross country is isil is attempting to hijack our religion. we do not get this by referring to what they are doing is occupying any part of our religion and that's the starting point for every engagement i have with american muslim community so my judgment is this debate about labels is a political

debate that referring to it in these terms does not help us in our efforts to combat islamic extremism in this country. >> i think it's a very hard problem. i don't think political correctness is relevant here. again, these folks are not going to check our party registration when they attack us and they don't even need to blow us up anymore, they can use vehicles and knives. and garden-variety stuff and things that you need to do this is just the intent to martyr yourself and to me, that's to the point but i was part, i'm a member of the advantage, a bipartisan group and i have until now spoken until now and see this as part of the chairmanship to condi rice but we studied this issue and guess what, it does turn out that there is

again, it's very skewed and worked but there are religious teachings behind this radical behavior so if you could say that islamic extremism is an accurate term. i get jay's point that it offends people and makes it harder to build bridges so i'm rather agnostic on the subject. i'm for describing it as accurately as possible, and also for winning the argument with the community that has things in their basement that could be the next hope to drive the family car and use a butter knife in the kitchen and killed a bunch of the rest of us. >> it's not a matter of simply political correctness. i'm focused on what's the best and most effective way to protect the homeland and if it means building bridges to american muslim communities, what's the most

effective way to do that? what's the most effective way to get them to help us in our homeland security efforts and i don't believe because i hear this uniformly that we do that we dignify this group of terrorists as occupying some part of their theology. >> she does a very good job in trying to integrate into the muslim community outreach efforts, i think you need credible voices. and that's not necessarily going to be me or jeh, it's going to be someone they can relate to, and finding the fbi walking in, when i walked in a mosque after 9/11 there was a killing event, they had

the same experience. but you need a credible voice that can persuade but we also need that counter narrative. i go back to the internet, that we are really failing in terms of the propaganda that's out there. radicalizing every day. we can go in and talk to the community but when that role honey guy or the ohio state guy is literally radicalizing over the internet, how do you stop that? >> the state department's news center run by michael lumpkin to fight that, convincing twitter and other social media outlets to take on that kind of mess.>> i think that's a good start, we have a long way to go, as you are applying for the dhs job in his nextadministration, have you sat with groups of muslim americans ? what would you do to solve this language problem? if they told secretary johnson this offends us and the ohio state attacker, hasn't his social media complaints and about feeling ostracized, how do you make muslim americans feel like they are part of a troubled american community? >> it is military age muslims, disaffected and

typically in the affected case to guys vulnerable to the messaging. i think we need to stop the messaging. >>. >> have you met with muslim americans? >> of course i have. >> what didthey tell you about what to call it . >> this is not our religion, they say they've hijacked our religion. and it's not, it's radical islamic extremism, it is not their religion and i think as you talk to them, again, i think what's damaging and the most effective weapon they have right now is the internet. and how are you going to deal with content on the internet radicalizing them, the state department is a good start. i think these private companies have a responsibility to not carry some of this content. >> i would first of all, it's not military age males, it's females to who by this romantic image of marrying this insane person and having a swimming pool apparently, i

don't know about swimming but g.i. jane was one of the people who was rather middle age, i hate to admit who was erected and convicted as a terrorist in ohio, i think some years back so it's not, again not just the stereotypes but on this point, i have been taking down messages matters but they're clever. they know how to find other avenues to get messages. i think the counter message point that mike has made and jeh has made is credible. with credible messengers, people who are respected in whatever community understand that columbus ohio was the second largest somali community in the united states, washington dc, is the fifth largest somali community, last weekend president obama announced he

was expanding the legal authority under the 2001 authorization to use military force in afghanistan, that tired old document that i voted for and never thought would still apply to house a bomb in somalia so there are many who don't know this but maybe an all points bulletin went out over social media from our shabbat saying to the somali communities to go in your backyard today and i don't know that yet but that's all i'm doing but we have to do all of these things, we have to build trust and take down bad messages. we have to put out good messages, we have to be totally agile and have finance in the private sector which controls at least 85 percent of the internet. >> the testimonials, we had one legislation that used the testimony of people been over to syria and have come back and say you know what? it wasn't such a great thing. i almost got killed there, that's not my religion. that's going to be a more effective and credible voice and probably any other to

stop that person from radicalizing because all they are seen on the internet are these how great the isis experience is. if you have no counter messaging or narrative, the choice is taken unfavorably . >> this past september i was the first cabinet level officer of our government to address the society of north america which is the huge convention of american muslims every year. , my folks said to me, you are going to be criticized for speaking to this group, there will be some comments to say that the organization is a front for various terrorist organizations and i said i cannot responsibly pass up the opportunity to talk to them about american muslims and our homeland security efforts. i hope the next administration will continue in those efforts. >> so my last question before turning it over to the audience is to go back to immigration and border security.

one thing you both share is you've been criticized by illegal immigration for being too weak on immigration. yet secretary johnson ... okay, got it. there are roughly half 1 million cases pending in immigration court, we've got 41,000 roughly , immigration detention facilities . secretary johnson, what have you not yet accomplished. >> 21,000 people today. many people don't like that. what was your question? >> what have you accomplished in deporting? the trump administration says they want to go after 1 million illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. are you going after those

people? >> yes. we have prioritized the deportation of convicted criminals. those convicted of serious offenses. i have old told dro which is our deportation workforce that they should focus in a law-enforcement manner on that. >> what are your rates? >> the numbers of deportation have gone ball down over the last few years but the percentage of those deported has gone up to something over six percent. in immigration detention today, something like 90 percent that went for removal of priorities. >> we need to continue to work on that very vague is illegal migration from central america, experience shows that you can build more walls for border security on the southwest border but that would address the underlying circumstances from honduras and el salvador that would

bring a seven-year-old child to translate to mexico to come to the united states for a better life and so we are addressing those underlying conditions and i'm pleased that congress last year started this with 150 million . until we build out, the alternatives safe legal pass for people, we're going to continue to deal with this problem and we've done a lot for border security over the years. we've invested a lot the number of apprehensions on our southwest border has gone down significantly in the last 14 years but there's a new phenomenon and now families, children coming from central america that we need to address. >> chairman, i like to give you an opportunity to answer an article this morning that called q. week on border security and blatantly pro-amnesty .

>> on his behalf, i don't know anybody who is strong on border security in congress that i've dealt with. here and i disagreed sharply for many years ago about how executive action about 2014 so i will just throw that in there. >> but quite frankly, i don't know who they're talking about. i first entered the congress and i ended catch and release, the policy where they would apprehend and then releasethe notice to appear . he ended that policy, and to jeh's point, we agree on a lot of things but immigration is one we probably have not. the executive branch, he knows i disagree with that. that's in congress, not the executive branch. but i think when you look at what's happening at the

border, this administration will take border security very seriously and i think once and for all get this to end . i think we will report criminal aliens and that would be the first priority i think now but i also think as jeh, as i look at my own home state, texas, the rio grande valley sector is where most of these crossings illegal are taking place, they're coming fromcentral america . and a lot of it is because legally, you cannot be expedited, we have a secure mexican part of the border and if you are other than mexican, we don't have that mechanism in place, we passed that bill and cosponsored it to change that law. we trains that for the senate but this is to say somehow i am not strong on immigration is laughable because whether

it's sanctuary cities, i took every vote on the floor of the house, i have strongly voted against illegal immigration, i've cosponsored virtually every bill. i introduced the safe act which stop the flow of syrian refugees into this country. i also strongly support the serious impact. >> did you and president-elect trump discussed building a wall and discussing who's going to pay for it? >> we talked about a barrier, it would be multifaceted, multilayered involving a physical barrier and primarily sensing, it would involve technologies, aviation centers, surveillance. and this could be done. when i spoke to the national guard down there which were filled off the way and they put them back, when i talked to how can we get this done with bdt and the sheriff down there, they all say you can do this area but you have to

have the will to get it done. >>. >> can i say something and i promise i will stop. there is a wall, there actually is a wall and there is something on thewest border pursuant to the secure fence act of 2006 . we build a wall and now it's 700 miles of wall in fence in place where it makes sense on the southwest border to have a wall or a fence. southwest border is urban areas but it's also the rio grande, southwest texas, the whitey river is desert and its mountains. so when the point i keep making is that we can send billions of dollars building a 10 foot wall on top of a 10,000 foot fountain but if somebody in central america

travels the full-length of mexico and climbs an 8000 feet, they will not be secured by a 10 foot wall next you need 100 percent visibility to see the threat and stop it, you don't have that. >> i agree, more surveillance and technology than what our border security experts say is vulnerable. >> it's all about getting that authorization. >> the central american migration problem is caused by the deplorable conditions in those countries. something that i know the obama administration is going to deal with but these folks go over it on their southern border with mexico. mexico needs to do more to stop that flow through mexico, let's remember that, that's something i think next coach should pay for. on the border, yes there is a wall, i'm from california, i served in congress for nine terms, there is a wall and it does not a lot of this cross-border flow but in other places where there's cross-border manufacturing, something very critical to building us jobs, it would make a lot more sense to have a mix of things so that the

border works, especially in texas, that's my point about that and finally, we need comprehensive immigration reform. it almost passed in the bush 43 administration. michael chertoff, then homeland secretary was strongly for it and that is not amnesty. i think that, you don't like the word islamic extremism, the word amnesty is a very inaccurate label for what president bush was doing. >> you wanted me to send a message but we have this chair in the security at the border. i do think the national discussion that will take place, if there's leverage to get them to pay it and secure their southern border, it's a chokepoint, geographically very small and that would stop a lot of the flow of central america but to your point in the allegation that i suppose maybe against me, it goes through jurisdiction. i've had a very strong

border security. jay will tell you that. jeh opposed it because it was so strong. it created a veto threat for the president of the united states because they didn't like it. that's important to say. whoever wrote that article doesn't understand the jurisdiction. the fact is that i only have jurisdiction over the border. i don't have jurisdiction over ice which is a component of dhs so therefore i cannot legislate inferior enforcement. the argument was, my bill didn't have interior enforcement in it. the reason it didn't is because i don't have jurisdiction over that. if i had it, that would have been in my bill. i didn't have that jurisdiction. they had not passed their bill. we were waiting for them to pass it and merge the two bills together so this was

not about my bill. my bill is very strong. the criticism is i didn't have jurisdiction over what they wanted in the bill and that was interior enforcement. >> i'd like to take a couple questions from the audience. sir? >> good morning. i'm good, thanks. how are you sir? sorry, my name is davis fishman writing for usa today. if you could pick a potential successor to your position ... [laughter] no pressure. who would it be and why? >> i will decline comment. i know several of those who according to public sources are being considered to be the next secretary of homeland security and i think that's what i will say. i will not get into the business of publicly recommending to the president-elect. >> a quick follow-up, if you could give some words of advice to this hypothetical successor, what would you

tell him or her? >> continue our efforts at reform. continue our efforts to build as a collective entity a more efficient department of homeland security. when i came into office three years ago, the department surprisingly was way too stove piped and we've done a lot of things over the last eight years, modeled frankly on my experience at the department of defense where we had jointmissions, joint task forces for things like border security . continue the efforts of management reform, shortening our hiring process, improving how we devise budgets and the budget making, continue to work on improving more out across the components of our department. we had a pretty significant increase in the levels of morale this year which i'm pleased that, just to start and continue to build a new headquarters and fund the new

headquarters so working on the administrative aspects of the job, continuing the work we've done is vital, the men and women in the department on the frontlines do a great job at airports. maritime security, port security, cyber security. we need to continue to support them. >> i'm jenny starr with us cbs news. given the connection with visas overseas on 9/11 and other incidents, why hasn't been more been done over the last 15 years to track these overstates. >> that jurisdiction is moving forward here. this bill going back to the border security bill which i believe is the stronger border bill ever produced in congress had a us exit program put in but the number one really others in jurisdiction, the other recommendation has never been

fulfilled. the 9/11 commission recommended it. the problem is this is that people comein legally like the hijackers and they overstay their visa and they stay in the country . that number is now approaching almost as many as the people that coming illegally. , the overstates, almost 50 percent. this is a serious problem that can be addressed. the technology is still i think as he will tell you, we are still working on how to do this on a facial recognition and biometrics point but again, it was in my bill that we unfortunately could not pass. >> one last question over here, on the side. >> thank you. sheldon waterman, reporter. picking up from the management point, secretary johnson, i think it's fair to say the department has over the years struggled with its prioritizing its various

missions. i'd like each of the panelists if they could to address the question of with such a focus on border security and terrorism, where does that leave the department larger mission? is that likely to get sidelined in the incoming administration, given the fact that president-elect appears to want a more forward leaning role for the military, perhaps intelligence community inside the mission generally mark in this administration, what i've said a number of times now is that counterterrorism will continue to be the cornerstone of our department's mission but the cyber is the other cornerstone. if i had to write the things we do which is hard, cyber security is at or near the top of the list in terms of our priorities because we face on going on a daily and hourly basis cyber attacks in this country and dhs is positioned to be the federal

civilian agency that deals with cyber security so it is very definitely, we haven't talked much about cyber security here but it is definitely something that needs to be a top priority on a bipartisan basis and i'm pleased that notwithstanding all the jurisdictional problems, chairman mccall and others face, we would get through congress a cyber security act in 2015 which is good billthat strengthens our mission . >> i'm sorry jay. >> this is a classic one more example and is the cyber mission is fundamentally important within the department, one of the most important things they do in the nation, it's far more damaging and inconsequential than a small-scale attack. and we saw it in ohio. it can be devastating yet i would like to enhance that effort during my legislation

to create this cyber agency within the department but did jeh's point, the landmark bill that we passed, i could not pass that bill because of jurisdiction. the only way we got that done was to put it in the omnibus bill, i must pass a bill that passed last december, last congress and again, i think that says it all about the breakdown of jurisdiction. >> with this new edition of comments, the first advice to jeh's successor and jay, you've done a terrific job, nobody told you that but i'm going to tell you that so we can all virtually clap. and mike, you've done a terrific job,i'm proud of that too but advice to the successor , keep it bipartisan. i'm going to check out party registration but on the finer points, imagine 85 percent or more of our cyber capacity is in the private sector. you can't militarize fiber.

there is a b& space and we are doing much better at protecting those but if we don't protect the. on space, we've all seen this movie, our voting machines are vulnerable, our private emails are vulnerable. our critical infrastructure is vulnerable and jurisdiction over cyber should properly be in the department of homeland security, it should be a much more focused mission and i will just say when you talk about weapons of mass destruction, we talk about radioactive, radiological weapons, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons i would add offenses cyber. it's not just a matter of a weapon of mass destruction, if you take down critical infrastructure it can be as lethal as any other possible attack on america and we absolutely have to have the jurisdiction and the focus right now to get ahead or at least get even with the problem if we can't get ahead of it.

and with that i want to thank our panelists and the bipartisan policy center and i know a couple of you are rushing off immediately, you had a hard stop at 11 and it's way past 11 so thank you very much . >> we take you like to capitol hill, comments by minority leader nancy pelosi. >> i'm humbled and it's great, our caucus has been energized by members who had the board wanting to get work and i'm pleased that our caucuses building consensus in creating new roles in the leadership and at the d triple c. if i'm a little bit late, we are finishing some of that in there. i'm interested in working and participating is music to my ears. there is hard work ahead but with the strength, wisdom and resourcefulness within our caucus, i know house democrats will meet the challenges ahead and that's why democrats will work with republicans to quickly pass a bold infrastructure bill to

rebuild america and create good paying jobs however congressional republicans are clearly more interested in dismantling medicare than building job creating infrastructure which chairman price the head of the hhs, speaker ryan was closer to realizing his dream in america's nightmare of shattering the military guarantee and protecting generations of american seniors. democrats will fight them with all of our strength, just as we did in 2006 when president bush tried to privatize social security. now republicans are threatening to gut and privatize the va, a completely radical and destructive move that could hurt veterans across america. we've heard from the veterans about executive director in veterans of america said the worst case scenario within the veterans community, the total

dismantling of everything they've worked generations to create. there is a growing fear is all going to get burned down. brenda jones, executive director of the committee said veterans deserve to go to the va and oppose privatization. militarization have already indicated to both sides of the aisle to prevent this privatization scheme. we are again very pleased with the work that we've done with the act that was proposed and we work together and it was a big strong vote that made resources available for positioning position medicine, brain research and vice president biden shot, cancer moonshot. $1 billion in opioid treatment funds and calling for that funding for a while, and it hasn't gotten money.

improvements in mental health and substance abuse disorder services. we hope this republican congress will meet its responsibility to robustly fund these commitments in the years ahead, because of the way it bill is with in the coming year with a commitment what comes next we want that commitment to be a guarantee. i will take any questions you have. >>. [inaudible] >> well, i do think it's the republicans that had some suggestions, we would be open to having some conversations about how we can approve improve the affordable care act and its important to note that you can't say i'm going to have no pre-existing condition discrimination,

we're not going to have no lifetime limits and the rest but undermine the rest of the bill. so what is theiragenda ? is it to mandate the republican idea? we are always ready to listen . democrats have been empowered to say what improvements can be made but we are not going to be party to the dismantling of the affordable care act. the affordable care act is not only important for the 20 million people who have affordable care now who didn't have it before , it's important for the 125 million people who have pre-existing medical conditions which had barred them from care and insurance. it's also important to anyone who has a lifetime limit so if you have a condition, you will fall into that category two. if you are born with a condition, lifetime limits on the care of that child would

be a disaster so it's important to note that you can't keep the good things without keeping the big pool of people who contribute to it and make the whole country healthier so without the health of america, it's about the health insurance of america. so again, we're always listening but it's not to dismantle. it's an exit essential threat to the access of the country, that would be a problem. if there are things we can do working together, we can. [inaudible]. >> is very hard to come up with the system. if we werestarting for scratch, if there was no healthcare system in our country , we just formed a new country you would probably have single-payer and a public option. i still think that would be a good place to go is a public

option but that's not what it is. you have, it's important to note this. 75 percent of people in the country have the health care through their employer. other than 25 percent, 20 million of them are in the affordable care act. other people who are on medicare, medicaid and the rest . but since there is an expansion of medicaid, not everyone is eligible in the affordable care act has access that they should have so let's take it this way, 95 percent under the employer-based care insurance , of those people, they all benefit from no pre-existing conditions, no lifetime limits, any child can stay on your policy until you are 26 years old, 15 years old, no longer being a woman is a pre-existing medical

condition but understand that this is not just about the 20 million, it's about the bath majority of our country benefiting from that and so whatever it is we do impacts all of those people in addition to the 20 million but if they're going to come forward with something that says we are turning away the 20 million, i think that's going to be a big fight in our country. anymore people are benefiting from it then you might say they support it right now but you ask them you want it to be repealed,it's like 20 percent , 20 percent. >> yes ma'am. >>. [inaudible] >> they keep a calendar but i don't know if the work will finish. i just had a brief conversation with the speaker

but not dispositive of the issue in terms of that but how can we keep going and we have to do this continued resolution and one is that going to be ready so that we supposedly by monday, then it's a few days to get on the calendar and it goes to the senate. are they in agreement as to how that will work? so that i think is more dispositive of the when we leave then the issue that you bring up and it could be, we could end up next week but i think we are on alert that could go another week yes . i did have a question yesterday so i'm trying to do that. yes. >>. >>. [inaudible] >> the worker bill again, i had this conversation in our

two ago, the worker bill almost all we are in agreement. this egregious agreement is that the republicans want to drop the american position from the word of the bill, that would be problematic for us. of course, they have the votes so they can go forward if they wish but we had a very big concern about that and that part of what was going on. we were supposed to have it resolved probably by now and i don't know if that's happened since we come in the room but that's still a problem now. what i'm interested in in the bill of course, the whole bill to that job is about flint. as went will be as an authorization in the worker bill but we have to see what the languages in the cr because it's one thing to have an authorization, it's another thing to have the money and that's where we are interested in the justice position between the worker bill and the continuing

resolution. but i'm very hopeful that we can have a worker bill because it would be very important for our country. one way or another, were going to get the funding money in i feel confident that the speaker will keep his promise to us in that regard. now it's a debate between houseand senate about how things are paid for and the rest . yes ma'am. >>. [inaudible] yes. [inaudible] thank you for your question. we just had a very positive meeting with the caucus. we had a wonderful coming to terms between when they move on that they were very open to each other's ideas.

they stated how we can work together in a stronger way and it was a lovely sentence. i just wanted to move for the election right now and i said no, monday so we will wait until monday. these are not lower level positions. everybody in that room has a voice. i'm excited about the fact that we will elect sitting members of the policy committee. as somebody said, we are doing what did. no, chuck did what we did last time. we created the issue position, now it's standing to three. there are more members will be elected, freshmen to the leadership and the transition. these are substantial places and i think to me , 15 years probably to get to the leadership so they still get their freshman year or a couple of terms. so i'm frankly liberated by it because your people want

to take responsibility and in no way would they consider this lower level, especially in their perceptive in the congress. it's a big honor, their invigoration is important to it all and as we go forward as we did in 05 and 06, working closely together as the opposition which is a different role than we had in the last few years but our unity is very important so we will be strategic, we will be unified and we will be unwavering in our support of america's wealthy families, that is what brings us together. everything else is part of who we are but what defines us are our values and those values are for working families. okay. [inaudible]

>> you are going to say that seven editors are asking for the declassification and you want me to tell me what is that information? you want me to go to jail . [laughter] let me say, i appreciate your question. i wanted to deal because i had this other question. i wanted to talk about it in this way. i knew the approach year of the standing policy committee, eric falwell, new members of congress and the head of the future for him of this country listening to people, millennial's but he's also a member of the intelligence committee and if he is working with elijah cummings who is a champion of finding out the truth of what's going on in some of this, they are i think

talking about calling for, i like to let them make their own announcement but let's take this to a place where we find out, do they find government and i know that we did, what is the role of a foreign government in undermining ourelections . that would have been unnecessary investigation even if hillary clinton had one, it isn't about who wins or not. it's about what the interference is, i've said this to you before. we've witnessed it and i said at the convention in july i know that it's the russians, i know because i paid for the investigation of our own thing, i know it's the russians. i don't know that from any classified information, i know it from my own investigation. a couple months later, the highest level of confidence from our intelligence community said the russians our community. every day emails came out

from the democratic side, and i frankly think we could have been more aggressive coverage of the fact that a foreign government was acting our committees but this was something that was going on but the fact is something awful was going on. who's to say today that the director of the fbi, he did not want to sign that consent to the report because it was close to the election but he had no trepidation or hesitation or qualm about putting forth a letter that said it may be insignificant 12 days before the election. which others revealed was coming a couple days before. so that's why i distinguished him and a ranking member, elijah cummings as the lead action for an inspector general's report about that

particular letter and the leaking of it in advance. and how elijah cummings and eric falwell are going to be working for some calls for us to investigate or whatever, i will let them make their announcement because they are shaping it and i wouldn't even be able to tell you what it is because they are doing it but as to uncover what is happening. part of the russian agenda is to undermine democracy, not just in our country but in other countries as well. to pass, to alter and to disclose and it's just not right. and i think that it's shameful this was able to go on so evidently, a foreign government undermining our democracy without more being said about it at the time, so

that will happen. [inaudible] >> this hesitation is really up to the president and probably, as we know this, the president can give presses by son something by just saying.it's a mighty power, actually that if the president said something that was highly classified information, makes a mistake or something it would not be vulnerable because is very saying it classifies it. and i haven't seen the letter and i think there should be more information known to the american people whether that of the classification or whatever, maybe that's the investigation that mister wall falwell and mister cummings want to have, thank you very much. >>. [inaudible]

>> reinstated minority leader nancy pelosi will be heading the democrats into the 115th congress next year, look at the job numbers out today as well, the us economy adding 178,000 jobs last month, the unemployment rate getting a nine year low of 4.6 percent in november, according to the bureau of labor statistics, the numbers this morning, later today on c-span2, egypt's foreign minister will be speaking at the brookings institution in washington dc about politics and security in the middle east, and we will have that live at 6:30 p.m. eastern. and then at 8:00, the oral argument from the supreme court case on whether immigrants easing deportation can be detained for longer than six months without a bail hearing. the case, jennings versus rodriguez. listen to the supreme court argument on c-span2 at 8:00

eastern. >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour along with our cox medication partners bring you the history of tempeh arizona. on book tv on c-span, learn about man's relationship with wildfire area and its role in the environment with between two fires: a fireman's job in contemporary america. >> after the great fires of 1910 we also tried to take fire out of the momentum and the problem was in the last 50 years, it's rather a long time, that we tried to put good fire back in. >> hear from brooks about the talent of writing history. >> i'm going to try to do it the best i can and as honestly as i can, as

balanced as i can but i get to do something fundamentally creative. this is what i think can happen. >> on american history tv on c-span three, learn about barry goldwater and colonel kling's personal papers from rob spengler, arizona state university archivist. >>when you look at carl hayden's career , it was really responsible for cosponsoring and writing a huge amount of legislation that benefited the citizens of arizona and the citizens of the state. and just like he was pretty much a legislative assistant, barry goldwater was really a person who is an icon for the western united states. he was a person who represented the interests of

the west. >> jared smith, curator of history at the camp a history museum shows of the contributions made to the city's early history by charles hayden who was credited with founding campaign. >> charles hayden , he was originally born in connecticut, he comes out west during the course of his life, travels over the santa fe trail. he runs freight and eventually makes it arizona in the 1850s. >> the c-span cities tour, saturday at eastern on book tv and sunday afternoon at two on c-span three. working with our cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. >> the president-elect has nominated georgia congressman tom banks to the secretary of health and human services. the congressman price is currently the chair of the house committee and earlier this week be taught the brookings institute about the

federal budget process in federal spending. >> good afternoon everybody. i'm senior fellow in economics studies at the brookings institution and i want to welcome you all to brookings. for this discussion on our reform agenda for the federal budget process. i want to remind you all that if you would just take a moment right now to turn off your phone or silence it, that would be appreciated. i'm pleased to be cohosting this event with the committee for a responsible federal budget and the committee, brian mcginnis will be monitoring the second half of the program. i and the other members of the panel are members also of the national budget roundtable and this is a bipartisan group of legislative experts, former budget officials and political scientists that

focus on the budget process and how to reform it, including how to achieve reform in the process itself and we do this because we like most people recognize it's a process marked by missed deadlines and my crisis and deadlocks and meanwhile, it seems to be unable to tackle many of the critical problems facing our country. in this failure i think contributes to the profound public distrust of washington that we've seen in the election and before that. but personally, some of the people are trying to do something about this so i'd like to welcome to the brookings institute doctor tom price who is chairman of the house budget committee at this event. this afternoon, he will be unveiling a draft proposal to structure reform on the budget process and the way congress acts in the budget for the united states.

but chairman price is the tradition, he's represented just six district since 2005. and since january 2016, he has been chairman of thehouse budget committee . as chairman, he is strongly committed to budget reform. in his congress, he held nine hearings on the topic in these proposals today which will involve witnesses.and his strong commitment to budget reform, he is here today on this point as you might imagine. as you know, governor price was nominated this year as the next secretary of the department of health and human services and as i know your schedule is tight, you have a short time with us today, i look forward to

hearing your proposals on the budget process. thank you. [applause] >> thank you stuart very much. good afternoon all. it is wonderful to be able to join you today. i want to thank you, the brookings institute and thank the committee for a responsible federal budget for agreeing to cosponsor this event. the scholars at brookings and a community as well as the national budget can be the driving force of this town. behind the effort to reform the congressional budget process so i want to thank you so much for your passion on this issue. budgeting isn't something that usuallyfills up rooms so we're excited today . before i begin, i want to mention some pretty specific things. one, i want to thank all of our budget staff whose here today who done yeoman's work in the incredible diligence in producing this product and

among those individuals is my colleague congressman sean rocky done from the great state of indiana. former secretary of state on the budget committee. second is that i have a terrible cold and i apologize for that, i am seeing todd rowe kita in slow motion i apologize for that if i call for that, i will take a sit and put in a lozenge and the third is that as stuart mentioned, i received some interesting news yesterday that has changed my world and life and consequently my schedule so i'm really pleased and excited about being here today and presenting this but i will not be able to stick around afterwards and i apologize for that. so we meet today less than one month after one of the most contentious presidential

outcomes any of us have ever seen. a lot was said during the campaign and a lot was said about the campaign but one of the biggest takeaways that i've seen is this and that is that the american people want change. they want real change. the american people are fully aware that government as we know it is not working well and they want to shake things up in the system that we have in washington. for many reasons why and no one person and no one party is responsible for the good or the bad or the ugly that we see coming out of washington. let me submit however that a lot of portions that we see her in congress between the legislative and executive branches falls squarely on the open budget process. the work is not getting done, not getting done on time and certainly not in anything approaching an orderly or

efficient manner. in the last five years, only one out of 60 appropriations bills have been passed on time. before the end of the fiscal year and the government has been fully funded only once in the past 20 years on time. we keep funding the government in 18 of the past 20 years, we relied on continuing resolutions to stop at measure or congress has signed ominous bills. this is when washington fills all government spending into a passage that is incredibly dense, challenging to comprehend in an expedient manager and generally deployed at the level of transparency that the american people desire expect. in short, it's occurred under republican control, it's occurred on the democratic control and it occurred under a divided government. it doesn't matter who controls the towers of power,

the system is flawed. three years ago when i saw the chairmanship of the house budget committee, i turned to my colleagues in the house of representatives as to the overhaul of the 74 congressional budget act was an absolute priority and to that end over these past few years committee has held nine hearings on this issue. we receive testimony from over 30 witnesses and as well as numerous working papers that many of you have seen i trust. and the document that challenges that we face and the solutions possible. as the members have become familiar with the processes it stands today, the development of two budget resolutions and the process is getting near universal recognition that something has to change. as part of our efforts have been six principles which not only the failures of the current system but that we aim to fix but also to the additional successes that we aim to achieve under a new and improved budget process. today, i am excited to provide an update on the

process that we've made in our community toward achieving over overhaul of the budget process and ask my colleagues and our friends and policy communities and think tank communities who thought long and hard about these issues and the american people at large to review the work that we've done and provide back on these ideas. first, enhancing constitutional authority. we ought to begin any discussion on budget policy reform with our constitution. part of the constitution gives congress the power of the purse, the authority to determine the federal government's level of spending. over the course of many years and many congresses through both the republican and democratic, the legislative branch has exceeded too much budgetary authority to the executive branch. the regime of regulators get too much power which is in a represented framework of our democracy, it's got to stop.

first and foremost when it comes to the budget of the united states congress should look to its proposals in the budget process performs that we envision, congress will consider a congressional budget resolution with information gained from a current service account estimate from the executive branch prior to the president admitting his or her request. the timing may seem like a small fix but the current scenario where congress is essentially responding to the presidents budget is completely backward and ineffective for the constitutional schools and framework. speaking of timing, we ought to rely our fiscal year with our calendar year, that means january 1 is when it would all begin so the schedule of congress and provide policymakers with more time to get their work done. further, we propose putting in place a plan to reduce betting on unauthorized programs. financial portions of spending goes to programs and agencies that congress fails to authorize four years, sometimes even decades. that's a fundamental failure

of oversight area if congress wants to spend money on an idea or agency in the program, it ought to explicitly and in a timely manner declare and justify his intention to do so. within this framework, the appropriations font process changes to denying of how we keep the government funded. passing 12 individual appropriations bills all the way through congress as i said earlier has failed to occur consistently for quite some time. one solution that garnered popular attention and acclaim is the idea of editing, dropping the goal of approving 12 annual bills each year and instead spending the first year of congress dealing with budgetary measures and authorizing spending for two years so that congress can spend more time on oversight in the latter half of the two-yearcycle. biennial budgeting while a

popular concept, i don't believe will solve in and of itself all of our budgetary woes . the concept of broad bipartisan support, we propose dividing appropriations bills through congress. in the first year, six in the second year of the congress, each funding government functions in each area. we ought to see how it works and reevaluate at a later date and that's the process that gives the requirement that the government accountability office prepares effectively for the biennial measure process. meanwhile, a continuing resolution is an absolute must. congress should never work its budgetary responsibility by passing a stopgap measure that covers war than a year of governmental authority. at the same time, congress has to extend the use of presidential authority by a multiple reconciliation bills to be considered under a single budget resolution. increasing the opportunity for policymakers to pursue major reforms within each of

the three reconciliation categories of spending revenue and debt. second area, strengthening budget enforcement. of course, a budget that is not enforced is worth less than the paper it's printed on. right now budget rules and restrictions are easily circumvented, often through the next or outright waving of enforcement measures. we said it should empower policymakers to prohibit such action. any efforts to use gimmicks to declare offset spending when in fact we spend little more than that. we limit the opportunity for congress to reduce spending and tax legislation, there's no budgeting in place that not only makes sense from a budget enforcement perspective but helps ensure that congress is exercising its responsibility to establish broad fiscal policy to the priorities adopted by congress. ird there can be no real enforcement in budget spending without the purview

of the budgeting process. congress needs to look at the whole picture and stock a complete understanding of government spending and obligations. at the same time, we should broaden the base of programs that give automatic budget enforcement procedures and funding for emergencies to be truly funding for an emergency fortified in a relatively short amount of time and not a long-term line item expenditure third is reversing the bias toward higher spending. one of the more fundamental challengeswe face in the current budget process is the inherent bias in the system for higher spending. the baseline of congress uses for its budget production is the amount against which any change is measured or compared , assuming the government programs which are favorable and automatic spending programs like medicare are headed towards

insolvency are simply a part of permanent spending obligations and do not have to be accounted for and are subject to the same level of scrutiny as the federal measures. meanwhile, programs funded annually through the appropriations process are automatically assumed to get a pay raise due to inflation. it's assumed automatic funding is unnecessary and the baseline shouldn't prejudge congressional debate. what is necessary and the follow-up is considered is the cost of not just implementing a given program but the cost to follow-up if need be to fund that program. right now interest payments on the government's that is completely missing in the low cost estimates of new legislation and we aim to change that. additionally, committees of legislation will have an impact on thenations fiscal outlook , and we would like to have the estimate of the impact of that legislation in hand before the markup approving or disapproving the legislation, right nowmembers , i don't have information available to them but the

cost of legislation until it's too late in the process. fourth, controlling automatic spending. for all the time and attention that they received, appropriations bills that congress is supposed to pass easier represent only a fraction of the decreasing action. of the governments annual mistake. two thirds of current expenditures are dedicated to a relatively small number of automatic spending processes on the mandatory side like medicare and medicaid and social security and other medicaid improvements which are not subject to annual appropriation and therefore are largely outside the control of congress. in a few short years, over 75 percent of the annual measure will be consumed by automatic spending meeting congress will have less and less control over the spending that occurred that means the american people have less control over how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent, is that wise?

irresponsible? and it's unsustainable. to establish control over this spending first and foremost we are going to prohibit congress from creating automatic spending programs not included as part of the annual budget resolution. this budget will preclude congress from some point creating new automatic spending programs and ensure that the conversation begins with the context of a budget and the nations fiscal policy. right now there is no reputable process in place to establish in forcing any limits. sure, we've got the statutory taxes in place right now in discretionary spending they are not part of any long-term tragedy for economic growth or for security. meanwhile, we have uncontrolled automatic spending programs that are eating up an ever-increasing percentage ofannual tax revenue . it's an unsustainable tradition. we need a system that gives congress the opportunity to establish term limits and put those limits into law. and to do so within the construct of the annual budget resolution and congress passes a got the

resolution to governance process, there are to be a way to spin off for an opportunity to spend the president for his or her signature a joint resolution that will put in law limits on spending based on the parameters that are establishing that budget resolution. in a way to lessen the burden for automatic spending is placed on our budget, is agreeing that more programs under the umbrella of annual appropriation. this could be done by establishing a commission tailored to the military realignment protocol. that would evaluate each automatic spending program and which ones ought to be transition over the discretionary side of legislature. congress would then have the opportunity to vote up or down, for or against the commissions recommendation. in each of these instances, congress that the people representation would have to say in the treatment of our spending programs and really exceed as many of these

programs are important to the health and economic security of the american people. this increasing transparency, nothing says good government like transparency, a little sunshine. a representative democracy was the open and accountable to the people and that's why in our budget process reforms, we put a premium on transparency. american people should know where the tax dollars are being spent and they should not have to be a budget analyst to figure it out. the congress and executive branch have provided a description of their proposal in language that they can understand and scrutinize and is searchable.we also believe in bringing the fax to congress so that it monitors the reality of modernization for fiscal standpoint. that's why the reforms that we are proposing would require the united states to deliver an annual physical state of the union. addressed to congress and the country, so we are all provided with regular updates on the challenges from a physical standpoint to our nation.

transparency should also point to those who are developing and implementing regulations. every registration relies on registration and progress. moving forward, we also have to account for the impact of those regulations and that's why we're calling for a regulatory budget catalog the cost of proposed relations and the aggregate impact of the regulatory state of health and well-being of our nation. finally, ensuring fiscal sustainability. while the budget process is on the surface of year-to-year funding of the federal government operations and agencies, the ultimate goal of any budget ought to be long term financial stability. putting our nation on i financial trajectory that will ensure future generations inherit a country is fiscally sound, economically confident and globally competitive. short-term thinking or short-term solutions will die

definition fail. that's where we currently are. that's why our new budget process ought to ensure the relative long-term fiscal health of the country by focusing on the nations debt obligations over the coming decade. specifically, we ought to adopt a series of long-term debt targets enforceable by enhanced reconciliation. that failing, there must be an automatic enforcement measure so that we are putting ourselves on the path to ensure that we leave our kids and grandkids a brighter future. the changes that are needed can be as simple as implementing a rule in law against increasing long-term spending but a more complex reform might require congress to evaluate the governments insurance programs or to a revolutionary idea of changing the debt limit calculation to the amount of dollar value as a limit but the level of debt as a percentage of the economy as a percentage of the gross, short shortsighted thinking

washington is one of the biggest threats to ensuring a sustainable healthy, fiscal outlook, anything and everything we can do within the budget process to enforce policymakers to consider the long-term consequences of their action and their decisions will go a long way to ensuring an america that has a vibrant economy and security. or all of our efforts to incorporate the input of members and policy experts from outside congress, we recognize in this process that there will be other solutions that could contribute greatly to improving the nation's fiscal outlook and that's why we propose establishing a special task with reviewing different budget concepts so that we are incorporating an outsider perspective into the conversation, specifically such a commission would examine and report on how portfolios measure covering budgeting systems that could be implemented at the federal level and how they might ultimately foster the balance of the budget. ideas that i discussed here

and others included in the discussion grant for budget process reform thatour community is releasing today and each of you will have the opportunity to pickup a copy on your way out, we invite everyone and everyone to share their insight and input , take part in this important initiative , righties within our proposal that are controversial and may elicit concerns and that healthy, we are to have that discussion, we welcome when he and all feedback. at the end of the day, our motivation is not the process but the product area how do we create a system of checks and balances that will ensure we are producing solutions that make our government more efficient, effective and accountable to the american people. the congressional budget process is just a means to an end. the end is a nation that is sound, economically healthy, safe and secure and full of opportunity area the budget process is failing the american people and our nation. we must end and turn the page

and hopefully this proposal provides the impetus for getting us moving. once again, thank you brookings for their sponsorship and thank you so much, god bless. [applause] >> thank you very much indeed. thank you for laying out the many proposals that absolutely have come out when they leave. i know you have to leave and i know you have a certain amount of questions from the moderator and i also know that given the issue on our nation's process, we had adjustments on healthcare so let me ask you this, you have been the driving force on the health side of discussions of budget process and your comments here today, if things go as you go, you will

be overseeing the process and will be leading in that eventuality, how can you assure us that the momentum for the budget process will be in the house. >> is a great question and the good news is that these compromises, this effort drew from frustration, literally on both sides of the island off the budget process. there isn't anybody is happy about the appropriations budget process over the past couple of decades and so the work product that we produced today is from our committee staff and the inputs that we had from members and from folds in the think tank community, and the ideas that we have that we are not wedded tojust that . that is what we want in the input from everybody. i believe there will be

somebody, if i'm given the privilege of moving forward in our position there will be somebody or people in the house of representatives who will pick up the mantle. it's so important. so incredibly important that the congress embraced the idea of budget reform. i have all the confidence that moving forward is that hopefully this begins that serious discussion over the next few years that there will be a discussion we can bring forward to congress. >>

at the new america foundation and the brookings institution, so i'm pleased to hand over to her to conduct the panel. thank you. >> thank you so much. thank you stuart for putting this together. camera people, i know you cannot leave. i know you are here for budget process. okay, i'm excited to lead the discussion with a great panel, but also a great product from doctor price and his staff from the budget committee that has put together something i think is worth discussing. many many times budget process i will be honest is used to avoid talking about policy. a lot of people use it to avoid confronting the policies we will

have to grapple with it matters not not the case in this process. it's the together and the other thing in the budget process is it becomes kind of eight random grab bag of all sorts of ideas that has been sitting on shelves for decades and a throw them in there, but this, i think, is kind of a thought out process where i think the budget would be looked at more comprehensively and it's a chance to address questions that doctor price brought up whether it's miss deadlines and i think there is a method to it and i think it's a beginning of confronting all of those policies and i also think doctor price has credibility because he has also worked deeply in the policies affected by this part of the budget that he is looking to reform, so it's not instead of, but addition to and he has a lot of credibility on that. we have a great panel today and we will have discussions with the audience because i see a lot

of budget experts here today. i think everyone knows who we have, but james walter. kerry stein from the center of american progress. phil joyce from the university of maryland public policy school and david wessel from new york brookings. also, this is the kind of moderator i am, i will ask broad questions that i encourage you to insert whatever question you wished you had been asked. i think you should jump in and talk with each other as well, but i guess i would start with it's important when thinking about the budget process what problem are you trying to solve and there are plenty of people who say it is not the process that is the problem-- what are they say? the problem is the problem, not the people. sorry. i think there is a lot a problem with the process, but do you think the process needs to be reformed and what are the

biggest problems you'd want to solve their budget process? >> first, thank you to brookings, stuart for a responsible federal budget. i went to commend chairman price in the budget committee for putting together a great proposal with a lot of refreshing stuff. i would start off by saying i might be one of the people that think the process is a bit of a problem, but possibly the people, also. i would like to take a step back and share with you how i try to approach these issues and assess the future effectiveness of any proposed reforms that i think that requires us asking what do we mean when we think about and talk about the budget process and for me that's just the rules and procedures that govern how congress makes fiscal decisions at least in theory and it comes from the same place that it comes from in congress.

the reason i think that is important is that the implication of this is that factors that are negatively impacting the budget process should also show up elsewhere and i think if we were to ask any of you in the audience you would likely say nothing in how congress is making decisions today is working well and i think that's not a coincidence. i think a lot of the same factors negatively impacting the budget process are negatively impacting the legislative process. i think it is a general inability to form sufficient coalitions that are willing to take the votes necessary to pass public policy. i mean, that's the fundamental problem. it isn't a rules problem per se. although, that is part of it and i think the rules can be more rational and efficient, but it's a problem with political will, that's it. the reason why we are talking about the budget process reform is so much lately is the problem

has gotten bigger and harder for members of congress in both parties to show some sort of willingness to tackle the problem worked so, here we are. i would say that the effectiveness of these reforms should be assessed in this light that doesn't mean that reforms that don't increase the political cost of ignoring the problem are bad, but it's not necessarily going to solve the problem, so by annual budgeting makes sense, but we are not passing appropriations bills for lack of time, i mean, i think it's important to keep that in mind. programs that are subject to automatic budget for smit are a good idea, but the current automatic budget enforcement and control act on the narrow subset of a failing program is not allowed to go into effect. that's another thing to keep in mind. again, these problems are important. they are good proposed reforms to tackle, but we need to keep

in the back that reminds that it's a fundamental lack of political will on both sides of the aisle to tackle the long-term problems of this country. >> great. thank you. >> i think it's a good question and i think that to me when i look at budget process reform, i don't think that fundamentally the budget process is the problem. i think it's the budget and the budget process currently can work with members of congress wanted to work in when they can work together. there are issues of the budget process and ways to make it work better. i think that one example that i think is positive from the proposal is eliminating the term limits for members of the budget committee. i did not know that they were term limited and i think generally term limits make it harder to build expertise on the issues they work on and i think that is a good first step in

getting rid of the term limits were generally in the house which i think would be a positive step forward. of the fundamental thing i want to ask our budget process reform and covert-- government reform is generally does this make government more responsive, accountable and transparent for the american people and as chairman price said we just had an election where people feel like why she did is not hearing them and they want to do things differently and i think it's important to note that there is very good political science research that shows those people are correct. there was a study done looking at this and there is a depressing quote in there that after you control the preferences of wealthy americans and the preferences of interest groups, ordinary americans seem to have no impact at least nothing observable on public policy and that should be depressing and we should have a budget process that works to

solve that problem. fortunately, and i think the most important proposal going in the wrong direction and this was the having limits on that in the share of the economy that declined over time and are enforced by across-the-board spending cuts, so sequestration for medicaid, medicare and social security. those programs are popular with the american people. the american people it-- support expansion. they support protecting medicare over cutting medicare to reduce the deficit. now, people can disagree on this from a policy standpoint, but that's where people stand and we should note there's no fiscal arithmetic that enforces cuts to these programs. you can stabilize the debt over the next 30 years entirely with tax increases and we would still be a low tax country by

international standards work you don't have to support that policy, but to say we had to cut medicare is not true. what worries me about what chairman price has laid out is a system where members of congress can vote for a large tax cuts and then vote to reduce the debt and they never actually had to vote on cutting medicare and medicaid and social security, so for example president electrode has proposed tax cuts that will cost roughly $6 billion over 10 years and i ran the math and pending those across-the-board cut requires $1.7 trillion in cuts to social security. 1.1 trillion cuts to medicare and reduce the average monthly social security benefit, which is only about $1200 a month and reduce that by about $170 a month and these are people with disabilities, retirees and you will take away 168 dollars a month. again, people can disagree on the policy, but they should have

to vote on that and this is creating a process where the accountability for that choice is divorced from the people making it and i think that is a fundamental mistake for budget process reform. >> i will start by just not amplifying very much by saying i agree with the prior two speakers that the fundamental problem we have is not primarily the problem with that structural budget process, but the operation of the budget process, which does not mean there are not reforms to the process that could create incentives for the budget process to operate in a different and more timely way. the second thing i will say is that this is a serious effort that, there were these nine hearings held and i testified at three of those hearings, which is not what makes it serious, but it doesn't hurt. >> the other six hearings were horrible. >> the exactly. my point is that based on the

number of members in attendance, the kinds of questions asked you know, these-- this was a serious effort and i think this is as suggested a proposal that hangs together, which doesn't necessarily mean you need to agree with all of it. it means often you do get sort of a hodgepodge of different ideas thrown together as if they were a unified proposal and i think this is a unified proposal. if i were to identify and i think some of them are things that this proposal really does address that are the most fundamental problems with the budget process, i guess i could list 10 or 15, but i will stop with two and of those two would be the timeliness of the process and i think if we want to talk about trust in government, why would the citizens trust the government that has only managed to an appropriation bills on

time four times in the last 41 years. they may not know exactly what's going on, but every time a new state of stories comes out about how we have to have a budget agreement on appropriation bills by ex- date or we will have a government shutdown at some point it doesn't ask and matter if we have a shutdown or not. it's a demonstration that the congress and the president cannot do their job, so that extends that anything in here is grading incentives for the congress to actually get its work done on time i think is actually the most important thing that can be done. of the second is on this question of whether we should have targets are not, i think the question of where the target should be as you read suggests, there should be a lot of debate on that and the question as to whether there should be a target , i'm on the side of saying we should know where we are trying to get to, and that a lot of the countries around the world have what is usually referred to as a fiscal rule and

that means we have an overall sort of natural level of goals are where we want the budget to get to and whether that percentage of gdp or something else and it would be useful to know where we are trying to head and then there can be all kinds of debates about how we get there. we don't have to get there by cutting spending we could get there by increasing taxes, but if you had some consensus, which we lack and we have lacked for a long time i went the overall goal for the budget process ought to be, i think that would move us a long way towards at least knowing where we are trying to get to and then figuring out how we will get there and i will stop there and save my other comments. >> thank you all. i'm tempted to say i agree with everything and we should go home i don't think-- i think that-- the reason we worry about this is not because the process is messy.

a fully had a budget outcome that we were more comfortable with we would tolerate a messy process. i think a lot of us are uncomfortable with a process as congressman price said were increasing a fraction of the federal budget is on autopilot. although, i think hunter carried to with the chairman said congress can and often does-- it's not like they don't really have any power, but in general too much of the budget is not getting annually reviewed and too much of the pressure on the budget are things we think of as investments in the future. there is a problem with the outcome, which it then should lead us to look at the process. secondly, i do think that if congress wanted to make the current process work they could. i think it is nice, but naïve to think if we had just different rules and some of these are very complicated that somehow congress could say we meant to play by the rules, but now it's

confiscated and a bit stricter and put all of these laws in place, but now, we will behave. i don't think that will work that way. third, i think congressman price and the people who worked on this did identify a number of issues that need to be addressed in one of them are our absolute lack of long-term focus, which i don't look at as necessarily a question of too much is spending or too little spending, but just that we don't seem to be able to look beyond-- congress thinks they have succeeded if they avoid a shutdown. that does not seem like a very high bar for representatives. phil and nine a number of other people have a book on thinking more about the long-term that we will discuss tomorrow at the bipartisan policy center, so i think they are correct to focus on this. we had the luxury of being able to look through this. to say i studied it would be a strong exaggeration.

i went to pick on a couple of things. one, it's nice to say that if we move the start of the budget year till january 1, that would give congress more time and they would work better. let's remember that congress moved the beginning of the fiscal year from june 1, to september 1, because they said would give them more time, so i'm skeptical that just if you move the thing three month that suddenly everything will be in order and orderly process. i am trying to imagine what election time would be like in years when they had not finish the budget and will we have this bizarre situation where they refuse to vote on things and they don't want to do before the election, so i'm worried about that and secondly i'm trying to imagine president from coming into office-- by the way boss, you can do anything about spending taxes until 2017 and perhaps the appropriation bill you can do anything for 2010. i don't think the president would be happy with that and obviously that is not

congressman price's concern at least for a couple of weeks. i don't think the american people-- i think the american people when they have the presidential election in the present runs on a program they don't want to be told because we set up this rule we can do anything for two years. one more thing and there are other issues that are interesting and important, but one of them is congressman price when he talked to us about the budget process was clear that he was looking for a neutral process, when i was not sorted prorepublican or pro- democrat and i worry about whether we have achieved that here. one, if you define the process of to much spending and he basically bias the thing about-- against raising taxes even if people in america are willing to pay more taxes to get more spending then you don't really have a neutral process. secondly, i feel like this is a nice conversation, but completely divorced from reality when it looks like according to

leader mccarthy and others that congress is just going to repeal the aca with one reconciliation bill and do a big tax cut with another so they don't have to really deal with getting many democrats in the senate. so, it's kind of feels like we will talk about this nice process, but before we put this in place we are going to dismantle much of president obama doings and we would like to this level playing field, so i think it's a bit in contrast with the spirit of the times that seems to be i won the presidency and the republicans have the majority and we are going to do stuff and the democrats better get out of the way because we found a way, one that the democrats have used successfully, i would admit to avoid getting a bipartisan consensus. >> a lot of good thoughts there are just so you know my next two questions will be one, is there something you think we should do in the budget process that is

not in here that you would recommend another things you'd want to see more of an also i would like to dive deeper into the issues of baseline. just a couple of thoughts while listening to you. one that i had is that i think after this election it's a really important time in this country to rule institutions and systems that people feel are fair because we have a more polarized partisan environment and i think any of us have seen in quite some time and we need people to have faith in the process of government even as our politicians are trying to figure out how to work through things together and so the importance of budget process, being something understood and followed on a bigger basis is important. i actually think this is maybe a tough time to get it done, but a really important time for a strong budget process. i was thinking about what is the most important priorities you wanted to address and this may address, but i'm not sure.

a whole piece of budgeting i think is missing is evaluating our national priorities and figuring out what our biggest priorities are. portfolio budgeting is one area and i think if you have baseline that are less biased in one direction or another it gives you more choices and chances to revisit the national priorities, but i would love to see a process that focuses budget on what it is supposed to do, establish or national priorities, put in place a plan to put in place a plan to fund them. the other one i have is concerned about the fiscal outcome. i am really interested in the debt target i think the debt target, i agree and i will talk about this in a minute, but i think having a fiscal target to start with like you said, phil, is a necessary part of a budget and seems to be kind of crazy to put budgets out there that don't have any place where they are going. there is no forcing mechanism to evaluate trade-offs, which is

what budgets are supposed to do. just like having debt partisan, and i like it switches the debt ceiling to look at that as a shared gdp. i think having the sequester like if you fail to hit your debt target is only spending cuts. i'm all for broadening the base, but i don't think putting medicare and social security and there is a bad thing, but part of what needs to happen along with revenues. you could have two kinds of sequester's. one where both sides want to avoid it. we thought we had that with the sequester and it turns out maybe we didn't, so maybe we don't understand what people are willing to do or to have a sequester that would actually get to the debt target through a reasonable method. i think having kind of a biased of one-sided approach to fixing if you miss your debt target does not make any sense. you could have huge tax cuts have never vote for a budget cut

in entitlement spending would not make it very possible to begin with. also, you what budgets to be bipartisan and to have both sides adopt them to think the rules are fair. i do think it's an interesting time for a fresh start for a budget process and not necessarily in at the process that it would be so much better than the old one. sometimes you just need to reset and i feel like in the budget you need a major reset right now. back to questions. what do you wish the committee did include or would include? also, if you have any thoughts on baseline which is something that has been debated for many many years. >> i think it's a great question and the committees are working on this. i think it was a helpful paper. again, went to take a step back and i think you are correct. i think we should think big, at least in terms of what kind of system we want. there is no reason to

necessarily be bound, i think, as it status quo. this requires us to think through what kind of process we want and what kind of things we value. there is a tension between do you want a more deliberative decision-making process. they have to take tough votes took it does deliberate and ride that single outcome, but it will be more difficult to get change and may take a wile or do you want a less delivered up more secretive secretive process that protects members and encourages them to take these decisions and yes, you may get decisions more quickly, but they will be less stable and maybe more one-sided. the fundamental problem we have right now and again, it's not just budget. it's in all areas of congress. i think you see this in the election and what motivated millions of americans around this country is that they are not seeing their claims adjudicated in the halls of congress on the floors of the

house and senate. they are told lots of stuff when their politicians were when their candidates are asking for their vote, but when it comes to congress they are told we can't do this because this will happen are we can't do that and all this other stuff and it's frustrating. i think having this and thinking through the process and it may not be the most glamorous thing, but i think it's important that we think through what kind of process we want and what kind of things we value and yes, it may make members of congress a little less secure elect poorly, but last time i checked, this place was not designed, congress was not designed so members could come back here in and year and year and year. it's designed to represent the people and i think it is clear that the people are not getting what they want right now. i would just leave it at that. >> i'm going to let someone else weighing on the baseline. i think one thing i really like,

which i said is to have some kind of long-term goal, but i don't think it's sufficient to way we have a long-term goal of jet of debt to gdp and everything else does not matter, so for instance in the australian long-term budget review thing they talk about goals for other things as well and i think it's important to put the budget in the context of economic policy in general because the goal is not to have -- and congressman price said this, it's not only to have a fiscally sustainable budget, but to have a growing economy and equal opportunity for social mobility, so i think if we are going to do long-term planning we have to have something more than just say all that matters. the second thing and one thing that worries me a bit and i confess i don't quite understand all the mechanisms, but we have learned the hard way that automatic stabilizers in the budgets are really important, that you want some spending that

expands when the economy gets a rough spot and then contracts when the economy gets better. we have some automatic stabilizers. i think some of us feel one of the lessons of the great recession is we do not have enough and we ought to think about expanding those because you can't count on congress to do fiscal stimulus when needed and also this stuff does not always trigger off when the economy gets better, so i would want to make sure that any budget process we did did not stop us from using federal programs with automatic stabilizers. more people will be on food stamps when we have a great recession and more people will be on medicaid when we have a great recession and we might want to think about creative ways to get more money to state and local governments to offset the cutbacks when their revenues are down. if you think of everything as we have to put a limit on everything because otherwise it's out of control, i worry we will be setting ourselves up to make the business cycle or severe than it is and if it

invites congress-- you hope congress will weigh those things when we have another great recession, but i'm not sure that will put us in a better place. >> i want to say to the step of the budget committee that if there are things that you feel you need to clarify at any point just flat me and you can jump in and say we do have automatic stabilizers because i know in other countries when they had these kind of target state take the business cycle into account. good point. >> it's always a really fun day when a staffer gets to agree with something that the foundation said and the point that-- >> doesn't happen often. >> more fun days than i used to have, but one of the things i think is important is that i do that the process-- people should be able to see the process of judy king competing claims and they don't see that enough and one thing i think that is important in this discussion is

probably needs to be broader beyond budget process. i think a lot of the problem with not seeing claims adjudicated is when amendments are not allowed in there is just one vote and members have no opportunity to offer amendments. i think it is a problem for governance. i think one note-- i have no objection and i think it's absolutely a good thing to be clear when you are discussing your budget, what your fiscal goal is and what your other goals are, so when the president's a comes out you can see where the budget would go with debt and the shared economy overtime. when congress puts it budget out you can see or at least their totals. the fiscal gold are trying to reach and you can see also under current law where we are going out and that is a good thing. where i think you don't see claims adjudicated well and

where the process breaks down is when you start divorcing those questions from the question of how we get there and not to me is the problem with an enforceable goal with any sort of automatic procedures. it's a much more bias pull when it's only across spending cuts, but i don't want to see across-the-board tax increases either. i would you see members of congress think through the tax code and identify policies that work to get the fiscal situation support the government and want to support. when you divorce these decisions it's easy to vote for a goal and then say we will figure out later how to get there and at the core of a lot of this is i think the theory that congress doesn't compromise because they are not being forced to enough. i think that is probably incorrect. in fact, we tested this. into death 11, president obama, i think it was a mistake to do this but use the debt limit as

an opportunity to force a grand bargain. that did not work and then we got the budget control act which had spending limits and doesn't really address the drivers of the debt. then, this the-- the process that was supposed to be so horrible that would force the super committee to design something better and instead we got sequester. i don't think the sequester is a great way to go in the future and to something i wish i did see in here, i do agree that thinking about that as a shared gdp is the way to think about it and it's good to see chairman price thinking about ways to make the debt limit more rational. i would be concerned with doing that in a world where you are in a recession and gdp is shrinking that you may hit the debt limit, so you are increasing the likelihood of a default price at the worst time to deal with that. what i would rather see here, there's the reason for the d