david perdue of georgia. this is three hours. >> by when the committee for responsible federal budget and it is not everyday that yo evere an overflow crowd on the budget process so we are excited to have you here. we have a c-span audience, live streaming soap wonderful to have everybody joining us for what they think wilwethink will be at conversation. i'm excited about the people

we've gathered and the ideas we are going to be discussing. welcome to the committee for responsible budget for thostherf you who do not know if they nonpartisan organization the board of directors or people many of whom are with us today who have run all the big-budget institutions in washington so the federal reserve, the treasury department, omb, the budget committees comes of a. to try to have a realistic understanding of the budget improvements are going to be needed to improve the fiscal situation in the country and to trick yo to have in a bipartisan way it kind of understanding of how hard it is to make these traces but there are so many reasons they are necessary to keep moving the ball forward. with that said i will say it is a rough time for the budget policy this country.

nobody should be under the impression that the fiscal health of the country is good. it is not. our debt relative to the economy is twice what it's been on average. we are on track to bother us to be $10 trillion over the next ten years but in light of the legislation it is trillions and trillions more and i would argue that we are at the point because the economy is strong right now but that the point we are not making hard choices and we are not paying for things were acknowledging the budgetary trade-offs and the result is the deficit is going to hit the trillion dollars next year. we've only had that happen once before when we were in a very dangerous recession this is a time of prosperity and if things stay on track the way they do right now it could be up to $2 trillion, so suffice it to say that fiscal outcomes are very worrying.

it is how we budget in this country that is so problematic. they are government shutdowns and default. that is not how a great nation or economy runs itself. it is not how the process is supposed to work. luckily one of the things we try to do because when the deck is this bad and the partisanship is this bad there's a lot of things to be discouraged about that one of the things we try to do is focus on different solutions. there's been so much work in this space of budget process that has been coming up with real answers to improve it. i've been working with my colleagues stuart butler and paul poster on how to come up with ideas.

stewart went a whole round table on the process and the first panel to hear from today is a remarkable group called convergence brings together stakeholders from all different areas cut the kind of people who would normally be tossing food across the table at each other and fighting. and they are on many topics of the process to bring together people and work together for months and months to build trust, come up with shared values and principles it is an important part of the standing where we have in common it unites us than divides us even in the budget process and come up with solutions. the. there are more that we will be hearing in the second panel where my colleagues will come up with ideas to share with the group as well. it doesn't do enough to complain or identify why the problems matter so much fo but coming up with solutions is critical.

let me take a couple of minutes to talk about the budget process and where we are. one of the things i already find most remarkable is that we run this country without a budget, really regularly. no business would ever be permitted to operate that way and we surely are in a situation where it's normal now that we don't have a budget place so that should be the starting point everybody realizes it recognizes the budget process of the united states is broken. there are so many things that are problematic not just that we budget jumping from one crisis to the next, but there's very little transparency in the budget. one of the things we have seen and they improve the fiscal situation situation and a lot ot comes from the entire citizenship understanding what the goal is, what the policy goals are and what you are trying to accomplish and they have to rally behind. we have little transparency people don't actually know which budget means what.

the president put out a budget that's dead on arrival and the senate is doing one but somehow nothing ever passes and we are shutting the government down. there is no transparency to understand what's going on let alone the complicated things like budget baselines and how we do the counting so we need there to be more transparency and accountability so when we fail to pass budgets is an understandinthere is anunderstat responsibility lies and more intense for the deadlines and getting the funding them and also having other outcomes. there are so many gimmicks and how the budget i budget and makr head spin. we just published a paper available for anyone to pick up today. we have a great team that uncovered a different gimmicks and put it together. the problem is they are worried this will be used for ill.

i do not want any congressional staff to bring us back to their members. this is not a how-to manual, so we are trusting you these are the gimmicks we don't want to see used in the budget process. that just shows that the process has broken down at this point. whenever you put rules in place, the subsequent years are smart. people figure out how to break them, but we've gotten to the point that they are very broken. too many gimmicks. the budget doesn't focus on the long-term at all. it's where the problems are fiscally. it used to be the long-term. it is the medium term and getting closer every day the baby boomers are retiring and we continue not to have a growth or fiscal plan in the country but we don't budge budget and a lonm thoughtful manner so we put in place and that is true in policy as well but it is obamacare or

tax cuts, you put in place a big policy and within a minute, they have a repeal to it so there is no continuity, no durability for the policies or the budget situation. that doesn't work. we are slow moving but also he wants long-term object if ways to pursue them. finally then i would say the outcomes. the budget leads us to very poor outcomes and that is where we are on the fiscal front so you want to figure out how to change the rules and process to potentially nudge people to come out with better outcomes that would be desirable in all of this. so, it's completely lock, not that they were thoughtful and planned this fall but completely lucky that we are getting our first annual budget process event and for those of you that come to the annual dinner you know i'm not good with things that are tangible. we host a dinner that approximately is held every

seven years. [laughter] this is an annual budget process event you're going to start giving regularly. and so, this turned out to be great. the recommendations that have come out turned out to be perfect because we know with this new commission getting started in the budget bill that just passed its probably one of the only things that's going to be moving in congress this year. it's not going to be big for getting things done that it might be one of those things that sneaks up on you as people learn about the budget process they will realize how broken it is and there will be ideas that come forward and it may be something that gets moving. so it is an incredible opportunity and different ways to think about the kind of reform they may look at. it may just be incremental, and i shouldn't say just because some can be impressive but how do you put forth automatic resolutions so we don't have the government shutdown and joint budget resolution is looking at

how to bring the white house and congress into the decision. there may be steps that are changed and a lot of improvements made on how we do the accounting and the budget concept and make things more transparent and enforce things anyway that's harder to get around, that would be an incredible step forward. we may look at a very big dramatic budget overhaul, something the organization looked at for years to take what we did in 1974 and replace it with a new budget system where you start possibly with agreeing on the outcomes and get more people involved in the beginning of this multiyear budgets in place that are more durable. there's a lot of ideas so we will see how much the system can bear that at times it's hard to be optimistic that anything difficult is going to get done i think the benefit of changing how we budget is the stats don't seem so hard when you are making them, but they have a ripple

effect. it's hard to figure out the revenues and spending but also so that resources are being fought in a way of achieving the goals of. we have huge challenges that could be opportunities in the country that come from trade and open borders and globalization that come from technology and artificial intelligence and all the things happening to pave the change faster than we have ever seen in the world. those can be great opportunities

but to make them work we have to have a government that can partner to turn those into opportunities for they are not disruptive to the economy and overall system in a way that is too hard to handle. so to bite off an even bigger piece, this really matters. the way that we budget affects how we are going to perform for decades to come. they can be a notch if people want to see those changes and we can tell you working with members on the hill there are people that want to see improvement in a system that tht allows us to flow through. i will turn you over to the first panel will be able introduce everybody you talk about the great work of the panel. i was lucky to work through them in the process not only was it hard working on all the pieces but it also did something we needed to be getting more of

which is build up trust between the stakeholders to come with aa lot of opinions and i -- if you listen to what their ideas and objectives are the result of shared values so i'm excited to introduce them to come upon the stage and talk about the process and outcome. and thanks to everybody for joining us. [applause] well done everyone we are delighted you are here today. i am the president of convergence, the national organization that works to

create consensus solutions on the national consequence and actually she probably explained it better than i could i want to say she hit the high points what we have been successful at doing is gathering people with different perspectives on multiple issues to find common ground with people that have the collective knowledge and influence and information that if they reach a we reach an agrn really move forward, so in addition to this remarkable project led by suzanne, she will introduce the panelists and they also work in other areas may be of interest to you in the k-12 education, health care, economic mobility and incarceration. we are really pleased to have hosted and organized and convened this process on this critical national issue. i want to start by thanking the u.s. foundation for their generous support and for helping to guide us. it's been invaluable to the process of moving the project

forward. i also want to thank the foundation for helping us reach a conclusion on this project. you will hear that this group, this remarkably diverse group, and i've been caught already saying never before such a diverse group agreed on anything. but they have come together for a series of proposals to help fix the federal budget process and hope to vastly improve how the government needs to function to create a budgets every year. i think what makes the group unique is not just its political diversity, but also the fact that these are not just the normal budget wants i wants to t they are people representing real interest for affected by the dysfunction in the budget and the budget process and while they don't agree much on the merits of what it ought to look like, they are all in agreement that the budget process needs to be fixed and that's where they've come together and powerfully to present ideas in a very timely way.

the other thing that i think makes this report uniquely valuable is that we had to work really hard. it wasn't so easy to build trust, but there were real differences and concerns about whether we would create budget process reforms that might tilt one way or another to those that are concerned about the levels of spending or those that don't feel we are bringing us int into this within the needs of some concern about too much revenue, too little revenue, whatever the first if it was hard to make sure we have a process that would stay fair to all points of view and i think we've done that very successfully. and as it's been mentioned already, we think this report provides a great starting point for the new joint select committee on the budget appropriations process for the e congress is setting up. again, i think it's important to know that benefit people in the group think we put out a report that is going to just be adopted

in whole cloth by the congress s as a starting point and we think of the ideas presented here and the principles that underlie them are honored that we would have a good chance of having a budget process reform that can achieve widespread bipartisan support. so again i think the group does view this as a starting point and the other thing that should be obvious is no matter what else can we create, congress may have the ability to avoid it so it'll take some cooperation in terms of changing its norms and how it operates to be successful but we think that this could become a beachhead across party lines and congress itself. on a personal note, i realized just last week that four years ago last month i took my first job on capitol hill for the senate budget committee. i worked for the share name and he worked with the ranking minority leader and for me, it

was an amazing time in the process had just begun but there was so much earnestness on both sides to work together in such a tremendous participation in the bipartisan committee. i know a lot of people get impatient with those that are a little older calling up the house in the days of the past but h worked together on a budgt then. there was the chairman of the appropriations committee. they would function at the level that they did years ago and so i think underlining people can work across differences and we hope that this will be a model for others. let me close by thanking all

participants and we will welcome you later but we have a lot of participants at the table here with us today. i want to thank in particular the panelists for their appearance today and i want to recognize especially susan who is our leader and project director and others on the team, mike, pat field, the facilitat facilitator. let me turn it over to introduce the panel. [applause] i would also like to say thank you to the initiative for supporting not just the efforts of the convergence of further long interest in the invested budget process reform and for helping make an event like this to come to pass. and thank you all for being he

here. when we started this budget we didn't know where we would end up in the budget process even back then. especially the people that we were focusing on for this dialogue. there is a little bit more than an hour to talk about the project. i want to give you a little bit of background on the via more than i'm going to turn the conversation over to my colleagues about the work that we've accomplished on federal relations administration and the association for the american universities and the executive director of the coalition for health funding and neil bradley is the executive vice president at the u.s. chamber of commerce. we are happy to take your questions. a little bit of background, the

convergence project. the diverse group should be able to get behind him is a two and a half years we started making phone calls not quite sure who would respond when we picked up the phone. we talked to many of the suspects and on the hill with budget experience and a number of academics some of whom you will hear in the next panel that the group we wanted to hear, was a lobbyist and government affairs officials who work on the frontline for the battle every day. slowly we started collecting their stories and add 20 we thought we were doing pretty good that we were up to 40, 60 and by the end we topped out at 100 individuals that we talked

about the budget process with. our initial conversations usually started like this, don't know much about the budget process or wha by which we havek about it come on in and see where it ends up. usually the conversations in one hour and 15 minute sounded like there's a lot more at stake than i first thought. it is energy and the desire to make the situation better. and that was enough for us to get started. from those interviews county identified two dozen people to join the dialogue. the group is made up of leaders and organizations with broad influence on the hill along with a handful of other experts with deep experience in the budget process. the meetings were designed not to talk about how to fix it but

stability level of trust among those who didn't necessarily know each other going in and certainly did think they had anything in common with anybody in the room. the stakeholder told us that one of the meetings one of the things she looked forward to is who she would sit next to because she was pretty sure that it wasn't random. there they were months after months delving into the process figuring out which way to turn to how far tfrom how far to go o find agreement. they listed the problems in the process that we heard in the interviews and that they were not alone in the frustration it served as the bedrock for what was to come.

they are passionate in their desire for the government to work well. making pretty good process and we were watching what was going on because when you join the convergence project, you are committed from abt 18 months or two years and as we watched the budget committees were doing we were a little afraid or lunch was going to because they would have to conclude before we came to conclusion so in response to that, what he did with the group is the set u of the conversation to develop a set of principles for a better budget process. in order for them to be prepared in case the budget committee actually started to do something that was moving forward they

were prepared to comment on it if it turned out they didn't have time to generate their own ideas. spend a littlso then a little le dialogue. in the workshop we went back to the constitution to see what it said about the budget process. and what we learned is that it doesn't say much at all. so this was a turning point for the group were they began to speak and to generate their own ideas about how to make the process work better. we looked at the role for the president and congress at a congressional committee structure. we looked at how the budget process handles the long term which is something that the group felt needed to be addressed. if we looked long and hard at the budget resolution and how it has developed and accomplishes and hoand how the setting spendd revenue levels might be different. we looked at the perennial pered

the biannual budgeting and a beer he had other ideas that have been opposed. it's become a package of proposals for the whole group feels is solid and importantly achievable if the process look better. we are encouraged but they've established in the joint committee a formal mechanism for exploration of the budget process and the group stands ready to help the congress. so i want to turn to the panel and combinfamilyand combine thee individuals sitting here represent over 50 years of experience working with congress on a wide range of policy issues around higher education and healthcare and neil bradley with deep experience working with congressional leadership and the community on just about any issue you can think. it highlights the substances of interest among the groups members as well as the hill

experience. experience. and if you're deeply committed to committing a better budget process. to get a little bit of background, matt is going to walk you through the principles that we have developed and reached a consensus on and then as we develop this proposal, ellie is going to walk you through the proposal and then round up the conversation to give you a feel for the conversations we had about the political viability of our ideas as they call us. now i'm going to turn over to the people you want to hear from to talk about the results of the dialogue. ..

that underlay the proposals. it was clear to her group that we agreed on the diagnosis of the budget process and can we all agree it's very very -- the question was can we agree on the description and to reach agreement we could develop these nine principles and if you think about this is it's what we believe the budget process is. this is what the appearance will look like if the prescription in the treatment worked so with that you see the principles on the screen to my side. as we went through our discussions we determined the ideal budget process should be comprehensive than what we meant by that was all the governments and financial resources

spending, its revenues of all kinds over the short and the long term. we also agreed it should be unbiased. you should not tilt towards a specific outcome or ideology. we spent significant time on this particular principle but in some ways this principle is paramount to everything we put together. the rules go one way or the other and there's little incentive to want to engage in the process. we also believe the process should develop and establish a plan that includes clear and achievable goals for fiscal policy and budgetary decision-making. should be transparent. the steps of a process should be very clear and understandable to everyone, not just policymakers are not just stakeholders but the public or the process should also be informed by objective independent nonpartisan and frankly high-quality information

again that is accessible to everybody just not the policyholders. without the word inclusive coming up time and time again. the process should really allow for different points of view much like the convergence process frankly. should include republicans perspective, democrats perspective stakeholders perspectives into perspective that is present in our society. differing views should be discussed and debated and organized and structured way. i think maya also said durable. this is something we talked about a bit as well make up the process should be durable across the administration different congresses the political environment economic climate and proportionate to the times he lived in. said another way the process should be durable including the challenges the country faces. you really should survive all of

those. we spent a lot of time thinking about what's predictable. the process should be completed according to meaningful and achievable deadlines. we discussed this one extensively. the untimeliness and the uncertainty of the current process have many negative consequences. think about business interest at any given time it's uncertainty that really drives a lot of the problems. a sea of a lot in higher education depending on resources and grants coming from the federal government and will they higher graduate students? having things that are predictable at the end of the day is important if folks. last but not least it's probably the easiest one to articulate. the process should be simple. i think of this one is in some sense the overall guiding principle.

the more complicated the process the more to date the process is the opposite of some of the principles that are here. for example the process is if complicated there'll be too many steps. those are the principles. it took some negotiating but in some ways it was the easiest thing to do because i think there was a lot of common ground and common dollies that invents itself in a pretty straightforward way. ramadan emerged the themes and we have also articulated in the report. those are now on the screen before you and as we talk about these principles we asked ourselves some questions such as are their effective incentives and consequences that can be devised for new budget process? what parts of the process currently do work and how can they be strengthened and is their way to shock the system to

break bad budgeting habits and change the current norms? is the group tried to answer those questions that's when these four themes emerge. let me go to the quickly. first elections drive outcomes. the failure of the senate on statutory deadlines and consequences like budget point of order encouraging time reaction led us to this. the one true driver is the potential outcome of the next election. we have seen his time and time again. as such we saw the importance of synchronizing the element of the budget cycle for the electoral and governing cycle to generate more timely action. secondly credible information provided at the right time really matters. there's a lot of good information available to congress and the public about the budget. the information arrives at different times from different sources and they tend to complicate and confuse

considered the informant helped decision-making and we think there are ways to address that. third, effective russian institutions are crucial. what are we talking about here? when everybody in this room knows is the office of management and of involvement the general accountability office and the congressional budget office. their work is extremely important to informing budget decisions. lastly a theme that kept emerging time and time again our new norms are needed to break bad habits. let's face it the budget process is in a deep rut because the process doesn't work more often than not it's negatively affecting public perception. so our groups view is that new expect patients need to be established to help congress to be active in a timely way in ways that are achievable and that's something that they can do help create the norms we can

have ideas to help with that. those are the principles that undergird the proposals that you will hear now from emily. >> thank you matt and thank you for letting me be here on behalf of the group. i hope i make you proud. before we get the proposals i want to share a story. on the way here heard from her friend and respected colleague who's been working on the budget for long time and he says i love you but these recommendations are worthless. thanks, that makes me feel good before i go out before. people live on c-span. before we began begin i think we as a group have the benefit of i think at least two or three sessions of just venting about everything that we are frustrated with. we got it out of our system that at some time we came together and decided okay we have to do something.

so what can we do? before we get into the proposals i want everyone, i know you are all like me suffering them from ptsd in the budget process, just kind of keep an open mind in keep in mind the themes in the principles for which we are working. as i came to this project i was skeptical initially. as i look at it i really feel like in many ways we have a people problem not a process problem. the process can work if people wanted to the coming from the field and working with people who work in public health behavioral change is hard so really this is about what can we do around the margins of the process to adapt to the way that people behave rather than maybe trying to change their behavior and cannot get us to another place. i think that's where we came out with our proposal.

with that preamble using the constitution as their foundation in the principle theme we developed five proposals for improving the process, improving not perfecting and the yeas are consensus. that's really important. again if you look at the stakeholders involved this is where we could all come to agreement on things that can make a difference. i think we all have other ideas in addition to these but this is really where the consensus was in the starting point. we discussed a lot of things. you may think well you all may have died? we really talked about a lot so i think we'll have an opportunity during q&a if you want to talk about things that we didn't recommend, we can share more of their particular round of incentives like

withholding pay for lawmakers and talk about all that. but taken together and this is really important we believe these principles are practical and they are achievable and again that they will make the process better and that was really our goal. first we have recommended what we call a budget action plan. this is really the synchronize budget proposal with the electoral cycle so that the congress and the president together negotiate the budget plan at the beginning of each new congress. it is passed into law signed by the president unlike budget resolutions now. but it would make decisions such as spending discretionary spending limits and addressing the debt ceiling for two-year period. in many ways this is kind of

what we are doing now when you look at the bipartisan budget back of 2013, 2015 and 2018. our goal is to move back to the beginning of the process rather than the end or the middle i guess where we are now. the idea being at the outset everyone is all on the same page and we are moving forward. the numbers are the member -- numbers. we are not really getting these numbers and this will allow the pro-creations process to flow forward. as we look at the process and diagnose what's wrong the budget resolution discussion whether or not we do one or not do one, are we changing what we have that is a huge bottleneck for the appropriation process going forward so we tried to eliminate that. that actually was the most exciting proposal for me is this

idea of producing every four years a fiscal state of the nation and the congressional budget office with help from communications professionals would he really producing this at a point in the election cycle cycle, presidential election cycle where we can elevate the discussion about the budget and our nation's finances in plain language with one source, with one set of numbers that everyone can understand. i was just talking with a colleague earlier for example the president's budget came out earlier this week paid some of the congressional agency are out out. even when they are out there not all in one place and i do this for a living.

so it's really really hard as john q. public are jane q. public to get a handle on what are we spending and what is the benefit to me and maya really alluded to this in her remarks. as a nonprofit organization i do and annual report for their shareholders. there's no comparable document signed for the american taxpayer to the shareholders for our nation's process of the idea that this will help the disconnect for citizens so they can better understand what they are getting for their money. to reinforce the importance of long-term respect on budget decisions we recommend the government accountability office review the performance of federal programs that involve a long-term commitment which are defined as 10 years or more.

these could include retirement security health care taxes and revenue. this will happen every four years. that information could be included in that publication as well and really where we came on this and matt and i spent most of our time working on the appropriations on the discretionary sector ledger we go through each review all of our programs every year. there is no similar automatic look at the mandatory funding and the revenue side and left the program happens to have an expiration. the biggest ones do not so the idea here was with some type of regularity prompts lawmakers to have a conversation about the

other side of our ledger that often are pretty politically charged and are openly discussed. fourth, the proposal to get rid of the budget committee altogether. the talk about that or we would have the opposite direction. we'd like to strengthen the budget committee. we do think there is a role there and what we would propose is including the chairs and the rankings of the relevant committees ways & means and finance, armed services and other relevant committees and have them sit on the budget committee. the reason we did this as we look to where the bottlenecks occurred. appeared to us there is a disconnect between the current format between those that are crafted are not then responsible for implementing the plan.

we have the appropriation ways & means and finance committee to engage early on in crafting a plan and then going forward in carrying it out so you are creating by en's at the beginning of the process. and finally as matt noted a credible reliable information is paramount to any and all of these efforts and the budget appropriations process overall and we would like continue to support those institutions the congressional budget office the joint taxation the government accountability office recognizing also that in many ways we just expanded their scope of work so we want to make sure we have the resources needed to carry out our charge. those are our five proposals and

neal is going to tell us more. >> thank you susan. they can work, that is the good news. the reason i'm convinced it will work is because the process we went through and the recommendations we ended up with recognized that reform has to take place in the political process. we cannot write the best they were -- the radical process in the world and expect they will say that's the textbook answer and i'm sorry we didn't think about over the last 40 years. we will immediately enacted into law. it's not the way it's going to work. so as we developed these proposals and we try to work through and anticipate the political challenges i would like to describe some of them

for you and why a think the recommendations that her group has come up with rise to those political challenges. the first is that everyone immediately comes in with a bit of a buy-in with what they want to see the budget reform produce. if you think about the group that we assembled company of folks who are really concerned about long-term debt and deficit. they want a process that solves that problem. some folks were very concerned that we are not raising the revenue to support the government program that they care about. conversely we had other folks who did leave the revenue wasn't a problem at all so any process designed to raise more revenue is a nonstarter from the beginning and you can go on and on again about your individual priorities and the priorities the people you either work with or know you will work with the gannon become to quickly realize that having a process that takes

an outcome simply isn't politically feasible. the second part of that chill at the corollary is everyone wants to relitigate the last battle. we have spent a lot of time in our process with everyone not because they were trying to pick an outcome for good government, good budgetary reasons or in my side of the aisle more conservative republican side working to relitigate the affordable care act so something like that could never happen again. when tax reform began to happen folks who are opposed to that looking at the budget process to the length of can i make sure that tax reform bill currently working its way through congress and ultimately becoming law never happens again. if we come to the table attempting to relitigate to insure future big hurry you are not going to achieve the neutrality objectively laid out.

there's something very important about what our proposals due. they don't dictate any single outcome. here's one of the things that is shocking to hear them say from a fiscal standpoint. they can produce the exact same fiscal problems that maya opened our discussion with the day of. that's okay. the process we have created is designed to hold elected officials accountable for those results and at the end of the day that's what a process should do. should clarify decision-making and it shouldn't -- but it should provide clarity about who makes what decisions and what are the consequences of those decisions. we talked to lot about something we spent many -- much time on. none of us were elected officials and so was easy for us as stakeholders to suggest the

elected officials who should implement these reforms should impose on themselves all kinds of punishment if they fail to meet budgetary but -- deadlines they don't get appropriations bills done they don't address the long-term deficit and they don't address the social security crisis and all the things he can impose on them. let's be honest. republican or democrat elected officials are willingly going to impose on themselves some draconian measure for an outcome that they can't control in the future. it's pretty and realistic. also by the way it runs contrary to the entire way our system works. matt mentioned that we went back and started the comp to two should be the ultimate accountability of the constitution and the only accountability of the budget context is that the out box so what we can hope is to do is create a process that hold

elected officials accountable at the ballot box. the longform fiscal health report by each presidential election is a look back at what the current president prior presidents have done but also an opportunity where the candidates for presidency to talk about what they are going do a delay that out and be held accountable by all of us when we make our decisions in november. the two-year budget cycle with a look that provision at the end of the two-year congress is designed to do the exact same thing for members of congress. how much do they want to spend did they come in under budget, over budget and if they want to reform entitlement perhaps in the two-year plan? did they ask you away to it or did they sell us all a bill of goods that was a grand promise for something that they said was going to happen that they had no

way of ever attempting to achieve. this process is designed to flush that out. one of the great criticisms and emily references as she talked about the comments of her friends was that there's an expectation the budget process reform should be incredibly complex. when you think about all the problems, the fiscal problems that we have when you think about the budget gimmicks that are currently employed that we ought to have the system that plugs every hole in the dam and prevents anyone from creating a new hole big eared tease when we set a deadline that deadline is going to be met and achieves everything we want to achieve. when you design a system like that you end up with something that maybe looks a lot like today's system which is incredibly complex and completely unworkable because

budget reform is a political process. budgeting is also a political process in the process has to allow for the political parties in our elected officials at any moment in time to work through their differences in the process doesn't allow them to do that you are going to end up with what we have today which is a system that isn't compatible to the problems we have and doesn't allow the political the senate the house minority to majority the president so everything grinds to a hault. we are not going to be reliant on the process or excuse me on the process to achieve this instead we are going to set the table give everyone an invitation to the table and layout fairly rudimentary things for them to do so they continue to use take one in budgeting and

then take step two and then takes that three in step or so you have a greater light said that they will actually follow that process. we are set up with this budget cycle and our budget plan is just that asking members of congress and the present to start by saying what are the decisions you have to make this year for this congress? you have to make decisions about how much you're going to spend on defense and non-defense discretionary spending. you have to make a decision if you have statutory debt limit what you are going to do without any decision about what you want to do. you want to do a major tax reform bill or do we want to tackle entitlements or create entitlements? this is a process where you make the decision and then you have the freedom to follow it through. we think that process isn't burgeoning you down with points of order and compel to resolve

and penalties. one that is most likely what they are supposed to do which is to make the budget law. if we do that we can hold them accountable we think we will have a much better process than what we have now. we think this is achievable and doable. it doesn't ask too much of our elected officials. simply creates a process for them to do what they all say they want to do and what we should expect of them at a minimum and for those reasons we are. proud of this product that we have created. >> thank you. we are not done. don't go yet. we are moving onto q&a and i have a few to get started and then i guess we will opened up to the crowd. i want to give you all a chance to talk about your personal

experience. my first question is why did you sign on to the project? when i called each of you i was thrilled that he answered the phone. sorry. i was thrilled that we had the conversation even more thrilled that you said yes. >> i'm happy to start creative thought about it in two ways and thanks for asking the questions. one was on a personal level i've been working in washington for a little over 20 years. it's my own personal frustration of watching the starts and stops and wanting to see the process work. secondly i work for a research universities across the country. they are the business of solving problems and bringing together people from different back runs of skill sets and knowledge and

they try to find ways to solve problems. it was a natural for me to get involved in all of this in a year out is their ways we can do this bring knowledge skills and suggestions and ideas. can we contribute something that is neal said maybe it's a good starting point for these discussions. the time is now. >> i would say the same. for our folks in the health research committee they don't have a parachute. they have to budget and do the work so we hear consistently about the anxiety and the disruption in their everyday lives and trying to protect american health and health security. from that angle and not to sound too pollyanna-ish but something has got to give at some point. it's hard but this kind of can't

go on. there's got to be a way to do this better. i think for myself personally i think this is my 14th budget appropriation cycle. i'm just tired and i wanted to be different. so to be able to be a part of this room on people who i work with than people who i don't work with and the whole model is really exciting to me to get past the skepticism and cynicism to find solutions and that is what attracted me to the project. >> i think it was the opportunity to come up with something that is durable. i walked in with my wish list on the way i thought the budget process to operate and i would hope that everyone would agree with me and with the done but that's not going to happen.

too much of our politics right now with one party or the other thinking as soon as we get the power we are going to write it the way we think it should be written that's going to solve our problem. one come you can't get that to the current system and to it won't be durable and three you are wasting a lot of time. .. >> a bit of silence while i look at questions here. >> while you are reviewing the

notes, want to talk about things that research in universities care about different policy choices and budget issues. i was heartened when i said at the table and found out that neil was over there. we're always able to have a good discussion. there's many other people who sat around the table, there's something about the fact that would let people are cynical about what's happening there a lot more optimists in this town so this is really helpful, i think you could see the fruits of that. >> the first question is how do you build a collaborative team?

[inaudible] the budget process was a little different for convergence the when it started there is a lot of questions were talking about a process and how we will pull it together. what we try to do is give people space and time to build relationship. in that space and time we create safety so people can say things like what you say in the room doesn't leave the room. another role was that you approach people with curiosity. he tried understand their

perspective in the u.s. questions based on the curiosity in a respectful way. we are thrilled with the first meeting and everybody got along quite well, think it was because they're so busy complaining about the process, so many of the words to use to describe that. but that was an immediate bond that was built between people i don't think they expected when they walked in the room. it was from that base we could tackle the more difficult decisions. then it was a matter of time. convergence projects tend to bring people from around the country so they don't leave quite as often. everybody was in a two and half mile radius.

that helped to build relationships as well. we invited people to breakfast and had dinners. there was a social component that kept the fighting down. in the end the work that was done was really hard. the commitment of this group blows away. it was a hard legislative year. talking about lobbyists on the hill day after day. the refills that we would hold a meeting and something would happen there be a vote on budget resolution. our last meeting was the day the last budget deal is fine. people were jumping up and tried to take care of something but it was a commitment of the group to

find agreement, ground and carry it forward. >> sometimes misery loves company. you realize that you have a lot of common. i think everybody approached with skepticism. but these are big things. when the federal budget process doesn't work it's the single most important element the american taxpayer sees. the shades their view of whether the government is working so we all understood the stakes coupled with the fact that misery loves company. >> in a room full of lobbyists where we all talk for a living there is a lot of listening, probably more listening than talking.

second is really important to have strong facilitators, i don't know if this new committee can detail some of the convergence because i think that made a difference in terms of planning planning the speakers and keeping up on track, focusing her thoughts to me that was critical. >> thank you. have a comment about writing style the question is why would it putting the long-term fiscal situation in the election cycle just leave each presidential candidate to have pledges go the wrong way.

so i won't touch social security or medicare come i won't raise taxes but there's no recent discussion around it. >> they're not doing it today. they're not pledging not to raise taxes or anything so i see that happens. part of the reason is that were not tisolo fiscal problem without elected officials solving them. nobody will come in, when i can empower someone and say you go out and solve our physical problems. we kinda tried that. we had a super committee of elected officials were supposed to solve our problems but they didn't. go back to the 80s we said if we don't hit certain budget

targets he's the guy that since he's not elected can come in and cut across the board to make it work in the supreme court said he cannot do that. the idea that somehow we will solve the problem external of the political process misses the fact that elected officials make these decisions. sometimes will get candidates who promise the moon a promise will fix all these problems and if the media their opponents stumbled them accountable i suspect in a couple of years the chickens will come home to roost and the voters will hold them accountable. the alternative is to say that we will never fix it because we can never trust elected

officials to do the right thing. elected officials are all we have to make laws. >> would you consider eliminating the appropriations committee structure and making everyone appropriators? >> we did not recommend that i don't know if we thought about getting rid of authorizer's only thought about merging the appropriations and authorizing committees so they are together which conceptually i get a mental lining the committees with the department so the committee structure nears the way the executive branch is set up. for me working i can tell you most of the public health service agencies are not

reauthorized, we don't have a rate track record and authorization either. so to bring appropriations and authorizations into one shop seems like it will just make the problem worse. >> as we got deeper into that discussion why are we here, to reorganize congress of the federal budget process. it really became the latter that's a bridge too far for us to cross. it speaks to the one proposal that did emerge. the strength of the budget committees and making sure that authorizer's were big jurisdictions or look at revenues to cut or raise those the same put the chair in the ranking member and if they can't

do it have them designate someone who can bring that perspective to the budget discussions. we think that was an effective way to deal with some of the authorization that we know are going to cross where you need to reauthorize the higher education act and have that reflect in the budget. those folks are paying attention and will weigh in on. >> there is no fight like a jurisdiction fight on capitol hill. one thing that has united they worked hard to get on that committee and stay on that committee. the idea that we will just reshuffle the what it meant these recommendations would not

be achieved. >> responsibility, justice, fairness and accountability should be more important than the principles we came up with. responsibility, justice, fairness and accountability they talk about accountability, that is not one of the nine. i think you said it pretty well, if you have these principles coupled with proposals in fact there are actors in the space. something we talk about in terms of incentives, you can lead a horse to water but he can't make it drink but you might be able to make it there see.

you can take it into a heart barn and have cool water maybe that will get the horse to want to drink. congress has to decide if they want to. if you had a better system and a fair process policymakers have a better shot of putting forth outcomes that reflect the input in making tough decisions. >> the constitution gives congress two thirds of the ability to make law. doesn't guarantee they will be good laws. the process allows good laws to be ridden and really bad loss to be written. that's part of the system. the founders said we won't make you allow you to make a bad law

similarly with the budget process needs to allow them to facilitate good decisions but it also has to be open to the fact that sometimes the political process might make a bad decision say the majority of the congress wants to shut down the government. that's what our elected officials want to do as crazy as that may be you can't write a process that denies them that ability. because if you do that it's not really process it's a predetermined outcome. the will go back to what we struggled with at the beginning, process that determines a winner or a loser sometimes it be comfortable with the idea that a process doesn't solve all of our

problems. even with what we do our job we might not like the job they're doing. >> i think the spirit of those are embedded, the words aren't here early on i struggled a bit of slipping into the policy discussion versus the process discussion. i think of equity, justice, fairness, as outcomes of a budget versus what underpins a process of what creates that process. i can tell you there's a whole day weathers process and policy we really have to break it down.

what is it mean for a process on this idea were to succumb from facilitatefacilitating the desid outcomes. >> can you talk about the potential parallels between the process you just went through the ability to support the congressional process. >> collaboration. >> for the congressional process i would encourage the process ought to involve all members of the committee from the beginning. the traditional way the democrats and republicans together that works for a lot of

policymaking from a process making standpoint it would be a mistake. we had some groups on issues but not by ideology. so avoiding that in this process would behoove the joint committee. also don't try to check it take on more than you can accomplish. in some respect failure for the joint committee will be devastating for all the process for budget reform. incremental steps even if they bring it back to their colleagues and they say couldn't you have done better, it's better than where we are today. don't assume you have to shoot for the moon or divide yourself.

>> if the joint select committee with incremental steps, if that's the outcome there implementable, that means will be open to further steps down the road, maybe they'll figure it out and they won't have to have a special committee. i saw an article last week as folks were being appointed they look at the budget and those were about substance not the process. the article said will those failed and they imply that house and look for this one, it's different numbers can come together from the get-go to help figure out what the process the have a greater opportunity for

success. don't bring your smart phone. sometimes it's the small things that allow you to listen. >> i have no more questions so i just want to thank you all for joining this panel in this group of a few more think he is to get out. first there's a few important names the convergence team without which we would not be here. they kept the trains running but became a in-house budget experts. equally important, i would like the rest of the participants to raise their hand here in the

room i want to thank you for your hard work and commitment. it's everyone else please feel free to chat with these people. they care and want the process to work and are ready to work. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i will add one other thing, they bribed us with cake, a lot of cake and sweets. were about to move on to the second panel, but before we do that many of your from the

budget committee and tuned in first see spend are probably from the budget community as well. so i want to recognize our colic who passed away recently, ed lorenz in. there is no smarter, more selfless committed person then add. anybody who knows said no such be the case. it's been a huge loss for many of us. that only did he work in our organization, he had a hand in everything in the budget. it's been incredible to work in here from those who have worked with him there is a lovely editorial at the washington post but it is the opposite of washington right now. this is someone who worked so hard and tirelessly without a

personal agenda to try to improve the agenda process and the budget ensure that work with everybody has benefited from as work. i'm in a show the video. we put together small tribute to ed and hopefully there'll be no glitches and we can share with everyone. >> the washington post and the rents and was hailed as a devoted servant to his country. he served as senior advisor and responsible federal budget and prior to that he worked for the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform and help draft the pay-as-you-go act. he was killed while trying to rescue his 4-year-old son at his fire on his home on friday night.

>> this reform is very big and the small opening i'm just going to keep the optimism on everything. that perhaps after president trump the discover that they still have 90% of solvency left will maybe appoint a commission. i think the want to keep entitlement reform may be president trump and let them take the lead on it. there is no single great level of debt. the original fiscal goals should be addressed and be realistic and unrealistic fissile role in

setting up a goal is important that we have to work towards achieving that goal in establishing that goal without rules and compliance to allow congress -- >> i want to express our deepest sympathy to the family and friends of ed he was a senior policy advisor at the committee for responsible federal budget. ed and his 4-year-old son passed away 12 days ago in a house fire. he was a well-respected member of the budget committee and possibly the foremost champion. his twitter handle was captain pagel. he was a great guy and dedicated budget tear. he was talking with my staff in

preparation of this hearing. this tragedy is close to our hearts. >> at was the person you would want is a staffer, book smart and a hard worker and while we didn't always agree on how best to fix it, his passion and unsustainable debt was unmatched. his death is a loss for the american people and he will be missed. my prayers are with his children, family, and friends during this difficult time. >> i cannot imagine the grief. i like to expand my deepest sympathies to them during this difficult time. may we all hold our families a little closer today.

>> so the outpouring of support that we have heard from so many people about it has been like nothing i could've imagined including a letter from a former president down to contributions for his friends from people people have never met him. we miss his brilliance and kindness on his love for his children. i know almost everybody here at the pleasure of working with him. [applause] there will be a memorial service will be sending out information to those of you want to pay tribute to him. so becoming sued. like to go to the second panel

will hear from budget experts will come up and take the stage please. >> good afternoon and thank you for being here.

i think the committee for hosting this event for this wonderful tribute to add we on there is a great guy and teacher and dad. certainly a great lover of all things in our world. my name is peter really be talking today about the convergence of principles and about how you go beyond those from three longtime experts in the field. we'll start with stuart butler my immediate left steve is a 20 year veteran and he served on the committee of national sciences. he has written about something the convergence group was able to get into talking about

portfolio budgeting that steve has worked on this issue. he will talk more about how cover set to q did some of these principles then maybe even how to make them more effective. it was a long time director center of the heritage foundation is not the brookings institute. he's also a member of the editorial board of health care. so yes some perspective on some of our fiscal challenges speaking of seeing that to focus on some of these issues in the long-term view in a way it has not been done before. taking things out tissues that

have not been seen before. i will get more of a laser focus. finally francis lee with the university of maryland who is an observer of the scenes and we've seen increasingly in the 20 years since we've last had an appropriations -- his most recent book congress in a perpetual campaign. want to turn it over to panelists present their findings. >> i want to begin with general comments about the work the group is done and offer some amendments mr. by saying if

you're starting to see a diverse group like this converge on the sensible and ambitious plan there put together. they have since had an innovative process that aligns with the political incentives they describe this possible system of action that could be executed in a timely and reliable way. the plan holds together and it would be very helpful to the select committee as it begins its work. the convergence group is already important but in the wake of decisions made in recent weeks and more so on and unsustainable course it has become urgent.

we are now passengers on a big shift that's headed to the fiscal -- it takes a long time a lot of steering to turn a big ship. given the scale of the challenges our leaders face we don't need the minimum necessary to keep the government open and we don't need a return to regular order. circumstances call for process that can help leaders make tough changes. a process that helps them look further ahead and pay for commitments that have already been made. we'll have no choice but to throw over precious cargo.

that's the circumstance. when leaders weather sooner or later find it in their interest to tie themselves to the fiscal responsibility they will need a budget process that helps them make necessary choices. enough of the metaphors. here are a few friendly suggestions or amendments to the proposals connected budget plan i would suggest that we abandon discretionary program and mandatory programs in the 1990 budget act and instead see you programs that receive regular review.

it's on the same basis as other spending. where we are everything needs to be on the table. rather than being based on how it is provided whether discretionary mandatory considers sending separate tanks and investment spending defined by both omb as including not only capital infrastructure the research and development human capital investment through education and training. as we look at that category of spending it would enable a decision to promise long-term economic and social returns overspending for current assumptions.

when the budget plan is enacted will have a 30 of allocations in a two-year plan instead of having a third year in the law in the next round should be enabling a new budget plan and that appropriators can continue because they will have established targets and they can move forward on that in congress continues to work on that. it also lines the process more appropriately with a budget envelope in which -- it's good

to see this group recognize the idea recognized by myself in the late great expert in colic we have lost in the last year glad to see this idea has developed out of growing interests. we intended on this to consider bigger strategic alternatives to have a set of policies. we wanted to focus mainly in the next year stovepipe agency and programs and provides the consideration of tax expenditures and revenue policies. we have proposed also that the

budget on major policy objective would allow consideration of different changes of strategy and also use resources productively annual budget savings. this group enlisting the possible portfolios of tax spending provisions be considered together in a given to your cycle, they should keep that list open-ended so they can look at a major review the opiate and drugs addiction crisis or the threat of a pandemic or something big like

retirement policy they could launch this review in a budget -- finally, it's important to emphasize the process can be elected or sustained unless the line with critical interest of elected leaders. to virgins groups help them reach the kinds of big bipartisan agreement spinning reform process specific policies given where we are. [inaudible] we need to keep in mind where we are headed in the size of the challenge we face.

>> i was also a member of the convergence group and i echo what others are saying. it's also important that what we tried to do in that convergence process so what can we do to build a foundation, platform to really look at the minds of the public and take subsequent steps down the road. what was started to do in the process was to begin to go down certain paths that we knew we could not solve right now but we wanted to build for the future. a particular long-term plan of some kind for the nation.

only the country in a much better physical shape. it would also assured the commitment over the long haul. commitments to the children and the security system and so forth that would be sustainable over the long term. we began that process and if you look at the elements like the fiscal state of the nation and the reports on the portfolio of the program we mentioned, these were all in part designed to focus attention on the importance of these major programs long-term. the belief that if you do that in future years and might be possible to go further and achieve longer objectives.

one of these ploy to a budget plan. we don't do that today in any real way, we pass laws and set up social security systems we make projections and keep our fingers crossed that somehow it will work out. occasionally we put caps on programs but no plan per se the input four. other countries do this a little, so major industrial companies have some form of at least medium-term plan called the medium-term expenditure but we say let's have a plan for these areas of figure out how to stick to it. it is time for us to not only

catch up to go further. there could be many ways to do that. there's differences of opinion. i developed a proposal last year at the beginning of the conversion process. there's only one way but it's an attempt to figure out how we can do this. give a copy of it in your package and you can look at it later. essentially this idea that we put forward to the longer-term budget in this country would mean congress in enacting the long-term budget major commitments for the long haul including tax divisions like mortgage deduction as an example. for a plan like this to be the

default was some enforcement associated with it. if congress didn't to anything else will stay on track to achieve those objections we suggested to do this to basic elements and changes of the budget procedure. first congress would debate and enacted 25 year budget for major entitlement program like social security and medicare. the source to achieve that. the federal taxes, share of general revenue tax but a plan laid out for the long-term for at least 25 years. every four years the plan would

be revisited. congress could get the votes and decided to make a change it could do so but it would require statute to change that plan. it would therefore be the default over time. secondly, there are be a procedure to keep to that plan. the way we suggested was that the congressional budget office would develop it tenure moving average and if the actual spending starts to go either above or below an expenditure or revenues different from the actual plan itself there be

automatic procedures to bring it into play. we propose to elements, commission element, that would put forward steps to put it into place .. on track and if congress didn't to anything then changes would be made or, super committee bipartisan could provide an alternative way to stay on track. and if that was enacted in low post supersede whatever the commission would do. we thought of having a commission to push us to stay on track for budget enacted by congress but also allow congress to provide an alternative way to do that.

the idea is to build on the convergence group in terms of information, focus on where we are in evaluating where we are and say let's go to the next step and build that into a long-term plan we heard it over and over again how difficult it is to play until pulled the commitments we have made. the bottom line of this approach whichever way one does it is for a long-term budget to be a default something we will stick to less we make an explicit change her decision to go in a different direction. secondly a proposal that is

completely neutral with regard to how big or small the government should be. it's not the same as saying we should put caps on programs but accord or an approach to doing it. but the congress and people decide what the commitment should be the let's have a plan to carry them out. finally would be very visible. something we don't it today and it is a major weakness in our budget process. it's one reason why were facing these massive deficits about the future. we have no idea other than to say were not going to touch anything. in conclusion, we have to address these kinds of sex

stages of the budget process in this country. if we're going to build no addressing governments that we absolutely have to reconstitute if are going to avoid over experiencing today. thank you. >> appreciate being here today. the start of a new reform how can process succeed? the last two temporary and congress were not able to develop develop policy change in the course of their mandate. but congress has succeeded.

i like back on some of the budget reforms and offered generalizations of how the reforms are brought about. first exception all of the major durable reforms were adopted on the strength of a broad bipartisan consensus. circulated a list of six major reforms in my one-page document. all of these process reforms commanded substantial report from the minority party from the time of their adoption. the single most important reform was enacted on a unanimous support.

is a process of compromise in which nobody got everything they wanted from the reform. in the end all members of congress believed it was better than what it was before one congress in a piecemeal fashion to take south of the budget as a whole. it is that congress cannot buy future congress. for institutional reforms to stick they must be widely accepted as legitimate so future members will want to preserve the new arrangement. before stacking the deck and one party it cannot be expected to survive as changes in the majority part of congress. reforms rely on political will to make them work. the budget process was

extraordinarily complex. even more so than it is today. congress was committed to making it work and they went on to do so despite the difficulty for two years. every year's congress succeeding for the first 20 years. in developing this reform the convergence process brought together from the ideological spectrum. the new reforms joint select committee on reform contains an equal amount of republican and democrat and recommendations for both parties. this is a start the process. second, past successful reforms

another pattern that emerges as members of congress can come together around reform even though they might not agree to what the reforms will do. successful dippers bring together different goals. in 1980 congress first successfully enacted a budget reconciliation bill. it did so using an innovated maneuver not originally envisioned. it moved reconciliation up to the start of the process. the maneuver was grounded in the elastic cause. this innovation was not controversial at the time. it was not controversial because both simultaneously thought it would help achieve the goal. conservative supported reconciliation because he

thought i was only way congress can make its way and spending. congress was side with those in justice and equity rather than special-interest. meanwhile others thought it would reduce the budget. most remarkably the first use would not even controversial in the senate. despite the fact that they are at odds with normal set of procedure. in the end it was established by members who agreed to do it despite disagreeing what the results would be. the same pattern as president of the reforms.

reason sometimes are at odds with one another. successful reform coalition can and often to bring together strange things that are capable of forming alliances even when they cannot a tree congress has a complex institution which many members develop a personal state and ways of doing business. requirements never have a opportunity to work on a blank slate. past reform effort has succeed because they figured out ways to partially accommodate members invested in the status quo.

this usually means reforms lay on top rather than displace them. when the budget act of 74 it was superimposed arose on top. dealing with this recommended by the convergence group in which they seek to build upon existing institutions. finally, i want to conclude that the effects of reform will evolve over time. it's not possible to predict how new processes will work. in some cases it may develop in ways that are consistent with reform. the congressional budget office was designed to be nonpartisan but it took leadership of the

cbo to show how it could work in practice and build it. by the same token institutional reform has unintentional consequences. the designers of the budget act never imagined budget reconciliation -- on their partisan line. even after reconciliation began to be used was decades before it was used to enact a partisan program on a narrow partisan vote. reagan's 91 budget was simply made it via reconciliation received 80 votes in the senate. on the final approval in the house by unanimous consent. we only see budget reconciliation start to emerge as a vehicle in the 1990s.

most all did so voting in favor. even those that fell below 60 still highly bipartisan. when then the 1990s. my final history lesson is to recognize whatever is on the reform record will not be the last word. ju in the past the consequences will reverberate down to the future we can be sure future congresses will continue to need. >> thank you to all for these excellent presentations. i want to begin with the committee and i think there's a lot of buzz in the air and

assesses something could happen. there's big turnout today is evidence of that. i think there's a level of skepticism that anything can be done. there's a 60 vote senate threshold and no requirement for the house to vote on the recommendations. so was this panel doomed to fail? >> my expectations are lifted with the previous message. it's relaxing to the in the reform effort understanding that

they don't know the ultimate shape of those reforms were will evolve over time and how they're implemented. i hope people will come in with that attitude. i hope also there be a sense of urgency. i cannot predict it or how many people will see this as an opportunity to do something big and important to improve the budget process. . . that said, sometimes we see opportunities, this may be an

opportunity to be open-minded about treaty. it is more likely such a select committee will produce proposals if successful that are the more modest first step proposals like developing the convergence process rather than anything dramatic and that is the approach to say let's try to avoid it, trying to build up too much expectation about the drama, and the steps that are needed into place that could have bipartisan support. it is an opportunity there, opportunities coming and go, keep an eye out for

opportunities, to use them and take the greatest advantage of them but recognize they don't always plan out and that is the right attitude to have. >> when i first learned about the creation of this committee i was pretty skeptical of its prospects for success but our political environment has encouraged a lot of short-term thinking on the part of members of congress because every election held out the possibility of change of party control in one institution or another, it is hard to agree to a long-term fiscal arrangement when you expect a major change in political power around the corner so why couldn't deal to be in better circumstances in a short timeframe? on the other hand perhaps this moment is a good one in the sense that it is easy for either party to imagine itself being in the minority so under such circumstances it is easier

to agree to a set of rules that would be acceptable regardless of your party's level of institutional power. >> we may be in an atmosphere where so many people, we saw this in the convergence process say that it isn't working well for any of us politically or substantively and therefore there may be an agreement to say let's work together even though we have different views what the outcome should be but let's take at least some modest attempt in the right direction. that is an element in the equation. >> some of you have written about this quite a bit

involving these proposals and figuring out a way to fix a broken budget process. what separates this particular document from all the others that have surfaced over the years and smeal at collecting dust on a shelf somewhere? i ask this from the perspective that all the process changes all of you who worked on this for some time coming up with an absolutely rational logical idea but two major problems, number one, engaging in tough fiscal decision is in the making and how do you overcome the jurisdiction battles in congress? particularly the augmented budget committee and budget action plan which seems like something that would be met with a lot of concern by the established committee if you will on capitol hill so how do

you make this work and make tough decisions and get over the jurisdiction? >> on the jurisdictional battle we have seen congress get past those difficulties in the past and have done that. it looks to me like the contemporary congress is better positioned to internal turf battles than previous congresses because congress is so centralized so the committees are less powerful now than they were unless able to block change that is objectionable to particular committee chairs so if the will is there the institutional obstacles are less than in previous time. gos was a

paradox regarding institutional reforms, it can be achieved in a product of a coalition prepared to carry out new processes but in the absence of that willingness to continue to make those processes work they don't continue to work, they only work as long as the will is there. they don't go on automatic. not that reforms are unimportant. they are. that is how complex institution functions. the willingness of members to the reform is the precondition for them to carry one out. >> this dilemma, talking about the fact that it depends whether members of the committee were fighting for

jurisdiction, the outcome is a 0-sum game or gaining power at the expense of another versus the appropriators which is the attitude of a lot of people. or if they see because it is broken, everyone lost power, an opportunity to put together a process where appropriators do their work but are unable to finish their work because there is no agreement on the top line. an opportunity to have a prior agreement within which they can do their work that gives them a chance to regain the authority they have lost. i don't see the budget committee organizing a better

project as a committee. >> that is going to - >> one of the things the group decided not to do was a shakeup in the budget structure but that said you will also see one of the steps was to look at the budget committee itself which is not currently seen in either chamber as a top-level committee and let's strengthen that committee by bringing in leaders from other committees so the budget committee itself is coming more effectively for these other powerful committees to reach an agreement so that is a way of recognizing exactly what you said in terms of resistance to change but looking at the procedural

change that reinforced the other committee but reinforced their ability to coming to a decision or a solution and strong emphasis in the report on information and this is not just tax reform. it is the idea that if you have a cacophony of information, so much that so many things going on that nobody can focus the part of the idea in this report was to say let's look at how to focus information in such a way that it begins to move the public in terms of giving signals for what needs to be done and the political process itself, information can be a very powerful way of focusing the mind on getting members do not give up their parochial interest but pressure or force down a pathway, that is another very important feature, recognizing what you said about the nature of progress.

>> how things to some degree work, nostalgic references to the 90s, last time the appropriations process was completed on time, the big-budget deals used in the tool of reconciliation but in a lot of ways that has become the only way to get anything done, by using reconciliation and these convergence principles to be sure but because things haven't worked so to speak in the last 20 years and you have written about it and the increasing divide between the electorate. it has become so polarized and that extends to representatives on capitol hill. would forming a better process around budget do anything to solve those fundamental

divisions, the type of long-term visionary fiscal thinking everybody in this room probably agrees on. >> the challenges we confront, the divide is real, parties represent these constituencies in the broad public and disagree about what they would like to achieve but it is a political system that requires broad consensus to act. it is not a parliamentary system. to strengthen the majority ruling congress runs into the obstacle that we most of the time have divided government. 75% of the time since 1980. that won't work. it just produces headbutting and a lot of symbolic budgeting knowing the only purpose of the budget is to lay down a marker but not govern policy.

more realism, one thing i like about the convergence proposal is to move away from a process where the congressional budget is a product of congress only, try to get the president involved early in striking a deal, that strikes me as more aligned with how our system works in reality than it does the budget process which the product came out, the budget control act, a confrontation between congress and the president so to deny the process that wouldn't need any presidential buy-in, that is not realistic, to move toward something that requires more presidential involvement is constructive. >> one more question and then we will take questions from the audience but my last question is earmarks, do we need earmarks? congressman tom davis, longtime

representative said this is the glue that holds the budget bills together, we could solve some of these problems if we bring back earmarks. >> i certainly hear is. i am participating at this middle of this week on the improving congressional capacity and there were 50 interviews conducted in preparation for that conference and the number of times earmarks came up would help congress work together more effectively, very striking. they certainly believe earmarks are helpful in cutting deals especially in the house. i don't think it is a story of understanding how we got to budget agreements but smooth the path for other, lower profile legislation more often than the key to understanding a fiscal deal. >> earmarks have a very long

history. a stable -- you think now of earmarks as a lubricant. what we are trying to move towards everyone has been talking about, to look at other ways of getting those agreements, other procedures so you don't need to deal with this and that is why these ideas like developing information, developing long-term plans, orderly review, timing. what we are trying to do is changing the decision architecture as game theorist would say, so it becomes easier

and more natural, the inertia is to move toward long-term planning and to do that without having to use the earmark method, a crude method of getting the same position which we are trying to do a much more systemic set of changes that make it more likely that even members who disagree fundamentally or think they may be in the majority still find it by a combination of enlightened self-interest and public pressure to do the right thing. >> if you have questions, fill out question cards on your table. i have a couple already here. first question is more of a proposal from the audience from a retired federal employee, why don't we balance the annual

budget and if the budget doesn't balance, have all automatic benefits cut to present until the budget is balanced? focus the mind. >> coming back to where i started in a position where we try to balance the budget anytime soon we would have to -- a lot of things would go overboard. just not practical to think of that as a short-term objective, not necessarily a desirable long-term objective. might want to balance between revenues on the horizon, that is the idea of sustainability and we need flexibility to stimulate the economy. as usually formulated to constraining in the short run

not practical and other reasons i would say to be focused. >> certainly had a lot of support over the years. the heritage foundation, we learned the hard way about the implications even if you put into place the disorderly nature of government. that is why moving towards thinking about a long-term budget in the sense of saying we are not just talking about a simple wall to ratchet back spending but a procedure that would allow an orderly way of saying are we going down the road we intended to go and if not can there be gradual adjustments to get us back on track which could be appealing to both sides of the aisle and there should be debate on both sides of the aisle about how to do that which is what we tried to accomplish in our proposal.

i think all these ideas put forward a simple approach forcing other discussion and other parts of the conversation which again we have exactly that in the convergence process and as you start discussing and negotiating, and opportunity with trust to say how can we build procedures that can adapt in these basic proposals to one that both sides could trust blues the rules are not perfect. it is not 1-sided and we are all getting to where we want to be. >> anybody else want to tackle that proposal? got another one here, a more philosophical question from ed weiler. the assumption of some of the

presenters today seems to be if the process is appropriately designed, voters will hold lawmakers accountable and the question is who is the collective mind of the voter. will the voters recommend lawmakers try to reduce the benefits or is it more in the opposite direction? what is the mindset of the voter towards fiscal responsibility? >> voters went fiscal responsibility but accountability is difficult in our political system. it is one of divided powers. where this accountability lies, it is somewhat clear in the case of unified control. we rarely have that and even under unified control the budget, legacy of many decisions that occurred in the lead up, the current incumbents are not responsible for the

whole budget deficit so where do you lodge accountability in a system that looks like this. institutional incentives are misaligned in that budgeting requires hard choices and we set up a process that only works when you have the same party controlling the house and senate and asking that party to take on its shoulders the burden of raising taxes and cutting spending and doing the painful things voters will not appreciate and one that is at odds with our system and that the president has to be involved. it is not something congress can do by itself. to recognize that we deal with this shared responsibility, shared accountability, there is no simple one instrument the

voters can use to enforce fiscal discipline as much as they would like to see it at least in the abstract. >> in this situation the decision that required it is with pain on many voters. our system is not good at allocating pain. it is good at allocating rewards. there is a real risk there will be a lot of losers politically unless we develop a process that allows shared responsibility. not accountability so much as responsibility being shared by different actors to get something big done. >> the next opportunity to hold members of congress accountable the midterm elections coming up and a question your optimism that something might result in

the select committee, would it make more sense if their recommendations would be before the midterms for them to actually produce something here but the fact the recommendation to do it at the end of the month seems to indicate, what do you make of the implication? >> that is a good deck. i was trying to look on the bright side on the outset, to see some possibility for this as the committee to succeed. i think in the past when this has happened you could coming up with 1000 reasons that shouldn't have, why congress should have stuck with the status quo. but what enables congress to act is a shared belief, broad belief that something has to change and that we need reforms

to work together more effectively. and members coming across party lines. sometimes to more effectively counter an executive branch congress sees as too powerful, sometimes that increasing congress's public esteem. times when members of congress across the aisle file shared urgency to do something and that overcomes inertia. it is easy to see how this effort could fail as previous efforts have failed. incentives seem to push in that direction. we look back at congressional history and we see that is not always the story. >> that is all the time we have for the panel today so we thank our distinguished guests. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you, guys. >> all right. >> we are quickly being joined by our two final panelists who are coming up. >> hello. >> nice to see you, thank you for coming. these are loud.

thank you. >> the majority, you should be here. have this put to my right. >> thank you, everybody, for continuing to stick with us, no tears on this panel. this has been a long day filled with lots of ideas and we are thinking through these ideas, there has been a lot of good work and good but just process reform that we will make sure you all know about. i'm thrilled to have this panel, to be joined by sen. purdue and sen. white is in the house to talk about this perfect moment focusing on budget process reform but these are two senators who have been working hard on this issue before it became cool. it is now cool. >> really?

>> they put a lot of work to thinking about these different reforms and ideas so i will throw up in a couple questions and have them talk about from their experience in trying to legislate, different from those on the outside to coming up with great ideas and things to turn the process around to make hard choices but once you spend time in the senate or house they are well aware of the challenges we don't have to go through. so let's start the discussion. we are here in this moment and there will be a big, hopefully productive, effort, to look at budget and appropriations process reform and how that will go, what changes we could make ends to talk a lot about small increment of changes, ways to make budgeting more transparent and open, changes

to the committees, huge overhauls but let's start at the beginning which is given your work on the budget committees and the senate, what problems should we be trying to solve with all this? >> i have been on the budget committee the whole time i have been in the senate, 10 years now. and i have coming to the conclusion the process is completely useless and defective. speech is not small increment of changes, we are going to need more. >> you got to fix the underlying problem, the budget committee itself and giving it a role. to me that means three things. one, there has got to be penalty for blowing through the budget. right now the penalty if you amassed 60 votes or whatever measure you're going to take to blow through the budget the senate has been operating under a 60 vote rule for years so demanding 60 votes in an institution that demand 60 votes, no penalty whatsoever so there is a problem. problem 2, the budget process only looks at certain

appropriations accounts, doesn't look at billions of dollars across the back door of the tax code in tax expenditures despite i think the unanimous recommendations of bipartisan witnesses that we have to look at that side to fix the budget as much as an appropriate expenditure and to look at the healthcare peace and if you look at the $3 trillion that has coming out of federal expenditures not knowing why that happened is a big oversight and we need to coming into focus on that and there has to be some value, some reward for a bipartisan process. otherwise what the budget committee has become now is a mechanism for the majority party to get around the 60 vote rule with one thing by doing a reconciliation measure and off it goes and it goes back to sleep and doesn't wake up again

until it needs another reconciliation measure. you have committees that mean something, addressing the full scope of the budget problem and there is a reward for bipartisanship instead of everybody going into their foxholes. >> i congratulate you for sitting through three hours of this. >> there was overflow room. >> has got to be washington. >> i thank maia and her group. ever since i got to the senate we have been talking about this and i have been asking for this select committee. let's start at step one, don't know what you talked about today. i don't get a chance very often to talk to people who understand this. you will forgive me i hope.

the budget process, we work four times in 44 years, the 74 budget act. i met some people who voted for that bill in 74 calling for its revision today. the shocking thing is in the senate, the senate is where most of the problem is. i'm not a fan of reconciliation, neither is sen. whitehouse but if you look at this over the last, we appropriate 12 bills, we averaged 21/2 over 44 years. not only that but congress in its infinite wisdom has shut the government down 20 times. this is a system that does not allow active debate. i thought this came from the business world, this is where the action is. it is a joke. i would blow the budget committee up unless we change the rules. it does nothing. there are three steps in the

process, there are three democrats and a dozen republicans working on this off and on over the last couple years, sen. whitehouse has been a leader in this and he and i are not necessarily known as politically aligned and yet on this issue we see this very similarly. you have a 3-step process. the budget process starts with the budget committee putting a budget, it is not a budget anybody has support except the majority party. it is a resolution so the majority party crammed down the throat of the minority, gets a version of the financial future of the country and then you go to the authorization process, we have $315 billion expenditures today that are not authorized, the state department until two years ago had not been authorized in 15 years so it is a joke. the minority party says you didn't ask our opinion in the appropriation process and nothing gets a vote, then you go to appropriations, passing

committee, the minority party, not just talking about democrats, go back a few years they did the same thing. there is enough blame for both parties. this is insane that it has taken all these years to get to the second. other attempts have been made, ryan murray in 2011 failed and ended up in sequester. the bottom line is one thing. there are a number of systems in the federal government, the number one requirement, responsibility of congress, the budget act created omb and in my mind the three paragraphs of the constitution that describe what the presidency is supposed to do but i don't see this in there at all. what has happened is because of the total gridlock in the senate primarily in congress in terms of funding the government the executive branch the last 50 years really stepped in and drives the process so the relief valve is the problem and

you got to fix it. doesn't matter which system you use. you have to have consequences that are real and that preclude the release valve we have today as we go to an omnibus after 180 crs in the last 44 years, we end up in an omnibus. that is not acceptable. >> the thing about the two of you, give us an insider sense of what it is like to be on the budget committee because the way i picture a budget is with my nonprofit where i didn't deliver to my board a budget ahead of time, i wouldn't have a job. >> we did a budget and 15 that lasted four months and do a reconciliation and then used reconciliation twice or three time since then so who are we kidding here, the budget process is not producing a

product. >> are you kidding yourselves? you go to meetings and pretend you're making a budget you are going to stick to or do you not have meetings? >> you get 5 minutes, we had a witness, i knew what the answers were going to be. we got those in question so i made a comment, got through and 15 minutes later sen. whitehouse gave his comments. he should have given mine. we do the same thing. it creates a lot of the partisanship i believe, looking at this from the outside, we start in january, supposed to have a budget by april 15th and that is the first year of a new congress, already three months into the new year. here we are right now trying to fumble through to get an omnibus done, halfway through the fiscal year. >> being on the budget committee for hearings, one of the smaller and more remote conference vote in the capitol

complex and looked out at a small audience of chairs that is maybe half filled mostly with interns because everybody knows nothing we do matters so why show up? never anything at stake. when we do the voting on the budget, they have written it already and lined up the votes and they will chairman through, don't care about the budget, it is a sidebar to getting reconciliation which is the real goal so people do a little point scoring back and forth, asking for budget neutral reserve accounts to do this, that and the other. if we never pass another budget neutral reserve account for anything it'd assign things have gotten more sensible. i came in and thought a budget neutral reserve account, maybe something will happen and over the years i came to realize that is a complete time waster.

>> and the votearama. >> that is where turned into a real clamshell. >> which we seem to do very well. >> at the middle of the last clown show, the final amendment was a purdue white house amendment that more or less slightly improved legislative language, this really sucks and we need to change it and not only did it pass, it passed with cheers and acclamation so there is a very strong bipartisan feeling on the floor that this is just a completely negative, unhelpful, divisive, useless process. >> let me give you a little help here. there are several of us. >> what do they say in aa? first you admit you have a problem. >> some people don't want to

fix it. >> appropriators. >> i have to be careful. i get accused of this is sometimes. the problem is not appropriators or appropriators. they are trying to do their job. the problem is the structure itself can never work. there are not enough calendar weeks to do 16 authorizing committees and 12 appropriating committees and a 31/2 month budget process. you have a or 10 weeks left to do brakes and everything else, there's not enough time in the year to do that and you start the first year of a new congress that way. the second thing is we have done a good bit of work looking at best practice with countries, companies and state and what we found is the united states funds its government this way. it isn't necessary and it won't work and there are a lot of ways you can go with this but what we found is it doesn't matter what you do you have to

go of consequences, the due dates are critical, the budget has to be completed by an early time in your like every company does, then you go through the time for the allocation process which they call appropriation process in congress and that needs to be done before the last day of the fiscal year so you have time to start implementing. many people particularly in the military find these billion dollars of capital goods every year, they can't even if you get it done on time what the plan is and we are 5 months into the new year and still don't know what the plan is for this fiscal year. >> back to the appropriators they are the big winners blues appropriators and leadership. in this committee process and checks and balances, the absence of any oversight or transparency, what happens is you know the niche back up against the next moment the government runs out of funds and is going to have a shut

down and the folks who have been in the appropriation subcommittee's put together their packages and if they can make work and gone straight through - not a smoke-filled room any longer but the room, nobody has seen and it has never been voted on before, just gets jetted straight in and 6 people from leadership and the appropriations chairs go in and hash out the deal among themselves and everyone else in the senate is left being a supplicant begging and pleading and hoping what they want to get in with no chance of a vote or debate on it and that is not democracy frankly. that is a mess. but it does confer a great amount of power, how we spend all our money is decided by two handful of people. in a totally nontransparent

environment. >> many of us share that frustration completely and i think about it, you two are us senators, it should be a pretty cool job and in the end feels like you are not getting to make any decisions, you're not getting to push this enough. you don't have to answer that. >> it was designed to fail. >> that is why we are trying to do something about this. my children and grandchildren, i didn't do anything about that, are you kidding, $20 trillion of debt for the duration of three years, this is serious business we are talking about and you won't follow the debt crisis fixing the budget process alone but you will not solve it unless and until you do. let me say one other thing. you look at other players in this process there are a number of ways, one thing i keep getting back to is you either make the budget at 60 and real consequences if it is not done

by a team if you do that. the second thing, i think you have got to have a long-term plan. we don't have a capital budget in this government, billions and billions of dollars of long-term capital goods takes decades and yet we don't have a capital budget plan. sen. whitehouse came up with a bill that does that. the debt was a percentage of gdp, we know that in terms, 15 years, this is a long-term process, we have a long-term problem and solution.

that came out of this, no cameras, democrat, republican coming in, i hope the select committee will begin to coagulate together here to coming up with a meaningful recommendation. >> we owe us debt of gratitude to the chairman of the budget committee who has put a lot of hearing time to this, very thoughtful about it and it has been hard for bipartisan things to happen if the chairman does not give it license to go. >> you brought up the debt target which is an idea we have supported as well for a long time and it is a heavy lift that would make huge changes and be impressive to move

forward. would it replace the debt ceiling when you think about the debt ceiling or the feeling that -- >> the only thing more dangerous and stupid than voterrama. >> the only fiscal constraint out there could blow up the entire system. >> achieves nothing when you go through the agony of the vote. you have achieved nothing except avoiding a self-inflicted catastrophe so that is not in my view productive legislation and you set a trap for yourself by managing to avoid the trap you set for yourself you have a victory, it is a time waster. you need to solve this problem and having a long-term glide slope to sustainable debt to gdp ratio with guard rails to police when getting out of that range is a more sensible way to go about doing it and when you look at politics at close of

these debt feelings, poisonous moment on the senate and house of representatives for. >> it hasn't worked since 1913, bumping it up there is always a relief out there. the great thing about american politicians is they always leave the back door and that is a release valve which is more spending, a democrat or republican sitting at $21 trillion not acceptable today and we have to find a way to solve it and we can bicker on how to solve it, a politically neutral platform during the budget process that is meaningful. we don't have that today. we don't sit in a room with or without cameras to argue spending cuts, we don't ever get to do that and that is missing in this process. >> another thing you have overcome is bipartisan cooperation, the trust we will

need. it will require hard choices, to the 2 political parties are very at each other with very little trust. when we covered today is a wonderful effort by convergence which had big budget process reforms and be familiar with all their work. they brought a bunch of stakeholders who were very different and working through a process with shared, the incentives not to succeed. two big bills, tax bill and spending bill contributed to the fiscal debt which added to the mistrust between the parties. how do we pivot from the hole we dug into and doing some hard things? >> when you have the process set up so all the rewards that

are built into the process in partisanship, that is what you are going to get. what brings other people, not the only ones having this conversation on the budget committee together. we have a shared common interests in fixing the budget committee so it amounts to something again or getting rid of it, things to do with our time, to make it useful again, to make it effective again, and bipartisanship in this. what we are working on if you haven't set up a process in which there is any reward for bipartisanship and the only meaningful prize in the whole

enterprise, to jam something through with the 60 vote threshold, the only prize in the game. you either don't play the game at all or that of the prize you go for. you have got to set up another path where the prize can be what david said, the glide slope over a recent. of time, reasonable debt to gdp ratio, and a process that internally, the appropriators don't blow through it. tech spending, regular spending and healthcare costs. creates that bipartisan path if you are doing that. you don't even open that until you are significantly bipartisan. you provide a big reward for

going there. the budget problem through the budget committee, it is presently constituted. >> the need for the select committee is not by its structure. for the last 44 years it has never been addressed. the problem here is in my view you don't just have one budget, $4 trillion last year only by $1 trillion, 1.1 is discretionary and $200 billion is va and the balance is $150 billion, domestic discretionary spending. we just need to cut spending, okay, 900 this year, trillion next year, annual deficit, and

just cut there. the other $3 trillion is the mandatory side of this thing. and interest on the debt, it is going to double again very shortly, the answer to your question is a realization is not acceptable when we are in crisis phase, past the tipping point and it -- if we don't do something there are two issues and several things you need to do, you don't have just one budget but is discretionary budget and social security budget protected by trust fund and a manicure budget protected by trust fund. there are other things that need to be done. we don't do something now i promise you, recipients that we have been irresponsible with

this trust and not get the full benefit. what happens in a lot of countries is dissolving the government and bringing a new government, we don't do that under the constitution, dramatic results are ramifications. >> we don't focus on long-term. you see political incentive and let me put my head down and get through this your the cycle, and resources in the next economic issue. so many things we -- our resources are not being deployed in less then perfect ways. when we go home, it is alienating and nobody is able to engage in the process but what are you hearing about the debt and the fiscal situation.

this is something that is leadership driven, voters don't care lest their politicians are telling them to care, list discussion then there was the year before, it will coming back, trillion dollar deficit. they understand -- >> the populace of america the federal government can solve any problem you have, the hurricanes, what we all want to do to provide a safety net. the problem is we have been irresponsible in terms of financial duties, that, i am hearing back home. what we have got -- they convinced people we have to do something about it. we started that several years

ago. i also think this, one of the reasons, the low approval rating, don't do the basis. the responsibility is to fund the government, people don't understand what crs are, i will create a dictionary for all the acronyms and everything else we use in the budget process that i never heard of before. i never knew what reconciliation was. these are silly manifestations of a crowd in washington that created this that doesn't work. >> in rhode island if i had to compare the concerns i hear about medicaid, medicare, social security, against concerns that i hear about the death or the deficit, it is

90-1. it just is not a big public concern. if you confront people with it, that seems like a lot. part of the problem is for a lot of folks, the debt and deficit discussion particularly since it seems to be turned on and off depending whether democrats are in the white house or not has an overlay of this isn't for real to me, an overlay of this is just politics, every time they say deficit they want to know the new chapter my social security or they want to know the new chapter my medicare. there has been a flinch that has been built in recent years that you don't need to take the debt and deficit concerns seriously because they turn on and off depending on the politics of who is in the white house and they tend to be a vehicle for focusing on a very specific set of outcomes. if we end up with circumstances

in which the people of america associate doing something with taking away their medicare, we are in a heap of trouble, that is not a real choice, that is a false choice, the politics of the way this morphed itself in the last week in years, that is coming up, those who are watching this, they have to flinch, putting both hands on my medicare, don't you coming after that. that is where the bipartisan process helps, you can put together health care expense, appropriated expenditures, tech spending out the back door, tax code, revenues where you need them to fill in and you can put together a package that people can get behind because it has balance overall it is not one

side taking turns trying to clobber the other side and that back and forth is part of what is disabling the public discussion of the debt and deficit. it is not seen as a national goal but as political leverage to achieve lesser goals. >> i completely agree with you. when fiscal responsibility is only used as defense you lose your credibility when you are talking about it and if it is not done in a bipartisan way there won't be enough cover, trust by people from opposite parties, we know where anything is hard there is going to be more bipartisanship and more consistency. .. but i was thinking about that budget process commission we don't know who will run congress down the road. creating rules of the game not the policies but the rules for the guard to the point of the guardrail. where the decision-making gets done. it seems like maybe there's an opportunity to come up with the

solutions and said they will not go into effect after the election. we don't know who will have majority. maybe that will make what's going to be reasonably difficult task somewhat easier. my final question for both of you, you gave a lot of buckets of every of improvement. if you could make one change to the budget process, what with the change that you would think most helpful would be? >> that's a tough one. i'm torn between -- >> you can do to. >> the penalty for breaking the budget up the 67 votes like it's the treaty. at least put the budget committee back in some way but it don't think it gets you very far. i think the alternative that would be to simply just stop the budget committee, and the farce and make people confront this problem head on, realizing we are not, we don't have process for coping with this that is affected. let's not pretend that we do.

let's just knockabout. best of all would be getting the kind affixed that david and i i are talking about done, but that's got five or six facets to it so it's not just one thing. >> the challenge is, by decembea bill back to the congress this year. that's light-years. that's moving at light speed. it seems to be the first thing you have to do is to realize what a prices this creates, and again i will repeat myself. i'm not tied up with any any oe menu changes need to be made to make a budget work. there are different ways to do that. if you don't have the consequences then it doesn't matter. in the last nine years, since 2009, we've taken about $400 million at a discretionary spending in our federal government. the mandatory is with the problem is because of our age and because of the way those are set up.

i agree with senator whitehouse we've got to protect those. these are just the realities. this is why now is the time. i got to meet or spend, meet general, chairman greenspan a couple times over the last couple of years and to remind me every time about a meeting just like this in 1983 when distorted talk about the budget process in the ministry expenses and did the math out when the baby boomers are getting into retirement age and said this is not sustainable. they knew itas in 83. here we are still talking about this. the one thing i would do, you can't do just one thing because the structure itself is so bad the committee structure is so bad, the appropriating an authorization tie it does not work, will never work what i io back to a doubly redundant on this, doesn't matter what you do to change it. you have to have consequences that are real to the member. not just the staff and not just to expenditures. sequestration is the stupidest thing.

i'll tell anybody that. they it so dr. cohen it would never happen. that's what, it did happen. well, i voted against it but that day is over that i can go home until people it didn't pass but i voted for it. it passed but but i voted agait it. that's no longer good enough. they are holding us accountable and should do the number one responsibility we have in congress and that is to fund the federal government. >> okay. senators, thank you very much for joining us. [applause] >> thank you. >> let me just say thank you all for your interest but i hope you took away from this that there is strong bipartisan interest in getting this done. david and i disagree about a lot but we sure as heck don't discreet about this. there are lots of people talk with you feel the same way. so i hope this closes at least our piece on a noted bipartisan optimism. we couldn't always screw this up but there is a big opportunity

now to improve it dramatically. >> perfect. thank you so much for everybody for joining us today, really. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> next week on landmark cases we will explore the civil rights cases of 1883 that struck down the previous civil rights act of 1875 that granted people regardless of race access to public accommodations like trains in theaters. join the conversation. follow us at c-span. there are lots of resources for you for background in each case and the series. go go to our website@c-span.org/landmark cases and order the companion book and visit the national constitution center is interactive constitution. >> in the case zarda v. altitude express, the second circuit court of appeals in new york city ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is illegal. the case centers around donald zarda, a skydiver instructor who alleged he was fired by altitude express because of his sexual orientation after revealed to a client that he was