really get to know each other. we can have dinner. our wives would know each otherf it is hard to say no to a friend -- each other. it is hard to say no to a friend. sometimes there are just two of us, but we're still -- [laughter] that is pretty good bipartisan here, if one person from each side shows up. we're not giving up and we believe that strongly. this country as bigger and better than all of us, but it is only as good as we are. i am going to give it all i've got. >> thanks, senator. [applause] senator heller, could you walk us through the concept of no budget, no pay? >> i would be happy to do that. i think it speaks for itself but, kiki, thank you for your work on the behalf. i want to thank you for

supporting no labels. we are all here for a common cause. that is washington is broken and things have to change. i do not think there is anybody in this room or in america or for that matter any journalist in this room today that has not written about the fact that this place is broken. so what concept is an honest day's work = an honest day's pay. for centuries, that has been the goal and a common phrase in america. and for some reason, we have lost that in washington, d.c. what we're trying to do is that we are trying to get everyone to budget. everyone does budget. you budget, state's budget, city's budget, municipalities budget, but we do not budget here in washington and we have not for 2.5 years and i'm being told we will not have a budget next year. the reason is that we do not

want to hate -- take tough votes. can you imagine? so this is the concept. if we do not budget by the end of this fiscal year, september 30, and we did not pass the appropriations bills, members of congress will not get paid. and if it takes six months to put a budget together, that is great but there is no retroactive pay. i believe we are here to do a job, we're here to work, to do what is best for the american people than that is the concept behind new budget, no pay. i held your support. thank you. -- i hope for your support. thank you. [applause] >> congressman cooper, update us on that and talk about bipartisan leadership. >> kiki thank you, no labels and. this is a tough measure, but it is a necessary measure. at a time when our nation's credit leading -- credit rating

is threatened, we cannot afford to pay our bills on time. it is important members get the message -- do your work for you and i get paid. i think it will force congress to do its work on a timely basis which is essential for the credit of our nation. another idea that is important is so simple, so commonsensical, you cannot believe that we're not doing that and it is to get our bipartisan leadership in the house and senate to meet together on a regular basis and talk to each other. right now we do not have anything like the executive committee on the board of directors. we are not talking. we have four warring executive committees and often not communicating. this would do more to establish a congressional voice and some accountability for change. you would do -- you would know where congress was standing and you could hold congress accountable. of course the full body of congress would have to vote, but it's essential that we get tough four top leaders, the speaker,

the president pro tem of the senate, and put another members for leavening. right now we see congressional leaders who failed to leaper there was not one congressional leader on the so-called super committee, yet they themselves are the super committee on a perpetual basis and they never get together. it's a simple clear idea for getting -- giving congress a voice otherwise we have a monster. >> thank you. [applause] congressman petri, would you like to weigh in on this? >> now want to thank all of you for coming. i know you love your country and you're concerned about the future. we do face difficult times and we're not going to get through these times if we continue to try to score points against each other and engage in finding out what is worse about each other rather than building on what is best in each other. i think these --

[applause] we have a series of ideas that ought to be debated and discussed. some will work, some a of difficulties, but until we debate them and discuss them and try them, we're not going to know that and i'm sure that there are other ideas out there. i thank you very much as concerned citizens for coming to try to do something constructive at a difficult time for our country and i am proud to be part of a. >> thank you. [applause] congressman braley, if you could just talk about the idea of bipartisan seating? >> kiki thanks,, and thank you for joining us today. in a -- in labels a no labels house. they did not ask if your democratic or a democrat -- of democrat or republican.

they ask for helping you get it. this whole no labels conference should be dedicated to gabby giffords and what she stands for as a member of congress. [applause] because it took a tragedy in arizona to convince members of congress a year ago at the state of the union to break with tradition, seek out friends on the other side of the aisle, and change the way we sit and think about each other ret the state of the union. and it was my friend cabbie who walked into the floor of the house the day that we were voting on the debt ceiling, and if you had been there and sing the magic of that moment and how partisanship melted away, and it was replaced by friendship, i think that is the real purpose of no labels. i want to leave you with an example that just happen this year in fort wayne, indiana. i'm honored to serve as the ranking member of the top democrat on the house veterans

affairs economic apricot -- economic ever taught -- economic opportunity subcommittee. at the end of the field hearing, the chairman third be asked about like to say things. i said yes and it will shock some of you in this room. we're good friends. when i was given the privilege of serving on the subcommittee, the first thing i did was invite him to lunch and tell him what can i do to help you be successful at -- is the chairman of this committee? because when it comes to taking care of our veterans, there should be no partisanship in this congress. [applause] and the crowd of strangers in fort wayne who had never met me before responded exactly the way you did just now. and that is a valuable lesson to all of us up here, all of us serving in congress, is people

in this country are desperate for leadership. and they do not care about labels. they care about results and that is why we are here so thank you all. >> thank you. [applause] congressman, can you share your thoughts with us? >> absolutely. kiki, thank you for your leadership on this and i want to thank all of you for coming. it's time that we put people for politics and progress before partisanship. there is a big freshman class, about 100 of us, and if you ask each and every one of them, they came in to make a difference. it is incumbent on us to find common ground and i think this is what this is trying to do, they said that there is common ground. i come from small business and i do not ask people in the business whether they are republican or democrat before tackling a problem that we face for the same thing should be true here. i think it is incumbent on each and everyone of us to find common ground and find solutions to the problems that

we face. the american public demands it of us. and so you do find these issues that get people to come together. and whether it be that tragedy of gabby giffords and she was able to bring the congress together, or whether it is the tragedy in our country that brings our country where we realize that we are americans first, and partisans should be absolutely last on the list, with a that be 9/11 or anything else, i do think that these are the issues that we need to focus on and there is a tremendous amount of areas that we can work together on and i think that this is the first half, right? this is not the end all but it is certainly a big one and that is why we need your help and support in terms of making sure other members are coming to the table with us. because we know we cannot make a difference with just a few of us up here. we know that we are building their ranks each and every day. so thank you so much for your time and we look for to having some additional support. [applause]

>> bayh, if you could tackle the big contentious issues around presidential appointments and filibuster reform. >> am i the only one ironic that i have 60 to set this discuss filibuster reform? -- 60 seconds to discuss filibuster reform? [laughter] i'll give it my best shot. want to build on some of my things that congress rarely talked about with gabby giffords. if you do not know the ways of washington, had the privilege of serving in the senate for 12 years. in my 12 years, all 100 senators met together only three times other than ceremonial reasons. just three times. a first was the impeachment of the president. there were no rules for conducting the trial. we had to figure that out. the second was the two days

following 9/11. we gathered in the senate dining room to figure out how we could defend the country. the third time was the death of the financial panic when it looked as if we would have another global great depression. we had to prevent that from happening. that was it. that is really, for those of you that think that we interact all the time and have reasonable debates, it does not happen every edition not taken impeachment, an attack on the country or a global economic crisis or the attempted assassination of a member to get us focused on what we have in common rather than defining ourselves by our differences. that is what has changed over the years and that is what we're trying to fix for the other thing that joe manchin, campaigning against each other, 15 seconds, my father was in the senate before me. for his first reelection, standing on the floor of the senate, the republican leader comes up, puts his arm around my father's shoulder, a democrat, and asked what he can do to help with his re-election. you would never find that today.

but back in the day, it was those friendships matter in more than parties, common purpose more than ideology of a party for that is what we have to get back to make this thing -- back to to get this to function appeared we have a lot of great people here who are kept from getting done what they wanted to buy a system that is dysfunctional. i'm here to address two parts of it. first, regrettably, the congressional dysfunction is infecting the executive branch occurred earlier this year we had 200 presidential appointees they were open and vacant. we could not get a vote in the senate. it is not just as president. my party was doing it to the previous president as well. that has got to stop. there ought to be an up or down vote within 90 days, and i considered hostage taking. very often they are held up for reasons that have nothing to do with the person nominated. everyone agrees that this is a great individual who would serve well.

that does not make any sense. up or down vote within 90 days, force people to sit with their objections are if they have any substantive fleet. if not, fight about other things. the filibuster reform, back in the day we use to average 82 year period over this two year period, we will have more than 100. everything gets filibustered. if filibuster the legislation coming you filibuster the motion to proceed to the motion to proceed to the legislation. is it any wonder that the senate is tied in knots? our proposal is very simple. for those of your member the movie "mr. smith goes to washington," was the reason that you have so many filibuster today is not very hard for just rumor is enough to keep things from being voted on. we would have a lot less if you made people come to the floor and hold the floor and speak about their concerns. it would have to be something of real importance rather than a frivolous thing if we force that to a close.

that is the first proposal. no more procedural for blockbusters. let's go straight to the bill. if you have a substantive argument,, make it but it should not be these stacks of filibusters. the most import thing is that you will have filibuster's of substance of members have to pay a price, stepup -- stand up publicly, hold the floor, it would be something important and not frivolous. all that together will hopefully give congress a better reputation and help us address the agenda for the rest of the country. [applause] >> thank you. dave walker, former comptroller of the united states, served administrations of both parties, could you bachus for the concept of the fiscal updated agenda item? >> and i think all of you for being here. washington is out of touch and out of control. partisanship and ecological

divide, and that washington got paid for performance, there with no money. [laughter] -- they would owe money. the latest is the super committee which is a super failure. if you are running deficits of trillions of dollars a year and you have a debt equal to 100% of your economy and growing, when you are rated no. 28 out of 34 nations in the world for fiscal responsibility and sustainability, behind spain, behind italy? you would think that the congress of the united states and the executive branch would be focusing full time on how we're going to put our finances in order and avoid a u.s. debt crisis. but no. the proposal is simple. unless and until we get our country's finances in order, then there would be an annual freeze -- presentation about the true state of things and the united states and some of the things to put it in order by a

nonpartisan professionals such as the comptroller of united states. 85% of americans support this. please supported. in the interim, there is something else that you could do. go toi fiscalq.net, answer the questionnaire with regard to fiscal facts and wisdom, find out what you know and what you do not know. be part of a solution not part of the problem. thank you. [applause] >> senator nelson, talk about the no pledge appeal? >> who should we pledge to? do we not take a pledge when we take the oath of office? we are pledging to protect and defend the constitution of the united states, this country, against all enemies foreign and

domestic? and since we are a nation of interest group politics, is that not one of the strengths and at the same time be undermining if we become captive of one particular interest group from our is not the history of this country in its political system is so strong because the elected representatives go to the halls of government and decide it in building consensus, respect each other's point of view, and hammer out that consensus in order to govern? and is it not exactly the opposite of what we have seen all heard in this town, indeed, in too many state capitals in the last year?

and so my example is just one little example. why should close to half of the house of representatives and close to half of the senate have made a pledge to a particular individual that they are going to operate only on that reticular tissue in that particular way? -- that particular issue in that particular way. as david mentioned, the super committee being a super fell year, it was basically over that issue. -- a super failure, it was basically over that issue. i am honored to be with my colleagues here in a bipartisan basis to say we need some walking around common sense. in our american political system. [applause] >> before i asked congressman

dave is to wrap this up, i want to ask others to talk about the fact that they are already taking action on this canada and make sure you understand what is happening on no budget, no pay. senator? >> that is correct. in our respective chambers, but myself and congressman cooper are introducing the no budget, no pay legislation. [applause] we are looking so -- for support. looking for support, need your support, call your congressman, call your senators, but budgets are extremely important some people just call it process. it rises economy and drives businesses.

it will turn this economy around. thank you, kiki. >> let me turn this over the congressman davis and talk to us about how we empower the sensible majority and make congress can to work. >> we talked before about how members are in town for 3.5 days a week and do not get to know each other. we used to have bipartisan retreats where we would take members of with their families, but the ethics rules obstruct those tempered we cannot do that anymore. this would say that congresses and town for three weeks ago month constantly doing legislation and then making go on that last week and meet with their constituents. state legislators do that, but it would let people get to know each other and get more personal in terms of their relationships and makes it harder to attack them if they do that. this would make members come to work three weeks out of a month. secondly, it empowers the sensible a chartered a lot of legislation that majorities in

both houses favor, but leadership will not allow it to come up. and one of the mechanisms to do that would be is signing that discharged position to discharge position. -- a discharge petition. because it may not have a majority of the majority party, it is not brought to the floor and that ends up tying up a lot of things it could be happening. >> thank you, congressman. for those of you who are in the room, you can get the booklet if you do not have it already in it goes into detail about how this agenda will work and under each element. for you watching online, go to our website and look at the details. as we begin to take questions, what is important to understand as reorganize around this is that you do not have to agree with 100% of everything on the record to not let that your reason not to be for this

agenda. find the things that matter for you the will of the greatest impact on making congress work for us and advocate for those. and the openness of to questions from the press and others predict you are in the media, please let us know who you are and direct your question to any members of the panel. we have got microphones as well. if you're a member of the media, let us know what organization you're with. do we have a mike coming up? here we go. >> my question is about a no budget, no pay and how far it goes. it reminds me a little bit about professional athletes that have to pay a finds that hardly matters compared to their salary. something in the news this summer talked about how the average wealth of our elected representative is considerably more than it was 10 or 15 years ago. and so do not know if this particular form is actually

going to cause any pain and i am curious about the chances of its passage would be if it extended beyond the elected representative and included their staff. [laughter] [applause] >> you have got a good point. you have got a good 0.3 this is a tough issue. without a doubt, this is a tough issue. this obviously goes beyond this. we try to do what is best for the american people. there is already pushed back. i assure you that there has been pushed back. this is an opportunity for moderate liberals and conservatives like myself to come together with a common cause. but i'll tell you, just telling have been here, i had a tea party members tell me that it is unconstitutional not to pay them. so they have already seen the legislation and they say you cannot not pay me. baidu's your question, yes, there are members that it would not affect them personally they do not get paid for six weeks or

six months. but i assure you, if it does affect a lot of them. -- it does affect a lot of them. it is a good opportunity but it will take a lot of effort. if you already have some of the most conservative things -- tell me where in the constitution says -- [laughter] that if you do not do your job, you should still get paid. there is no answer to that this is not an easy process but this was not meant to be easy. this was meant to change washington and you know how difficult to wash -- that processes. thank you. >> bayh. >> these will all make a positive difference but of all of them enacted, i think this would have the biggest impact. i would point to california which leads the country for better or worse in many of our records. there were chronically late with budgets. finally the public to the

process into their own hands and through a referendum said that they didn't get the budget was not passed in time, they would not get paid. it was only a week late this year. they're really focus the mind of the legislators in california. i think you have the same impact here. [laughter] >> let me just say with common sense, i was the previous governor, evan was a governor, and if we do not have a budget, we got impeached. [laughter] think about that one. this makes all the sense in the world but i can tell you, what dean is saying is going to be tough. even though you think people with means can do without, they do not want to appear that is how they got their means. [laughter] >> congressman cooper. >> i think it has been said that this is one of the toughest

congressional reforms ever proposed. the we difficult to pass but not if we have public outcry and uprisings to force congress to consider a measure like this. it has been done in other contexts. all it is is paid for performance. as david walker said, and i hope you're listening closely, if we were paid by performance today we would owe the government money. this is a good way to start. [laughter] [applause] >> any questions from the media? we will also try to get to the audience as well. way back there waiting. do you have a microphone? let us know who you're with. >> my question is, there was a congressional hearing addressing the issue of legal insider- trading in congress. this issue is very important to a lot of people in the united states. i was like to know whether or not you think that this issue should be addressed and i will

leave it at that. >> i'm a co-sponsor of the stock at -- the scott act. we need to make sure that the same laws that apply to the people of america apply to us. there should be no difference. insider trading is insider- trading. [applause] >> senator nelson. >> isn't it sad that we have to even consider such legislation? a public office is a public trust. [applause] >> any other questions? second row right here. >> i am with the veterans for peace. lesley stahl was heart -- was

horrified when she was interviewing jack a vermont -- abramoff. i'm not putting my fingers at you because your constituents are responsible for what you do, but jesse ventura receive nor corporate money when he was going to the governorship of minnesota as an independent. i found that impressive. is that still possible and if not? why not? >> i am the poster child for what happens the federal candidates after the disastrous decision of citizens united, which is the greatest threat to democracy that we face in this country. [applause] and i say that because i had $2.5 million of outside money by secret donors don't into my

raese when i was on nobody's endangered species list. i went from leading by 30 points in 2008 to barely surviving with less than 50% of the vote and winning by two points in 2010 all because of secret outside madrid at bad as it was in 2010, it is much worse than 10,012. -- in 2012. i heard that one of the super pacs just got a $25 million donation from a single individual. if you do not think how that is a threat to democracy and how candidates have to raise money to compete with that, you are in for a rude awakening for 2012. this is a great rallying point for no labels because we passed a law and came within one vote of breaking a filibuster in the senate to bring it to the floor there, to it least required

transparency. the big selling point for these donors right now is their anonymity. they can give as much money as they want to any pa superc and never worry that the government -- the public might be buying services from them will find out who they're supporting. [inaudible] >> a private citizen. first of all, i wanted to thank the current members of congress for being here today. in a sense, you're putting your party leadership by being here and it is a very courageous move in my opinion. [applause] my son is 23 years old and he works for a nonprofit. he voted for the first time in

this past presidential election and i remember speaking with them and say, i really hope things get better and things get done. he had been very apolitical prior to that. i spoke to him recently and he is often out again. he has no interest in politics. it does not think that it works. so i think the key is what bayh spoke to. filibuster reform in nomination reform. these are all wonderful ideas. on that issue, what is the pathway to success? >> a senate question. leadership has to lead. that is as plain as i can make it. this place runs off the leadership, whether the white house of the congress, whatever it may be. this is not disrespectful.

but i know from may -- being a former governor that the legislature would look to me to see what i was going to put my name on and how hard i was willing to fight for it. i could not expect them to take the banner up for it tough cause unless i was willing to take the lead. so i'm not used to this type leadership that i am senior. it is foreign to me. it is basically leadership responsibility. >> i would add to that by saying we came very close to actually having a significant package a filibuster reforms introduced before the expiration of the last congress. we have a lot of younger members who are really spending a lot of time on it and it found some important common ground. at the end of the day, a number of members who had been around a lot longer frustrated the efforts. the deal with the filibuster is that it really empowering a single senator to frustrate the will of the majority. how is it going to change? all of you weighing in and

saying are you for reform, are you going to emphasize what is in the best interest of the majority rather than your own personal ability to affect things around here? soak the reform has to come from the outside because it last year is any indication, it will be very difficult to get it done from the inside. [applause] >> i think there's some thoughts to ed. >> on election reform, a number things that need to happen. some will require constitutional amendments. some do not. for example, we need redistricting reform, the purpose of which will be to maximize the number of competitive districts consistent with the voting rights acts, not to minimize the number of competitive districts. secondly, we also need integrated and open primaries. forget about democratic primaries and republican primaries. have one integrated open primary, maximize turnout, give

independence of voice, the top two runoff. california to its credit has passed both. this referendum was last year in other states should fall appeared on things like campaign grants -- campaign finance reform, it will take a constitutional amendment because of the supreme court cases. there things that you can do with this) transparency after the supreme court action, but we're going to need a constitutional amendment because of the supreme court. >> senator nelson. >> if and remember, as joe said, leadership is not about just being macho. leadership is about doing the right thing. one of the great historical examples was in 1983 when social security was about to go bust in six months. two old irishman decided that they were going to solve this

issue and take it off the table in the next election as a political issue to beat people over the head with. and those two old irish men were the president of united states, ronald reagan, and the speaker of the house, tip o'neill. and that is exactly what happened. they appointed a blue-ribbon panel, they decided how to go about solving the financial crisis, and then it came to the congress and passed overwhelmingly. and it was not an issue in the next election. we saw that model in that same era and the house of representatives by that two respective leaders, tip o'neill and bob michael. that's what i'd like the dickens during the day but they walked out of the chamber at night as personal friends, so when it was time to do the deal, they could do the deal. and that is what we are sorely lacking right now. [applause]

>> i want to thank the members of our panel. they have been terrific headache in expressing the 12 elements of our "make congress work!"agenda. this is a way to focus our effort on change that can happen today. we look forward to people being more involved and this sweeping across the country and people standing up in canada it forms and town halls and talking to the neighbors over breakfast to create an atmosphere for our leaders to lead. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> in a few moments, a discussion of federal budget reform. in about 30 of hours, the iraqi prime minister incurs as american businesses to invest in his country. and then a hearing on the effectiveness of federal laws to protect children. >> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we will talk about the debate over extending the payroll tax cut with republican senator tom coburn of oklahoma, a member of the finance committee. and represent john yarmuth, a democrat from kentucky and a member of the house budget committee. we will rejoin richard brookhiser by, the author of a biography of james madison. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 eastern. now look at federal budget reform hosted by the history for a responsible federal budget and

the new america foundation. the discussion began with comments by house budget committee chairman paul ryan and ranking member chris van hollen. this is about two hours. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am the project director for the peterson q foundation. we will of a slight change in the order of the proceedings because there is a floor vote scheduled now for our two members who are headed for the floor. they will join us later on and when they arrive, we will pause and introduce them for their remarks. but now it is my pleasure to

introduce to you and former chair of this budget committee, and a current and former director of the president's office of management budget and currently among other things a co-chair of the peterson-pew commission. >> welcome everyone to this opportunity today. i received is probably some of you did. i believe the e-mail was title after the super committee, is the budget process reform part of the answer? i do not think there is any question that is part of the answer. i am sure it is a major reason why you are all here today and for those of you tuning in on c- span as opposed to watching glee orof madman or whatever might be done, i am sure that you agreed that the

budget process is challenged and it needs a fresh look. we have with us today, a number people who have spent their lives dealing with the budget process and fiscal matters in washington. we all believe that there are repairs that need to be and so we welcome you here today. a year ago, the peterson commission on budget reform working in partnership with the committee for responsible federal budget presented a comprehensive set of recommendations to reform the federal budget process in a report that was entitled getting back in the black. today we have the opportunity to hear from a number of presenters who will provide further ideas for budget process reform, and in fact we will set up four separate papers that we will hear presentations about. we want to thank the peterson foundation pew charitable trust,

not only for their support, but for their courage to take on this issue, to step out in the leaders. our group, are commission has worked over two years and is made up of a lot of has-beens, as we like to call ourselves, people who used to be this and used to be that, we used to be chairman of this super committee right here, the budget committee, some of us were cbo directors and others were omb directors. some of us just been a lot of our careers in congress worry about fiscal issues before it was cool. we made up the peterson-pew commission to look at this. i suggest that this is been a very practical group. there are some groups that look at it from a very academic -- look at budget reform process from a very academic standpoint. i would suggest that the conversation that we had in our commission meetings were based on people who knew how to get

the job done, who did get the job done in many instances, and really wanted to make this work for the members who mattered, members of congress, and current members who have to solve this problem. so i would suggest to you that these are examples of things that should be able to work in the real world. we are going to hear from some real exceptional people today, and one has joined us already so i am going to yield my time now to my friend and colleague, tim penny, for an introduction. >> thank you. i am not a practice. i have not been at a congressional digest for a few years. i did not press the green button. i am delighted to introduce the ranking member of the budget committee, congressman chris van hollen chris, since night --

since 2003, he has represented maryland's eighth district, which is much of montgomery county and parts of prince george's county, just in the suburban area around washington for pride that, he served four years in the maryland house and eight years in the maryland senate. he has throughout his public career in a chief advocate for education and in more recent years he was instrumental in the democratic leadership in moving president obama healthcare act bill to passage. he has based on his family background and his own troubles extensive expertise in the foreign-policy arena and as we all know and in the very recent past he was a member of the super committee, which worked diligently for several months only to, unfortunately, i think he would agree, a bit short in reaching an agreement on long- term deficit reduction. but he is the ranking democrat on the budget committee and along with budget committee

chairman paul ryan who will speak in just a few moments as well, they are crafting some budget reforms as i understand it. the line-item veto reform that they have brought forward in a bipartisan fashion, and that is the topic of the day. we welcome you and we would do glad to have any opening remarks you would like to make your >> thank you very much production of, everything is unpredictable around here. we just had a vote. did chairman ryan -- has he spoken? ok. for my remarksit now. >> i think we are ok. going out of order, normally the chairman speaks up and then the ranking member texas term. but we're going to keep this on track so you can go first. >> let me start by thanking all of you. members of the phaup peterson- pew -- peterson-pew commission

for putting this hearing together and a larger work if you're doing. did it is great to have many of our former members of congress back. i say the former chairman of the committee, john spratt. we welcome all of you and look forward to the input that you will be providing later date. -- later today. i will be very brief in my comments. i think we all recognize that we have to get our fiscal house in order. that is going to require some important measures. what are some important bipartisan compromise. to the extent that we can expect -- reform the budget process to help move that effort for, i think we should explore every possibility. and i look forward to hearing more about the ideas that have been an advanced by the commission. as you mentioned, the chairman

and night, paul ryan, have introduced a piece of legislation, the legislative line-item veto, of bill patterns after something you have introduced in the past and has also been introduced on a bipartisan basis. i hope that we can get that measure through. one of the things we think it will do is make members of congress think twice before they ask for certain spending provision in the appropriations bill. because what it does is allow the president to identify items which the president considers to be unnecessary spending and instead of those recommendations or cuts being put into the drawer of a committee chairman, they will now be voted on in the light of day, up or down, by members of congress. we think that accountability and transparency will both

discourage members from asking for things that are not absolute priorities and two, if they do, what will have a mechanism for eliminating what may be unnecessary spending items. so i do think that there are important budget process reforms that can be made. that being said, i think every member of this panel recognizes that at the end of the day, a difficult political decisions have to be made regardless of what budget process you have. many folks on this panel has served on other commissions and we've got simpson-bowles, rivlin to managing, and a common thread running through all of those other commissions was that if we're going to tackle our budget and is serious, credible, and balanced way, we have to look at all sides of the budget equation. ultimately, we can have a good budget process, but unlike stop signs and speed bumps which are enforced by a cop on the

street, congressional rules are enforced by members of congress and there are only as strong as members of congress are willing to back them up and enforce them. which means that at the end of the day, it does come down to political will in making the tough budget decisions. i hope that this congress will be able to do that. i was disappointed that the super committee was unable to accomplish that goal. but i hope some of the information and ideas that you presented they can help guide us in the right direction. such that you all very much for being here. again, thanks to the phaup peterson-pew -- organizations for bringing this together today. >> thank you for your comments. we now have the opportunity to hear from the chairman of the committee. i am honored that i have the opportunity to introduce paul

ryan, who is the current chairman of the budget committee. paul? >> i had this very long introduction written now. but i will cut to the chase. the words are read down, trying to figure out what i could write down, paul, and courageous came down -- to mine, smart, creative, but the one thing -- all of those are true, but the one thing i wanted to make sure that i had the opportunity to say though is that the one thing that has impressed me most about paul is that he is not enamored by his own verbosity. is someone who is kept to his roots from janesville, wisconsin, someone who is the same, i believe, the same person today as the person who showed up in congress those many years ago and sat on this commission -- committee as a new member. so i am honored to introduce the

current chairman of the budget committee, paul ryan. >> you have to push your green button. >> i have spent a lot of time in this room with you. i sat there and then i sat over there and over here. john spratt, great to see you. while. you look refreshed. you lookreac -- happy. it is very nice to be here. i want to thank the peterson- pew foundation for sponsoring this event. did your artists speak? we had a vote and that is why we were staggered. -- did you already speak? we have bowden that is why we were staggered. we all dealt with these issues. the process is broken. we want to fix the process. but even if we get the process whipped into shape, it is the ideal budget process ever dreamt of, it is not a substitute for

just doing our job. to have the will to tackle the drivers of our debt and actually pass the reforms that will prevent us from having a debt crisis in this country. we know what it looks like if we do not get this right -- europe. we have to get this right. the way that we see it here is that the sense of the hourglass are now dropping. time is of the essence. what we can do here in the budget committee the as pointed toward action on process and on actually looking at the drivers of this problem. we all spend so much time in this space. i am cautiously optimistic that we are going to get this done. it is because of what winston churchill said, the americans can be counted on to do the right thing only after they have exhausted all other possibilities, and we're coming

to that point. we are coming to the point where we will and knowledge that the debt is unsustainable and the process is broken and we want to fix it if we want to keep our prosperity and keep our commitment to the people of organize their lives around these critical programs. i want to thank you for doing this. i would be happy to -- capita have so many great people of done such rework on this issue. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. paul and chris, thank you very much. we will likely knowledge others. we know you do a fantastic job at the american people do not always good chance. they do not get another great work goes on behind the scenes by your staff. we appreciate their help in pulling all this together. i had a chance to work with both of them and they are both characters. i would want them both on my team if i was going into a budget night that fight, i tell you that much. they are very capable.

we have other folks joining us, jim cooper. welcome, thank you for joining us. representative from tennessee, we appreciate it. we have some hanging on wall, and as you probably note, we're not as good looking as the current chair, but we hang there nonetheless. jim jones, welcome. chairman, thank you. john spratt, we need to figure out how to get you appear on the wall. we have not figured that out. welcome and thank you for being here. bill, thank you for being here. as the chairman of the committee for responsible federal budget and all of these folks, members of the peterson-pew commission, we want to thank you for your participation in this as well. with that, let me turn it back to steve, and he is going to be the moderator for our papers and the presentation here today. >> ok, thank you both for

joining us. i know that you have very busy schedule so if you would like to depart now, we will understand. we will pause for just a minute and then we will have our conversation. [laughter] >> they're going to push these guys over. >> we are all here because we think there is a chance that the budget process can be reformed and that the right set of reforms will help us deal with our huge fiscal challenge. we may have hoped that a device like the super committee would be a shortcut to a solution, but that did not work out. even if a big deal had been developed by the super committee and enacted, it might not have

been sustained thereafter in the face of the inevitable continuing reign of urgent demands of the moment reduce spending, tax cuts, unless there was in place a farsighted disciplined regular budget process. we're looking at the possibility for reforming the regular budget process. as jim noted, the commission a year ago presented a comprehensive set of proposals to reform the federal budget process. the people who will be speaking next have spent the last year further developing some of those options and ideas. we are going to turn now to very brief summaries of the four papers and then we will have a discussion of them. ideas on the panel and then we open up to the audience. interested, informed people sitting out there, some distance away. first, let me introduce our consultants.

phil joyce is the principal author of the paper on multi- year budgeting. marvin phaup helped develop the ideas for budgeting for emergencies. phil is a professor at the university of maryland for those of you who do not know. and author of a definitive history of the congressional budget office. published this year by sage george university press corps to mark an outstanding piece of work. i'm sure you'll want to buy. martin is a veteran of the congressional budget office. it is hard to imagine how the budget process and the congressional process would work without a congressional budget office. it must have worked without it, but it would be hard to envision how were today. martin is also a colleague of mine at george washington university, the trachtenberg school public policy. he will present that paper. paul mozer is the head of the --

posner is the head of the public administration program a george mason university. so let me begin by summarizing the first of these papers, which deals with fiscal rules and their uses. i worked on this with my colleague on the staff of the commission, damian more, who is here. as they approach the aisle of the sirens, he told his crew to the buying him to the mast. -- to bind to the mast and put wax in their ears so that he could hear but not succumb to the irresistible siren song and avoid the ships destruction of iraq. a fiscal rules serves a similar function for leaders in a democracy. is a rule that guides more

details choices to make sure that they added to a sustainable budget. it can be a limit on debt, on deficits, on spending, on revenues or on a combination. in effective rule is widely understood and represents a prior consensus on what is fiscally proper and prudent. the fiscal rule is a vowel, as noted in the paper. 80 countries now have some form of formal fiscal rules. it is a good effect. it disciplines themselves. it asked voters to hold them accountable at the polls of they break their out. that is how it works. -- if they break their vow. the united states does not have such rules. it once did.

it was thought that too much debt was a bad thing. so consider the for the first 120 years or so, the u.s. balance this budget 67% of the time, virtually every year except when there was a war or other emergency. and it did so without anything like the all average budget process and requirements and procedures that we have today. without a central executive or congressional process. it did so because there was a widely shared universal understanding that budgets had to be sustainable and that debt was a bad thing and to much of it was a bad thing. if we had such a strong consensus, other procedures would matter much less. for many reasons, the political consensus has supported balanced budgets -- to support balanced budgets has evaporated. some of the famously said that

deficits do not matter. that was not an economic judgment or fiscal policy statement but a political judgment. the thesis of this paper is that fiscal rules do matter. they can help policy makers do the right thing by giving them political support to resist the siren short-term demand. the paper as, what would be a good fiscal rule for the u.s.? a balanced budget amendment is a physical world. it is practical now. we lack the consensus about the particular form of this amendment. there are a lot of practical questions about the design of a special role so it does that become a drag on the economy. we are so far from balance to that the commission has proposed

a different form of a fiscal role. it requires that it moves us on a path to stabilize publicly held debt. for the medium term, if we can achieve that, in the longer run the commission would advocate a brawl that airline's revenues and spending to bring it down -- the commission would advocates bringing the spending down. let's look at how the budget process can be reformed to help enforce a debt target that has been agreed on. i want to talk about that paper and idea. >> thank you very much. i'm very happy to be here. this paper, i first want to say

what it is not about. it is not about by annual budgeting which is a separate forum we can talk about later. this is more about the idea that the budget should be thought of not in terms of a single year but not good terms over the effect on multiple years. there is consensus in international practice that an effective process focuses not on the next year or the next month, it is forward-looking in future oriented. this does not strive the -- described the federal crisis. we do not have one that is focused on the next three to five years much less the next 10 or 20. we probably have a problem that it will take 20 years to solve. we have a process that ms. from

just one short term crisis to the next. the control act was a project of such an ad hoc crisis. the collapse of the process is another example of how the process has not worked very well. there is something else that may be a surprise. but the process that we have on paper is a pretty good multi- year process. the resolution focuses on five- 10 years. cbo does budget projections. the problem is that we ignore the spirit of the process, not that the process was fundamentally a bad process. if the demise of the process established had an opportunity,

how would we get the process to focus on multiple years? there is an enforcement process to make sure it is achieved. that is the argument of this paper. we should take this as an opportunity to think about the budget in multi year terms. this is consistent with getting back to the reports as. in two commissions. we should enact a sustainable debt act. it will represent a future debt paths with enforceable targets if it is not met. the argument here is that there should be a goal and all should be agreed to. there should be consequences for failing to meet that goal. that is just the goal.

the question is what happens after that point? the meat of the paper said the nation should enact a series of reduction bills that would make order to make it. if it happen in 2013. it is the first of multiple reduction lolls over as many as the next 20 years to be brought down in maintain a sustainable levels. what does it look like? the procedures were used to great effect to try to get a handle and the deficit that had occurred. it would have include policy changes covering at least 10 years extending are lowering the

discretionary spending. they could be extended for a longer time. they could be both word and made swifter. budget enforcement procedures. it could be strengthened by broadening the base used for sequestration. this was the approach used to great effect in 1990's. it was first we agree on a goal. then we use the process to enforce adherence with that goal. because this legislation would have the force of law, it would remain in place until subsequent legislation was enacted. it is likely that even if we had a bill that lasted for 10 years on paper, it would not last for 10 years in practice. things change. circumstances change.

the budget reconciliation bills enacted you should lasted three or four years. that is less important than the fact that we need to have a continuing series of these deficit reduction bills. we need to be taking a long view. whatever agreement we had in place should remain in place and should be in force until a subsequent one is enacted. we think about these two things together. it to be two levels of enforcement. there would be chiggers that trigger -- there would be triggers that trigger the legislation. there were be a sequestration up spending. the second level of enforcement would be a more traditional.

the normal budget process should focus on the deed of policy that reinforce the achievement of a sustainable level of debt over multiple years. the budget resolutions would be prepared in a way that would reinforce the sustainable debt backed in the current deficit regime. when the president put his budget together, they would already have a path in place. we would not be arguing about that. we would be arguing about the specific policies. let's say we are successful in doing this and we're looking at the budget process going forward after another 20 years. what do we do after that? we still need to have an effective, multi-year budget regime that has some kind of statutory underpinning.

one idea would be that there would be a new statutory bill that would pass using be read the legislation -- the reconciliation procedures. i would argue the most important thing we lack at present is the agreement on a direction and goals. we have to make the hard choices. we have to have a presumption to stick with them. all of them have to be considered with a framework that is multi-year in focus. the biggest failing of the current budget process is we just moved from one crisis to another. we do not have our eyes on the big picture. the argument here is that practically speaking, having your eyes on the big picture will involve setting the goals and having a number of separate multi-year deficit reduction bills that enforce compliance

with the goals. thank you very much. >> thank you for developing further the commission's idea for a reform process. this would be the spine of the new process. any process can be subverted. one of the ways people have found to get around the process has to do with emergencies. the commission saved a lot of thought to the budget for emergencies. they helped further develop the ideas of the commission. do you want to present those? >> thank you. i did not have to develop it very much. i think this is a real practical topic.

this is a practical group of people with experience in budgeting. emergencies are a real phenomenon that have legitimate claim as a special sort of thing that they have to deal with. at the same time, and the commission was fully aware of the potential for abuse of emergencies. the commission recognized at the beginning that because the spending requirements that they impose are so unpredictable they are hard to deal with. you can kind of get an idea. you do not know what outlays will be.

it is irresponsibility. -- it is the response ability. t, thepass, th default is to ignore them. as much as you can predict them year by year, you do not know what to do with them except to wait until they occur. the new allocated all the resources. you end up borrowing them. the difficulty is it means that you have targets and outlays. he missed them every year. there is emergency spending that

occurs. at the same time, they are well aware of the abuses. it is not a defined event. people have to agree on what an emergency is. these are things not every member regards. when resources are really tight, it is an inclination to expand it. over time, emergencies have really grown. these kinds of purposes were

assigned by emergencies by members of congress. it is appropriate. the committee, and once they buy into the bowl tie year -- multi-year planning, everything is uncertain to some extent. they got more comfortable with the idea that one way to deal is to not try to predict how much there will be in outlays. what is it like to be over 10 years? what is the average level of spending for emergencies? if we could recognize the

average level of spending for emergencies upfront and carpet out of whatever targets have been established, then life would be easier. we would certainly not target it every year. it could be addressed in more disciplined way. what the committee recommended is that each year is that some authority could be cbo. the estimate what the average estimate of outlays is likely to be. it is to whatever constraints is

binding. to score its right of fronts, the purpose for doing it is then you are paying for it in advance and not waiting until there is a disaster and all the resources have been allocated. it is up front. there are some accounting mechanics we can go through. what is really shocking to me is how big emergency spending has gotten to be. someone earlier came up with an estimate.

total spending averaged $200 billion a year. the commission recognized that a big chunk of resources was being unplanned. it just happens. -- just happened. one way was to look at the longer term. there was some incredible estimate of the value. other years you will under budget. on average, you will not do it too far. there were lots of other problems that were referred to. you are derecognized if you can spend it.

there are average amount expected. it scores of ever limits are in place. it is a simple idea. i am sure there are a lot of details to be worked out. it seems essential if you want to have an effective budget process. i am just repeating information. >> thank you. those two things do with the budget process. now we will hear the final process.

this is the information they can use. it is about the process we are getting. let's talk about the ideas. >> thank you. you frame did well. we've really tried to get the nation more firmly committing to a path of fiscal discipline and lower deficits as w. it will entail tough choices. how do we do so in a way that ensures the get the biggest bang for the diminishing box? a big credo is the cut we claim

is unemployment. the government cannot institutionalize an approach. this is not some autopilot or retail politics of a budget ing. it is introducing them in a way that they have a long standing. this is more difficult than it sounds. there are different programs. when such data is produced, we are producing it.

supply has been met by demand. it takes both side of supply and demand to produce this focus on performance. this has passed in 1993. the assessment rating tools are evacuating nearly every program. they have made advances. there's much more data available. to really have not succeeded in systematically enforcing accountability.

this is the kind of progress we need to make. it is establishing some kind of accountability for providing explanations. and providing a periodic review of major programs in federal budget to see how well we stand up to the test of policy analysis. this is not just tilting at windmills. this has really happened. it produces a payoff. the department of veterans affairs have achieved real sustainable reductions in cardiac surgery outcomes. they studied the best practices of the centers that have the best records.

they have made definable impact on improving the outcomes by using performance analysis. they have programs. they look at them. they achieve real savings over time. aey've been doing this on sustainable budget. where do we go from here? we have some important recommendations for the future. this is a very difficult task. it assumes you have a budget process.

the federal budget process is very fragmented. we make decisions here. it deals with tax expenditures what keeping the same kinds of goals. it is unsurprising that we have programs that are often inconsistent. they found extensive fragmentation of programs. there is a lot of potential for effectiveness. they are confusing the parents and students alike. we have one side of the health

care reform equation. it increases the cost spirit we have a disaster relief incentivizes people. we have a decision making process. the question is how we think about programs and performance. 20 to find a way to bring these together. we talk about a portfolio budgeting process. we would try to transcend the focus to look for outcome areas. we look at all the related programs that have a bearing on

the programs. we see this and other countries. we think it has a lot of promise. we think they should make a commitment to really do that on a selective basis. we think congress needs this as well. this is difficult. the budget committees already use the budget function. they cut across the major areas. they have the overview that the need to bring this off. they can do a performance based resolution. they ask them to focus on

particular areas. congress did pass a bill earlier this year with the modernization act. they are acquiring them to do a crosscutting great deal of selected areas for the first time. we have a long way to go. outline for how it should go. >> these are some of the ideas that are part of the comprehensive plan said the commission has been working on for the past few years. you can make any comments you liked on these papers and other

recommendations. anything you want to elaborate on? >> i do think the committee for this. we want this to be an inclusive discussion. i want to offer a few observations. we are not reinventing the wheel. we're simply focusing on what we have implemented in past and trying to adjust for problems that we have encountered with previous reform efforts. from that standpoint, it is not radical. we clearly have learned that the

best process legislation has gaps or unintended consequences. in 1974 when it was first enacted, we did not anticipate deficits of the magnitude we are experiencing. we did not anticipate that we would ever reach a stage with the totality was a frightening prospect. we simply wanted to give the congress more of a role of in budgeting. and to equalize the strength that the it ministration has with equal strength in capitol hill. we now have almost 40 years of

experience. what we do know is that it was a different climate. after it was passed, we did anticipate a potential crisis. we did not really use the normal budget process for that. we're coming up with recommendations. the mindset was that we needed to address that issue. we cannot leave it. we did not want the program to go into the back. it was brought forward. that speaks to a different political will at that time did not necessarily need a budget process. it was a bipartisan consensus

that was initiated. we are now at a point that has more polarization in terms of the process. we need to encompass some principles that require actions which was almost automatic. when we did get into the mid- 1980s, we created the ground running process. it is not unlike what we propose to hear. we did a couple of things that proved not to be the best way of implementing the deficit reduction strategy. one was that we used as our measure the annual deficit.

we were trying to reduce it from year to year. the deficit can be affected by economic upturns in downturns. we found a rescinding the wrong measurements. they're talking about a long- term goal. we did not put enough items on the chopping block. it may. we allow this to fall once. there are the consequences of no action. they would do damage to programs that people in both political parties care about.

we implemented the first budget. this policy was by president clinton in congress. i think the lesson we've learned was highlighted by marvin when he talked about emersion. it helped us ward off any unfunded tax cuts. it helped us put a lid on domestic and discretionary funding. if no lid on emergency spending. it is why it became the vehicle for the extra spending that was not allowed.

i want to give you a few examples of what we learned them. >> mine are more questions. he has done an excellent job of playing out the history. it is getting the politician to do things they're not predisposed to do naturally. somebody said this was not heroic. it is also not natural. it may seem that way from time to time. wouldn't it be easier to do this or that ta? sometimes they have been out of

context view of what needs to be done. all you need to do is raise taxes on the wealthy. it is what ever the panacea of the date is. all of these are for the politicians when they have to go home. they are not naturally persuaded politically. the things i laid out here today are excellent. on the multi year in particular, i think that is fascinating. it is the thing businesses do. it is the thing families do. it is what everybody does.

they do not just look a week and month ahead. you know you are in this for a much longer haul. we're certainly in that context. do you find any state that does this well? forever you are looking, where do you find this well done in government setting as opposed to a business type of setting ta? >> i think there are a number of states. i would say the majority are required to have an nearly balanced budgets in terms of their operating budget. it does not mean all they care about is next year. one of the things the states have going for them, they would

also viewed as a constraint. the current level is that the states have the markets that are disciplining them. the bond markets care less about what the budgetary balance is in given year and more about is this a state that can actually manage over the long term. they look at things like sustainability. any state that made a judgment that made this year better but made the next two years a lot worse, that would be immediately transparent. it cost them on good terms of their bond rating. that is not the discipline we have seen before. there are lots of countries that under the leadership of the imf and world bank have been encouraged to adopt call medium- term expenditure framework is.

it is a rolling sets over a few years. the assumption is that they remain in place until or unless the next one kicks in. that is consistent with what i am suggesting. we need to assume that remains in place until we decide to change that. >> for marvin, if i coul dasdld ask, emergencies have been my frustration. this was during the great mississippi flood. i survived. i have a reelection that year. it was a nip and tuck. i tried to wave the flag so many

others have waived. the need to plan for its. you need to anticipate it. include more emergencies in discussing the longer terms than i would have liked. i would argue that warner's action not be the initial conflict. you have to deal with a certain situation. conflict is off budget. if you know you're going to be in this conflict, we can be included. as well as katrina. you could argue so big that youwoul would not want to inclue it in routine emergency experiences.

as you looked at this, is there a way to segregates this or make it part of the routine that you cannot put in? how would you recommend this? >> you need to use your microphone. good question. i think we took the easy way out. it is an impossible way. we were not clear on what it was. we said everything the congress declared an emergency must be. in designing a policy, if you want to be more judicious. steve proposed that only the first year of a war should count

of an emergency. they're after, an increase could be considered as emergency funding. there is no question that the big problem is tha tit it was to convenient to be declaring things an emergency. i did want to answer oyuyour question. the reason he asked me to write this is because he asked me to write one on budgeting for emergencies. he wanted to know what was the experience of those countries tax for they good at it or not? -- for those countries?

were they good at it or not? one good thing is that it is transparent. we're going to borrow it. it is going to be an add-on to the deficit. i think it is really hard to find cases w here you can understand what other countries are doing and they are doing it well. this is at the cutting edge. there is plenty of room to define effective budgeting. we're not quite there yet. >> if i could ask about yours with regard to performance budgeting. my frustrating with president

bush's examples was that while the administration went through this arduous process, it would go to congress and congress was a that is fine. i should not make it a blanket. many said this is what we told you to spend it on. spend it. we are maybe not quite as interested. this is what we wanted. how? is there a way you can see that we can have a better partnership with the congress? capt. we get congress to use the rating tools? how can they be in on the front end of this tax they are saying your idea of this it did not perform correctly. it was your idea in first place. that seemed to fly in face of what congress wanted.

is there a way that should be done during the procedural part that can take away some of the sting and make it more effective? >> i think that your question is productive. congress generally does not use this assessment. i think the reason is they have no ownership. we have to figure out a way to have some institutional ways. it is technically a stronger way. this is some ways of what we have. omb has a strong condition that when the budget is on the table

being considered, it is decision of. this diminishes the ability to engage in the collaboration. sometimes you need to do it in this town. after the budget comes out, then we go to the hills. we have to find some way to be key members of congress in to define what areas are promising. and to use omb for this. >> i think your comments about the review and where it might budget committee is the best equipped to draw a

membership from across a whole range of committees. this is a committee that does not work on the budget. it includes entitlement and discretionary. my frustration is that whether it is the gao's recent report for the inspector general's report on all sorts of performance or underperformance in programs, there is nothing that requires that any of that gets picked up. you would think whether it is the budget committee or offering committee that any time succumbs out comment it would be to --

any time that comes out, it would lead to leave you. >> that is why all of our papers get together. i do not think there was incentive to look at those until we face hard choices. i think somehow congress will figure out a way to make this work to empower the committee. we will work more effectively in leadership. they are very jealous. we need to do some major rethinking of the role of this committee. we said it should be reconstituted as a leadership committee. they will all have an ownership.

>> we need to open up the audience to join us in the conversation. get your questions ready. o want to get an opportunity t the members who are here. they have a few observations. i would like to ask him if ther something he like to add. gophers. -- you go first. >> this is a great discussion. >> this requires action by the

rule. somehow i have to agree on this. they would help them reach the course. all these wonderful ideas will help congress to achieve those goals.

we have a good discussion. there'll be people in the audience would like to raise the question. >> if i can jump in. >> they are currently cochairs of the federal budget. i do want to give the lion share of the credit to the leadership p provided.

i thank you. this is part of the solution. it is not always the opinion of those. it does at least twice that i recalled. i will be honest with you. i watched this role in 86. it is all a dodge. it is a way of avoiding the hard decisions. i am now convinced this is part of the solution.

they needed more than ever before. this would accumulate over time. they could be too little. they use the coastal region. they have the balances of less than $100 million. they give $4 billion. and not sure that is the best way of doing it. this of the problem. there is a different problem.

it's still balances in accounts. you get something built up there. i assure you this will happen. it does help take care of the proposal. it is very good. it is very pertinent right now. i hope we can see some of these things. there are entitlement increases.

they can always use refinements. this is clearly one way to go. they keep refining so it can become part of the bigger solution. i think this was extremely well done. thank you. >> we're honored to have the. >> the commission did think about this. >> let's consider a case. this was devastating. there was insufficient money

being treated for that. one of the provisions was not in the report. you had the authorizing legislation. it gives them authority to bar from the treasury. if they were right on average, the funds would be able to repay ca. there's too much money available. there was automatic permanents to get the money to comply with the authorizing legislation. the mission was that you and i

-- you would not score the extra money. if you had an unbiased testimony, you could say the barring overtime. what do you do about the opportunistic legislative proposal? i guess we fall back on the political will to not do that. it is hard. i do not know how you constrain a legislative body.

>> everyone knows the passage would mean potential outlays. these have the ability for long- term commitments. they are not emergencies any longer. what do you think we should do with the resolution? >> i would turn to you for an answer. i deny have an answer.

>> you have problems when you put them in the real world. thank you. chime in, one way to deal with it is a onetime emergency. then he put it in the budget process. >> thank you very much. we're going to open this up to questions. >> please, identify yourself. would this be a good compromise t?

that is only using one decade of low spending. would he go back to 1900, you get about 16%. why don't we just a 19th term. -- 19%? >> that is more of a substantive policy choice that should emerge. >> the way we can at it is differently rather than arguing about the% of our economy that ought to be in federal budget. even without arguing about the annual side of the budget.

we can look at a longer view of where we want to manage that debt so we did not go beyond a certain level. then we brought back from that. -- then we work back from that.

chairs. >> the subcommittee on children and families will now come to order. today we have a very powerful and poignant hearing. we'll be addressing one of the most difficult issues one needs to raise in child welfare

policy. that is how do we protect the children in our communities and in our country if they are victims of child abuse? particularly if they're the victims of child busey their within their own home or when they're in somewhere where the children have been placed in the care of a trusted adult. the focus on this hearing is to -- the topic will be "breaking the silence on child abuse." how we can protect children when they're being abused, how we can intervene and protect them and then what policy should we put in place to achieve deterrence of this vial and repugnant act against children. it's sad we have to have this hearing, but the reality is just in our society. it's -- this hearing will not we

one of sensationalism and will not be sensationa. our hearings focus not only the sensational but on solutions, again, rooted in prevention, intervention, and deterrence. this hearing is a result of a letter from senator bob casey who had a tragic, tragic incident in pennsylvania. this hearing will not focus on pennsylvania. it will focus on the broad issues because it goes on in every state, and regretably in every community. i also want to thank my ranking member, senator burr of north carolina, for his active participation in developing the framework and the witnesses for this. senator burs hat a long-standing and persistent reputation for standing up for vulnerable populations, and we have worked

together on a variety of these issues, including the protection of children in day-care centers. we also want to note the long-standing advocacy of senator barbara boxer for her role and her open ideas. i want to give a brief opening statement here but i want to welcome all of you who are here and all of you watching in your home and in the locker room and in the dugout and all over our country. we've got to dedicate ourselves now to the right policy, the right legislation, to really protect our children. while many have been shocked by the recent child sexual abuse, unfortunately i'm not surprised. many, many years ago i work as a child neglect social worker in baltimore. i saw the danger to children up close and person. i was with them in the er, in

the courtroom, with them when i had to remove them from their own homes and i was with them is a tried to put them on the road to recovery and rehabilitation. from what had been done to them. because i saw the permanent and indelible scars this leaves on a child for all of their lives. for me, that experience as a young social worker, so many years ago, was a searing, searing experience. i learned from it. i grew up while i was working in it. and now, as a senator, i continue to devote my life to being able to work on this. this is why i'm so determined we're going to take what we hear today and turn it into an action plan, and we have been putting in programs with the center for missing and exploited children, working with the fbi, the marshal services and others. again, our focus is really on prevention -- protection,

prevention, and deterrence. there's nothing more troubling than a child who has been physically, sexually or emotional abused. then abused again because of the failure for adults they turn to, who either don't listen and rebuff and reject them, or who do listen but in order to protect the brand of an institution, where the reputation of a team, don't report it. they abide by a coverup of silence. a conspiracy of silence so the child is doubly victimized. those who abuse them, and then the system that turns their back on them. we're going to hear about some of this today. one from mr. sheldon kennedy. a former professional hockey player, who stated for -- skated for the united states of america. abused by a minor league hockey coach, and someone with -- by a coach, his parents had come to

trust. what was additionally troubling about mr. kennedy and his experience, is that the abuse was allowed to continue despite the red flags. so, we want to talk about that because we want to break that code of silence for preventing not only the first abuse, but the second abuse. >> mr. kennedy's story is not the first. there have been many examples in our history where children have been subjected to this second abuse. victimized a second time, where they have been overlooked, ignored, or covered up. well, this senator takes the position that no institution should ever be too big to report or too famous to report, and no adult should ever feel that they're protected because of the brand they represent. my hope is this hearing will point out what we need to do to help our children. our job is to ensure we have the

right legislative scram the -- legislative program and the right prevention. there's currently laws on the books passed on a bipartisan basis, the child abuse treatment act, in 1974, to provide funds to states for prevention and investigation and prosecution. we need to examine that is sufficient or whether it needs to be amended. my own view is that in recent years, whether congress should look at reform, and it's my belief that every adult has a responsibility for a child. it takes a village to raise a child and it takes a village to protect a child. and i believe, regardless of who you are, if you see something, if you know something, then report it. if you see something, do something. so, we're going to listen to that. and now i want to turn to my colleague, senator burr, my

ranking member, who has done such a great job, and then senator casey, who questioned this hearing, staunch advocate of children, then senator boxer and her own advocacy. >> madam charge is thank you for holding this hearing and i want to thank you for your passion for children. that clearly comes across in your openings statement and actions in congress. nothing is more important than the safety and the well-being of our nation's children. no child should ever have to suffer the pain or shame of abuse at the hands of an adult, be it that a parent, teacher, coach, or a stranger met in the park or on the internet. i also want to thank all of our witnesses for their time and dedication to our shared goal of ensuring that children are free from abuse and neglect. and in those horrific instances

where a child is abused, i thank today's witnesses for their commitment to ensuring we intervene quickly and provide those children with the support and the treatment that they need to heal and recover. over the years, senator mikulski and i have worked together on legislation that would require criminal background checks for individuals working in child care or volunteering with vulnerable populations like kids, the disabled and the elderly. when parents leave their children with an adult, in an entrusted organization, day car, schools, sports activity, after-school care, summer camp, they shouldn't have to worry they might be dropping their child off to be cared by someone who has been convicted of a violent crime, especially a crime against children. the use of criminal background

checks for keeping criminals and violent offenders away from children is but one important piece for keeping children safe. criminal background check will only weed out the offenders known in the criminal justice system or another government agency such as the child protective services. today we'll be hearing a lot about the offenders known to children and often known to be suspected by adults within a community, who remain unknown to the judicial authorities due to the silence of their victims and the silence of the adult bystanders. to truly ensure our children are safe, both children and the adults must break the silence of abuse. however, since children who are being abused live a life of fear and shame and are thus least able and likely to come forward, it is adults with whom the greatest responsibility for breaking the silence of abuse rest.

as one of our witnesses said in her testimony today, child abuse is a grownup problem. although crimes against children through such means as sex trafficking or internet, often tend to gain the greatest air time on able news, it's important for us to remember that most instances of abuse against kid, sexual and physical, are occurring not across the statelines or on the internet but in our own neighborhood communities and by folks we know. sense the vast majority of abuse is occurring so close to home, it's critical we train and empower adults to know the signs of abuse and to know what to do when they see or suspect it. there's no quick fix. there's no single piece of legislation that will make the problem of child abuse magically go away. however, the adults returning to a collective sense of

responsibility for all the children of their community, can, from the grassroots level, begin to break the silence for benefits for all kids. i look forward to working with chairman mikulski and all of my senate colleagues to better understand and respond the issues of child abuse in this nation today. we often hear that children are our nation's future. how we as adults treat and how we respond to the ill treatment of our nation's children will determine what that future looks like. i thank my colleagues. i thank the chair. >> i'd like to turn now to senator bob casey, who requested this hearing and this committee was already contemplating it, but who has been such a long-standing advocate. we know he has legislation. we're going to be focusing on the broad policy. senator casey, let's hear from

you and proceed. >> madam chair, thank you very much. i want to commend you and senator burr for bringing us together today, and i'm grateful for that. not only on behalf of the people of the commonwealth of pennsylvania but the whole country. we're grateful. and i want to say to senator mikulski that your work, if i can use an old phrase, laboring in the vineyard, goes back long before you remember -- a member of the united states house of representatives and the united states senate, helping children as an advocate. so we're grateful you spent so many years working hard to protect our kids. child abuse is the ultimate betrayal, isn't it? the ultimate betrayal of a child, and what every child should have a -- has and should have a reasonable expectation of safety and security. it's almost hard to begin to

comprehend the horror that a child must feel when they're the victim of abuse, but maybe especially when they're the victim of abuse by someone they know or trust or maybe even someone they love. i can't even begin -- i can think of it for years and can't even begin to comprehend how horrific that it is. so it happens because adults fail, not because children do anything wrong. we can't just blame it upon systems. we're all adults and we all have to take some measure of responsibility. and what has to come from a hearing like this, maybe not today, maybe not in the next few days, but when we come to a consensus about what to do, it's as basic as we could imagine. at it about protecting children no matter what the cost, no matter what the impediment, no matter what the obstacle. so that what we're here to

today, and i think it's about holding adults accountable. ... several in the last couple of months but again it's getting back to the basic obligation that every public official has to protect our kids and do everything we can to fight against and pushed back and deal with that the trail we all know

in our hearts is at the root of this and also no longer statement for the record butch chairwoman, we appreciate your work on this, you and senator byrd have made service to the country today. >> i want to say to my colleague i would like to turn to senator boxer whose done incredible due diligence in child protection. to others i would hope he would leave your opening statement part of that in your question period. after senator boxer we are going to move to an excellent panel. senator boxer, we want to welcome you. you have over the years really been remarkable in your advocacy for children and to do diligence you've put in in recommending several pieces of legislation, some with us, some with judiciary but it doesn't matter. we need to be in it together and for the kids. please proceed. >> thank you. gloor also eloquent. what i think you privately for

this. were you were doing today. i want to 4-d new publicly. not enough kennedys are doing in my opinion the diligence that should be done and i am so appreciative of you and of course senator kec for requesting this hearing. i speak to you today as a mother and grandmother and senator from the largest state in the union believing their must be tolerance for crimes against kids. zero tolerance. i think's senator byrd referred to that and we get it from the heart, soul in our own community. so we need a new ethic in this country, and as much as we need to strengthen fell all. now if this ethic were in place, the zero tolerance, this sensibility about the fact we need to protect kids we are in place. many crimes against children would be committed and those that commit such acts would be called before the crimes are

repeated and repeated and repeated, and the innocence were damaged for life. so i'm going to give you the facts because sometimes weeklies over this issue because there's so many numbers thrown at us so i'm going to give you two of them that we have. several hundred thousand cases reported every year. think about it. several hundred thousand. some of the states have fewer than several hundred thousand people living in them. several hundred thousand reported cases of child abuse every year and reported in that, 80,000 reported cases of child sexual abuse every year and the other percentage of want to give you is that 71% of all sex crimes, sex crimes victims are children. 71% are the victims are children. i don't believe congress has done enough to prevent these

atrocities and i want to do my own involvement. i've worked closely with all of you on so many issues. senator isaacson and i worked together to prevent violence in the peace corps and all of you support us in that endeavor. so a lot of our involvement stems from something. he had a constituent and he took that issue to heart. in may of 1997, a california 7-year-old from los angeles was molested and killed in a nevada casino bathroom. the assailant's friend witnessed the molestation and learned of the murder. he didn't do one thing to stop it and he never reported it. so that moved me in 98 to introduce legislation that deals with reporting requirements. nothing happened. in the meantime, unreported cases of child abuse occurred at

educational institutions, religious institutions, day care centers, and interestingly on federal land and property. the worst part of the failure to report these horrific crimes is allowed the serial killers to go on and on and on to pray on more and more defenseless children. so it is time to protect children nationwide. in '94 we can together to pass the violence against children act. sorry. slip. i want that to happen next. the violence against women act. it's worked successful. we work across party lines. it's time to pass the violence against children act which would be an all encompassing way to bring about this new ethic of this evil tolerance. but today because i've been told by the chairman and the ranking member don't talk about a specific bill. i won't do that. i am for so many bills and i've

written some of them. ibm for all of them. but i do want to make one point. i don't think anyone is aware of and this is critical. today on federal property if there is a crime in this building or in a national park or in a military base, we do not have reporting requirements other benefit is a professional that sees the person after the fact. so in our own house so to speak we have work to do. we are going to want to tell the states will to do but we better look at our own of law. so i'm going to close now with a final thought. after 9/11, our nation reached a consensus. that consensus was no one would ever sit passively on an airplane as a terrorist tried to take it over. i don't care if you were under 5 feet tall as i am.

we will get up out of our seat and we will do what it takes, all of us. now our nation needs to reach a consensus that we will never, ever turn a blind eye towards the crime of an innocent child. we have to defend our kids otherwise we are failing as human beings. and we are failing as legislators. thank you. i know you share this passion and i am so grateful to all of you. thank you para >> thank you, senator boxer. we look forward to working with you on your legislation. we would like to now call our panel mr. sheldon kennedy, former hockey player, michele collins, vice president of the center for exploited and missing children, and frank from pennsylvania who heads up the

support center for the child of the kids. while they are coming to the witness stand i will also like to acknowledge as we get ready to turn to mr. kennedy someone else who was a victim of terrible sexual abuse at the hands of her nanny brought to elbra attention by a colleague and we want to welcome you. we thank you for taking your personal tragedy and turning it into an organization called lawrence kids. we look forward to your advice and counsel on moving this bill. >> we had such enormous outpouring from the people who wanted to testify to come forward to bring to the national attention the def and breakfast of this horrific problem. we could not accommodate everybody at the table. what we want to company is the legislative table and we look

forward to your benefitting from your experience not only what happened to you but your thoughtful work and prevention. >> i would like to turn now -- i'm going to comment on everybody. mr. sheldon kennedy. mr. sheldon kennedy was a professional hockey player. he skated for the united states of america. during his career, he was terribly abused and then he was abused a second time because people were more at protecting the coach and the brand. mr. kennedy we want to hear not only your story but all of your recommendations about that. then we also want to turn to michele collins, who represents the group established by

congress, the national center for missing and exploited children. she comes to us with a tremendous background and experience. she oversees the cyberattack line. i say to my colleagues we already have a congressionally authorized recipient report with child sexual exploitation. she has and then also the child victim identification program. so we need to know again from a policy level. and then a senator casey, did you want to introduce your representative from pennsylvania? >> yes. i will be brief. we can go on for awhile. i've known frank along time and i'm grateful he's with us. frank is the executive director of the support center for child advocates which is a pro bono program that provides legal counsel to the abused and neglected children. he's also share of the pennsylvania children's trust fund which funds programs to prevent child abuse and neglect. frank has a distinguished record

of working to protect kids in pennsylvania. a few people i know, if any, have their record and the commitment frank house and he's a graduate of the university of pennsylvania and the school of law and he has a master's degree in theology and ministry. we are grateful you are here as well. thank you. >> mr. kennedy, we want to welcome you coming and we so appreciate this. ps2 then to proceed with your testimony any thoughts or recommendations were in sight you would like to provide the united states senate. >> thank you. good morning, senator mikulski, ranking member and members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me as a witness today. for many canadians, hockey is everything. it's our passion, our culture,

our national pride. like most boys growing up on the prairie i joined of playing in the national hockey league. unfortunately for me, the dream came true. i played for the detroit red wings, the boston, the calgary flames but it's not my dream i'm known for. it's my nightmare is a junior hockey player i suffered years of abuse and harassment at the hands of my coach, gramm james. despite the nature of the abuse, the hurt i experienced and the fact i knew what was being done to me was wrong it took me over ten years to come forward to the authorities. why i didn't say anything. this is a question i asked myself again and again and again. it's the question i know everyone else was asking, and it's the question that plagues the millions of sexually abused victims around the world. even though i wrote a whole book on the subject, the answer is quite simple colin coke because i didn't think anyone would

believe me. in my case, my abuser was in international hockey man of the year. in canada that gave him almost godlike status. sound familiar? the man who preyed on the took advantage of his position as a coach to look for children who were especially vulnerable. single-parent households, families with drinking problems, boys who needed a father figure, etc.. these kids and often their parents, too, looked up to him as a hero. this was someone who could make their dreams come true and they used that trust to hurt them. the imbalance of power and authority creates a deeper problem and it's the one i think that this subcommittee has to deal with if you truly want to prevent child abuse. in every case of child abuse, certainly in my own, there are people who had a gut feeling something was wrong but they didn't do anything about it. their attitude was i don't want to get involved.

it's not my problem. he couldn't possibly be doing that. the authorities will take care of it and that's what pedophiles are counting on. counting on public ignorance or worse yet, there in difference. that's what keeps child abusers and business and that is what we have to address. from my experience a child who has been abused has to tell an average of seven people before the story is taken seriously. seven. that is completely unacceptable. when my story became public in 1997, there were people who refuse to believe it. many were angry that i exposed an ugly side of their beloved sport. fortunately, hockey canada responded seriously to my situation and made abuse prevention education mandatory for the 70,000 coaches and this is the positive message and want to leave you with this morning. seven years ago i co-founded

respect group and in partnership with the canadian red cross internationally recognized experts in the prevention of child abuse. together we want launched the program for sports leaders called respect in sport. it focuses on educating all adult leaders on of use, bullying and harassment prevention including a sound understanding of the legal and moral responsibilities. our belief and respected group is that we may never fully eliminate child abuse but by and powering the 99% of the attention adults working with you if we can greatly reduce it. i'm proud to say that the respected support we've certified for 150,000 youth leaders that represents a high percentage of coaches. denise sports organizations have mandated the program and the list continues to grow. hockey canada, gymnastics canada, the entire province of manitoba, school boards and some

early adopters. the united states including usa, triathlon, in addition organizations like hockey canada and gymnastics canada have implemented their respective sports programs designed specifically for parents. we're also seeking productive initiatives by the canadian government to combat child pretreatment not just tougher legislation and minimum sentences for perpetrators but a federal approach headed by the minister ron lambros to introduce prevention education that spans the multiple ministries that touch the most vulnerable canadian youth. we've learned the social change takes time and has to occur at the grass-roots level and from the government down. i'm pleased to say that is exactly what's happening in canada and i hope it is what will happen here, too. over the years through my work at respect group, i've learned that educating people 99% of the population is the best defense to prevent abuse.

training must be mandatory to ensure full compliance and reduced liability. the education has to be simple and consistent. all forms of abuse lead the same emotional scars some training has to be comprehensive. education is best deliver online to ensure consistency, safety of the learned, convenience and the greatest reach. finally, training must be ongoing. it's not a one time thing. too often society's response to child abuse is to focus on punishing the criminal. the teacher caprice or coaches sent to jail for a long time we feel we've done our job was as citizens or politicians punishing the bad guy makes us feel good but it doesn't fully solve the problem. senators coming in to get all adults working with youth and parents the tools to recognize and respond to abuse when it first arises. i am under no illusion such an approach will eliminate child abuse but i do know mandatory

education creates a platform with and all organizations, the conversation to happen. empowered by standards and you will be taking an important first step for breaking the silence on child abuse thank you and i would be happy to take any questions. ms. collins, to get the perspective for the missing and exploited children. >> madame chairwoman and members of the committee i welcome the opportunity to appear before you talk about the important issue of child sexual abuse. senator mikulski, the first and experience working in these types of cases gives you an valuable insight and we appreciate your leadership on these issues. with your permission i will urge my testimony in the interest of time. as you know, the national center for missing and exploited children is a not-for-profit corporation organized by congress and working in partnership with the purpose of justice we are a private public partnerships and for 27 years we'll serve as the national resource center and clearing house on missing and exploited

children. one of our programs is the cyber to point of a national clearing house for crimes against children on the internet and operated a partnership with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. we've received reports in eight categories of crimes against children including possession, manufacturing and distribution of child pornography child sexual molestation. the reports are made by the public as well as by electronic service providers required by law to report a parent or child pornography to law enforcement by the cyberattack line. reviewed by analysts and then referred to the appropriate agency to read as we all know recent events highlighted the problem of child sexual abuse but what are the facts? we've come a long way since 1974 when congress passed the act states made significant progress in the reporting investigation and treatment of the cases. all 50 states have laws requiring mandatory reporting of child abuse.

lester the 506 credit child advocacy centers in the united states served more than 270,000 abused children but despite the progress the problem persists. according to the department of health and human services in 2009 state child protective agencies reported 543,000 substantiated incidence of neglect, 123 goals and substantiated incidents of physical abuse and 66,000 substantiated incidence of child sexual abuse. however the data comes from the state child protective agencies and is generally limited to the abuse committed by caretakers. the dod data indicates there are more incidents of child sexual abuse than assault each year. a doj study estimated to wonder 85,400 children were victims of a sexual assault in that year. what are we learning about child sexual abuse? we don't hear about it from the child victim. in fact they found only

one-third of these incidents were reported to the law enforcement. we hear about abuse from those were designated as mandatory reporters under the state law and other concerned adults to report allegations of abuse. the mandatory reporters are specified by professionals in most states including health care professionals call law enforcement officers, educators and child care providers. in addition, 18 states require all adults to report abuse. we also learn what child sexual abuse for the investigation for child pornography on the internet. law enforcement investigation for crimes against children in the online world often lead to the discovery victims and the offline world. individuals who possess and distribute child pornography may be sexually abusing a child or they may be communicating in treating images of somebody else who is sexually abusing a child and because very few child victims tell anyone about their abuse, it's only through the great work of the federal, state and local law enforcement of these abusers are caught and the children get the help they desperately need.

who are abusing these children? the majority of child victims are victimized by somebody that they know and somebody they should be able to trust. according to the survey, 81% of child sexual assaults were committed when somebody with legitimate access to the child to read of the child pornography victims' identified by law enforcement, 70% or abused by a parent or guardian, relatives, neighbors, family friend, baby sitter, coach or guardian park near. the good news is regardless of the abuses reported many of the victims today are getting the help they need. however, there is room for improvement in the system. mandatory reporters should also be required to report sexual abuse directly to law enforcement and although they may be required to report to their supervisors within an organization, child sexual abuse is a crime in all states and will enforcement must be involved at the outset. once the report is made, law enforcement will involve the appropriate child protection authority. another recommendation is to

require training of mandatory reporters and how to better recognize the sexual abuse said they will be better equipped to respond to the warning signs. the most important change we can make is to encourage all adults to speak up for the victims of sexual abuse. we should teach people what to look for and to build momentum for combating sexual abuse. i recognize people are afraid of getting involved or of making a mistake and allocation based on suspicion that we are the only ones who can act on the suspicions and help stop the abuse. i'm confident we can work together to better protect children. thank you. >> thank you, ms. collins. mr. servone. >> thank you chairwoman mikulski and senator casey and other members of the committee for this opportunity to testify today and thank you, senator casey, in particular for calling for this hearing, for continued

leadership in this area. we know that you are a great friend for children and health care in early education and health care and all the ways we know we can turn to you. thank you very much. the support center for child advocates is still a volunteer lawyer program for abused and neglected children. we are a big shot for kids and represent about 850 children each year in court in various times of the victimization cases. i insisted today in this presentation by the work of kathleen and our colleagues in the protect our children committee which has spent the statewide coalition about tickets and physicians and service providers. i'd like to put some of the events of the recent days and weeks into context reflecting the reality that many more children are physically and sexually abused but garner no attention from the policy makers or from the people who should be caring for them. sadly, it seems, this is not just a penn state or syracuse,

but sadly, we need the scandals. we've needed even these bad actors to bring this discussion forward. we welcome to speak up to protect every abused child act introduced by senator casey. the legislation helps shift child protection strategies from where the children are required to protect themselves. from abuse and victimization and highlights and transfers to adults the responsibility to step up for kids and for the mandated reporters it calls for better knowledge and dador informed policies. it represents a solid starting point to a critical discussion. we know that families sometimes keep secrets. last week in our office we opened to cases representing child victims and the prosecution of their alleged abusers. it's a very important aspect of the work to be in the criminal courts on behalf of the child victims. one was an 11-year-old girl sexually as abused by her father

for years, and her mother was not be leaving her. she knew, apparently knew, but failed to believe her. the other come a boy of ten and used by his mother's boyfriend and now the mother is failing to bring the child to court for interviews and for prosecution of the abuser to read for these cases, like the more notable ones we're hearing about, we should ask where were the adults in the lives of for all of the years that they were carrying this out secrets? this is what is difficult that for many left wondering what was missing in their lives and wholesome adults whom they might have trusted, knowledgeable adults who might have noticed the warning signs. while it's hard to know the extent of the reporting we know that many cases come forward with the long history of secrecy and nondisclosure. the days were years that passed suggest someone new and should have known and there is another theme in that encase state law

that shouldn't go unnoticed the children were protected because a couple of mom's listened to that and believe their children and now they are standing with them. it would be a gut wrenching court process there could be no better child protection tools than ensuring every child is connected to the adults who've pledged to nurture and listen to them and speak up for the child. witold victims and the abuse come forward? violations of trust are the hardest to endure. the abusers are trusted parents and and or an uncle or pastore parent or coach and the violation of the trust are tremendously confusing to read the defenses are compromised. in the beginning with a blooming behavior's and in the end by threats of embarrassment at harped. in our work we hear all the time that the child or adult sought reluctance to disclose and then suffered the pain of keeping the secret. why don't people intervene? this is the question we are all

asking gaining all this attention but again the story, the understanding of it belongs to us. why are we adults reluctant to report? undoubtably we've all experienced the feelings of indifference of isolation about the opportunity. we say things like it's not my job. someone else will respond. or if i stand here it will be worse for the child, to which i say how can it get worse? we fool ourselves if we think stopping a crime is not the west solution. i can tell you i've heard from the kids, they want the abuse to stop. feelings of loyalty to the institution did in the way. aversion to scandal, the survival of the institution is what becomes parallel. people respond to cultures of power in the families and small towns and big institutions. there's often a heavy price to pay for speaking out. we must help the victims to

reporters coming. everyone has a statute literally taught at my whole career. people are confused of their duty to report. a remarkably large number of mandated reporters i'm betting a lot of people in this room, people who come into contact with children and their work have never been trained on the duty to report or would sell wall is in their state. the speegap legislation would require states to mandate the reporting of the known or suspected incidents. the standard articulates the duty that we should all know and feel. we know that the mechanics of the mechanism have to be worked out. what we have is a laboratory because the states are doing it both ways and we should be studying those. a word about capacity, increasing the numbers of reports of suspected abuse without increasing the resources of the system's capacity to respond may be noble but may be dangerous to kids who are meeting the system's attention.

kids get removed an abundance of caution. that's what we do. we pull them out of the fire or so we think. but the removal of the foster care is not always beneficial or even the mind. a child can be traumatized. school can be interrupted. the investigation can get it wrong. the findings of becoming a child abuser have all sorts of implications for the future employment of that child's parent. for these reasons we have to get it right. and need we remember that our jails are filled with adults. we are not doing so well at this year it finally come a word about intervention. not every family needs a hammer. some of them need a velvet glove. one of the hard tasks of working as the distinguished cases that need the hammer from those that need the helping hand. we call this differential response. but differentials response takes capacity, science common knowledge about the differences.

and this is a hard game. we need knowledge and research to make this happen. finally, senator pcs's legislation opens a door of understanding and invites serious discussion of who should be considered a perpetrator of child abuse. i've had dozens of conversations in recent weeks with knowledgeable professionals about which if any of the penn state officials were mandated reporters. this ought to be clear to everyone. it certainly should be clear to the prosecutors and other professionals and even they are. we are a curious moment. the attention of the moment to the commission is upon child protection as it should be. it seems attractive to be as protected as kids as children as we possibly can, yet it would be prudent to be aware of unintended consequences. we can be healthier community tomorrow with the victims of yesterday and today to get help. sadly some of today's victims will become of users and themselves to read not to

mention drinkers come angry family members come espouses you cannot trust. they are harmed eating away their ability to be healthy and safe. we must get the message out to victims who have not yet disclosed. if you've been abused, tell someone. get help. the healing will come. we can change the stories of these lives. let's do it right. thank you. >> we are going to move on now to the questions. i'm going to take my time at the end of the panel. i wanted to acknowledge the presence of the two republican colleagues, senator lamar alexander. do you have to go? >> i really want to acknowledge the role of senator alexander and isaacson. senator alexander is a valuable member of this community and the

committee as a former governor in tennessee, the president of the university. he has firsthand knowledge in terms of how did you run states and universities to prevent this kind of stuff? so i want to thank him and senator isaacson as a longstanding advocacy in this area and has worked with senator boxer and their aggressive wait a step forward when we knew that the peace corps volunteers had been accused and then were abused by the peace corps for the failure to take action to protect them. sounds familiar. so you've got a good panel here and one of the best is senator let me turn to you for your question and then senator kc-10 satchel blumenthal and then i will wrapup. >> thank you, chairman. very quickly, and i'm going to repeat something i heard you say but i want to make sure that i'm

right. if greater had laws had been in place, that wouldn't necessarily solve your problem, what it? >> not necessarily. greater law. i look at my situation, and i look at all of the adults, all of the trusted adults that we're in the system and i look at the victims of this and not only are they being victimized by the perpetrator but they are being victimized by the institution, by the adults that are around them, the trusted adults because they again are reminded that it must be their fault if none of these adults are standing up for them. so what we have learned is that we need to give our adults the confidence and the courage through education to recognize and respond to these issues. >> i think all of you touched on education to some degree you were very specific.

my question is pretty simple. we have an opportunity as we begin to shape legislation that we cast a wide net where we try to cover potentially everybody or we cast a narrow niche and meet the target to individuals that have the contact with kids where an intense education program, public acknowledgment of what we are doing might have an impact. if you recommended to this committee whether it be to initially start or a narrow network, what would it be? >> welcome you don't have to guess. 25 states are doing the wide net and we should be finding out from them how they are doing. we ought to compare the two types of approaches. we are all about this very confusing question it seems attractive to cast a wide net. we know that there is a higher

degree of reliability from the reports that come from professionals involved in the work. so there is something attractive about both approaches. we are all wondering what is the right approach. clearly all of us ought to feel the duty to protect our kids. we all ought to be informed about how to respond. it's quite unclear to me whether the approach is the professionals should report or every person should have this legal duty with some penalty. and i think it is a mistake to jump in to try to answer that without asking of the data which is the right approach which is working today. >> let me just say to that, i was specifically talking about where we focus the educational component because i think all three of you said education is absolutely crucial. i said in my opening statement on not sure if there is a single

piece of legislation that is a magic bullet that solves this problem, but education over a generation starts to affect change and clearly statistically to you know any individuals that abuse children were in fact it used as children themselves, and so, it is a generational attempt. >> now we do not have a federal lease sponsored mandatory reporting from work. we don't have mandatory training for those of us who are in the business of caring for kids. so, where do we approach it from a training perspective for educational perspective that approach seems to be very compelling. we need to inoculate the entire community. in the business we call this primary prevention. bus cards and the like. to inoculate the entire community but there's clearly a front line of folks we want to be particularly well-trained and well versed on the subject. >> ms. collins, you were very

emphatic in the recommendations that child sexual reports always the first to law enforcement. have there been instances or issues where reports have been made first in places like child protective services? and then bought immediately referred to the appropriate places? >> across the state the of different reports to the institutional report to the law enforcement. when the discussion as revolving a sweeping all adults are mandated to reporters and then when you were dealing of really in approaching the various types of abuse whether it be neglect, maltreatment, of physical abuse, emotional or sexual abuse the sexual abuse component has a crime in every single state that law enforcement would be able to respond and involve the appropriate charnel protection agency's but we were trying to

narrow it down to one that would go to law enforcement. >> great. i thank the chair. >> thank you. i wanted to start with mr. mr. servone and some of this is in your testimony already but kind of a basic question of if you had the opportunity to enact a federal law today that did three things, what are the most important elements of the of the legislation in terms of what we can do to prevent this from happening again? >> as i mentioned, i believe that the mandatory training, federally sponsored mandatory training for reporters of abuse for those of us who are considered the man did reporters is essential that we don't have the federal framework and many

states quite literally tens of thousands who come into contact are not aware of their obligation and that we ought to make that clear as you know we've been working on the creation of the children's ombudsman's in pennsylvania that each state wants to have a mechanism whereby the person who feels like the system is not responding, the caregiver, the professional might have an independent place to go so that in the sense of bureaucracy does not victimize them as senator mikulski mentioned earlier. there are services in the system that want to be expanded, the victim's act collects money that provides victims' services and, chris caps those dollars, releases those dollars. they've released to the streets to provide services and

so-called forensic interviewing services you will hear later about and the expertise needed to do the investigations. the services are almost nonexistent for the physical abuse cases in many communities. we would like to see that change. let's do it right as i said. >> and you made the point in your testimony -- i will try to get to it in a minute. in a very strong point of the urgency of doing the study now. is that -- >> all over the land i can tell you if had conversations with legislators and their staff and dozens of people in the general assembly in pennsylvania, legislators want to act. you want to respond yet it would be in a sense on why is and imprudent to proceed without information. this is an area we have knowledge but we are not tapping it.

yesterday the national child abuse statistics cannot and suggested it's down thankfully. what we know about that, what is the telling of the duty to report? would appear in our reporting statutes are working and we are getting out some of this and i believe our treatment is working. abused kids grow up to be abusers themselves sadly for many of them but if they get help they turn that around. it appears treatment is working. we ought not turn away from that approach but we don't need to do it blindly. we can study this work now. >> we will be sending a letter to the department of health and human services to conduct that kind of analysis, states that have the mandatory reporting for all adults to give to further inform us about that, so we can talk more with members of the committee about that. finally, i wanted to ask if we

have a brief second to get to questions for the other witnesses but i did want to ask as well about this question of training and what's the best model for that in terms of not just the type of training that the frequency or the degree to which even folks that have some expertise are trained but half a more so if they are not people that have personal experience or expertise. can you outline what would be the model training program but also the regimen that under which it operates. >> the first is we should rely on the construct we have for the licensor certification. we don't have to create a regulatory structure for every person in the world. there are tens of thousands of professionals who are required to engage in trading to keep

their license. if we recognize that part of their profession is to engage kids it seems a small step to say that any requirement of your license is that you learned your responsibility to care for kids to come before you so we should build it into the certification programs. second, the programs don't have to be extensive. fothen providing this kind of transfer years and we daniel level of knowledge and job retention with several hours of programming. mr. kanaby suggests we might use on-line programming. obviously this is the way the world is going to make it more expensive the available and it makes sense we use distance learning devices where we can. lastly, i know we are aware of and mcconnell program that focuses on the experiential slide that puts the story in the

context of the experience of these professionals, so you have a child, she's in your classroom and she's acting out in this particular way. what might you ask of the situation and to engage the professional in the kind of dialogue that teaches them to be analytical on their own. >> thanks very much. >> i would turn to senator frank in who worked very hard on this issue. before the congressman i want to acknowledge you've been here all morning. the congressman of california is a longstanding and as of advocate for children. we know you have a parallel bill in the house and want to note the fact you've been here to listen to the testimony was going to acknowledge you but i know you have to get to a vote. we welcome your presence today working across a few so think you for your advocacy and attendance today.

>> senator blumenthal, excuse me, senator franken. >> thank you. the title of this hearing is breaking a silence on child abuse protection intervention and deterrence and i know we are talking about this legislation on prevention and intervention on, but you mentioned a couple times when that a number of the abusers were were victims themselves so i think the treatment is obviously -- and you mentioned treatment yourself a number of times -- there's one thing we need to add to this. what percentage of abusers were abused themselves?

we have an idea of that? anybody? >> we can get that kind of information for you. >> but i think that we really have to focus on the treatment of these children who are abused. that is vitally important because whether they become abusers or not, this is something that will stick with them for the rest of their lives unless they get treated and they can go other places as you mentioned. they can turn to drugs or alcohol or they can become unhappy people who are not good parents etc.. >> the business is using the phrase whole child representation that however the child comes to you that you recognize this is a whole package of a human being and we

have to think holistically about what he or she needs so the child that comes in is going to testify, the case isn't over that way. really in the way it just began because after she's done if the abuse occurred and the abuser is convicted now she gets on with her life and part of getting on with her life is to get that healing. sometimes it's hard for her to shield essentially before the trial. >> absolutely. >> mr. kevin become a talk about 150,000 liters being trained. there's a lot of people around this country who want to serve you for and become mentors and volunteers but when you have 150,000 of them coming you've seen in these high-profile cases that a number of the people who

are victimizing these children are children that have injected themselves into the rules of the mentors etc come and as a result in the past we have to protect acted the was authorized in 2003 as a pilot program for non-profit youth organizations to obtain fbi background checks volunteers and employees, and i support that program. we've renewed every year usually by unanimous consent. this year it's been different. the program was allowed to expire. do you agree that background checks are a good investment? >> shortly after the act was passed our office implemented a protocol for all of our volunteer attorneys. all of the big volunteer

programs and mentor programs like big brothers and big sisters and others are using it is absolutely a good investment. it's another of those thresholds we should take it vantage of. we are collecting this information. we have it out there. we should connect the dots. >> this year unfortunately was the first year that this hasn't been reauthorize and i'm -- don't you think we should do everything we can to equate the youth serving the organizations with fist will? >> absolutely. absolutely. >> i would underscore that myself and this is something i think we need to get done. i know that senator schumer has proposed a bill to make sure that becomes permanent. and i -- this is something i'm not sure has gotten a much attention as it should, but of this is because in the past few use this service, you know that

there's like a 6% to count of people who have background checks to have something where you say we can have this person be a mentor or a youth adviser, and unless these organizations, these nonprofit organizations are able to reduce the service, we may not be able to have the mentors. we may not be able to protect the kids at the same time. >> i think sometimes the background checks give the organization a false sense of security and we rely too much on them. i do believe that we need to reach all the members whether they be volunteer based on off and because they may be the best big brother and big sister we have, we are in a position of power and have all of our kids coming to us and disclosing what

might have happened to us because we are not in that position. swain to educate ourselves if we have a disclosure we need to know how to handle that. i think they go hand in hand not only the background checks but that educating in power warning message has to happen and this has to happen to every person that works with our youth. >> you would agree these background checks are necessary but not sufficient, but they are necessary. ceramica absolutely. >> thank you. >> before i go to senator blumenthal, senator frank and, was the will you just cited is that just not reauthorize? >> this is the first year it wasn't reauthorize. usually on a renewed every year and by unanimous consent. >> again, if it isn't sun said it still exists.

this is a real problem i've had people who run the mentoring programs say that this has become a problem because they don't have the funding to do the background checks and they've had it every year. it's not that much. it's like $20 per -- >> but it would save a lot if you were in a little group. estimate it is absolutely essential, and as i say, usually it is renewed every year by unanimous consent but this year wasn't. i'm quite sure of that. >> let's take a look at it. >> -- >> okay. senator blumenthal? >> cementer blumenthal comes to us also as an attorney general who -- everybody comes to the table not only with their experience and a vote but tour

insights are being very welcomed. >> thank you very much, madame chair. and i can't think you enough for having this hearing which is not only timely, but to use senator kay c.'s word, urgent, given the magnitude and the severity of the problem in this country, and i come to it with the perspective of a law enforcer for 20 years in the state of connecticut but familiar with the law enforcement systems and connell law. but i want to particularly thank senator casey to cause he's focused on an area that's critical for law enforcement which is the reporting. you cannot prosecute where you don't know. often as we've heard from this panel and as we know from experience, enormous courage and fortitude is required for reporting and training and services, but i want to make sure on that law enforcement aspect because the reporting is certainly a lot less meaningful

unless there is effective law enforcement, that is punishment or at least response of some kind commensurate with some of the severity and really the morality of the crime and it is a crime in most state. ms. collins, do you think that the law enforcement are adequately supported financially and otherwise to do the job that's required here. >> when we are looking at the numbers, you know, that not all of these are the types being reported. of law enforcement is basically a swimming and reports regarding sexual child exploitation being related and certainly many of them not. cooperation has been key, and most states by having a law enforcement officers working

specifically with child abuse, child -- if they have someone in the region to draw upon law enforcement, medical and the child services to work together given the short resources that were out there trying to do everything they possibly can and bring together a successful prosecution. but law enforcement certainly needs everything they can get. >> so you should really provide more support to the state and local law enforcement in that regard. >> training and also to these types of crimes. >> and i am struck by the fact that many of these offenses of child abuse really occur across state lines and the difficulty of law enforcement is amplify by

the fact a father in virginia may be abusing a child from a mother living in connecticut and the occurrence probably is not a speculative someone. someone met with me literally this morning about such obligations and maybe it's time we have stronger federal criminal law like we adopted in the wake of the kidnapping and killing that applies specifically to kidnapping, crimes across the state lines. maybe it's time that type of the of child abuse as well. criminalizing it, federal the in some respects to create a greater support for law enforcement. would you agree? >> on a state and local internet, it is to have primary

task forces of law enforcement to respond exclusively while i guess not exclusively but primarily to the internet facilitated. with the internet of course being just one subset of the tools that can be used in the exploitation of children but to your point, senator, also can help facilitate individuals across state lines who have similar interest in sexually abusing a child. there has been great cooperation between the federal law enforcement, the fbi, the u.s. postal inspection service to work with the task force's recognizing that in depending upon the type of crime the jurisdiction may be more appropriate the federal than the state level and certainly there's room for improvement if it exists. >> do you think that the internet and i think i know the answer to the question because as attorney-general i worked on internet child abuse and some were stocking and so forth

presents a growing threat to children? >> is certainly does. the more children online the more have cameras on their cell phones, the more individuals going on line broadband are certainly giving greater opportunity to many people within the united states have access to the more people online and the more technology tools developed certainly there are risks along with the opportunity >> i want to thank the panel for the testimony. thank you, madame chair. i hope we will have an opportunity to continue to work together in developing support not only for senator kcci proposal but for other kinds of better protection focusing on deterrence which is one of the subject here. i am also told that the project act of 2003 was a pilot program and it was non-product free vote this year which resulted in its

expiration so it wasn't a sunset as much as being a pilot program and so i think senator frank and's suggestion and your support is very well taken. >> sure, let's work together is the main point to minimize and see if we can't get that out. >> we are both on the judiciary zone. >> thank you. ..

first of all, the outermost incident was the so-called danger from the stranger appeared out the number of children who were physically and abused, what percentage of that comes from the stranger danger? >> that's an excellent question and the number would be difficult to pitch her finger on because we don't know how many instances aren't being reported. >> from those that are, tell me what you know. >> i would have to look that up to get back to your stat. >> watching all the shows on cable, they said 10%. the other then goes to this whole issue of discussion in a very poignant way when the children come forward? there's sometimes tied to the

abuser in some some way. if that father. and it's just not like reporting a crime like i've been mad for my pockets been taken. they know it is going to cause a big stir in disruption. it's hard for them to do that. perhaps he could comment on this as well. somewhere between seven and 10 adult before they are heard and taken seriously. the data are not? ms. collins? >> i'm very sorry. in terms of the children who are not disclosing for the reasons you are saying, not believing they're going to be believed. the abused and not have been so

settled that the child doesn't know it a point that this is wrong or there was somebody who is going to listen. >> when they ask you how to perpetrate the addendum and then desperation, fear, finite because usually it's not once incident. they are often confused about what happened and hurt and ashamed. but then after repeated behavior, usually from the same predator cover a much used the term predator here. stocking predatory act dvd, then the child gets them together and comes forward and people react in a way that is not helpful to the child. do we have data on not? >> i do not have data regarding today's children. we do know from the department of justice study that only one third as individuals who indicate they were abused

actually reported it. >> mr. kennedy? to your thoughts on not? we are going to go to mandatory reporting. if you say something, say something. if you know something, do something. it's kind of the policy position i would like to take. but i'm trying to get in on the ground reality. >> well, i think we brought that stat in. we can forward that on to your colleagues. i think that the people -- the kids are telling. there's lots of education in the schools about rolling, views, et cetera. we've never been given the tools to recognize the staff. rau expected to do the right thing. how can you expect adults to understand the abuse is? if we went around her mama down the street to penn state and i see adults that are in a leadership position, can you give the addition coming you get

the radiotherapy or do we expect them to report it. so that's why we say that mass education we have to give people the tools so they can report it. these issues kerry fear. if we can eliminate fear and give people confidence to act on a gut feeling will get a lot more of these parents and coaches and leaders reporting and listening to our kids. >> well, mr. kennedy, that takes me to my next question for your recommendations. repeatedly in the face you said, we need the tools. hey, i am for that. what would those tools via? because consistently, each one of you talked about training and education. two different things, education and training. tell us these tools does she feel so passionate would have a

big impact. >> the first time we started trying to do this since we started education and catch the bad guy. get your back up against the law will find out who is a or perpetrator in here. so what we've are we going to youth serving organizations, all volunteers, every adult with her he schools, say the whole national youth football situation and so forth. it's not what you're different a college coach or little league coach, if you have power of the players. >> what are the tools? >> the tools are brought based education on all abuse, bullying, harassment, education, believing very good person and position of power and give them tools to recognize them and to act on them. when we go into the organization it's mandatory. first and foremost we must create a standard with an organization that if you want to

be a part of the organization you need to take this program and so for three database the whole thing and off the individual is taken appropriate peer they really becomes the risk liability to on the backend. so what we are doing is saying that because we are out there creating posters, policies, procedures around all these issues up in all these organizations have not stopped there. our goal is to deliver on the posters. we're a permanent fun, safe. but take care of johnny and jodi. but the reality is if you walked around the schools and teachers could you give me definition in which you need to look out for that all these parents trust you with coming up with the answer very good. senator, and there's reporting tools, investigative tools, treatment tools. at the profession, as a discipline, we have skills in each of these areas.

this community a child serving professionals knows how to do this. we know how to investigate cases. we are not fasting or providing sufficient is. we know how to treat trauma, but across the land would only begin to make and roads and getting treatment to be trauma bays. at the front end we are reporting. we've talked a lot today that he professionals who come in contact with kids need to know about it. they need to know what the pack radios. we need to make those pathways were. we need to get the system's capacity to do it. our hotline and pennsylvania drops 9% of its calls. as a colleague recently set up you are one and one in 10 oppose and makes a report and your call gets dropped, how do you feel? you feel unprotected. we know how to do this. >> well, my own time is expired and we want to go to panel two. this is a very, very excellent piano. i'm going to send each and every one of you for your experience,

your expertise. and now it's you hear a if you want to submit additional recommend nation or fine-tuned and amplify what you yourself said in her testimony, we really will welcome it and we will come not from you. so this panel is excused away are going to move to panel two. thank you so much. we are now going to turn to the assistant commissioner for children and families from minnesota who senator franken will introduce. that or block, president of the american academy of pediatrics and to reset huizar come executive or of the national children's alliance, an excellent advocacy