in a nonsynthetic fashion. stage how many early vaccine -- given that many of the early stage vaccines fail, many candidates will become to supportly be able with this request? turn tol actually dr. fauci. there are two main vaccine candidates there but there are a others on the list. but i'll let dr. fauci -- >> and does the funding allow scaleup for manufacture when you find something that works? >> so the answer to the question, there are two major ones, but there are three right barta has their sights on. barta're asking, what can do with regard to pushing it forward in the development, we're talking about five. add, depending on where and how quickly, the issue of the distribution of the manufacturing and production, which barta is focused on, but there's also

distribution. that's why we have put in the con ticontingency fund. we getof it is if something and at that point believe we need to support further distribution, that's would do asat we well. so distribute a successful vaccine. allows for large-scale manufacture and then distribution? >> right now we have put in funds that will help us get to manufacturing. that is what we are focused on in the barta element. >> okay. thank you. you very much, senator hogan. hearing,p up today's first of all i'd like to thank forwitnesses here today their cogent testimony. lot.nk we've learned a i think it gives us great insight into the president's why that significant amount of money is needed and why, even though it might not be headline, the urgency continues.

follow the like to model that was established under withdent bush and then president obama when we had an disease situation before. before i wrap up, i also want to comment about dr. frieden and dr. fauci, who spent a lot of time, both dealing with the disease and also dealing with the fear that the public had around the disease. and you did a great job, while trying to do several other jobs. so secretary burwell, do you work would have been facilitated while these two fine doctors -- the question is, who america's doctor? should we also move rapidly to confirm a surgeon general? which in no way minimizes the work that these men have operational responsibility and in many ways, acted as america's doctors, which they did a great job and we're grateful.

helpful.ld be one of the things i think, as i mentioned in my opening testimony, this is something scary to the american people. so having an additional voice that would be a voice that is a trusted doctor voice about how to think about this and how to understand it is certainly that would be helpful in ebola but it would be helpful also in things that the opioidsnt does, like and other things that are problems throughout our nation. that questionto is it would be very helpful to us. dr. frieden and dr. fauci, who did take that responsibility on, because they are physicians. did do that job. >> and they did do that job. >> but they had a lot of other trials to clinical whatever. we're going to wrap up. i just want to thank everyone in our civil service. all of our federal employees, from the administrative support all the way up to the top level, and also, of course, for our military personnel. but for our civil service, our federal employees, often trashed

and bashed, i would like to say thank you. and i think we need to this, that in a democracy, we need to be able to ise a civil service that reliable and continues to do the job. a civil can't dial up service. you can't order it on amazon.com. in every single one of the agencies, that they face sequester. faced a shutdown. just one year ago, they were told they were nonessential. we want them to risk their lives or to spend night and day trying to protect america. so i think we need to respect them, and i think the way we making surespect is that they have the resources to do the job that they were. cautions us, when we make unnecessary travel federalions, our government doesn't -- we're not talking here about taking a lavish trip to an exotic foreign

do.tal, like many of us this is really on the job. so i want to say thank you. thank every single one of them. we need to do our job so they to do theirey need job. thank you very much. [applause] this, thankon to you. we've heard today that the 60mittee has also received written submissions from 116 organizations that will be made the hearing record. if there are no further questions, senators may submit for theal questions committee's official record. we ask the agencies not to take usual 30 days. we ask the agencies to respond in two weeks. the reason why is this committee thising to be moving on request. and the senators have a right to have their questions answered. could make sure any additional questions are -- i, workinglby and

under theessman hal, guidance of our leadership, intend to be moving on the requests but also our responsibilities for fiscal 2015 for which we need to do our job that others can get on with theirs. having said that, the committee stands recessed, subject to the call of the chair. and i thank everyone very much. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> president obama is scheduled

to return from his week long overseas trip tomorrow. he has made stops in china, burma, and australia, where world leaders are currently meeting at the g 20 summit. of theussed the role united states in the asia-pacific region. excerpt from his room arts. his remarks. we expanded our partnership with citizens as they wanted to bolster there democracies.

we showed a whether it was a hurricane or a typhoon, we were there to show up. andere there in good times bad, and you could count on the united states of america. now there have been times when people have been skeptical about this rebalance. they are wondering whether america has the staying power to sustain it. there are events around the world that demands our attention. world's only superpower, the united states, has responsibilities of that we gladly embrace. internationaln community to stop the terrorist group isis. we are dealing with the terrorist while dealing with ebola. and we are also facing aggression by russia after the

the civilian plane mh 317. share the determination of your nation for justice and accountability. so yes, we have a range of responsibilities. that is the deal. it is a burden that we gladly shoulder. of thesein each international efforts, some of our partners are allies and friends in this region, including australia. not of these challenges are engaging in from this region, it helps us to strengthen our involvement in this region. asia-pacific the region doing more with us throughout the world. >> we will have the president's

ech tomorrow afternoon on c-span. cam2015 c-span student video conference is underway. all it middle and high school students are invited to create a five-minute video theme on the federal government and eu. you can focus on how the legislative, executive, and judicial branches has helped to you and your community. for more information, go to studentcam.org. discussion on fiscal policy in the next congress. there are discussions on numerous topics posted by the concord coalition. >> we are going to get started

now. just so you guys know, the microphones are not going to are justify us, they for c-span2 record. we will try to speak up so you can all hear us. everyone for coming today for an opportunity for fiscal reform in the next congress. i will be moderating this panel today. i just wanted to take a quick second to thank congressman creating staff for this event and i want to thank the house budget committee for allowing us to use this room this afternoon. us on ato put sustainable debt path and reinvigorate our struggling economy. 2011 debt ceiling crisis through the recession of 2013, we have failed to see a

grand bargain. the deficit has fallen since its peak in 2009 and washington is ared in gridlock, there is fiscal outlook that remains as challenging as ever. as soon as 2015, deficits are expected to rise, again approaching $1 trillion i the end of the decade. will not be a challenge, but hopefully an opportunity to create more impactful spending policies. for those of you who want to take up the mantle, know that the concord coalition and others like us are here to assist you. we have a great panel here today, and we have some potential solutions and what they might look like. we have the senior policy director of the responsible

budgetary organization. spent three months on a supercommittee. ist we have steve bell who the executive director of economic policy at the group, andpolicy then we have bob bixby, executive director of the concord coalition. he proposed a comprehensive bipartisan solution to address the nation's fiscal challenges. with that i will pose of the first question and then we will open it up to the audience. the first question is what do you see are the major opportunities that lawmakers can take advantage for the economy? thank you for the concorde

coalition and for organizing this event. it has been mentioned that i experiencential failing to achieve a grand bargain. the concept of the grand bargain it was relatively straightforward and it was a concept that was pretty broadly agreed to. there was broad agreement as to what this agreement should look like. both sides would have to agree to cap's that would restrict growth on both defense and nondefense, and democrats would have to agree to perform at the entitlement programs. republicans would have to accept reform that would raise changes, andx code they would use the money to reduce rates and simplify the code and promote growth.

both sides would agree to give the economy some space to grow. so the formulation was ready simple. entitlement more form -- entitlement reform, tax reform, and giving the economy time to grow. unfortunately, that is not where we ended up. and a speaker boehner president obama tried to negotiate one of these grand bargains in 2011, we ended up with theories of caps on defense and nondefense spending. they we ended up with some revenue, not from tax reform but raising rates at the top 1%. gotas less revenue and it in different ways, and then we let the sequester hit. in said of going for the entitlements we win back to the defense and nondefense. this puts us in a situation where we did not get the grand

bargain, but we did get substantial debt reduction. andst entirely in the short medium term. we were able to meet stabilization for our debts in the last couple of years. big chunk out of the grand bargain, and i don't want to declare it dead right here and right now, but over the next two years, we are going to go back to this grand argan table and try to try it again. we may be moving in the opposite direction. right now before the end of the year, we will deal with the tax will renewnd then we them, and the way we deal with that will probably increase the deficit and move it in the wrong direction. by the end of march, we will have sustainable growth rate that will cut the interest rate,

so if we want to avoid that, it will cut the deficit. these will actually take us backwards and in race some of the progress that we have already made. but there are also opportunities to move forward. these are called many bargains. i consider these many bargains on tax reform and health care. there is good news on that front. on the health reform side, there is actually an agreement from the tri-community -- the tri-committee that we need to take the current sustainable growth rate and replace it with something that actually rewards physicians based on value of care. there is broad agreement and a plea -- a piece of legislation that chairman widen supports, and this would take the original

plan and replace it. on the tax side there is also some good news. if you look at the talking points after the election and try to find what the president of the republican had in common, there was not much. there is agreement on both sides that we need to get rid of some of the tax breaks in the corporate tax code and use of that money to make our corporate tax code a little more competitive to read because we have so many loopholes and other breaks in the tax code, we are not raising very much revenue. frankly, we are not internationally competitive. if you look at the framework that the resident -- that the there is put together, a lot of overlap. there is good compromise there. so the problem is the easy part. it is agreeing on the goodies.

we wanted to give the positions a better formula and make our companies more competitive, but doing so we run the risk of increasing the deficit. we think it should be paid for but in a way that moves the ball forward on health reform and tax reform. you that picked up the packet when you came in, it was just released and we put it in a plan that is called the prep land. this plan would assume that we go with the permanent replacement of the sgr that has --n discussed and expired expire thed it would tax extenders for two years and show how to pay for it. so we are actually rewarding quality of care and not quantity of care. this takes place by looking at new payment models and getting rid of payment disparities and

in sending providers to provide more quality. the other third of the offsets, from beneficiaries. right now there is a crazy quilt system within a medicare cost and they all by additional wraparound coverage, propose replacing that so that everyone would have the same deductible, about $600, give everybody an out-of-pocket limit, and medicare beneficiaries would be able to control their health care costs and they would have more protection against catastrophic risks. overall, we have done analysis and we have found the cost sharing would decline out-of-pocket costs, and it would also save medicare money. there are more details in the plan. finally, the tax extenders. we can't keep dealing with these tactics can -- these tax

extenders two years at a time. what we propose is a fast-track hot process -- a fast-track to get it moving, we know the pieces and we know what we need to do to lower the rates and reduce the deficit. we got to get moving and we do not want to be stuck in this game where nobody wants to go first. we also came up with a package that would come up with a two-year extender as we work for corporate or vote individual tax reform. this package would not raise anybody's tax rates, and would but it any tax break, would increase compliance with the current tax code. first it would just collect the taxes that people already oh, and secondly close the most

egregious loopholes in order to avoid people getting away with pain less taxes. that would buy enough time for us to offer the comprehensive tax form and decide how to reduce reform so that we could get a roof -- a reform to tax code. this is an excellent step forward, but it would not solve our deck -- our debt situation and it would not be a grand plan, but it would be a step forward. this is an opportunity that i do not think we should mess. i'll he have one minute left, and i do think there. the highway trust fund, which expires in may. there is a disparity as to how much we are raising on the gas tax and how much we are spending on highways.

for those of you who get this joke, we are running out of pensions to smooth. doing thisep forever. we have to come up with a permanent solution. their art hans of ideas out there that we would be happy to discuss. finally, the social security disability trust fund will run out of money in 2016. when that happens, there will be a 20% across-the-board cut that would affect everybody. i don't think it would be politically easy, and i think there would be a missed opportunity. there is so much room to improve this program, so even though this next year is going to be the year of the grand bargain, we still have an opportunity to deal with the health care reform, tax reform, and dealing with more important issues like highway trust fund and social security issues.

thank you, everyone. my name is steve, and i work for the bipartisan policy center. i will probably offend everyone here because we truly are bipartisan. we have talked to everyone from tom daschle to trent lott to olivia snow -- olympia snowe. about 1981 through 1986, i was on the staff budget committee. you have -- or you had the opportunity if you picked it up, a chance to look at this chart. this is not a joke. this is reality. you might remember when the late got on from pennsylvania

the floor of the united states what thed outlined hillary clinton health plan would look like. and everyone said that was crazy and you can't do that. them did notst of realize, we were already doing this. budget the way that the and appropriations process works now. it is not with any particular probably --i saved say 90% of the budget members and their staff do not know how the budget process works. about 80% of the house in the last four electorate cycles, and almost as many in the senate, and none of this is intuitive. we had two or three of us that

in 86 and i, i left left it to my friend bill hoagland, and i blame most of this on him. [laughter] that veryabout a plan as people have had. , like 3.0,e a plan because one and two were torpedoed. but the plan has to be something that deals with the complexity of how you get things done in the senate and the house. therefore come out with recommendations to change the budget process itself. when the budget for started after the 1974 budget reform and

impoundment control act, it was a leadership committee in the house. the leaders in the house picked -- just like they always do -- on urals committee, -- on your rules committee, individuals. because double chairman he was the chairman of appropriation and chairman of the budget. that lasted one year. the jealousies, that you would imagine, happened. committeethe budget becoming really a committee you get stuck on if you really -- unless you are the cpa, you really did not want to be on this committee. so we believe the composition of the budget committees should change. it should go back to becoming

leadership appointed committees. this mess, very few people have a dog in the fight. in the the committees senate, for example, are not involved in the budget process. we start, we put a budget together in february and it will get reviewed in april, and there is about 25 people in the united states senate, half members, have staff that know what we are doing. we bring it to the floor, and we say, what good boys we are, we would like you to do this. and then they say, what is this? that is a legitimate question. is to putound this senior members of some of the

authorizing committees and at least one member of the senate and the house appropriations committee's on the new budget committee. this is so way they can go back and talk to their membership as it is being formed, saying that this is what they want to do in the jurisdiction of our committee, what you guys think? in -- buy-inly by to an exceptionally complex situation. think composition that we -- composition we think is extremely important. the next important thing is to 1985, i and the rest of the staff were compelled a document.

let's talk about these across-the-board cuts. here are the things that it does not do. it does not prioritize programs. it says at the f-16 is just as important to the future as the f 35. no rational person in the pentagon would tell you that. it says that the money that we as effective as money that we give on a bilateral basis. we know that that is not true.

but we know that they are all cut equally across-the-board. that is a nice way of not managing. it is a stupid way of managing. it has led us to the situation where i can say that even though she said this in a private meeting last week, former ambassador michele flournoy, who is one of the authors of the preliminary report on the under theanel, said, " 2016 sequester cap's that are under current law, the united states of america will not be able to create a strategic defense land." -- plan." many in the audience were surprised by that. the moderator asked, d still mean that -- do you still mean

that? she said i absolutely mean that. a republican absolutely agreed. we are hearing from very smart people that we are cutting back on all sorts of things we ought not to be cutting back on. we are going to add an additional trillion dollars to the national debt after all of these cuts. these are the smallest programs and the slowest growing programs. when your members went out and in full faith, i am going to cut the deficit, i am going to balance the budget, i am going to make some sense of this, they did not realize that two thirds of these decisions had already been made. sequester, about 90% of these decisions had already been made before they take the

of of office. i want to conclude by talking a little bit about the debt ceiling. the reason -- i was very lucky. i got to work for a man named howard baker and a many pete dimensioning -- pete daminchi. to have onereason man have power over the debt limit and use it as a hostage. it is long past its usefulness. i believe very strongly that we should not have a debt ceiling vote in the united states house and senate. we can use the budget process to get around that. me, it is the conservative government in australia, great guys, they decided that they were going to

involve their legislature in setting a debt ceiling. so they did. for two years. and then that same conservative government said, oh no, we are not going to do this again. and they removed that particular provision allowing the us trillion parliament to set debt ceilings. the debt ceiling to me is just like monetary policy. 535 people ofwant various backgrounds and monetaryons setting policy for this country? it, at firstt blush, but you ought not to want it. so we believe in getting rid of the debt ceiling and getting rid of the sequester caps,

imprisoned -- improving the composition of the budget committees, and improving the complexity that many of you would find very interesting as you go along this year. >> thank you, steve. thell talk about some of things that he touched on, but i , i think aserate mark said at the beginning, we the made some progress from debt coming down from the astronomical heights that it was at in the last couple of years. it provided a sense of relief, and people thought, naturally, we can do it to other things. still a need for a long-term fiscal outlook to be addressed. we are still on and o unsustainable path.

the debt will start going up again fairly soon. so we really don't have a mission accomplished situation. it is time to maybe do what we can. i agree that there probably is not a grand bargain on the horizon anytime soon. grand reconstructed bargainer. but it is probably not going to happen in the next two years. time inpent a lot of my iowa and in new hampshire, not running for anything, that trying to raise the profile of the fiscal issues for the presidential campaigns, because i do think that a budget of the next president is going to be very important in that regard. mean that we not should be giving up on anything happening here in the next two years.

some opportunities to address these fiscal issues, maybe not grant bargaining, but there is a way to do some things in a bipartisan way to could -- way to help that could clear a to workthese parties together and perhaps build some public trust. perhaps washington can work and get some things done. trust fund is a good example of something i think -- that thehe two two sides could work together on. a the same time, there is ansensus that we should have viable infrastructure in this country and that the current revenue stream is not enough to pay for the expected expenditures.

so it is a fairly straightforward problem in that regard. it should be something that we should get a longer range agreement on, one that you don't have the constant threat of projects being's shutdown -- being shutdown of people losing their jobs. there is another deadline coming up and we have another opportunity to address that and hopefully both parties are getting close to an agreement on that. have two other things that i would like to spend more time talking about. one is the debt limit, to pick on, and steve left off the other is social security system. two that get are

little bit more into the longer-term outlook. we have other shorter-term things that have to pass through funding for next year. that comes up pretty quickly. idea toendorse mark's have them paid for. i would just are from scratch and let them all go and only extend those that are paid for. i think that is a good opportunity to really scrap the tax code by letting these things expire and see what could be enacted in the light of day. those two other issues that have a little bit longer-term connotation. social security disability, think about this. people tend to think that social security is a problem way off in the future.

bankrupt fund will go in the 20 30's, why need to worry about it now? thing, the program is running a cash deficit. social security is paying out more than it is taking in right now. that situation will continue to get worse. portion, thatlity is programmed -- not programmed, but projected to -- run dry by the fall of 2016. interesting timing! [laughter] what would happen in the fall of 2016 if there wasn't any action? that is not going to happen. nobody wants that to happen.

some piece of legislation affecting social security is going to pass in congress before that. the question is, is it going to cannother punt too kick the out the road shifting money from one trust fund to another, or could it be an opportunity to look at some rotter reforms that would not -- some broader reforms that would be improved. remember, it is a leading indicator here. running toason it is the shortfall is the demographics. it is an early indicator going off for the full system. it would make sense in that context to look at a little bit broader of a picture. one of the things about social security reform is that something will say it should not be considered as part of the

grand bargain. and we can do that. there is opportunity to do that. that is one thing, it is dicey when you get into social security but talk about dicey, i mean, disability benefits, right before the election. i don't think so. so that is an opportunity. the other one i will mention is the debt limit. i feel like steve about the debt limit. i have been advocating balanced budget and debt reduction for 22 years. not as long as you, steve, but long enough. so i take a backseat to nobody on the idea of controlling debt. i think that there should be a mechanism in place to control debt. i don't think the current debt limit is the best way to do it. i think, for a couple of

reasons, for one, the number it self is arbitrary. it is not linked to any particular economic goal, which it should be the debt to gdp ratio. the number, the actual figure is not that important. it is where it is going as a percentage of gdp. so i would like to see a debt limit, if we could link it to gdp. i think that the penalties for breaching the debt limit should be tied to the policies that produce the debt. so if you are exceeding some targeted level of debt, the penalty should not be to default on the government obligation and endanger the credit worthiness of the united states. why don't we do something that affects those policies? if it has to happen automatically like sequestration

or taxes, tax expenditures, if you can do that in some way, that would make the debt limit -- i want some sort of mechanism that would be effective. i do not think -- the problem is it is a trigger that cannot be pulled. ultimately we have found nobody is really willing, thank god, to default on the debt. it is not clear it is an effective deterrent going forward. it has been used in the past to get things done. but i really think, agree with steve that time may have passed for that. i'm not sure it is going to be effective going forward because people are sick of the act of defaulting on the debt, threatening to default on the debt and it plays into part of the frustration the public has as i hear in new hampshire from

people who wish things could work in washington. so i hope we can find a more effective debt limit and use the opportunity, whether the debt limit or the highway trust fund, if we can use the next couple of years as a way to set up, to make progress, and maybe set up things so that next time around, mark and steve and i will not be failures in our attempt to bring across a bigger deal. >> i want to mention one more thing. october 1 next year, mary ryan was a partial relief of the sequestration. ending, and was

starting in fiscal year 2016, that sequestration comes back. there is an opportunity to replace some of those across the board short term cuts with some sensible reform. >> all right. thank you for your insight on that. i guess we will open it up to questions from the audience if anyone has them. c-span had a mic they wanted to use. did anyone have any questions? >> i noticed in a footnote you will have a more detailed description of the fast track process? do you have a preview? >> we are working on -- there are many ways to write fast track. we're not going to say this is the one. we are trying to get a sense of what kind of has the most a viability. we should have something out the next month or so.

>> a comment and a question, i guess. gio did a report earlier in september, warning about the long-term situation. when the administration released its deficit numbers, the treasury secretary and omd director were mind reading, as it was, and said that they solved the deficit problem. the debt is still an issue. i don't know if you have comments on that. i have a follow-up question. what do say to the paul krugman's of the world to say solved?lem is

>> a friend of mine, when he was nominated to be secretary of the treasury, my old boss introduced him to the finance committee. he knows numbers very well and he is very smart. i think he is reciting the company line. i say that with great respect for him. i think he is repeating the company line. no intelligent person can look at the probable path of our debt with 10,000 to 11,000 people a day retiring and going on medicare. and that number increasing and say we are on a sustainable path. >> it is a situation where the numbers are mostly right. but the context is missing. one group says we have cut the deficit in half. that is true. we almost cut it 65% during its peak, but we cut it after

raising it 800% in the recession. we need some context. yes, we have stabilized the share of gdp the next few years, but at a record high level we saw during world war ii. i think there is context that you need. i think the administration is just wrong on this. something that is bothersome is folks were saying don't worry about the short-term deficit. the real problem is the long-term. and they were right when they were saying that. we should not have been worried about the trillion dollar deficit in a recession. now the problem is the long-term deficit and those same folks are bragging about the short-term deficit. it is on a pretty unsustainable trajectory than before. >> the economy has been recovering, which is a policy that whatever you think of why it is doing it or whether the administration has good policy, the economy has been recovering.

so it is a fairly normal recovery. the deficit, when i say fairly normal recovery, i mean the deficit is coming back down. it is really that trajectory going forward and that is the demographics and that makes it difficult to talk about because it does involve popular programs like social security and medicare, which will get more expensive because there are more beneficiaries, even if growth stabilize, it will be a very expensive growth in these programs because the number of beneficiaries because then you have to think if spending has gone on autopilot, do we need to look at a way of raising revenue? what are the historic trends looking like? and so politically, that leads to a discussion neither republicans or democrats want to have.

so really a lot of this is really demographically different when you look at the future. those are the things we need to get at long-term. >> the question i want to ask, you have sequestration that goes into effect october 1. and then we have these mandatory caps on spending the next eight years. my membership administers a low income housing programs, and mark you did a great job on that. and even sequestration aside, just when the caps on domestic spending, we face de facto sequestration in terms of budget allocation.

the only way we're going to get more spending is if congress and the administration are willing to be honest and deal with the side of the budget where they can really address the growing cause and that is entitlement and bringing new ever knew -- bringing in new revenue from tax reform. it just seems like domestic discretionary programs are going to be squeezed and national defense will be threatened. this is a box that is just -- this is unsustainable. how do we get out of this? >> i agree absolutely it is unsustainable. here's the problem. and i think bob put it well. 1.3 trillion dollars. now we are at $450 billion. isn't that great? ok. we were at 17.7. now we are at 19.

we are going to be at 100%, depending whose numbers you want to use, 100% of debt to gdp in the lifetimes of every person except for a couple of us in this room. what has happened since the birth of almost everyone in this room, are the health programs. 1964 medicare. medicaid. other things like that. our inability to make the changes that countries like sweden -- we think of them as socials, and that they don't have any discipline -- things sweden has done, norway has done and other countries have done, we are not willing to do. they actually took money from beneficiaries making 100 corona kroner and they say next month

you are getting 95. we can't say you're getting $100, you're supposed to get $103. you have to think about the lunacy of that. what we are also doing is this -- i will close with this. there is a famous guy at john s hopkins university. he does immensely important cancer research. when the sequester first hit, he was asked to comment on that. here is what he said. three years from now, somebody's mother named sadie is going to die of cancer. and it is a cancer we are working on right now. and that we probably could either cure or put into remission, if we did not have the sequester. he is not a republican.

he is not a democrat. when someone tells you we are not going to be able to defend national defense interests, and another person tells you people are going to die that don't need to die, because of the way we are handling the federal budget, you need to pay attention. i'm a grand bargainer. i am the only one. s. are all grand bargainer' we all agree it is unlikely. the fact we agree it is unlikely is depressing to me. >> chris fisher, when congress very came close on sgr this last year, there was concern that the value-based reforms were inefficient and that you are doing a permanent repeal and

something that only holds down the program and only paying for it for 10 years. when we switched to the one-year fix, there was a complaint that now we are going to have to pay for the 11th year. how is this is an opportunity for long-term fixes if you're talking about permanent repeal of something you only have to pay for for 10 years? >> good question. let me start with the it-committee bill, because is an excellent starting point. there are areas where we can better promote value. there are areas, i'm not going to pick on anyone, there are types of physicians we could pay less. so i would personally go further. it is a good starting point. the problem is we do not have a plan to pay for it. now the growth rate has helped slow health care cost. it has not worked to keep physician cost down. it has actually increased utilization. what it has done is it has

forced politicians almost every year to replace one year of cuts with 10 years of reform. sometimes they are bad, sometimes they are good. but they are pretty helpful. rather than paying for one year of cuts with 10 years of reforms, paying for 10 years by itself is way better. what we're doing now is we have $25 billion increases and we do not get it back until the middle. that is number one. paying for 10 years over 10 years is better than one year over 10 years. i would hope what we look at our permanent payments. there is an incredible amount of work we can do. both with provider incentive and beneficiary incentive to make everybody better at controlling health care cost growth.

that is going to end up with a reduction within the decade and over the long run it can help with health care spending in a way that is better than the current sgr formula. >> i think we have time for one or two more questions. >> so it seems like a lot of people in this room you think you can solve the problems. the numbers are there. obviously there is going to kind of be room on the edges. it is now that smart people can't come to together and fix it. it is a political problem. mark, you talks about using some of these short-term solutions to build goodwill and to get people started on coming up with political solutions. can you give an example of what you envision that would look like? what is the first step?

>> it is an excellent question. a lot of decks are reshuffling right now, particularly in the senate. everyone is still trying to pa figure out how they are going to play right now. so i could not tell you for sure the first step. if i had to pick one, i would say an agreement to move forward on taxes. right now the president says he wants tax reform. none of them agreed to do it. i think them agreeing, that is how it happened in 1986. i think that it is small. it is just a branch. it does not solve our problems, but it is an important first step. >> if i was going to give one piece of advice to the president of the united states, and he does not want to hear it, but i'm going to say it anyway, it would be this -- when you

produce your budget for next year, make it a budget that balances within three years. balances within three years. there are people to the left and the right of me who would say the old man has gone out of his mind. ok. >> i would not say that, steve. not out loud! [laughter] >> mind reading. >> but as a practical political matter, getting deficits down to 18% of gdp moves know when, one, other than the wall street journal and the financial times, i have not seen that on the front page of any newspaper. they look at something called the balanced budget. if i were the president, i would bite the bullitt that need to be bitten. i would make recommendations to

increase revenues. at some point you have to realize you don't have enough money to pay for the promises. i would cut programs and make recommendations to change programs over time that would lead, as mark said, to a balanced budget. the only way we were able to do this in 1986 was because ronald reagan said to his people, i don't care about the rest of this stuff. i want a tax bill passed. i have seen personally the letter he wrote to bob dole saying this is what we need in tax reform. the only way we got a balanced budget in 1997, 1998, was because bill clinton listened to a guy named bob rubin. he had a lot of market sense. he said, mr. president, nobody cares about interest rates or markets. but it is going to eat us alive if we do not do it.

credit, oversolute many months of painful negotiation, of which i have some scar tissue still, we came to an agreement that yielded a balanced budget. people remember two things about bill clinton. one i will not mention. [laughter] but the other one is a balanced budget. so if i were jack lewis or somebody like that and i wanted to get a grand bargain, i would not wait for 535 people to get together. i would say this is the way i'm going out. it is going to cost this much money, 19.9% of gdp. we're going to do it with the highway trust fund, medicare, medicaid, and he would get the same reaction bill clinton got from mrs. clinton and patrick moynihan, which is what in the hell are you doing when he

signed the welfare reform bill and the balanced budget bill. if you don't have somebody, if you do not have the guy or gal that is going to put their political standing on the line, you can't expect people -- what does it say in the bible? who will charge to the uncertain trumpet? you have to have a certain trumpet, somebody to say we have a balanced budget. what do you got? >> i know what i would like. i would like a budget resolution. a nice, old-fashioned budget resolution that the house and senate pass and negotiate and then, you know, pass a joint resolution. concurrent resolution.

>> we don't have joint resolutions. >> but that would set the discretionary level spending -- then i would go through the traditional appropriations process and actually pass the appropriations bills. and in that budget r esolution you could set targets for tax reform, or maybe some health care reform, something like that. and you can make some assumptions about highway spending. you really could deal with a lot of these problems, or at least set the groundwork for dealing it. maybe even something about the debt limit into the budget resolution. that would really be nice, if i could get -- and of course the president is not involved in that. maybe if steve gets his wish, congress would work with that in the budget resolution.

boy, it is not that everything would be solved, it could be widely ignored. this happens. but i think that would be a real good thing to try to get a lot of the stuff in place. >> all right. it looks like we are just about out of time. i want to thank everyone for coming and let's thank our panelists for talking to us about these important issues. [applause] on the handouts outside is my contact information, so if you have any additional questions, you can shoot me an e-mail and we hope you found the discussion informative and for those of you who think you are bosses would be interested in tackling these challenges, don't hesitate to give us a call. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this week, three new members were sworn into the house of representatives. jersey,orcross of new and dave brat of virginia. afterne special elections congressman resigned, and this allowed them to take their seat ahead of the junior session. >> will the >> will the representatives elect raise their right hand.

do you solemnly swear you will defend the constitution of the united states and bear true faith and allegiance and do you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of which you are about to about to enter so help you god? , congratulations. you are now members of the congress. [applause] [cheers and applause]

[gavel pounding] >> without objection, the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate and welcome our new colleague, congressman donald norcross. let me tell you -- [applause] you will all learn to love donald norcross the way i have. he comes from a union background and he is a fighter. he always fights for the little guy. and he also is bipartisan. he wants to work with the republican side to get legislation passed as he did in the state, as he did in the

state senate and he has the reputation in the state senate where he chaired one of the committees of actually passing legislation. >> and would the house please be in order. the gentleman may proceed. >> and so i just want you to get to know him well. as i said, you will learn to love him. he will be a great congressman and you will learn over the next few years how effective he can be. congratulations again, donald. thank you. [applause] i would like to yield to my colleague from new jersey. >> thank you. i join in with congratulations to donald norcross. i have known donald as a state legislator and before that we worked together at a local level. donald will always put his constituents and district first. he will be a great a asset to

this congress. and i look forward to working with you, donald. congratulations. [applause] >> good evening. and thank you very much, speaker, leader pelosi, congressman sloan and certainly my colleagues from new jersey. the young man who is standing next to me is my grandson, donald iii, who did an excellent job. [applause] and the special person in my life that keeps my life in order, my lovely wife, andrea, up there with my daughter, corey, my son, gregory, i son, donald junior, and his wife and my granddaughter, natalie.

great to have you here. [applause] and the one person who is truly the leader of my house is my mother, carol. hey, ma! [applause] and many friends, family, supporters from new jersey including my three brothers, george, john, and philip and my , extended brother robert. , good to have you here. to my extended family in labor who i worked closely with and support hes and volunteers who worked with us over the past 10 months, many thanks. life always brings us some twists and turns and you never know where you are going to be. i grew up in the protection as an electrician and look where we are now, a member of the house. [applause] >> this is truly the american dream. and i'm proud to be a part of

it. i look forward to working with all of my colleagues on behalf of this great nation and the people who live in it. thank you very much. [applause] >> without objection, the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. colleagues, alma adams, representative adams has served our area in north carolina general assembly in excess of two decades. in raleigh, she is known as the legislative lady with the hat. mr. chairman and mr. speaker, i'm pleased to present to you and to my colleague colleagues

the legislative lady with the hat, alma adams from north carolina. [applause] and mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from the fourth district, david price. >> mr. speaker, i thank the dean of our delegation, howard coble for yielding and i want to add to his words of introduction for our new colleague, alma adams , elected to fill the unexpired term of mel watt who as we all know has taken the leadership of the federal housing finance agency. this is the 12th district of north carolina. alma adams was born in high point, north carolina. attended college at north carolina a and t university. she took her doctoral degree, phd from ohio state university and became a teacher. she had a 40-year career as a professor at bennett college in north carolina. her introduction to --

>> the gentleman would suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman may resume. >> alma adams' career began on the greensboro school board. she was appointed to general assembly in 1994 and then was elected in her own right four successive terms. she has had a distinguished term of service in our general assembly. known for her unceasing desire to improve the lives of women and children and families her issues include domestic violence, teenage pregnancy, affordable healthcare, public education. she chaired the legislative black caucus. she also chaired the bipartisan women's legislative caucus. alma adams, my colleagues, comes to us very, very well equipped

to be a productive and constructive and cooperative member of this body. it is my honor and pleasure to introduce her to you tonight, alma adams! [applause] >> congratulations. >> thank you, mr. speaker, congressman coble and congressman price. as we all know, journey to congress is not made alone and i could not have made it here without my faith, my family and my friends. i want to take a moment to give special thanks to my mother who could not be here today, to my children my children, billy and janelle, my son in law and my four grandchildren one is on , floor with me tonight. to my siblings and everyone who

made the trip to share in this momentous occasion with me. i stand here on the shoulders of the fearless women who shattered the glass ceiling by coming to congress and representing our country with pride, tenacity and integrity. and it is with great honor that i stand before you tonight as the 100th woman in the 113th congress. [applause] the women who have served before me have proven that when women succeed we all succeed. , as i traveled across the 12th congressional district, i heard the calls for us to work together to create jobs, invest in education and to be a voice for the working men and women struggling to make the ends meet. and i'm answering their calls by pledging to work with the members of the north carolina delegation and each and every member of this chamber.

to the people of the 12th congressional district, 10 months of no representation stops now. i'm here. [applause] i'm here and i'm rolling up my sleeves and i'm getting to work. mr. speaker, i yield back to you. >> all right. >> all right. [applause] >> without objection, the gentleman from virginia mr. goodlatt is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i would like to welcome the newest member of the house of representatives from virginia, dr. dave brat of glen

allen, virginia to the chamber. [applause] >> dave is joining this body as a new member representing the 7th district of virginia. over the past year he has talked with his friends and neighbors about the challenges facing our nation and what congress can do to help grow our economy and help the private sector create jobs. dave is uniquely positioned to work on issues related to american jobs and the economy. with an undergraduate degree in business administration and a p.h.d. in economics his background in economic policy will help this body deal with the most pressing issues of the day. for the past 18 years dave has been a faculty member at randolph macon college where he served as the chair of the department of economics. dave is also a strong family man and with his wife laura has two children.

mr. speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome dave to the united states house of representatives. joining us today are fellow members the virginia delegation who welcome you and look forward to working with you. i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott for his , remarks. welcome, congressman brad to , the people's house and to the virginia delegation. our delegation has a long history of working together. our former long time dean senator john warner set the manner for working together. while we may not always agree on every issue we will always try , to work together for what is best for virgini nation. it is the virginia way. dave will be replacing majority leader eric cantor and at end of the congress our delegation will lose two of its more senior members, frank wolf and jim moran. with their departure, our delegation's clout may wane a bit but will be reinvigorated by new members committed to working together for the commonwealth. mr. speaker dave comes to , congress after a career as an

economics professor. he has been appointed to state boards and commissioned by several virginia governors including the joint advisory board of economists. i know he will put these experiences to good use. i welcome dave and his family to congress and look forward to working with him on issues critical to the richmond region and the entire commonwealth of virginia. mr. speaker i yield the balance , of our time to our newest colleague, the gentleman from virginia, mr. brett. [applause] >> mr. speaker, thank you very much. thank you to my new colleagues and thank you to the people of virginia's 7th district who entrusted me with the honor of serving as their representative

and many of them are with us tonight in the gallery. thank you for coming. we are proud that the 7th district is the home of the father of the constitution james madison and the voice of the revolution, patrick henry. it has been a long road and very few gave me a chance when the journey began. i want to take my wife, laura, and my children, jonathan and sophia, for believing in me and i want to thank god as this would not have been possible without his assistance along the way. throughout my campaign as , president reagan said i tried , to appeal to people's best hopes and not their worst fears. i have strived to elevate the dialogue and focus on solutions especially on the economic , issues facing our country. that is how i will approach the weighty responsibility with which i have been entrusted. thank you all, god bless you all, and may god continue to bless this great nation. mr. speaker i yield back balance , of my time. thank you all. [applause]

>> the house and senate back in session for one more week before taking thanksgiving break. joining us to talk about that is susan for riccio, the chief congressional correspondent for the "washtington examiner." let's start off in the senate and the plan to take up a bill on tuesday on the keystone xl pipeline. six hours of debate scheduled for that vote. that is mary landrieu's bill, the democrat from louisiana. why are they taking this up now and how does it tie into her reelection campaign and the runoff? >> right, there's a battle right now between two sitting lawmakers. one is in the house. in the senate, we have mary

landrieu, the democrat. they had an election on november 4th, but there is not a prevailing candidate with 50% of the vote. there has to be a runoff election. that is scheduled for 6th. december in the interim, each lawmaker is trying to show voters what kind of impact or influence they have on capitol hill. the best way to do that for either of them is to push a vote on the keystone xl project, which is essentially a pipeline for the oil sands of alberta canada that will eventually extend all the way to the gulf coast where there are oil refineries of cores in louisiana . it promises job growth, a boost to the economy, and louisiana is a big oil-producing, oil refining state. both lawmakers want to look like they're the ones who are going to bring this keystone xl project to life. today in the house, there was a vote on the keystone xl project.

they have art he had several votes on this in the republican-led house of representatives. they voted overwhelmingly, mostly with republican support to greenlight the keystone xl , project, which president obama has put on hold, awaiting further analysis for safety and environmental impacts. in the senate next week we are , going to see the same thing happen. this time with a bill sponsored by mary landrieu, the democrat. the outcome there is slightly less certain because the senate is still governed by democrats. they hold the gavel until the end of the year. it is unclear right now whether they will get 60 votes needed to pass keystone. there have been convicting reports. some say they are a vote shy of that. i think it's possible that it will pass. the problem there for keystone proponents is president obama has said that he's not ready to greenlight this project for a variety of reasons.

so whether it will ever end up law is still hugely up in the air. what this is mostly about is a political battle over the seat in louisiana, which of course is very important to both parties. democrats want to hang onto that seat and republicans are hoping to pick up another seat to add to their new majority. that will start in january. so, it's an interesting vote that brings together both politics and policy in the more exciting of the two votes will be next week in the senate. >> as you mentioned, her rival in that election has been spearheading this in the house and he was successful. >> he was. he has promoted his ability, or his desire to have an impact on capitol hill throughout his campaign and he tried to show senator landrieu is someone who is ineffective, even though she was chairwoman of the energy committee in the senate.

it's a tough position to be in for a democrat from louisiana because democrats often push for green energy jobs. louisiana is an oil state. mary landrieu has been walking the fine line politically throughout her career here in congress and she's also from a state that is considered a red state but does elect democrats. she is a bit of an endangered species up here as it is. right now she is down double , digits in the latest polls. it is a real tough uphill battle for her right now to hold onto her seat and for cassidy, today's vote is another feather in his cap as how he is gaining on her politically. >> susan, let's turn now to another vote we will see the on tuesday, which is on the nsa surveillance program. being poised to take

up the usa freedom act. what will this bill do and how likely is it to pass? interesting piece of legislation with an uncertain future. there are many people who support it. you have republicans and democrats behind this. and bulk collection of data by the government, which has been so controversial. of auld turn it into more targeted-surveillance program with extra safeguards in place to protect the public from unwarranted surveillance by the federal government. there are people who oppose the bill because they fear it may make it too difficult for our intelligence community to prevent and know about domestic terrorism. in the senate, there are a lot of people who support this legislation. whether it would and up going to the house before the end of the congress is unknown. i think people say that the house will pick it up because

there are so many proponents over in the house as well on both sides of the aisle. of the similaron legislation is a much more watered-down version, has fewer that proponents of stopping the boca data collections feel are necessary. it is not the same bill in the house of senate and there would have to be a a unification of those pieces of legislation. there is not a lot of time for congress to work on this. they have to bring these up from scratch if that happens. but there is definitely momentum. it came up a little bit by surprise. i don't think people were expecting majority leader reid to bring it to the floor but he did unexpectedly. there are advocates on both

sides, the house and the senate to get this done by the end of , the year that people will be closely watching. >> president obamacare says he will be pushing for immigration and changes there and he could take executive action as early as next week. you tweeted about speaker boehner's response to that, saying that all the options are on the table for fighting executive action but no government shutdown. if the president did take action on immigration, what do you think congress might take? >> someone to to include a provision in the spending bill that would strip funding for executive action. a move like that might get democrats upset in the senate. democrats who run that chamber may not want to pass a bill like that. i know republican leaders want to avoid the gridlock we saw in october 2013 over the health ll and government

funding which led to a 16-day government shutdown. both in the house and the senate republican leaders are saying no , to that option. in some ways that limits what , they can do. they have been talking about taking the president to court over this. it is a much more protracted exercise but they are facing a dilemma right now on how they want to handle this. there is a huge outstanding question on when exactly the president will an act the government funding bill that the congress will take up said expires. if they wait until they pass something that may buy time to deal with this issue. the president is weighing whether to act next week or wait until later in december, which would still fulfill the promise to take action before the end of the year. you can follow susan via twitter. washington examiner

website. thank you for joining us. his weekly address, president obama discusses the affordable care act's new open enrollment period which began today. u.s. representative brad wenstrup discusses the republican legislative priorities for the lame-duck session and the 114th congress. >> hi, everybody. over the past year, more than 10 million americans have gained the financial security and peace of mind that comes with health insurance. more than seven million people enrolled in affordable coverage by visiting healthcare.gov, or going to the marketplace in their state. on average, they're paying just $82 a month for coverage. for a lot of people, that's less than a cell phone bill or a cable bill. insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage just because you have a preexisting condition, and they now have to cover free preventive care like checkups and mammograms.

if you missed your chance to get covered last year, here's the good news. starting november 15th, today, you can go online or call 1-800-318-2596 and get covered for 2015. and we've spent the last year improving and upgrading healthcare.gov to make it faster and easier to use. if you already buy insurance through the online marketplace, now is the time to take a look at some new options for next year. you might be able to save more money, or find a plan that fits your family's needs even better than the one you've got now. if you haven't signed up for insurance yet, this is your chance. odds are, you'll qualify for tax credits to help you afford it. but this window won't stay open forever. you only have three months to shop for plans, so it's worth starting right away. and it might make a big difference for your family's bottom line.

last year, i got an email from a woman named amy williams, in augusta, georgia. she and her husband are self-employed in the trucking business. for years, they paid about $1,200 a month for their health insurance. then they checked out healthcare.gov. they found a plan with coverage they liked, and it was way less expensive. she says that they've saved around $13,000 on their premiums this year alone. stories like amy's are why we fought so hard to pass the affordable care act. to help more families breathe a little easier. in part because this law is working, health care prices have grown at their slowest rate in nearly 50 years. and this year, insurance premiums for families who are covered through an employer grew at a rate tied for the lowest on record. so spread the word. tell your friends and family members to get covered. talk to folks in your church or your classroom. tell them to take a few minutes to check out healthcare.gov,

cuidadodesalud.gov, or call 1-800-318-2596 -- it can make a big difference in their lives. let them know that it's easy, it's affordable, and that they have just three months, starting today, november 15th, to sign up. together, we can make sure that even more of america gets covered in the year ahead. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> good morning, i'm dr. brad wenstrup, and i have the honor of representing ohio's second congressional district. in the days since the election, republicans have begun to make good on our vow to honor your trust by focusing first on jobs and the economy. on friday, the house voted to approve the keystone xl pipeline, which will help lower energy costs and get people back to work. we ask president obama and senate democrats to finally give this project the green light that the american people have been waiting for. we'll also work to pass the hire more heroes act, which will encourage businesses large and small to hire america's veterans

the very americans to which we , owe our security and freedom. we'll take on obamacare and we'll propose that congress -- not the bureaucrats -- has the final say on all new major regulations. this is just a start on getting some important things done in the months ahead. now, after the election, the president may have said "i hear you," but by the looks of things, it's just the opposite. on monday, he proposed a new set of rules to regulate -- of all things -- the internet, one of the few places innovation has thrived, even in a struggling economy. then he agreed with the chinese government on rules that continue his misguided crusade against affordable, reliable energy. in this economy, we need relief from the epa's grip, not more heavy-handed mandates that take away american jobs and squeeze middle-class families. the president also continues to raise the possibility of taking unilateral action on executive amnesty. we've warned him that such action would make it that much harder to pass immigration

reform and find common ground. sadly, there's even more. we've now come to learn that one of obamacare's architects said the law passed because americans were "too stupid to know" what was happening. this is the same arrogance we've seen time and time again from this administration and its allies. this is insulting to all of us. they say one thing and do another. they spend money we don't have with little to show for it but more debt and broken promises. and they stay off course even when hardworking people are stuck earning less and paying more for just about everything. americans deserve far better. you deserve a government that doesn't just "hear you," but actually listens to you and puts your priorities first -- that focuses on securing more jobs and a better future for our children. that's what you can expect from the new republican majority. thank you for listening, and god bless the united states of america. >> "the communicators is next

with columbia university law professor tim wu. that is followed by supreme court oral arguments in a case dealing with the separation of powers that exist between congress and the president. later, a recent veterans conference that was hosted by the american veterans center in washington dc. >> if you have heard or used the term net neutrality, you can praise or curse our guest this week on "the communicators," professor tim wu. when and how did you come up with that term? 2001, i wasback in sitting around playing with some and broadband discrimination, net neutrality, i put thnt