. in the senate, the amendment i offered to link these programs together, for the first time land and water conservation fund, payment in lieu of taxes had a vote of 18-4. it got a significantly more pipe -- bipartisan vote than saying maybe we can come up with something called active force management. there's a betterthere is a better alternative and it is bipartisan. i want to mention several other concerns i have with respect to the budget. i don't think the budget is doing enough in the area of infrastructure. this is an opportunity to be bipartisan. we did that with programs and it doesn't do enough to make college education more affordable. in fact, on the health-care front, i'm especially troubled about the pain it will cause for those on medicare and the reductions in medicaid.

these are programs that serve people that are already walking on an economic tightrope. i consider that a mistake. i will close on upbeat note with a question about how tax reform should be built around the middle class. the amendment i offered got 73 votes. it makes things a little bit easier. if you are a parent with several children and you are struggling to get by, i am very hopeful that i am looking forward to working with you on a host of these issues. let's build on bipartisanship and we are able to do that with an amendment that says the tax reform we know is going to be a challenging debate. it will be built around tax

relief. >> congressman moore. congressman moore: thank you so much for yielding. i do want to join my other colleagues in thanking the house and the senate for calling this conference together and acknowledging all of the distinguished members of the committee. i have been on the budget committee for over four years. and i am just not accustomed. i have not become accustomed to how we, in this democracy, how we can continue to attempt to balance the budget by doubling down on a failed economic theory

of just providing more and more tax benefits to the wealthiest 1% of americans. while literally throwing the poor under the bus -- i know on a bipartisan basis, people don't have that much regard for the poor. but we are doing it to displace workers, working moms. the expense of our infrastructure. it disabled infants and children that can't work. our debt ridden students trying to take care of us in our older years. our elderly and infirmed, it's just amazing to me. 59% come from low income people from moderate income programs.

this is stuff that used to be bipartisan. and so i just think what we are doing is dangerous. it will eviscerate our safety net and drive millions more to poverty. i am grieved by the snap cuts proposed in this budget. the cut to prosperity, asking the wealthiest to provide one single time. it is just outrageous. as the chair of the federal reserve recently said, the extent of and continuing increase of inequality greatly concerns me. it is no secret the past few decades of widening the

inequality can be summed up as a significant income, stagnant living standards for the majority. it is for us to ask if it is equality of opportunity. i oppose the strict coney and budget cuts. there is one thing i want to commend the senate on. senators on a bipartisan basis including both my senators from wisconsin established a deficit neutral reserve fund to allow workers to earn paid sick leave. that is a good starting point for helping the economy and for helping working americans. suffer tremendously and average 3.5 days of pay loss. it is good for the economy and

good for our society. it is set to make agonizing choices. particularly women when they don't have six time. given the standstill we are having over health care, i think we can ill afford the compensated care. i don't think we can afford a next her $1.1 billion. let me end by saying that i think it is admirable to try to deal with our deficit. we are willing to do this at the expense of our democracy. in the first depression, we had inequality greater than it's

ever been. 2008, when we saw the greatest great recession here in our country again. again, inequality was greater than it had ever been. caution, my colleagues. i yield back. senator crapo: i want to join those that have commanded you and representative price for coming together for the first time in years have a budget. it doesn't seem to get to year two. the make the hard decisions and make no decisions in the early years were very weak ones.

we ought to start getting ourselves to year for five and six of the budget. not only have we recently got into a problem with year two, we haven't gotten to year one. we must deal with a national dad. i say that little differently. it doesn't solve that perfectly but it is down the road of addressing that difficult question. we do have a 10 year window in

this budget. interest on the national debt is the fastest-growing element of the budget. interest on the national debt will exceed all discretionary nondefense discretionary spending within five years. it will exceed our entire national defense budget within about seven or eight years. it helps people understand the urgency of the need to not only adopted budget. a mandate that we must adopt a budget to make some of these tough decisions about how we need to move forward. many of those attacking the budgets put forward by the senate and the house are attacking them because they don't raise taxes. as the old philosophy of taxing

and spending was the solution for our country and our economy. it's not. i commend chairman for not only resisting the urge to just raise taxes once again, but going even stronger and giving us the opportunity to contemplate reforming the tax code. giving the economy the opportunity to grow. you would be hard-pressed to come up with one that is more unfair, expected to comply with, and anti-competitive to our job growth in the united states. instead of defining tax reform as raising taxes. i have agree with my colleague senator wyden.

the explosive spending is driving our government and we will be able to significantly address the kinds of problems that others are bringing forward. i want to talk about a couple specifics in the budget. a couple of amendments are in the budget. to stop the congress from continuing to use fannie and freddie g fees. another to stop congress from basically robbing the crime victims fund. and using it to mask spending on other things and stopping the money from being able to be used for some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic violence and our society. i see i am running out of time

so mr. chairman, i'm going to quickly say i support the comments made by senator sessions and others that we've got to find a way to offset the sgr vote. hope we can continue to successfully address those issues. and how we deal with the funding as we move forward. the hard work and the hard decisions you have made bringing us to this point. congressman black: let me say what an honor it is to serve on this so we can begin the important work of adopting a unified budget agreement. we know the stakes are high and we can be encouraged by the

knowledge that our house and senate passed budgets already reflecting many of the same core principles. we have said today that budgets truly are a statement of our values. i am pleased that they agree on the importance of a plan that balances within 10 years. we agree that we shouldn't take more from hard-working families to fuel washington's runaway spending with another tax increase. we agreed we must offer americans a way out of regulations, mandates, and cost of obama care. we agree that budgets aren't an optional part. they are a fundamental responsibility of governing. in both parties in both chambers in the coming days, to craft this rigid agreement -- budget

agreement. as a nurse for over 40 years i'm particularly interested in discussing how our budget can lay a vision for a better way forward for health care. we know that the president's health care law is failing to live up to some of the most basic promises. i hear that in my town hall meetings across my 19 counties. with providers here in washington and in the phone calls and e-mails i receive on a daily basis. the congressional budget office says obamacare will cost our economy the equivalent of more than 2 million full-time jobs. and when it's all said and done, those same estimates tell us that 31 million americans will remain uninsured. that is why the budget agreement repeals obamacare, allowing us to start over with real reforms.

not washington bureaucrats. the unified budget document needs to maintain these provisions. if you want to offer real-world solutions that strengthen the relationship, let families keep more money in their pockets, it is stirring with a racing the damage of obama care and offering a clean -- a clean slate to work from. i'm looking forward to the important work ahead and i want to thank chairman price and chairman nancy. >> senator -- >> i appreciate your courtesy through this process.

we appreciate you being here. it's great to have another michigan person on the committee. the budget process is our opportunity to have a debate about our values and our priorities. we should ask ourselves how do we make sure every american has a fair shot to work hard and succeed. how does everybody make sure that we have a chance at what we call the american dream? the answer is clear. to make sure the budget works for the middle class. the republican budgets passed by the house and senate do not do that. we are not hearing that much today, but there is good news.

it when the president took office we were in the biggest all we had seen since the great depression. it was 15.7%. it was a very difficult and painful time. it is now 5.6%. that is a huge shift. two thirds of our yearly deficit has been eliminated. two thirds of our yearly deficit has been eliminated. the challenge for us is to make sure that every american has the opportunity to succeed in this economy. to work hard and succeed with one job, not two or three. we need one good paying job where you can raise a family and succeed. that means a middle-class budget.

that protect social security and medicare and other health care services. we're not coming out of college with more debt than it would take to buy a big house. and the cut taxes for middle-class families. these budgets keep the system rigged for the wealthy and the well-connected. these budgets don't do enough to create jobs. we know the economy will the go as far as the infrastructure will take us. that infrastructure is crumbling. by closing corporate tax loopholes and conversions that take jobs overseas, oftentimes just on paper.

and equal pay for women. it would make sure the affordable care act would continue for 16 point 4 million americans instead of having the massive tax increase that comes with getting rid of the tax credits. it would stop the cuts in medicare and medicaid. i do want to mention one other thing as chair of the agriculture nutrition enforcement committee during the 2014 farm bill. we made very tough decisions at that time. we cut over 100 different programs and authorizations. we cut billions of dollars more than was required. the only committee that did that. our ranchers and families need the uncertainty of this farm bill. thank you for not including

agriculture in the reconciliation instruction -- structure in the senate. we have different organizations led by the farm bureau and others that ask us not to include the house language in the final document. and unfortunately, if we open up the farm bill, everything has opened up. if we open up the farm bill, it will be cropped insurance and conservation as well as nutrition and rural development and other things that are absolutely critical for certainty in rural america. i look forward to working with you. i hope this final document will recognize the work that was done on a bipartisan basis. it was my pleasure to work with chairman lucas to achieve what i

think we want to do, making smart cuts, consolidating and putting in place a path for economic development. i hope that that will be recognized in the final document. compass minerals and our -- congressman moolenaar: i want to complement the chairs for their leadership and say what a privilege it is to serve on this conference committee. while our backgrounds vary, we are here in an important step towards governing the way the american people expect. it is a positive step in the right direction. there is a real possibility that both chambers of commerce will adopt a resolution for a balanced budget.

this will set the guardrails for federal spending in the coming year as well as the decade. they need to tighten their belts and balance their budget. and that is something we need to do in washington as well. this balanced budget will not raise taxes on hard-working americans and will keep the promises made to seniors. it took more than 200 years for the government to accumulate $5 trillion in debt. by 2008, it had doubled to $10 trillion. and it has skyrocketed to $18 trillion. it has been mentioned already that a child born today inherits 56,000 $250 in debt. to hundreds when he $5,000 for a family of four.

if we fail to act debt payments will crowd out spending for the bipartisan priorities of the american people. programs to protect the great lakes and funding for the roads and bridges. our debt to gdp ratio is over 90% hindering job growth and job creation. tax reform has the potential to add one million new private sector jobs. this budget calls for tax reform. they had to deal with the long and constituted federal tax code. he was fond of saying the tax code is digger than the bible with none of the good news. middle-class americans say that

it is $160 billion trying to comply with it every year. we leave middle-class families filling out the return correctly and the irs will not audit them. a better system cannot come soon enough. the federal tax code complicates plans to expand and hire new workers. it buries them and pulls their time and talent away from running their businesses. these and nations -- they are

left at a competitive disadvantage. it is time for a better tax code that is simple and fair. the federal government makes it easier for families to pay taxes. this budget addresses our country's fiscal problems in a responsible way. thank you.

>> i just completed a bipartisan markup on a contentious issue. with the result of the 22-zero bipartisan vote on a new elementary and secondary education act. we just witnessed a unanimous bipartisan result in the senate committee on foreign relations on another difficult and contentious question. the bipartisan and why chemical record of the murray negotiations. we just resolved the annoying doc fix. bipartisanship progress is possible. but not in the budget committee. this budget effort has been a

partisan ramrod. when i have said my piece here this morning, we are all done. republicans can ram their budget through. this has made the budget process ridiculous. nobody cares. virtually nobody came to our hearings and markups. appropriations now have to pass the senate by 60 votes. even the 60 vote budget point of order is meaningless. which is not surprising because none of the hard work went into this budget. they have produced a foreseeable result. a budget so bad that if it were

applied to actual appropriated accounts, i doubt even most republicans would vote for it. if republicans did a ply this budget, once the american people got a good look at its extremism and its favoritism, i suspect it would put a quick and to the republican majority. what will happen in stead is that our republican friends will ask president obama to bail them out by negotiating them out of this dreadful hole they've dug for themselves. if it weren't for the price regular families would have to pay, it would almost be worth letting republicans have two apply this budget just to educate the american people. they will say this is strong medicine, but necessary to avoid fiscal catastrophe. the deficit hawks themselves don't believe it.

there is a test that proves what i say. look at the federal benefits that help the rich and the powerful. those benefits tend to come to the tax code and almost as much revenue flows about the backdoor with loopholes and reductions than actually gets collected by the government and spent. name a special interest tax benefit reduced to address the deficit. big oil gets massive and completely unnecessary tax benefits. do we ask them to sacrifice one dime towards this terrible deficit? not one dime. hedge fund billionaires pay lower federal tax rates than truck drivers and brick masons.

do we ask them to sacrifice one dime towards this supposedly terrible deficit? not one time -- dime. do we ask the private jet set to contribute anything? not a dime. many american corporations hide revenue overseas so that they don't pay taxes. big corporations sometimes pay literally zero corporate income tax. the house just voted to add $300 million to the deficit. by bailing out the long-suffering top 0.2% for having to pay any estate tax. they can load up the defense

contractors and sometimes beyond what the military is asking for. and there is a gimmick that will allow them to raise the deficit and fast-track reconciliation bills. if people arsons here republicans need to put in a special budget gimmick to let them increase the deficit. the concern of app or eight surround wealth and power. -- deficit is at its -- evaporates around wealth and power. i hope that when we get to appropriations and actually funding the country, we will come to a more sensible middle ground.

>> senator portman is not here. senator warner is not here. senator toomey is not here. senator merkley is not here. senator johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. this is a rare moment. it shouldn't be, but it is. i take the position of the glass half-full as opposed to glass half-empty. he mentioned a number of areas of bipartisanship. that's a good thing. there are an awful lot of areas of agreement. as we pass out some handouts here the opening statement i will start looking at some

numbers. we have difficult choices and we really want to solve problems as opposed to just demagogue issues. there's a first step you have to take. it to admit you have one. our budget process is really centered around a 10 year budget window. it is a problem but it is not the problem. this congress has made promises to all kinds of americans. we can't honor all those problems. looking at the proper definition to enable america to collectively mean we have it.

it is to provide the information of the american people. we take a look at the first page of the handout here. this is the 30 year projected deficit. you see the first decade about a trillion dollars of projected deficits. that is massive. in case you are thinking this is just pie-in-the-sky and way too large, there is a range. take a look at the percentages of gdp.

you argue that these projections are still low when it comes to defense spending and other programs. you can see the ultimate fiscal scenario coming true and the debt to gdp ratio will be 224%. that is a problem. the defense spending, it is funding of the wars causing these massive deficits. historically, we are still at a pretty low rate. we need to look at the facts and figures. the last point we want to make we did pass this by unanimous consent. and some members on the democratic side. when i was looking for democrat

sponsors, we compromise. it was pretty understandable. they see the first two columns of social security medicare.

that's about $50 trillion of that $127 trillion deficit. on one page, we show where we are spending our money. we show where we are getting our income and it kind of directs our activities. i hope this budget conference adopts that amendment. we start showing american people the truth. you have to first admit we've got a problem. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman enzi. thank you, chairman price. i am very clean's to be here with the members of this committee.

the first time in many years i've had the opportunity to pass a joint senate house budget resolution that will guide spending decisions for the next fiscal year. this is an important first step. and too long we've waited to get this done. it's a basic thing we need to do in governing this country. the national debt was $14 trillion. one of the reasons i ran for the united states senate is i am the mother of a seven-year-old and a 10-year-old. i firmly believe that if we don't start taking the steps to get our fiscal house in order it's not just about my children. and what kind of we will be for them going forward.

and according to the long-term outlook, if we continue over the next 24 -- .5 years, it includes many important entitlement programs. they are not only going to become unsustainable and go bankrupt we are not going to fulfill those promises but the growth squeezing out important discretionary spending. we must address these important issues. the budget that was passed includes a number of priorities in terms of the state of new hampshire.

i think this is very important. we thought what happened to our veterans was shameful. and we gave people a private choice options of they did not have to wait in line. the obama administration wanted to shift funding saying that this wasn't being adequately used. veterans are not being informed of their rights and they are not getting the response that they should. i hope this amendment stays in this budget. both budgets make tough choices to create a fiscally responsible blueprint. to provide the best opportunity to address obamacare and don't raise taxes. by contrast, the budget was

never balanced. i voted against because it failed to address the big picture problems in terms of addressing the federal spending. i continue to be concerned about the harmful cuts to jeopardize our ability to defend the nation. i included an amendment to include funding. i hope this remains in this budget. if you look at where we are with the threat we face from isis the threats we face around the world, what we are facing the

responsibility is to protect national security. i'm glad the house took this measure as well. this doesn't address the long-term issue with sequestration. i hope we can take on the big picture problems and ensure we can defend the nation and prioritize things like medical research. today we take an important step moving forward in this conference. i hope we pass a joint budget resolution and finally bring some certainty to a budget process that has been any and but certain and has been broken for far too long. it will require leadership and courage and i appreciate the leadership from both of our chairman. working together, we can reduce waste and inefficiency.

i am glad we are doing that today. i hope going forward, we can work to ensure that not only my children but all of our children , that is not possible. that we can show this is an important first step. >> senator king. senator king: i have been a mayor and governor that did a lot of budgets. the white house submitted the budget on time this year. both houses of congress acted on time. we are a little bit late. i wanted to take a selfie. in 2013, both houses acted on time.

but when the democrats tried to start a conference, it was resisted by a handful and would not allow us to start a conference. that led to the shutdown of government. and it was only after the government had to shut down that we were able to get back to a conference table and try to find a deal. i hope you will try to find a serious deal. one of the problems people have with congress is the high blown rhetoric. to say that a budget balances when you keep all the revenue from obama can -- obamacare and repeal obama care, it's not serious. when you count all the revenue of the estate tax and vote to repeal it, it is not serious.

it is not seriously balance and demonstrates a lack of seriousness about the deficit at all. i doubt we will find a serious deal. ultimately after the government was shut down, we shut down -- sat down and chairman came up with a serious deal. each side had to give a little bit. we did not embrace the foolish sequester cuts. i hope we will find a serious deal that won't rely on the gimmicks i just described. that it would involve a form of bryan murray part two that would relieve the arbitrarily low budget caps that are hurting us. since then, we've got ebola north korean cyberattacks.

a bellicose vladimir putin. are we going to stick by a vote that was taken in august of 2011 when the world was throwing curveballs at us? if we are going to be serious about it, we have to look at tax expenditures. here is where tax expenditures are as part of the budget right now. by .1% of gdp is spent on major health issues. 4.9% is being spent on social security. 3.3 is spent on nondefense discretionary. tax expenditures, 8.1% of the gdp is being spent on tax expenditures.

but when we talk about where we will try to find savings, we ignore that part of the balance sheet. if we're going to try to find a sequester program, we ought to do it with an examination of tax expenditure. if we are going to be serious we have to. the notion in budgets that we are going repeal the affordable care act is not serious. eckstein .4 million americans? 16.4 million people? we are going to take away their health insurance? that is the combined population of wyoming, the district of columbia vermont, north dakota

alaska, south dakota delaware montana, rhode island, new hampshire, maine, hawaii idaho nebraska, west virginia. we are going to kick all of those people? we keep them and we keep 16.4 million people. it's not serious. thank you. click -- >> [indiscernible]

senator king: ok. mr. chair, i start with the premise that i think all of us share. it is serious for several reasons. in equals $120 billion a year on it and teachers and it is not counting social security debt. we haven't principal problem. children will have to repay it. it's not right, it's not ethical. we have no margin for an emergency. we have used up our slack. we cannot continue to just ignore this problem. i am in total agreement with the chair. how do we deal with it?

a serious deficit problem. three basic ways. cut expenditures, increase revenue, and grow the economy in order to create more revenue through growth in the economy. that is how we got to the balanced budget. it wasn't because of cuts or new revenues, the economy was growing in such a rate that it produced additional revenues. the problem i have with the budgets that have been passed they focus on one aspect of the problem. we've had a worldwide experience , a worldwide experiment over the past six or seven years. cutting for the solution for budget deficit. and it has been an ad jack failure. we have empirical evidence. you can look anywhere in the world and people that of tried

to cut their way out of this problem, the economy has gotten worse in the deficit itself gets worse. think cuts are part of the answer but not all the answer. there is rarely a silver bullet. there is often silver buckshot. multiple solutions. not just one solution. the idea that spending is out of control, discretionary spending right now as a percentage of gdp with the exception of the two years at the end of the 90's when we had a balanced budget are at the lowest level in 50 years. the idea it is all about -- defenses at the lowest level of percentage for gdp and 75 years. this one part of the budget is missing the big target which is

democratics and health care. it is driving the growth and the budget. it is like bobbing brazil after pearl harbor. it is a vigorous response but not aimed at the right target. they talked very specifically about tax expenditures which are now more than actual expenditures. more money leaks out of the tax code than it collects in terms of the size of the current budget. 17.4% of gdp. last summit about's budget, it was 19.2 there has to be a higher level of revenues.

not because we want to go crazy but because health care until recently has been growing at a very high rate. in the demographics of all the baby boomers about to retire. and given the demographic changes, we have to have more revenues or the entire function of the federal government will be squeezed out. take the grass out, nothing is left of defense for pilgrim or any other discretionary expenditures. experience in the last 10 years has proven that austerity is not an economic stimulant. where the g.i. bill after world war ii and the interstate highway system, both were investments in both cost money.

both require revenues in order to pay for them. and that is what build the economy we've been writing on since the 50's and 60's. in this budget, we are going to cut expenditures for r&d, education, job training. that is madness and where economic growth comes from. i agree that we've got to find a way out of this. i would love to work with you guys on this. there are ways we can do it. but you can't just put blinders on and say no more revenues when you have 10,000 people a day becoming eligible for medicare. that is an unbelievable number. i welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues on this.

it is the only part we are focused on. >> i thank you for your perseverance and leadership. we are now prepared to resolve differences for the first time in many years, have a meaningful budget. it is an important micro step. we still have a lot of work to do over the coming years. we need to put together a responsible framework that eliminates the need for budget gimmicks. we need a budget resolution to return our nation to fiscal stability.

it is the first step in restoring faith of the american people. you have an outside perspective that allows me to see the current financial situation from a unique if. people are outraged. i am outraged by the financial irresponsibility of washington on both sides of the aisle. this federal government spent $21.5 trillion doing this business. we borrowed a trillion dollars of it. that simply cannot continue. it's over $18 trillion. there isn't enough urgency terrain that in.

if business rates were to go to the 30 year average alone, we would be paying twice what we allocate for military spending and equal to what we have at the total discretionary budget. for a generation, dysfunction has created gridlock. one side wants tax increases another want spending cuts. neither one will solve the problem entirely. we cannot tax our way out of this mess and we can't cut our way out either. we have to get serious over this coming year. to get our economy growing and do the things washington can do best. the free enterprise system getting this economy going. one simple point of growth means over $3 trillion in general tax revenue. let's grow this economy.

it is anemic right now and has been for the last decade. the 30 year averages over 3.5% and we can get back to that. combined with eliminating agencies that would go a long way to setting up kids and grandkids. further, we need to restore the promise of a brighter future. to ensure that these programs will so be there for the people that need them most. they are facing bankruptcy today. right now, we have an opportunity to lead. this provides us with an open and transparent process.

i believe both the house and the senate have included important budget reforms that i wholeheartedly embrace. we need to debate those front and center. it is just the first micro step. to cut out wasteful spending allow us to balance the budget sooner, and develop a long-term debt crisis plan. merely balancing the budget is not good enough. we need to develop a long-term plan. and put our nation back on a path to fiscal responsibility. we measure our debt, the size of our government as a percentage of gdp. that makes sense when you have a benchmark with which to compare.

people want this government to work. they want washington to be functional. this process gives us an opportunity towards meeting the goals and making washington work again. we have had about six weeks to deal with six years of fiscal irresponsibility. the time to stand up and do what is right is now. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman: thank you. senator baldwin followed by senator murphy. senator baldwin: thank you, mr. chairman and chairman price. i'm proud to be serving on my second budget conference committee as a u.s. senator. the last time we were all here together in a conference room like this one i said we needed to pass a responsible budget

that invests in the middle class, strengthens our economy and takes a balanced approach to reducing the deficit without shortchanging our future. i believe that the murray-ryan budget deal didn't very best to hold true -- it it's very best the hold you to those goals -- true to those goals. the past budgets solutions before us are more partisan. they slash investments in the middle class they threaten our economic recovery and there anything but balanced. there is not a single tax expenditure or tax loophole that is closed in these budgets. millions of americans would lose the health insurance they rely upon today. under the house republican budget resolution, over 873,000 wisconsin seniors would be kicked off traditional medicare

and forced into a voucher program. almost 90,000 wisconsin seniors would pay more for prescription drugs next year because of the resolution would reopen the so-called doughnut hole. the economic recovery that every day wisconsinites have worked so hard to bring about would be threatened. in wisconsin alone, over 40,000 workers would lose access to job training and re-training programs to help them rejoin the workforce. the dream of a college degree would become that much further out of reach for 117,000 wisconsin students as more than 90 billion in pell grant funding is cut over the next decade. one thing thatb both republicans and democrats should be able to agree on is the need to pass a budget that grows our economy for the middle class instead of

reading the rules in favor of special interest and millionaires and billionaires. we should be able to find agreement that what america needs is a middle-class budget that gives everyone a fair shot to get ahead and to build a stronger future for themselves and their families. these budget proposals miss another opportunity for all of us. unfortunately, they will not help our budget -- our economy rise. most importantly, that will not help hard-working middle-class americans rise. i thank you, mr. chairman, for this opportunity. mr. chairman: thank you. senator: thank you, mr. chair. as i compare the two versions of the budget from the house and senate i was asking myself the

same question as when we deliberated. is this a budget double work for working of -- that will work for working americans or is it a budget designed for powerful special interests because there has been a lot of rhetoric on both sides of the aisle about helping the middle class and fighting for workers. a budget document puts down real numbers, real concepts in which we could see if it is just rhetoric or indeed if this is a vision for expanding and strengthening the middle class. i was totally disappointed the knee that neither of the budgets passed the test. both budgets in a parallel fashion are designed to help the powerful special interests and the best off. sony sectors -- so many parts of our community will be affected in a negative way with

this vision. our seniors will be either effected -- affected by the house version of it or the senate version of $400 million in cuts. our infrastructure is failed in both budgets. we have an infrastructure deficit. both budgets fail to address this to create good paying jobs and a strong economy in the future. this budget fails our children. it cuts headstart on the house side. and sequestration plus additional cuts on the senate side, perhaps as many as thousands of students who would have had the opportunity to get a fair start in life and will not get that. it certainly fails our children when it comes to doors of opportunity for higher education. pell grants are an essential component for our families that

are struggling. open those doors of opportunity for our children for higher education. yet, here we have it. two budgets that slash tell grants. it also fails our hungry. on the senate side, unspecified cuts that most would estimate dramatically impact the snap program. the house side was more detailed and specifying the money of cuts for the hungry. like my colleague from wisconsin, i searched for those efforts to ask sacrifice of those best off. we all understand, americans all understand programs for the best off is in the tax code. not subject to an annual appropriations process. they certainly can be identified in the budget process. yet, we see not a single dollar,

not one dollar. so, take the axe to the hungry and the seniors and the children and the consumers by trying to eviscerate the independence of the watchdogs against predatory practices so common in the financial marketplace. they axe all those but not one dollar asked of those that are best off with their programs deeply embedded in the tax code. when we went through the senate budget i gave it a failing grade for all of these factors. the house budget does no better. we sit here as a conference committee, we have a choice of choosing or -- how do i put it? the mid-distance between two failing visions or engaging in a bipartisan conversation to address the significant education deficit, the significant infrastructure deficit, to address the significant inequality in america, to address this

shortcoming in good paying jobs in america. that is the path we should take. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman: thank you. that concludes the presentations. i want to thank everybody for their participation. i want to thank the house members for their patience and participation and staying under the five minutes. some of you very substantially. i think the senators for staying under six minutes for the most part. i would mention that statements can be submitted by the close of business tomorrow for anyone that wants to add or put in a statement.a with all statements concluded this meeting of the conference committee the 2016 budget resolution is done. that's a nice gavel.

[inaudible conversations]

>> challenge the new internet rules, organizations have filed lawsuits against the fcc. tonight, we will speak with the president and ceo of one of those organizations. walter mccormick and christopher lewis. >> what we are challenging is the reclassification of internet access from being an information service to a telecommunications service regulated as a common carrier pursuant to 19th-century railroad regulation. commong carriage is a vestige of

a english law which a originally applied to railroads, trucking companies but it has been revealed for all of those industries going over 30 years ago because it proved to impose new costs on consumers. delayed deployment, slurred innovation and chilled investment. christopher: we both agree that meant neutrality protections are important, but we do disagree with the lawsuit. we have been very supportive of the rules that the fcc enacted and have become a force of law. we think that after a decade of working towards a way toto have net neutrality rules that can hold up in court, this is the strongest set of protections we have seen in the three different attempts at the agency to ensure

the internet remains open. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present the winning entries and this year's studentcam documentary competition. it is an annual competition that encourages middleton high school students to think critically about issues that affect the nation. students are asked to create a story based on the three branches and you that demonstrates how a policy has affected them or their community. destin bigby from long beach polytechnic high school in long beach, california is one of our second prize winners. his entry focused on weapon availability and background checks. >> i hate guns. >> it is the right to bear arms. >> i find them frightening.

>> if i can snap my fingers and all the guns could be gone, i don't see why not. >> when is it appropriate? what is appropriate for our citizens of the united states to carry? ♪ >> i was born in the age of suicides street justice and mass shootings all because of the second amendment. >> the constitution is beginning to show its age. destin: a voice for america's youth. nearly 20,000 people commit suicide with a gun every year. once that trigger is pulled,

there is no stopping the bullet. like so many others, my cousin committed suicide with a gun putting my family into shock and disarray. to this day, a void has been left in that can never be filled. i think any depressed kid that walks into a pondawn shop to be able to buy a gun without any kind of background check whatsoever, probably not. >> sim got a gun. he threatened suicide. we were able to intercept him prevent the suicide, take the gun away from him. get rid of the gun. get him in therapy. but, that only lasted so long. then he got another got.

>> we tried to get him a lot of help and he ended up walking into a pawn shop and buying a gun. he used that gun to kill himself. >> he evidently didn't have any problem buying the second gun even though he was already in the database, as we say, as a mentally ill person who i believe should not be able to buy a gun. destin: i live in los angeles county, the home of compton inglewood and long beach. three cities with gun violence. here in content, california, one of the most dangerous cities in the united states. to speak with the people. >> either way, there are easy ways to get around it. >> killing innocent people is totally wrong. it is not about that. that is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

>> probably seven or eight and i was playing with my friends and it was a drive-by shooting. bullets flying everywhere. it was very scary. i could have lost my life. i did not want anybody else to lose their life either. >> they call it street justice. and the end of the day, it is not justice, it is just someone losing their life over something really stupid and trivial. >> the drive-bys -- they just cower in the car. >> every year, more than 230,000 guns are stolen from those who legally purchase them. >> we ended up harming -- arming criminals. that was not the intent on why we had those guns. >> the committee is changing its view on guns. snoop dogg is leading the charge. snoop dogg: we are the ones that can help prevent gun violence as we speak as one as a

whole rap community. it should not be when somebody's affected directed to you that you do something about it.d destin: i'm here in newtown, connecticut to speak with the people and to make sure the tragedy like the one at sandy hook elementary never happens again. on december 14, 2012. six teachers and 20 elementary school students lost their lives at sandy hook elementary. i sat down with the people of newtown to hear their story. >> i'm walking around looking for his little brown head. i didn't see it. it was never a thought in your mind that anything could happen to your child. destin: she never did find his little brown ted. head. her son lost his life that day. >> i felt numb. it was survival mode at this point. two years later and it still --

i will always be credibly difficult. >> as we see more and more weapons in our society or more opportunities to get very powerful weapons, you may see the body count go up. >> the weapons that were in his hands should never have been able to reach his hands and will hopefully never reach the hands of anyone. >> limiting the size of the magazine. it would not have made any difference. it did. when he stopped to reload at one time a group of children were able to run out of the room and escape. >> his final action in the classroom which was instrumental in saving nine of his classmates ' lives. as the gun men ran out of bullets and was reloading comedy called to his friends to run.

the gunman reloaded and murdered jesse. destin: it is a shame the world lost jesse but he cannot die in vain. something must be done to make sure something like this never happens again. >> this is an absolute epidemic. when there was no response from congress, not a single legislative act passed to try to do something about this. it sends a message of quiet endorsement. destin: it is time for the legislative branch to pass stricter gun laws. our future depends on it. how many more children have to dive, mothers have to cry before something is done? quest to watch all of the winning videos and learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on student cam. tell us what you think about the

issue on facebook and twitter. >> on tomorrow morning's washington journal, a conversation on legislation that would require a vote with no amendment on a trade deal between 12 nations along the pacific ocean. the trade agreement is called the transpacific partnership. our guest is linda dempsey. colorado democratic congressman jared polis to discriminate. jennifer lawless on her book "running for office: why young americans are turned off by politics." it is every morning at 7 a.m. eastern and right now, a conversation from today's program. . here to talk about that is the director of the department of justice's office for victims of crime, joye frost. thank you very much for being here.

what is your role and mission here? guest: the office for victims of crimes really has the role of changing policies, practices and programs throughout the country, creating a more favorable climate for crime victims. so crime victims feel comfortable enough to report to law enforcement, to ask for assistance, and really not to be ashamed or embarrassed or afraid because they are crime victims. host: favorable climate -- why do you think that is necessary? guest: while we know that crime itself, but violent crime and property crime have been decreasing steadily since the 1990's, we also know that the vast majority of crime victims never reach out for help. only about 14% to 50% at the very most.

less than 50% of victims of severe violent crime report. there are a lot of different reasons for that. some people, like children, are people with severe cognitive or communication disabilities and may not be able to report. others may feel, like in the case of sexual assault victims that they might not be believed. others feel that law enforcement would not really do anything. and sadly, a lot of victims don't understand that what has happened to them is in fact a crime. host: what sort of help are these victims seeking from law enforcement and the department of justice? what can they find? guest: i think one of the most important things, not just from law enforcement, but from the community as a whole -- i cannot think -- be for every crime

victims. every victim is unique and different. there are certain characteristics. first of all like i mentioned earlier, crime victims want to be believed, whether it is law enforcement, your spouse, your parents, your roommate, your colleagues at work. people want to be believed. a want to show faith and i think law enforcement, of course, can play an important role there. a want to feel supported. -- they want to feel supported. they want to know about services available to them. and law enforcement plays a critical role, i think, in time crime victims to longer-term support. all victims want to be treated with dignity and respect. host: we are talking about national crime victims rights week. it kicked off yesterday. here is how we are going to divine -- divide the phone line.

if you are in the eastern part of the country call it we will get your calls here in just a minute. we are joined by joye frost, the rocker -- director of the department of justice office of victims of crime. what are you trying to do here? guest: what we are tried to do is raise public awareness about the issues that that face every crime victim. even if you yourself have not been a victim of crime, i would say that it is almost universally that you know someone who has been. a family member, a love one, a work colleague, a fellow student. everybody has a role. this year's theme is engaging communities and empowering victims. if we meet those basic needs that i just talked about. most victims are going to feel

supported and will be able to access services and benefits from the services. this is actually the 35th year that we have celebrated national crime victim rights week. president reagan actually designated the first national crime victims rights week. tomorrow at the national archives, we have a national crime victims rights week award ceremony that will involve the attorney general. i have to put a plug in here for this. it starts at 2:00 p.m. and runs until three -- 3:30 p.m.. it is open to the general public. you can register online at obc duckovc.gov or you can register online at the national archives.

we will love to see people in the washington dc area come. host: what do you mean by victim's wrrights? guest: back in the 1980's, crime victims had very few rights. it was actually a presidential task force in the 1980's that really outlined quite frankly the dilemma and plight of crime victims. and the way that in many instances, they were just treated as another piece of evidence. we have come a long way since then. all the states and territories have crime victims rights laws. many of them have constitutional amendments that allow victims certain rights. some of the most important ones are the right to be heard. many of them are things such as the right to be treated with dignity and with respect, the

ability or the right to seek restitution from who ever has offended against you to help cover some of the expenses associated with the crime, the right to apply for safe crime victim compensation. every state and most of the territories have safe crime victim compensation fund as well. there are other rights, but those are some of the key ones. host: what was happening in the 1980's to prompt the congress and the president to set up the office that you now run? guest: they had hearings all of the country. they listened and in some instances, the abysmal way that victims were treated and they were not believed. they do not get information back

from their cases. some of the saddest cases had families of murder victims that were completely excluded from the courtroom. this task force came forward with numerous recommendations about how to change that. some of the rights that victims need, but also some of the services and support that would benefit crime victims. host: the crime victims fund which is federal state, tribal assistance programs to receive formula grants in 2012. money was $2.8 billion. the hundred $59 million in grants from the fund to states for victim compensation as you were just talking about. an $870 million for victim assistance. if this program successful? -- is this program successful? guest: yes, absolutely. there are millions of victims served annually through the crime victims fund.

one of the thing that i hope the people watching this program understands is that this crime victims fund is composed of not a single taxpayer dollar. it is fines, policies -- penalties, and assessments against criminal offenders. it is one of the most innovative federal programs whereby criminals pay dollars into the crime victims fund. as you mentioned, it is not insubstantial. this particular year 2015, congress set the appropriations level for the crime victims fund at $2.361 billion. host: less than 2012 number? guest: 2012 was a big increase.

the states will have a considerable now -- amount of funding this year's. i don't want to talk about the dollars and statistics. i want to talk about the lifeline of services that these funds represent. you can go to any domestic violence shelter like a crisis center or children at this busy center. -- advocacy center. if you ever come into a prosecutor's office, it is almost a certainty that money from the crime victims fund is supporting their salaries. host: less talk about that in just a minute. for viewers,ovc,gov is the website. let's get to calls. eric in minneapolis. caller: i just want to say thanks to "washington journal." i love the program. i'm a first-time caller. my first time question for joyce

is that most people seem to break a law, minor or major, which turns almost the entire population into a criminal at some point. now how has this shaped the relationship between the public and law enforcement? guest: wow. that is a great question. one of the things that we are learning is that the lines between victim and offender is not as clear-cut as it used to be. you can't always just draw a clear line. i think that when you look at rates of youth violence, for example, it is actually young people between the ages of 17-24 that are most likely to be victimized, but they are also the age group that is most likely to be offenders. i do think that again the role

that law enforcement place is critical. and how they respond to victims and for that matter, to offenders can make a german does difference. my agency, the office of victims of crime is actually supporting several products -- projects including some with the international association of chiefs of police that really look at changing the culture of law enforcement said that they consider crime victims. and consider them one of their major constituents and stakeholders, which is somewhat of a departure for many and law enforcement. host: consider victims how? guest: consider them as a major constituent. in other words, it is not just about solving the case. it is about treating the victim

in such a way and understanding the particular needs of crime victims. crime victims are almost always traumatized by what has happened to them. and so they may not always, for example, be able to tell their story in a sequential way or they may remember things the day afterward. it doesn't mean that the crime victim is lying or making things up. it means that that is just the way that a typical victim is going to remember the story. educating law enforcement and for that matter, other practitioners and other people who come into contact with crime victims about their needs, about the way that they respond is incredibly important. we will go to new york. host: polycom and good morning. caller: my interest is the

increasing number of sexual crime victims. they are especially aimed at children. we have a lot of things and our tv and newspapers and everything. i think we need to take a different stance. not just about the victims -- they are the most important. i think we need to take a great look at what we are doing with the perpetrators. i do not think that this is a much of a crime as it is a sickness. i think these people need to be taken out of the general population and never to be returned. i think our government and our medical professionals need to take a look at this. i think it is a mental health thing when you have adults that are supposed to be caring for children that are abusing children. there something. i don't know if it's retroactive or if they were abused at -- as children.

i don't know what causes it because i'm not a medical professional, but i think we have got to because it is increasing daily. host: we will have joye frost jump in. guest: i agree that safety for victims is incredibly important and our criminal justice system has to focus on ensuring that reducing the re-victimization and additional victimization. there's actually a great deal of discussion and reform going on right now in the criminal justice system. we are increasingly learning that we can't just throw more and more people into prison and jail. i think it is particularly important with juvenile offenders. as the caller rightfully mentioned, some of these offenders have been victimized themselves.

that in no way justifies what they are doing but trauma impacts all of us. and i agree. i think reform of the criminal justice system is really important not just for victims, but for offenders as well. host: we're going to michigan. go ahead. you are on the air. caller: i like to know. if you are dealing with a criminal enterprise, and i'm giving a hypothetical situation that is so vast that it would even involve law enforcement the doj itself, and even foreign entities like interpol, let's say that person wants to leave

the country and go immigrate for safety reasons because his or her life is in jeopardy. say that moscow or russia or iceland. do you provide funds? i know you have the doj asset and they are estimated at $600 billion because they were created in 1984 by eric holder and christine morrissey. that is what i understand. do you think that money to victims that if you can't protect them, the oj, the fbi the u.s. marshals, etc., that you could send them overseas and let them live in a country where the other law enforcement can take over? host: ok. guest: that is a hypothetical

question and the would have to be more information. i think you may be referencing the witness protection program of the u.s. marshals service. the obc does not fund that. what i do want to point out is is that most crime and most violent crime is actually investigated and prosecuted at the state, local, and tribal levels and not at the federal level. i do know that, for example there have been some large human trafficking cases that involve international organizations. my office actually does find a grant program that provides services to human trafficking victims that reside here in the u.s.. i would say that you do not have to be a victim of a vast criminal conspiracy to have

concerns about your safety. i think about domestic violence victims for example. one of the most chilling statistics is that it is exactly at the time when a woman or a man for that matter actually leaves an abusive spouse that they are at the highest risk of being injured or killed. this is why victim services are so important. most of us it violence programs -- one of their bedrock services is safety planning, for example. host: who qualifies for the crime victims fund and the compensation part of it and how? guest: the compensation part -- i want to emphasize that we do provide funding to the states, but actually these are state crime victims compensation fund.

because of that, each state has its own rules. the federal guidelines in the state guidelines as well -- i will say that the things that are in common. the individual victim in almost all cases has to report to law enforcement and cooperate with law enforcement. beyond that, it is also the payer of last resort. if you have large medical bills the medical insurance would pay first and then you can turn to your state crime victims compensation program to pick up the additional expenses, the co-pays and so forth. all state crime victim compensation fund's do pay for medical expenses, mental health expenses funeral and burial expenses, and for some, lost income and wages. host: describe the victim

assistance program that you oversee from your perch as director. guest: we don't directly overseas -- oversee victim assistance programs. the vast majority of the money that ovc guess every year, we turn around and give directly to the state. there are two different grant programs. one goat -- goes to the state victim crime compensation programs and that supplement state funding. much more the funding goes to the state victim assistance program. each of the state with subcontract funding to local assistance services. again, that could be crisis centers or domestic violence shelters. it could be a support group for family members of homicide victims, for example. host: we are talking about victims rights. yesterday kicked off national crime victims rights week. it is an annual event and joye

frost is the director of the department of justice office for victims of crime. she is here to take questions and comments. we have divided the lines and to eastern time and mount pacific. we will go to corey and steel missouricaller: my question is, what does it help going against a crooked judge? i've tried everything possible. phone numbers i have called, i've talked to governors and i have left a president and message. i got a call back from his secretary or somebody. i got a call back from the governor's secretary. i have got numbers to call. different ways i can approach the situation. host: ok.

joye frost? guest: without knowing the specifics of the situation that you are describing what i would suggest is that you go to our website, ovc.gov. we have an e-mail called ask ov c. if you would send your question directly to ovc with more specifics, we would be glad to give you some contact us in the state of missouri. judges have ethical standards and legal standards that they have to uphold. there are ways that if you believe strongly that a judge is being unethical we can certainly direct you to some resources. host: what rights do victims have in the courtroom? mike on twitter says come "victim testimony should be rendered during trial to

establish innocence or guilt's. it should be limited to relevance to the act." guest: i'm not sure what the question is but i think maybe he might be referencing cross-examination by defense. that's when it is important to have a judge in the courtroom who understands what the limitations are. as well as a prosecutor. one of the things that -- one of the newer developments is having a victims' rights attorney for crime victims. this is really a dream for the crime victims. prosecutors, while they certainly are pushing for crime

victims, prosecutors themselves are not representing crime victims. they really represent the community. the idea behind a crime victims' rights attorney is you have your own attorney, just like an ascendant has -- like a defendant has a defense attorney that can understand what your rights are. not just in the courtroom, and most crime victims never see the inside of a courtroom. but your overall rights. there is an organization out of oregon, the national crime victims law institute, working with ovc-funded legal clinics throughout the u.s. in every state you can find attorneys that are willing to represent you. i have to put a plug in for the department of defense. one of the things they have

initiated is a special victims counsel program. initially, it was for sexual assault victims but it is my understanding that they have expanded this to victims of domestic violence and child abuse. host: in the military? guest: in the military. this means that those victims in the military have their own counsel that represents their interests. host: louisville, kentucky, barbara. good morning. caller: good morning. i am calling in reference to child protection services. host: ok. caller: i'm a victim. my grandchildren were taken from me and my daughter. my daughter is an addict. we had been fighting for her to get off her addiction. i had taken one of the children and since she was born. we went to court because my daughter was pregnant and she gave birth to a child that was addicted.

she gave birth to a child and it came out with drugs and its system. the doctor said there was not enough drugs and the system to report it. however, they took the child anyway. they called me at work and told me to come get the child. i said when i get off work i will come. before i could do that, they took the child. when we went to court, they not only took that child but they took all of the other children from me. the child protection services started to build these lying stories over and over and no one but me speak in court. everyone was in the courtroom were attorneys appointed by the judge. the judge was very biased. i have been working and trying for three years now to get my children back, my grandchildren. i am sorry.

i have gotten no results and no help whatsoever. host: ok, barbara. we will have joye frost jump in. guest: i'm so sorry for what you describe. i know that the primary importance here is the safety of the children. but i know that one of the hallmarks of child protective services is typically to try and place children with other family members as possible. i actually started my career in south texas as a child protective services worker. i'm not going to give you specific advice here. because, frankly, it sounds like what you need is legal assistance. if you are unable to find an

attorney locally, you can go to your state bar association and ask for help. there's also an organization called the national center for victims of crime that might be able to help you find an attorney. again, you can always access our website, ovc.gov. and e-mail us, askovc. we'll send you some potential resources. host: susan in florida, you are next. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm a victim of 6 violent crimes over the years, i am pushing 72 years old. people do not seem to understand it is not just our military who have ptsd. every time someone becomes a victim of a violent crime you do end up with ptsd, which is

never diagnosed. and if it is diagnosed, you are earmarked. so you try not to go into that view. i do believe that i'm sick and tired of the offender and the aggressors. either they are mentally ill they have family problems or whatever. why is it that we as a nation have so many mentally ill people and excuses for every crime committed? the victims do not have any rights. it's absolutely disgusting. no amount of money could replace my last 42 years, when i was almost murdered. no one can bring that back. i think it is unconscionable what attorneys do. i believe it is. i do not feel that we are any different from boko haram or isil, a horse of a different

cover. -- color. it is still aggression and violence. there are millions of us who try to live our lives. we never commit crimes. yet we do not have any rights. then we have to pay for all the legal fees and court costs for the assailants. i think that is extremely wrong to do. host: all right. joye frost? guest: i'm so sorry to hear about your victimization. the research shows that many victims do progress to ptsd or. severe depression. i do think that when someone is repeatedly victimized that the odds of developing ptsd are another serious emotional syndrome is certainly higher. i do think that our system is

far more balanced than it used to be. again, if you will contact us directly, we would be happy to try and find some resources for you locally. it really sounds as if you have been dealing with this victimization alone and without the kind of support that all victims need. this brings me back to our theme this year -- engaging communities and empowering victims. how you are treated makes such a difference. host: you started out saying that a lot of victims do not report what has happened to them, it is difficult to help people who have not told you they need help. so how is it that the justice department your office, is compiling statistics and asking homily victims there are, how

much money do you need and resources to help people? guest: there are two major reporting systems. one is the uniform crime reports from the fbi. actually it only collects information on crimes reported to law enforcement. there is also a national survey called the national crime victimization survey. that is conducted by the bureau of justice statistics, which is a household survey. it addresses statistics on reported in unreported crimes. but i will say that getting the precise figures for crimes is very difficult. and just because you do not report crimes does not mean there is not assistance available. for example rape crisis centers, many victims that go there for mental health counseling or support groups have never reported to law

enforcement. the statistics also show, again from the national crime victimization survey, that victims who do report to law enforcement are more likely to receive services and support. many victims have no idea where to turn in the community for assistance. host: ok. we will hear from seattle. good morning. caller: how are you? thank you for c-span. i was just curious -- i was on trial for a dui. this is one of those pre-internet things where it the cop introduced his evidence. the actual written report contained a number of details regarding evidences that i fell out of my vehicle, i was slurring speech. and there was video. the jury saw the video and it

was clear that none of the things in the written report were evidenced by my behavior in the video. i was clearly talking and thank goodness for the video. the jury saw that and throughout everything the police officer said and i was declared innocent. i believe i was victimized by that officer. what do i do in a situation like that? guest: i really cannot give you legal advice. i do not know how long ago this happened. you can certainly file a complaint with your state. again, we can provide you information on specifically where you can go. but i -- it sounds like if you want to take action, that you actually need an attorney to assist you with that. host: dennis in illinois. good morning. go ahead.

caller: good morning. i was victimized by a crime over 21 years ago by my own family. my brother's two children set me up in an evil scheme to defraud me of my freedom and assets. i hired two attorneys, one of which i knew well. his name was richard. richard was a former assistant u.s. attorney. he became an assistant state's attorney to ed in chicago illinois. subsequently, he arranged for the murders of fred -- host: whoa. you are making some accusations on national television. i'm going to leave it there and we will end the conversation with joye frost director of the office for victims of crime at

the department of justice. yesterday kicked off the annual national crime victims rights week. learn more if you go to their website, ovc.gov. >> tomorrow morning, a conversation on fast track that will require a vote on a trade deal with specific nations. the agreement is still being negotiated, the transpacific partnership. our guest is lyndon-- linda dempsey. then representative jarend polis. "washington journal" is