million more people. that requires more choices -- hard choices. i saw an ad today encouraging congress to repeal demonstrations under the affordable care act. they took a -- the advocates of the affordable care act to be a lot of flak for the cuts in medicare. they were genuinely hard choices. people opposed those choices that represented real lawmaking. >> i'm going to hope to get the congressman to weigh in when he wants to. >> i'm the only one in congress here. >> so is in terms of just following up on that directly, you know, in terms of things that i would do differently or things that i would add to this that aren't here, one of them >> has to do with the debt ceiling. i agree completely with harry that i would just get rid of the debt ceiling. and whatever we think about action forcing mechanisms and whether they're a good thing, playing russian roulette with with the u.s. economy is not a

good action-forcing mechanism i think what they're doing here is a step in the right direction. but i would go all the way and just get rid of the debt ceiling. the second thing i would do, which goes a little further than they are going here, is i like the idea of not having term limits for budget committee members. i would go further i have suggested elsewhere making what are now the budget committees, committees on national priorities and have them include the chairs and ranking members in the congress. i think it is actually a good thing if what are now the budget committees will be setting priorities for the congress, then they ought to include the people who have the most stake in that. those are the chairs and ranking members of the committees. the third thing that is not addressed here ask and might be destined that is not directly addressed here and might be addressed on the commission on budget concepts i don't see any , mention of tax expenditures

here. and i think focusing on tax expenditures and the transparent -- transparency of tax expenditures we can do things , for the tax code. nobody knows we have done it. whereas spending is very transparent. i would likes to the see that addressed more directly. i did want to the take you up on your offer to say something about baselines. because i'm going to do something that may just be telling of the time that i spent at cbo. which is defend baselines. but the things that are said here may be true, which is, there may be some tendency for baselines to sort of the drive spending up. baseline serves a use purpose. -- a useful purpose. that is for answering the question what are reactually -- what are we actually doing in terms of our ability to finance current policy. many of the same people want to get rid of baselines also i think would say if we froze the defense budget in nominal terms

from this term to next year, we would have less defense capability this year than last year. that to me is the purpose of the baseline. is saying how much would it cost , us to continue to do the same things we are doing now? in that sense baselines are a , useful concept. they are not unique to the congress and to the federal government. this is a standard thing to do in budgeting. they asked question, how much is it going to cost us next year to continue doing the things we're doing right now. >> ok. so baseline is as-is. no comments on baselines for you? >> no, i agree with you. to say we're not going to adjust the baseline for inflation is to not use the most quick live -- the most economically meaningful way of measuring what current services are. >> do we have mikes for questions and answer? i'm going to go ahead and force you to answer something. then we will open it up for q&a. >> i would like to thank everybody for being here.

speaking on behalf of the staff i would concur with dr. price. this is going to be -- this is a serious effort, as you say. i suspect it will be a permanent effort speaking as a rank and file person in congress basically. there is a lot of energy behind this. and a lot of interest to get it done. that, this is a discussion draft. i appreciate everyone's feedback. there may be some in rank and file. regarding the limits of s and appointments. the budget committee didn't exist before the budget act of 1974. i am a true budgeteers. and i am the committee for six years.

i intend to say. -- intend to stay. and not at the appointment of another committee. not only get rid of the term limits but have a budget committee sans appointments. i don't know if that will go far. but i think that would -- remember, the appointments were there to make sure that the budget committee, this new creature didn't get too out of hand? >> the appointments made by the rules committee and ways and means. >> and appropriations. >> so, you know, but definitely with -- appreciate your comments on getting rid of term limits. >> on debt ceiling and deadlines generally. once i forget congress is a , reflection of you. everyone sat here and talked about congress in the third person. but we are a reflection of the country. guess what, we're human. and because we're human, we react to deadlines just like each of you do in your academic professional career. your point, are a good thing.

with regard to the debt ceiling, i don't look at it as holding hostage. i don't look at it as reckless. -- i look at it as forcing things to the table. perhaps we wouldn't need a debt ceiling if we were a reserve -- if we were to the world's reserve currency. because we can print money at the leaste are ugliest at the world dance. get away and i think a debt with a lot more than others do. and i think a debt ceiling -- i love the ideas and reforms that are in here. and with a bias getting spending getdesk and with regard to thes against getting spending down and you're feeling we will not address tax expenditures, confiscations of people's property, i would say when you look at the debt ceiling, it is near vertical.

i would love to see your numbers. i disagree with you that you can canpeople enough -- yet he tax people enough to stabilize the debt for the next couple of years, not ultimately. in fact, i believe you can confiscate 100% of the value people produce in goods and services and at a point you are still not going to be able to pay off the debt or get it down to a reasonable level. a congressman's perspective, that's how we are coming at this. not from the bias of one political ideology over another. >> are there other questions people want to jump in right now? i see a hand back there. yes, you. and introduce yourself, please. i am a student in the area. i have a quick question. i wanted to jump in to response to what the congressman just

said. i deeply respect and appreciate all your service to the american people, but i take a slight offense with the comparison of this budget deadline in comparison with normal budget deadlines. the idea that we are human, it sounds like an excuse for such an important thing as was mentioned in the beginning. this is one of the most important things that congress does. i was wondering if the panelists could talk about the political reality of increasing the number of discretionary categories. i don't appreciate that so much of the spending is outside of the purview of the budget process. increasing it just adds to a process that doesn't get done. >> i remember when i was just a student, i even knew about

discretionary spending. >> with regard to the number of discretionary bills, there's that's one thing to keep in mind too. we need to step outside the box and think through how we structure these decisions. i think the deadlines are good. the debt ceiling represents an inflection point that forces people, both out in the country and representatives in congress, to make these tough decisions. as long as they are made in a transparent way, that is a good thing. we need more of that kind of stuff. basically we need more conflict in the budget process. i think. but it is important how that conflict is arrived at. it needs to be open and transparent so people can see what their representatives are doing, what they are advocating for, and how they are voting on things. then they can weigh in on the back end and say, yes, we love congressman x because he voted for y. or we really don't like him and we don't think he should come

-- should come back. congress does not give them that option, in part because they are done not demanding it. it is not just congress's fault. i would completely agree with that. and there are a lot of good proposals that help increase transparency in the process that can help achieve that kind of debate. until we have that debate, none of this stuff matters. it's not going to get anywhere because congress will keep responding to the signals people are sending them, which is to not take these tough decisions. >> i think there is one thing we should point out that is a direct response to your question. people may not know this in here. this would establish a commission to recommend converting mandatory spending programs to discretionary programs. and so, you can say whatever you like about that idea. of course, we do not know which programs, whether that is medicare, medicaid, social security. we would wait for the commission. but if you want conflict in the budget process, that will get it for you. you have to debate every year

what the level of spending is going to be for medicare, medicaid or social security. you will have your wish. >> one other thing. you speak to a capacity issue. this definitely gets you conflict. it's been done once before for the wrongreasons. -- wrong reasons. that was at the turn of the 20th century. but the appropriations committee doesn't need responsibility for every discretionary bill. we may not even need an appropriations committee. there is nothing magical that the appropriators appropriate and authorizers authorized. at the turn of the 20th century, the senate got rid of the committee and gave it to the reauthorization committees. i'm not sure if that's the best way forward or not. these are the things we need to think through when we try to design a system that can speak to the problems we address. >> i used to work for a member of the appropriations committee. so i would like to authorize the committee. [laughter] >> you would like to authorize as well? >> what a funny joke, by the way.

[laughter] >> please, go on. it is worth backing up and saying why are more resources flowing through mandatory spending and tax expenditures? one reason is congress has decided years ago to establish programs that do that. i get a little bit annoyed when i see pie charts in 1955 and ago 2013 and safe mandatory spending has really grown. we passed medicare and medicaid in 1965. that is what is going on. there are some mandatory programs that could be discretionary. there are discretionary programs that could probably be mandatory. congressman just funds than year-to-year on whatever is needed. worth figuring out if there's a way to rationalize

that, but it's the reason you are seeing more spending, more and more programs go to the mandatory side. congress has enacted discretionary spending caps that are too low. the money finds a way. one way is if you say we want more money for medical research, well, there is not just enough spending that money under the spending caps to do that. we have to make it mandatory to see that money go to institutions like nih. if you have caps that don't reflect national needs and you have caps on mandatory spending the make a harder, there is always tax breaks. you see congress doing this anyway. again, this is a reflection of the american people to the extent that people have an aversion to spending but they want to see things done. tax breaks are a way to divide government resources and

particular activities and claim to not be increasing spending. i don't think there is a functional difference between whether a government subsidy is handed out via spending programs or tax breaks. the main concern with tax breaks is they are skewed towards those at the top due to the nature of the tax code. there is nothing inherently wrong where they make sense. but phil is right. they get a lot less scrutiny and are done with less transparency than spending programs. wayuld be nervous about a were the only way for congress responded with more tax breaks. >> stewart butler and i will be publishing a picture -- paper shortly about how to get a compromise on this. but also would not go unchecked as it does now unless there is proactive effort to do something where you have to consider the budget, look at the long-term budget, taken affirmative vote to approve or things are and

regularly go back and check at the track is one congress approves of. congress would have its own trajectory instead of having it go. we would also include tax expenditures, meeting exemptions, exclusions, and that are $1 trillion worth of lost revenue because they are built into the tax code and are more like spending programs. i'm not sure we have all the details figured out but it builds up a project that was done here were a number of people came up with this idea to take more ownership of that portion of the budget. >> is there another question? right there. my name is sister rachelle friedman. i feel like whenever we talk about budget there is one big blooming thing we do not acknowledge. there is a lot of very well-funded, big efforts in this country and a whole group of people that believe we need a smaller government.

therefore we have a sense that any -- this group loves it when he will take a no new tax pledge. i will not raise taxes. for many of us that work in the low income community, we know the safety net's are so critical to people in our nation that are really hurting. me thato say it grieves a lot of these well-funded efforts are making real headway into our government and into people's minds. even when i look at people who voted for our president-elect. a lot of the people voted against their own best self interests. and fed into the smaller government concept. but we need government to do some things that charities can't , many of themople cannot do for themselves. i would appreciate any comments or feedback.

>> i think that is such an important point so often when we have these about budget we divorce them from the actual people and the actual things that we're talking about. i think that this is what it meant to my opening comment. but we are having a conversation that this audience understands, that's for well-funded groups can influence the process to the greatest extent. when the american people don't understand what is going on here. if the presentation is instead here is my idea to cut social , security and medicare and safety net programs, i think the american people view that very differently than come here is my presentation on how to reduce the long-term force by spending automatic cuts. but they are functionally the same conversation, it is just want the american people understand and the other one they don't. and i think whenever we can make the budget conversation about

real people, that is that is where it should be. even when we are talking about process, even when this gets arcane, the more it is about real people and to go to the point about that a lot of us are low tax and no tax. right now we are the fifth-largest country among investor countries according to the imf. some of the ones below us are things like hong kong and singapore which are not , comparable anyway. our 30 year fiscal gap is 1.7% of gdp. if we reduce the annual budget deficit by 1.7% of gdp if we did that with tax increases, and you don't have to, but if you did, our taxes would be the 6th largest out of the he 35th advanced economies that the imf looks at. not to say that's not going to be a meaningful change in tax

burdens, but it is simply not true that we can't have social security and medicare. >> look, i think what concerns me is i don't think we do this on the spending side or all on , the tax side. i think it will take both. i think everybody knows that. what concerns me is that we don't want to have a process that allows one of two really bad outcomes. you can have low taxes and high spending, that is a bad outcome. and you can have the opposite. the trouble is we need to match our spending and our taxes. what the budget process is about is saying to people, if we want to have these programs, and many of us do, then we have to be willing to pay the taxes to support them. and if we are not willing to pay the taxes to support them, then

we have to accept less government. and what the budget process has allowed to happen is a divergence in getting that unsustainable thing. that is what this exercise is about, trying to force that choice. people have different takes about whether they want to have a smaller government, larger -- bigger government higher taxes, but we have to find a way to make that decision. >> just to kind of concurrent that. connecting us to people is incredibly important but people want social security and medicare, and they also don't want a huge debt, or huge taxes. the question is, how do you solve all those put together? i think the argument, if i understood it there, is probably a little misleading because it -- to stabilize the debt where it is today is twice on average what the averages as a share of the economy. we agreed that revenues could get you there at some point. i agree.

they would have to keep going up to keep up with public health care. >> i don't need to educate that that should be the solution. i agree, you can make more progress on the health care side. repealing the affordable care act would be the wrong direction given how health care costs are growing. even if you did it entirely on the tax side, which i don't think you have to do, there is no need to dismantle them. >> i think we are all saying that you want a budget process where those choices are actually made. >> i would say you need that to be connected to what decisions you are actually making, not to disconnect one piece of this stat. would you like more or less debt? sure, less. how do you get there? on the question of how much debt reduction to do, when to do it, what the appropriate level of

debt to gdp is, these are questions that economists disagree on, and there are reasonable arguments out there that a slower adjustment from its current path is actually the right course. the former cbo director did a paper on just this point. other economists disagree, but i think that makes it for the -- makes sense for the political system to hash out. when you ask people if they want to cut social security and medicare to reduce the deficit, and less you are one of the wealthiest americans, i think you say no. >> question back there and it will make one more comment on that. we are switching from what we thought was going to be more of a democratic white house to a republican white house, one of the things you often see is people are doing for -- arguing for different debt trajectories depending on which policies will get us there. a lot of people said it was ok to have a higher debt level as long as it will come from more spending. they may not be sympathetic to that debt trajectory if it comes

from tax that in ice first of. -- tax debts and vice versa. this sort of hypocrisy is not above us. it is across the board. everyone loves increasing the debt when it is for their favorite programs. we have an expert who wants to weigh in. jim. i'm sorry i wanted to let jim -- >> i have a loud voice. >> there are cameras everywhere. >> just a few technical issues on the proposal. on the process locality -- pro cyclicality there are a number , of ways that we would address that. first of all, we would retain procedures for low growth. we would retain procedures for a conflict, the ability to suspend any limits. and furthermore, when we talk about everything being in play, we are not necessarily saying that any enforcement has to be across the board, some uniform

percentage. we are not precluding congress from making decisions that some programs shouldn't be proportionately addressed. we are simply saying that everything should be part of the dialogue and discussion on the budget. we shouldn't artificially pass a law and say some programs are off budget. it has an impact in capital markets. we are saying that it should be all part of the discussion. on the debt targets, i just want to emphasize the fact that by virtue of the fact that we have highlighted these debt targets, we are being neutral as to how congress gets there with the fiscal policy, with the mix of discretionary and mandatory revenue changes.

we are not prejudging that. we are simply putting in a marker that -- of that. >> hold the microphone towards her mouth. >> another thing. when we talk about the debt limit, i want to point out that part of this proposal is that as long as congress and the federal government as a whole are within the targets established by law, there is no need to raise the debt limit. it is going in the direction of what some of you have advocated. it is sort of a medium. it still leaves congress with the ability, if they wanted to change debt level up or down. this is predicated on the assumption that congress and the president agree on a trajectory,

and if they do, they shouldn't have to continually act to raise the debt limit. on the baseline, we focused on the discretionary side of the baseline, whether was realistic to assume that discretionary spending is held flat. well, the concept in laws is supposed to be current law. that is we reflect spending and revenue levels what they are in law. in a peer current law perspective, appropriations would be zero. we don't think that is realistic. it is a closer approximation of what current law is at the most recent level congress enacted. i think what is important is what we do on the mandatory side of the equation.

on the mandatory -- with respect to the baseline, because here all we are saying is that we should have parity in the baseline. you want it to reflect the likely trajectory of what will happen if you don't change policy, but you don't want to have in rules like we have now, that have separate rules for treating revenue that expires and spending. all i am saying is they ought to be treated on a comparable basis. we are simply saying that there needs to be parity. i don't think there's a really a bias in there. the last point is on the discretionary and mandatory all , we're saying is that there should be the ability to address spending to the extent that you can on a comparable basis. symmetry.

mandatory and discretionary. we don't have the symmetry with mandatories that we do now with discretionary. we are simply coming up with a device. this is similar to what gene sterley and rudy penner have talked about. developing a process where we can look at mandatories on an annual basis. it doesn't prejudge where we set that. we're not saying they have to be set here as opposed to there. we are simply saying congress should have some comparable basis to be able to look at both sides of the equation. for appropriations alumni, i might point out that in our process where many of these mandatory programs look, walk, and talk like a discretionary program, but they are mandatory because they are funded outside the limits, we would hold those harmless. we are saying, maybe those

programs should be moved to the discretionary side. we are presuming there would be an adjustment in the resources for that. the point isn't to squeeze out those priorities. you know, it's simply to put them in a box where as much as we can all funding is part of a tradeoff in the federal budget process. i have talked to much in my bosses give me a dirty look. >> we have negative time. and i'm sorry if i made you stand up and sit down. a quick question. >> i am one of the people. if we're going to think long term about the budget, 10, 20, 30 years, that's a good idea, shouldn't there be alignment between what you're talk about and where rubber hits the road, and that is where congress looks at a bill and does a cost estimate of the legislation. the 10-year window they now use, shouldn't they be asked to do maybe not the same kind of analysis in detail, but some thinking about the longer term? especially the issues that i

work on long-term care, , retirement. i was going to give example of the class act, which funded 7% of the aca, which blew up as an un-actuarially sound program. >> you'll be happy with page 23. which has a rule against long-term spending and suggest cbo look out 40 years before it does any increase in mandatory spending. so i am glad i won't have to do a 40-year estimate. but the committee is thinking along those lines. >> let me after that, as an alumnus of cbo, a, that should worry them, and b, there is a long history that the further out you go the more uncertain the estimates become. so we have to be careful we're not basing policy on bad numbers. >> i don't think cbo does that with second decade estimates on

things were it is relevant, like immigration reform. i think the aca also. they would rather do year-by-year because of this issue and do a 10-year lump score. i think it is a good approach in places where it makes sense. >> thank you to our audience, thank you to our panel and thank you to stewart and brookings. [applause] [indistinct chatter] trump getsdent-elect ready to officially nominate retired marine corps general next -- wes as the spoke about the legislation that could revenge his nomination to the post. leo shane, capitol hill bureau chief for military times, joins us to discuss the

forident-elect's pic defense secretary that mr. trump says he will officially announce on monday. this is retired general james mattis. tell us a little bit about the general and the issue with his nomination. >> this is a very popular figure in the marine corps, known for colorful language and being a warrior scholar. someone who is a respected in congress and expected not to face too much opposition. there is the problem of the national security act in place which says if you have served in the military, you have to wait seven years before your eligible to be secretary of defense. general mattis retired only a few years ago. four years whether time this comes around. he will need a special waiver to get through. there are a few lawmakers who have already raised an eyebrow about that. >> how long is that restriction been in place on a member of the military serving in a civilian role? >> this has been a loss in the

1940's. as soon as congress passed it they immediately granted a waiver for former secretary of defense marshall. passed the first original restriction was 10 years. back in the 1980's they shortened it to seven years. in this case it will be a problem and a couple more hoops for folks to jump through. senator mccain has said he fully thinkss the nomination, he is a great pic and is willing to shepherd the legislation through that will be needed to take care of this. we did your objections from senator gillibrand right after the -- jill brandt saying she has concerns that this is a civilian post, not a military post. she will put up some resistance. he will make sure the senate has to go through a normal procedure for passing legislation and not allowed unanimous consent or to sail through without conversation about why this law is here and why somebody in the

military takeover this role. >> let's go through some of those hoops you talked about. which committees with this waiver need to go through and pass in the house and senate before he is confirmed? what kind of threshold are we talking about? >> we are still trying to figure out the details because this is not something that comes up on a regular basis. this will go to the senate armed services committee. senator mccain, the chairman of that committee says he is at work trying to draft appropriate legislation and make sure this sales through as easily as possible. since it is legislation that will go through both chambers and is subject to the same cloture rules and vote totals that a normal piece of legislation would be, it is to be 60 senators to sign off on this to get it through as a post of normal nomination process where they need a simple majority. it should be a little complicated. it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

there is widespread support for him in this pic. he is a popular figure within the military, within congress. a lot of people are happy to see president-elect trump pick someone familiar with foreign policy and these issues. i imagine it is something that will take some extra paperwork. in the end not be reluctant overhea -- not be a real obstacle for him. >> they are pleased to president-elect selected general jim mattis for secretary of defense, one of the finest military officers of his generation. what has senator mccain specifically about getting the waiver through congress? >> just that he is willing to work on it. he is at work to go through this. he does not see the nomination as any sort of real concern, real obstacle. on the democratic side a few democrats have brought this up, gillibrand is dealing -- jill brandt said she is really want that with opposing nomination this ground. others say it is worth looking

at, looking into. we don't have problems with general mattis. there is a reason this is on the books and we need to take serious consideration. >> senator gillibrand of new york tweeted, "while i respect his service, i'll oppose a waiver civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of american democracy." you said you were not hearing any more than what you have heard from her about senators wanting to block this nomination. said heessman shift has has some same concerns. adam smith of the house armed services committee said he has the same concerns. they are concerns with this idea of do we have a civil you or military controlled military? no one is saying anything against general mattis at this point. he has some colorful language and some controversial positions they got him forced out of the obama administration.

he was openly fighting with them about their stance with iran. at least on the hill right now it is a theoretical discussion about military-civilian control and not so much a discussion about general mattis' credentials. >> d.c. smooth sailing as far as confirmation is concerned? -- do you see smooth sailing? >> questionable are possibly controversial nominations, this is not seem to be one of them. a lot of folks will say a lot of the right things and maybe we will see some nice scholarly conversations about what it means to have a civilian controlled military on the hill instead of attacks on general mattis' past. >> we will keep following you on litter. leo shane, we will look for your writing in the military times. militarytimes.com. thursday, the kennedy school of politics hosted a form on the 2016 presidential campaign with trump campaign

manager kellyanne conway. the form is courtesy of cnn today at 6:30 and 9:40 pm eastern here on c-span. >> newsmakers is pleased to welcome to members of congress. virginia's bob goodlatte and michigan's john conyers, who are the chairman and top democrat on the house judiciary committee and six month ago these two men joined forces to create a bipartisan legislative working group on the issues around community -- communities in the country who are experiencing issues with police force and police response, an issue so prevalent in our society the last couple of years. we will check in with them to see how their work is going along. let me introduce the reporters will be asking questions. kimbriell kelly of the washington post. jesse holland of the associated dress. both deeply involved in covering this story around policing issues.

kimbriell: since the working committee was created earlier this year do you feel the focus , has since changed, and what do you see as the limitations on that committee? >> well, thank you for the question. we are working very hard to try to promote dialogue in communities across the country to address what is a serious problem, in my perception, a growing problem, in regard to violence affecting the police and affecting people in communities. i just saw a statistic that said so far this year, police fatalities are up 12% from last year over 130 police officers killed. we also know about a number of instances around the country