Transcripts For CSPAN2 Federal Budget Process Summit 20180227

We have a cspan audience, Live Streaming soap wonderful to have everybody joining us for what they think wilwethink will be at conversation. Im excited about the people weve gathered and the ideas we are going to be discussing. Welcome to the committee for responsible budget for thostherf you who do not know if they Nonpartisan Organization the board of directors or people many of whom are with us today who have run all the bigbudget institutions in washington so the federal reserve, the treasury department, omb, the Budget Committees comes of a. To try to have a realistic understanding of the budget improvements are going to be needed to improve the fiscal situation in the country and to trick yo to have in a bipartisan way it kind of understanding of how hard it is to make these traces but there are so many reasons they are necessary to keep moving the ball forward. With that said i will say it is a rough time for the budget policy this country. Nobody should be under the impression that the Fiscal Health of the country is good. It is not. Our debt relative to the economy is twice what its been on average. We are on track to bother us to be 10 trillion over the next ten years but in light of the legislation it is trillions and trillions more and i would argue that we are at the point because the economy is strong right now but that the point we are not making hard choices and we are not paying for things were acknowledging the budgetary tradeoffs and the result is the deficit is going to hit the trillion dollars next year. Weve only had that happen once before when we were in a very dangerous recession this is a time of prosperity and if things stay on track the way they do right now it could be up to 2 trillion, so suffice it to say that fiscal outcomes are very worrying. It is how we budget in this country that is so problematic. They are Government Shutdowns and default. That is not how a great nation or economy runs itself. It is not how the process is supposed to work. Luckily one of the things we try to do because when the deck is this bad and the partisanship is this bad theres a lot of things to be discouraged about that one of the things we try to do is focus on different solutions. Theres been so much work in this space of budget process that has been coming up with real answers to improve it. Ive been working with my colleagues Stuart Butler and paul poster on how to come up with ideas. Stewart went a whole round table on the process and the first panel to hear from today is a Remarkable Group called convergence brings together stakeholders from all different areas cut the kind of people who would normally be tossing food across the table at each other and fighting. And they are on many topics of the process to bring together people and Work Together for months and months to build trust, come up with shared values and principles it is an important part of the standing where we have in common it unites us than divides us even in the budget process and come up with solutions. The. There are more that we will be hearing in the second panel where my colleagues will come up with ideas to share with the group as well. It doesnt do enough to complain or identify why the problems matter so much fo but coming up with solutions is critical. Let me take a couple of minutes to talk about the budget process and where we are. One of the things i already find most remarkable is that we run this country without a budget, really regularly. No business would ever be permitted to operate that way and we surely are in a situation where its normal now that we dont have a budget place so that should be the starting point everybody realizes it recognizes the budget process of the United States is broken. There are so many things that are problematic not just that we budget jumping from one crisis to the next, but theres very little transparency in the budget. One of the things we have seen and they improve the fiscal situation situation and a lot ot comes from the entire citizenship understanding what the goal is, what the policy goals are and what you are trying to accomplish and they have to rally behind. We have little transparency people dont actually know which budget means what. The president put out a budget thats dead on arrival and the senate is doing one but somehow nothing ever passes and we are shutting the government down. There is no transparency to understand whats going on let alone the complicated things like budget baselines and how we do the counting so we need there to be more transparency and accountability so when we fail to pass budgets is an understandinthere is anunderstat responsibility lies and more intense for the deadlines and getting the funding them and also having other outcomes. There are so many gimmicks and how the budget i budget and makr head spin. We just published a paper available for anyone to pick up today. We have a great team that uncovered a different gimmicks and put it together. The problem is they are worried this will be used for ill. I do not want any Congressional Staff to bring us back to their members. This is not a howto manual, so we are trusting you these are the gimmicks we dont want to see used in the budget process. That just shows that the process has broken down at this point. Whenever you put rules in place, the subsequent years are smart. People figure out how to break them, but weve gotten to the point that they are very broken. Too many gimmicks. The budget doesnt focus on the longterm at all. Its where the problems are fiscally. It used to be the longterm. It is the medium term and getting closer every day the baby boomers are retiring and we continue not to have a growth or fiscal plan in the country but we dont budge budget and a lonm thoughtful manner so we put in place and that is true in policy as well but it is obamacare or tax cuts, you put in place a big policy and within a minute, they have a repeal to it so there is no continuity, no durability for the policies or the budget situation. That doesnt work. We are slow moving but also he wants longterm object if ways to pursue them. Finally then i would say the outcomes. The budget leads us to very poor outcomes and that is where we are on the fiscal front so you want to figure out how to change the rules and process to potentially nudge people to come out with Better Outcomes that would be desirable in all of this. So, its completely lock, not that they were thoughtful and planned this fall but completely lucky that we are getting our first annual budget process event and for those of you that come to the annual dinner you know im not good with things that are tangible. We host a dinner that approximately is held every seven years. [laughter] this is an annual budget process event youre going to start giving regularly. And so, this turned out to be great. The recommendations that have come out turned out to be perfect because we know with this new Commission Getting started in the budget bill that just passed its probably one of the only things thats going to be moving in congress this year. Its not going to be big for getting things done that it might be one of those things that sneaks up on you as people learn about the budget process they will realize how broken it is and there will be ideas that come forward and it may be something that gets moving. So it is an Incredible Opportunity and different ways to think about the kind of reform they may look at. It may just be incremental, and i shouldnt say just because some can be impressive but how do you put forth automatic resolutions so we dont have the Government Shutdown and joint budget resolution is looking at how to bring the white house and congress into the decision. There may be steps that are changed and a lot of improvements made on how we do the accounting and the budget concept and make things more transparent and enforce things anyway thats harder to get around, that would be an incredible step forward. We may look at a very big dramatic budget overhaul, something the organization looked at for years to take what we did in 1974 and replace it with a new Budget System where you start possibly with agreeing on the outcomes and get more people involved in the beginning of this multiyear budgets in place that are more durable. Theres a lot of ideas so we will see how much the system can bear that at times its hard to be optimistic that anything difficult is going to get done i think the benefit of changing how we budget is the stats dont seem so hard when you are making them, but they have a ripple effect. Its hard to figure out the revenues and spending but also so that resources are being fought in a way of achieving the goals of. We have huge challenges that could be opportunities in the country that come from trade and open borders and globalization that come from technology and Artificial Intelligence and all the things happening to pave the change faster than we have ever seen in the world. Those can be great opportunities but to make them work we have to have a government that can partner to turn those into opportunities for they are not disruptive to the economy and overall system in a way that is too hard to handle. So to bite off an even bigger piece, this really matters. The way that we budget affects how we are going to perform for decades to come. They can be a notch if people want to see those changes and we can tell you working with members on the hill there are people that want to see improvement in a system that tht allows us to flow through. I will turn you over to the first panel will be able introduce everybody you talk about the great work of the panel. I was lucky to work through them in the process not only was it hard working on all the pieces but it also did something we needed to be getting more of which is build up trust between the stakeholders to come with aa lot of opinions and i if you listen to what their ideas and objectives are the result of shared values so im excited to introduce them to come upon the stage and talk about the process and outcome. And thanks to everybody for joining us. [applause] well done everyone we are delighted you are here today. I am the president of convergence, the National Organization that works to create consensus solutions on the national consequence and actually she probably explained it better than i could i want to say she hit the high points what we have been successful at doing is gathering people with different perspectives on multiple issues to find Common Ground with people that have the collective knowledge and influence and information that if they reach a we reach an agrn really move forward, so in addition to this remarkable project led by suzanne, she will introduce the panelists and they also work in other areas may be of interest to you in the k12 education, health care, economic mobility and incarceration. We are really pleased to have hosted and organized and convened this process on this Critical National issue. I want to start by thanking the u. S. Foundation for their generous support and for helping to guide us. Its been invaluable to the process of moving the project forward. I also want to thank the foundation for helping us reach a conclusion on this project. You will hear that this group, this remarkably Diverse Group, and ive been caught already saying never before such a Diverse Group agreed on anything. But they have come together for a series of proposals to help fix the federal budget process and hope to vastly improve how the government needs to function to create a budgets every year. I think what makes the group unique is not just its political diversity, but also the fact that these are not just the normal budget wants i wants to t they are people representing real interest for affected by the dysfunction in the budget and the budget process and while they dont agree much on the merits of what it ought to look like, they are all in agreement that the budget process needs to be fixed and thats where theyve come together and powerfully to present ideas in a very timely way. The other thing that i think makes this report uniquely valuable is that we had to work really hard. It wasnt so easy to build trust, but there were real differences and concerns about whether we would create budget process reforms that might tilt one way or another to those that are concerned about the levels of spending or those that dont feel we are bringing us int into this within the needs of some concern about too much revenue, too little revenue, whatever the first if it was hard to make sure we have a process that would stay fair to all points of view and i think weve done that very successfully. And as its been mentioned already, we think this report provides a great starting point for the new joint select committee on the budget appropriations process for the e congress is setting up. Again, i think its important to know that benefit people in the group think we put out a report that is going to just be adopted in whole cloth by the congress s as a starting point and we think of the ideas presented here and the principles that underlie them are honored that we would have a good chance of having a budget process reform that can achieve widespread bipartisan support. So again i think the group does view this as a starting point and the other thing that should be obvious is no matter what else can we create, congress may have the ability to avoid it so itll take some cooperation in terms of changing its norms and how it operates to be successful but we think that this could become a beachhead across party lines and congress itself. On a personal note, i realized just last week that four years ago last month i took my first job on capitol hill for the Senate Budget committee. I worked for the share name and he worked with the ranking minority leader and for me, it was an amazing time in the process had just begun but there was so much earnestness on both sides to Work Together in such a tremendous participation in the bipartisan committee. I know a lot of people get impatient with those that are a little older calling up the house in the days of the past but h worked together on a budgt then. There was the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. They would function at the level that they did years ago and so i think underlining people can work across differences and we hope that this will be a model for others. Let me close by thanking all participants and we will welcome you later but we have a lot of participants at the table here with us today. I want to thank in particular the panelists for their appearance today and i want to recognize especially susan who is our leader and project director and others on the team, mike, pat field, the facilitat facilitator. Let me turn it over to introduce the panel. [applause] i would also like to say thank you to the initiative for supporting not just the efforts of the convergence of further long interest in the invested budget process reform and for helping make an event like this to come to pass. And thank you all for being he here. When we started this budget we didnt know where we would end up in the budget process even back then. Especially the people that we were focusing on for this dialogue. There is a little bit more than an hour to talk about the project. I want to give you a little bit of background on the via more than im going to turn the conversation over to my colleagues about the work that weve accomplished on federal Relations Administration and the association for the american universities and the executive director of the coalition for Health Funding and neil bradley is the executive Vice President at the u. S. Chamber of commerce. We are happy to take your questions. A little bit of background, the convergence project. The Diverse Group should be able to get behind him is a two and a half years we started making phone calls not quite sure who would respond when we picked up the phone. We talked to many of the suspects and on the hill with budget experience and a number of academics some of whom you will hear in the next panel that the group we wanted to hear, was a lobbyist and Government Affairs officials who work on the frontline for the battle every day. Slowly we started collecting their stories and add 20 we thought we were doing pretty good that we were up to 40, 60 and by the end we topped out at 100 individuals that we talked about the budget process with. Our initial conversations usually started like this, dont know much about the budget process or wha by which we havek about it come on in and see where it ends up. Usually the conversations in one hour and 15 minute sounded like theres a lot more at stake than i first thought. It is energy and the desire to make the situation better. And that was enough for us to get started. From those interviews county identified two dozen people to join the dialogue. The group is made up of leaders and organizations with broad influence on the hill along with a handful of other experts with deep experience in the budget process. The meetings were designed not to talk about how to fix it but stability level of trust among those who didnt necessarily know each other going in and certainly did think they had anything in common with anybody in the room. The stakeholder told us that one of the meetings one of the things she looked forward to is who she would sit next to because she was pretty sure that it wasnt random. There they were months after months delving into the process figuring out which way to turn to how far tfrom how far to go o find agreement. They listed the problems in the process that we heard in the interviews and that they were not alone in the frustration it served as the bedrock for what was to come. They are passionate in their desire for the government to work well. Making pretty good process and we were watching what was going on because when you join the convergence project, you are committed from abt 18 months or two years and as we watched the Budget Committees were doing we were a little afraid or lunch was going to because they would have to conclude before we came to conclusion so in response to that, what he did with the group is the set u of the conversation to develop a set of principles for a better budget process. In order for them to be prepared in case the Budget Committee actually started to do something that was moving forward they were prepared to comment on it if it turned out they didnt have time to generate their own ideas. Spend a littlso then a little le dialogue. In the workshop we went back to the constitution to see what it said about the budget process. And what we learned is that it doesnt say much at all. So this was a turning point for the group were they began to speak and to generate their own ideas about how to make the process work better. We looked at the role for the president and congress at a Congressional Committee structure. We looked at how the budget process handles the long term which is something that the group felt needed to be addressed. If we looked long and hard at the budget resolution and how it has developed and accomplishes and hoand how the setting spendd revenue levels might be different. We looked at the perennial pered the biannual budgeting and a beer he had other ideas that have been opposed. Its become a package of proposals for the whole group feels is solid and importantly achievable if the process look better. We are encouraged but theyve established in the joint committee a formal mechanism for exploration of the budget process and the group stands ready to help the congress. So i want to turn to the panel and combinfamilyand combine thee individuals sitting here represent over 50 years of experience working with congress on a wide range of policy issues around Higher Education and healthcare and neil bradley with deep experience working with congressional leadership and the community on just about any issue you can think. It highlights the substances of interest among the groups members as well as the hill experience. Experience. And if youre deeply committed to committing a better budget process. To get a little bit of background, matt is going to walk you through the principles that we have developed and reached a consensus on and then as we develop this proposal, ellie is going to walk you through the proposal and then round up the conversation to give you a feel for the conversations we had about the political viability of our ideas as they call us. Now im going to turn over to the people you want to hear from to talk about the results of the dialogue. That underlay the proposals. It was clear to her group that we agreed on the diagnosis of the budget process and can we all agree its very very the question was can we agree on the description and to Reach Agreement we could develop these nine principles and if you think about this is its what we believe the budget process is. This is what the appearance will look like if the prescription in the treatment worked so with that you see the principles on the screen to my side. As we went through our discussions we determined the ideal budget process should be comprehensive than what we meant by that was all the governments and Financial Resources spending, its revenues of all kinds over the short and the long term. We also agreed it should be unbiased. You should not tilt towards a specific outcome or ideology. We spent significant time on this particular principle but in some ways this principle is paramount to everything we put together. The rules go one way or the other and theres little incentive to want to engage in the process. We also believe the process should develop and establish a plan that includes clear and achievable goals for fiscal policy and budgetary decisionmaking. Should be transparent. The steps of a process should be very clear and understandable to everyone, not just policymakers are not just stakeholders but the public or the process should also be informed by objective independent nonpartisan and frankly highquality information again that is accessible to everybody just not the policyholders. Without the word inclusive coming up time and time again. The process should really allow for different points of view much like the convergence process frankly. Should include republicans perspective, democrats perspective stakeholders perspectives into perspective that is present in our society. Differing views should be discussed and debated and organized and structured way. I think maya also said durable. This is something we talked about a bit as well make up the process should be durable across the administration different congresses the political environment economic climate and proportionate to the times he lived in. Said another way the process should be durable including the challenges the country faces. You really should survive all of those. We spent a lot of time thinking about whats predictable. The process should be completed according to meaningful and achievable deadlines. We discussed this one extensively. The untimeliness and the uncertainty of the current process have many negative consequences. Think about business interest at any given time its uncertainty that really drives a lot of the problems. A sea of a lot in Higher Education depending on resources and grants coming from the federal government and will they higher graduate students . Having things that are predictable at the end of the day is important if folks. Last but not least its probably the easiest one to articulate. The process should be simple. I think of this one is in some sense the overall guiding principle. The more complicated the process the more to date the process is the opposite of some of the principles that are here. For example the process is if complicated therell be too many steps. Those are the principles. It took some negotiating but in some ways it was the easiest thing to do because i think there was a lot of Common Ground and common dollies that invents itself in a pretty straightforward way. Ramadan emerged the themes and we have also articulated in the report. Those are now on the screen before you and as we talk about these principles we asked ourselves some questions such as are their effective incentives and consequences that can be devised for new budget process . What parts of the process currently do work and how can they be strengthened and is their way to shock the system to break bad budgeting habits and change the current norms . Is the group tried to answer those questions thats when these four themes emerge. Let me go to the quickly. First elections drive outcomes. The failure of the senate on statutory deadlines and consequences like budget point of order encouraging time reaction led us to this. The one true driver is the potential outcome of the next election. We have seen his time and time again. As such we saw the importance of synchronizing the element of the budget cycle for the electoral and governing cycle to generate more timely action. Secondly credible information provided at the right time really matters. Theres a lot of good Information Available to congress and the public about the budget. The information arrives at different times from different sources and they tend to complicate and confuse considered the informant helped decisionmaking and we think there are ways to address that. Third, effective russian institutions are crucial. What are we talking about here . When everybody in this room knows is the office of management and of involvement the General Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office. Their work is extremely important to informing budget decisions. Lastly a theme that kept emerging time and time again our new norms are needed to break bad habits. Lets face it the budget process is in a deep rut because the process doesnt work more often than not its negatively affecting public perception. So our groups view is that new expect patients need to be established to help congress to be active in a timely way in ways that are achievable and thats something that they can do help create the norms we can have ideas to help with that. Those are the principles that undergird the proposals that you will hear now from emily. Thank you matt and thank you for letting me be here on behalf of the group. I hope i make you proud. Before we get the proposals i want to share a story. On the way here heard from her friend and respected colleague whos been working on the budget for long time and he says i love you but these recommendations are worthless. Thanks, that makes me feel good before i go out before. People live on cspan. Before we began begin i think we as a group have the benefit of i think at least two or three sessions of just venting about everything that we are frustrated with. We got it out of our system that at some time we came together and decided okay we have to do something. So what can we do . Before we get into the proposals i want everyone, i know you are all like me suffering them from ptsd in the budget process, just kind of keep an open mind in keep in mind the themes in the principles for which we are working. As i came to this project i was skeptical initially. As i look at it i really feel like in many ways we have a people problem not a process problem. The process can work if people wanted to the coming from the field and working with people who work in Public Health behavioral change is hard so really this is about what can we do around the margins of the process to adapt to the way that people behave rather than maybe trying to change their behavior and cannot get us to another place. I think thats where we came out with our proposal. With that preamble using the constitution as their foundation in the principle theme we developed five proposals for improving the process, improving not perfecting and the yeas are consensus. Thats really important. Again if you look at the stakeholders involved this is where we could all come to agreement on things that can make a difference. I think we all have other ideas in addition to these but this is really where the consensus was in the starting point. We discussed a lot of things. You may think well you all may have died . We really talked about a lot so i think well have an opportunity during q a if you want to talk about things that we didnt recommend, we can share more of their particular round of incentives like withholding pay for lawmakers and talk about all that. But taken together and this is really important we believe these principles are practical and they are achievable and again that they will make the process better and that was really our goal. First we have recommended what we call a budget action plan. This is really the synchronize Budget Proposal with the electoral cycle so that the congress and the president together negotiate the budget plan at the beginning of each new congress. It is passed into law signed by the president unlike budget resolutions now. But it would make decisions such as spending Discretionary Spending limits and addressing the debt ceiling for twoyear period. In many ways this is kind of what we are doing now when you look at the bipartisan budget back of 2013, 2015 and 2018. Our goal is to move back to the beginning of the process rather than the end or the middle i guess where we are now. The idea being at the outset everyone is all on the same page and we are moving forward. The numbers are the member numbers. We are not really getting these numbers and this will allow the procreations process to flow forward. As we look at the process and diagnose whats wrong the budget resolution discussion whether or not we do one or not do one, are we changing what we have that is a huge bottleneck for the appropriation process Going Forward so we tried to eliminate that. That actually was the most exciting proposal for me is this idea of producing every four years a fiscal state of the nation and the Congressional Budget Office with help from Communications Professionals would he really producing this at a point in the election cycle cycle, president ial election cycle where we can elevate the discussion about the budget and our nations finances in plain language with one source, with one set of numbers that everyone can understand. I was just talking with a colleague earlier for example the president s budget came out earlier this week paid some of the Congressional Agency are out out. Even when they are out there not all in one place and i do this for a living. So its really really hard as john q. Public are jane q. Public to get a handle on what are we spending and what is the benefit to me and maya really alluded to this in her remarks. As a Nonprofit Organization i do and annual report for their shareholders. Theres no comparable document signed for the american taxpayer to the shareholders for our nations process of the idea that this will help the disconnect for citizens so they can better understand what they are getting for their money. To reinforce the importance of longterm respect on budget decisions we recommend the government Accountability Office review the performance of federal programs that involve a longterm commitment which are defined as 10 years or more. These could include Retirement Security Health Care Taxes and revenue. This will happen every four years. That information could be included in that publication as well and really where we came on this and matt and i spent most of our time working on the appropriations on the discretionary sector ledger we go through each review all of our programs every year. There is no similar automatic look at the mandatory funding and the revenue side and left the program happens to have an expiration. The biggest ones do not so the idea here was with some type of regularity prompts lawmakers to have a conversation about the other side of our ledger that often are pretty politically charged and are openly discussed. Fourth, the proposal to get rid of the Budget Committee altogether. The talk about that or we would have the opposite direction. Wed like to strengthen the Budget Committee. We do think there is a role there and what we would propose is including the chairs and the rankings of the relevant committees ways means and finance, Armed Services and other relevant committees and have them sit on the Budget Committee. The reason we did this as we look to where the bottlenecks occurred. Appeared to us there is a disconnect between the current format between those that are crafted are not then responsible for implementing the plan. We have the appropriation ways means and finance committee to engage early on in crafting a plan and then Going Forward in carrying it out so you are creating by ens at the beginning of the process. And finally as matt noted a credible reliable information is paramount to any and all of these efforts and the budget appropriations process overall and we would like continue to support those institutions the Congressional Budget Office the joint taxation the government Accountability Office recognizing also that in many ways we just expanded their scope of work so we want to make sure we have the resources needed to carry out our charge. Those are our five proposals and neal is going to tell us more. Thank you susan. They can work, that is the good news. The reason im convinced it will work is because the process we went through and the recommendations we ended up with recognized that reform has to take place in the political process. We cannot write the best they were the radical process in the world and expect they will say thats the textbook answer and im sorry we didnt think about over the last 40 years. We will immediately enacted into law. Its not the way its going to work. So as we developed these proposals and we try to work through and anticipate the political challenges i would like to describe some of them for you and why a think the recommendations that her group has come up with rise to those political challenges. The first is that everyone immediately comes in with a bit of a buyin with what they want to see the budget reform produce. If you think about the group that we assembled company of folks who are really concerned about longterm debt and deficit. They want a process that solves that problem. Some folks were very concerned that we are not raising the revenue to support the Government Program that they care about. Conversely we had other folks who did leave the revenue wasnt a problem at all so any process designed to raise more revenue is a nonstarter from the beginning and you can go on and on again about your individual priorities and the priorities the people you either work with or know you will work with the gannon become to quickly realize that having a process that takes an outcome simply isnt politically feasible. The second part of that chill at the corollary is Everyone Wants to relitigate the last battle. We have spent a lot of time in our process with everyone not because they were trying to pick an outcome for Good Government, good budgetary reasons or in my side of the aisle more conservative republican side working to relitigate the Affordable Care act so Something Like that could never happen again. When tax reform began to happen folks who are opposed to that looking at the budget process to the length of can i make sure that tax reform bill currently working its way through congress and ultimately becoming law never happens again. If we come to the table attempting to relitigate to insure future big hurry you are not going to achieve the neutrality objectively laid out. Theres something very important about what our proposals due. They dont dictate any single outcome. Heres one of the things that is shocking to hear them say from a fiscal standpoint. They can produce the exact same fiscal problems that maya opened our discussion with the day of. Thats okay. The process we have created is designed to hold elected officials accountable for those results and at the end of the day thats what a process should do. Should clarify decisionmaking and it shouldnt but it should provide clarity about who makes what decisions and what are the consequences of those decisions. We talked to lot about something we spent many much time on. None of us were elected officials and so was easy for us as stakeholders to suggest the elected officials who should implement these reforms should impose on themselves all kinds of punishment if they fail to meet budgetary but deadlines they dont get Appropriations Bills done they dont address the longterm deficit and they dont address the Social Security crisis and all the things he can impose on them. Lets be honest. Republican or democrat elected officials are willingly going to impose on themselves some draconian measure for an outcome that they cant control in the future. Its pretty and realistic. Also by the way it runs contrary to the entire way our system works. Matt mentioned that we went back and started the comp to two should be the ultimate accountability of the constitution and the only accountability of the budget context is that the out box so what we can hope is to do is create a process that hold elected officials accountable at the ballot box. The longform Fiscal Health report by each president ial election is a look back at what the current president prior president s have done but also an opportunity where the candidates for presidency to talk about what they are going do a delay that out and be held accountable by all of us when we make our decisions in november. The twoyear budget cycle with a look that provision at the end of the twoyear congress is designed to do the exact same thing for members of congress. How much do they want to spend did they come in under budget, over budget and if they want to reform entitlement perhaps in the twoyear plan . Did they ask you away to it or did they sell us all a bill of goods that was a grand promise for something that they said was going to happen that they had no way of ever attempting to achieve. This process is designed to flush that out. One of the great criticisms and emily references as she talked about the comments of her friends was that theres an expectation the budget process reform should be incredibly complex. When you think about all the problems, the fiscal problems that we have when you think about the budget gimmicks that are currently employed that we ought to have the system that plugs every hole in the dam and prevents anyone from creating a new hole big eared tease when we set a deadline that deadline is going to be met and achieves everything we want to achieve. When you design a system like that you end up with something that maybe looks a lot like todays system which is incredibly complex and completely unworkable because budget reform is a political process. Budgeting is also a political process in the process has to allow for the Political Parties in our elected officials at any moment in time to work through their differences in the process doesnt allow them to do that you are going to end up with what we have today which is a system that isnt compatible to the problems we have and doesnt allow the political the senate the House Minority to majority the president so everything grinds to a hault. We are not going to be reliant on the process or excuse me on the process to achieve this instead we are going to set the table give everyone an invitation to the table and layout fairly rudimentary things for them to do so they continue to use take one in budgeting and then take step two and then takes that three in step or so you have a Greater Light said that they will actually follow that process. We are set up with this budget cycle and our budget plan is just that asking members of congress and the present to start by saying what are the decisions you have to make this year for this congress . You have to make decisions about how much youre going to spend on defense and nondefense Discretionary Spending. You have to make a decision if you have statutory debt limit what you are going to do without any decision about what you want to do. You want to do a major tax reform bill or do we want to tackle entitlements or create entitlements . This is a process where you make the decision and then you have the freedom to follow it through. We think that process isnt burgeoning you down with points of order and compel to resolve and penalties. One that is most likely what they are supposed to do which is to make the budget law. If we do that we can hold them accountable we think we will have a much Better Process than what we have now. We think this is achievable and doable. It doesnt ask too much of our elected officials. Simply creates a process for them to do what they all say they want to do and what we should expect of them at a minimum and for those reasons we are. Proud of this product that we have created. Thank you. We are not done. Dont go yet. We are moving onto q a and i have a few to get started and then i guess we will opened up to the crowd. I want to give you all a chance to talk about your personal experience. My first question is why did you sign on to the project . When i called each of you i was thrilled that he answered the phone. Sorry. I was thrilled that we had the conversation even more thrilled that you said yes. Im happy to start creative thought about it in two ways and thanks for asking the questions. One was on a personal level ive been working in washington for a little over 20 years. Its my own personal frustration of watching the starts and stops and wanting to see the process work. Secondly i work for a Research Universities across the country. They are the business of solving problems and bringing together people from different back runs of skill sets and knowledge and they try to find ways to solve problems. It was a natural for me to get involved in all of this in a year out is their ways we can do this bring knowledge skills and suggestions and ideas. Can we contribute something that is neal said maybe its a good starting point for these discussions. The time is now. I would say the same. For our folks in the Health Research committee they dont have a parachute. They have to budget and do the work so we hear consistently about the anxiety and the disruption in their everyday lives and trying to protect American Health and health security. From that angle and not to sound too pollyannaish but something has got to give at some point. Its hard but this kind of cant go on. Theres got to be a way to do this better. I think for myself personally i think this is my 14th budget appropriation cycle. Im just tired and i wanted to be different. So to be able to be a part of this room on people who i work with than people who i dont work with and the whole model is really exciting to me to get past the skepticism and cynicism to find solutions and that is what attracted me to the project. I think it was the opportunity to come up with something that is durable. I walked in with my wish list on the way i thought the budget process to operate and i would hope that everyone would agree with me and with the done but thats not going to happen. Too much of our politics right now with one party or the other thinking as soon as we get the power we are going to write it the way we think it should be written thats going to solve our problem. One come you cant get that to the Current System and to it wont be durable and three you are wasting a lot of time. A bit of silence while i look at questions here. While you are reviewing the notes, want to talk about things that research in universities care about different policy choices and budget issues. I was heartened when i said at the table and found out that neil was over there. Were always able to have a good discussion. Theres many other people who sat around the table, theres something about the fact that would let people are cynical about whats happening there a lot more optimists in this town so this is really helpful, i think you could see the fruits of that. The first question is how do you build a Collaborative Team . [inaudible] the budget process was a little different for convergence the when it started there is a lot of questions were talking about a process and how we will pull it together. What we try to do is give people space and time to build relationship. In that space and time we create safety so people can say things like what you say in the room doesnt leave the room. Another role was that you approach people with curiosity. He tried understand their perspective in the u. S. Questions based on the curiosity in a respectful way. We are thrilled with the first meeting and everybody got along quite well, think it was because theyre so busy complaining about the process, so many of the words to use to describe that. But that was an immediate bond that was built between people i dont think they expected when they walked in the room. It was from that base we could tackle the more difficult decisions. Then it was a matter of time. Convergence projects tend to bring people from around the country so they dont leave quite as often. Everybody was in a two and half mile radius. That helped to build relationships as well. We invited people to breakfast and had dinners. There was a social component that kept the fighting down. In the end the work that was done was really hard. The commitment of this group blows away. It was a hard legislative year. Talking about lobbyists on the hill day after day. The refills that we would hold a meeting and something would happen there be a vote on budget resolution. Our last meeting was the day the last budget deal is fine. People were jumping up and tried to take care of something but it was a commitment of the group to find agreement, ground and carry it forward. Sometimes misery loves company. You realize that you have a lot of common. I think everybody approached with skepticism. But these are big things. When the federal budget process doesnt work its the single most important element the american taxpayer sees. The shades their view of whether the government is working so we all understood the stakes coupled with the fact that misery loves company. In a room full of lobbyists where we all talk for a living there is a lot of listening, probably more listening than talking. Second is really important to have strong facilitators, i dont know if this new committee can detail some of the convergence because i think that made a difference in terms of planning planning the speakers and keeping up on track, focusing her thoughts to me that was critical. Thank you. Have a comment about writing style the question is why would it putting the longterm fiscal situation in the election cycle just leave each president ial candidate to have pledges go the wrong way. So i wont touch Social Security or medicare come i wont raise taxes but theres no recent discussion around it. Theyre not doing it today. Theyre not pledging not to raise taxes or anything so i see that happens. Part of the reason is that were not tisolo fiscal problem without elected officials solving them. Nobody will come in, when i can empower someone and say you go out and solve our physical problems. We kinda tried that. We had a Super Committee of elected officials were supposed to solve our problems but they didnt. Go back to the 80s we said if we dont hit certain budget targets hes the guy that since hes not elected can come in and cut across the board to make it work in the Supreme Court said he cannot do that. The idea that somehow we will solve the problem external of the political process misses the fact that elected officials make these decisions. Sometimes will get candidates who promise the moon a promise will fix all these problems and if the media their opponents stumbled them accountable i suspect in a couple of years the chickens will come home to roost and the voters will hold them accountable. The alternative is to say that we will never fix it because we can never trust elected officials to do the right thing. Elected officials are all we have to make laws. Would you consider eliminating the Appropriations Committee structure and making everyone appropriators . We did not recommend that i dont know if we thought about getting rid of authorizers only thought about merging the appropriations and authorizing committees so they are together which conceptually i get a mental lining the committees with the department so the Committee Structure nears the way the executive branch is set up. For me working i can tell you most of the Public Health Service Agencies are not reauthorized, we dont have a rate track record and authorization either. So to bring appropriations and authorizations into one shop seems like it will just make the problem worse. As we got deeper into that discussion why are we here, to reorganize congress of the federal budget process. It really became the latter thats a bridge too far for us to cross. It speaks to the one proposal that did emerge. The strength of the Budget Committees and making sure that authorizers were big jurisdictions or look at revenues to cut or raise those the same put the chair in the Ranking Member and if they cant do it have them designate someone who can bring that perspective to the budget discussions. We think that was an effective way to deal with some of the authorization that we know are going to cross where you need to reauthorize the Higher Education act and have that reflect in the budget. Those folks are paying attention and will weigh in on. There is no fight like a jurisdiction fight on capitol hill. One thing that has united they worked hard to get on that committee and stay on that committee. The idea that we will just reshuffle the what it meant these recommendations would not be achieved. Responsibility, justice, fairness and accountability should be more important than the principles we came up with. Responsibility, justice, fairness and accountability they talk about accountability, that is not one of the nine. I think you said it pretty well, if you have these principles coupled with proposals in fact there are actors in the space. Something we talk about in terms of incentives, you can lead a horse to water but he cant make it drink but you might be able to make it there see. You can take it into a heart barn and have cool water maybe that will get the horse to want to drink. Congress has to decide if they want to. If you had a better system and a fair process policymakers have a better shot of putting forth outcomes that reflect the input in making tough decisions. The constitution gives congress two thirds of the ability to make law. Doesnt guarantee they will be good laws. The process allows good laws to be ridden and really bad loss to be written. Thats part of the system. The founders said we wont make you allow you to make a bad law similarly with the budget process needs to allow them to facilitate good decisions but it also has to be open to the fact that sometimes the political process might make a bad decision say the majority of the Congress Wants to shut down the government. Thats what our elected officials want to do as crazy as that may be you cant write a process that denies them that ability. Because if you do that its not really process its a predetermined outcome. The will go back to what we struggled with at the beginning, process that determines a winner or a loser sometimes it be comfortable with the idea that a process doesnt solve all of our problems. Even with what we do our job we might not like the job theyre doing. I think the spirit of those are embedded, the words arent here early on i struggled a bit of slipping into the policy discussion versus the process discussion. I think of equity, justice, fairness, as outcomes of a budget versus what underpins a process of what creates that process. I can tell you theres a whole day weathers process and policy we really have to break it down. What is it mean for a process on this idea were to succumb from facilitatefacilitating the desid outcomes. Can you talk about the potential parallels between the process you just went through the ability to support the congressional process. Collaboration. For the congressional process i would encourage the process ought to involve all members of the committee from the beginning. The traditional way the democrats and republicans together that works for a lot of policymaking from a process making standpoint it would be a mistake. We had some groups on issues but not by ideology. So avoiding that in this process would behoove the joint committee. Also dont try to check it take on more than you can accomplish. In some respect failure for the joint committee will be devastating for all the process for budget reform. Incremental steps even if they bring it back to their colleagues and they say couldnt you have done better, its better than where we are today. Dont assume you have to shoot for the moon or divide yourself. If the joint select committee with incremental steps, if thats the outcome there implementable, that means will be open to further steps down the road, maybe theyll figure it out and they wont have to have a special committee. I saw an article last week as folks were being appointed they look at the budget and those were about substance not the process. The article said will those failed and they imply that house and look for this one, its different numbers can come together from the getgo to help figure out what the process the have a greater opportunity for success. Dont bring your smart phone. Sometimes its the small things that allow you to listen. I have no more questions so i just want to thank you all for joining this panel in this group of a few more think he is to get out. First theres a few important names the Convergence Team without which we would not be here. They kept the trains running but became a inhouse budget experts. Equally important, i would like the rest of the participants to raise their hand here in the room i want to thank you for your hard work and commitment. Its everyone else please feel free to chat with these people. They care and want the process to work and are ready to work. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you. I will add one other thing, they bribed us with cake, a lot of cake and sweets. Were about to move on to the second panel, but before we do that many of your from the Budget Committee and tuned in first see spend are probably from the Budget Community as well. So i want to recognize our colic who passed away recently, ed lorenz in. There is no smarter, more selfless committed person then add. Anybody who knows said no such be the case. Its been a huge loss for many of us. That only did he work in our organization, he had a hand in everything in the budget. Its been incredible to work in here from those who have worked with him there is a lovely editorial at the Washington Post but it is the opposite of washington right now. This is someone who worked so hard and tirelessly without a personal agenda to try to improve the agenda process and the budget ensure that work with everybody has benefited from as work. Im in a show the video. We put together small tribute to ed and hopefully therell be no glitches and we can share with everyone. The Washington Post and the rents and was hailed as a devoted servant to his country. He served as Senior Advisor and responsible federal budget and prior to that he worked for the National Commission on fiscal responsibility and reform and help draft the payasyougo act. He was killed while trying to rescue his 4yearold son at his fire on his home on friday night. This reform is very big and the small opening im just going to keep the optimism on everything. That perhaps after President Trump the discover that they still have 90 of solvency left will maybe appoint a commission. I think the want to keep entitlement reform may be President Trump and let them take the lead on it. There is no single great level of debt. The original fiscal goals should be addressed and be realistic and unrealistic fissile role in setting up a goal is important that we have to work towards achieving that goal in establishing that goal without rules and compliance to allow congress i want to express our deepest sympathy to the family and friends of ed he was a senior policy advisor at the committee for responsible federal budget. Ed and his 4yearold son passed away 12 days ago in a house fire. He was a wellrespected member of the Budget Committee and possibly the foremost champion. His twitter handle was captain pagel. He was a great guy and dedicated budget tear. He was talking with my staff in preparation of this hearing. This tragedy is close to our hearts. At was the person you would want is a staffer, book smart and a hard worker and while we didnt always agree on how best to fix it, his passion and unsustainable debt was unmatched. His death is a loss for the American People and he will be missed. My prayers are with his children, family, and friends during this difficult time. I cannot imagine the grief. I like to expand my deepest sympathies to them during this difficult time. May we all hold our families a little closer today. So the outpouring of support that we have heard from so many people about it has been like nothing i couldve imagined including a letter from a former president down to contributions for his friends from people people have never met him. We miss his brilliance and kindness on his love for his children. I know almost everybody here at the pleasure of working with him. [applause] there will be a Memorial Service will be sending out information to those of you want to pay tribute to him. So becoming sued. Like to go to the second panel will hear from budget experts will come up and take the stage please. Good afternoon and thank you for being here. I think the committee for hosting this event for this wonderful tribute to add we on there is a great guy and teacher and dad. Certainly a great lover of all things in our world. My name is peter really be talking today about the convergence of principles and about how you go beyond those from three longtime experts in the field. Well start with Stuart Butler my immediate left steve is a 20 year veteran and he served on the committee of national sciences. He has written about something the Convergence Group was able to get into talking about portfolio budgeting that steve has worked on this issue. He will talk more about how cover set to q did some of these principles then maybe even how to make them more effective. It was a long time Director Center of the Heritage Foundation is not the brookings institute. Hes also a member of the Editorial Board of health care. So yes some perspective on some of our fiscal challenges speaking of seeing that to focus on some of these issues in the longterm view in a way it has not been done before. Taking things out tissues that have not been seen before. I will get more of a laser focus. Finally francis lee with the university of maryland who is an observer of the scenes and weve seen increasingly in the 20 years since weve last had an appropriations his most recent Book Congress in a perpetual campaign. Want to turn it over to panelists present their findings. I want to begin with general comments about the work the group is done and offer some amendments mr. By saying if youre starting to see a Diverse Group like this converge on the sensible and ambitious plan there put together. They have since had an innovative process that aligns with the political incentives they describe this possible system of action that could be executed in a timely and reliable way. The plan holds together and it would be very helpful to the select committee as it begins its work. The Convergence Group is already important but in the wake of decisions made in recent weeks and more so on and unsustainable course it has become urgent. We are now passengers on a big shift thats headed to the fiscal it takes a long time a lot of steering to turn a big ship. Given the scale of the challenges our leaders face we dont need the minimum necessary to keep the government open and we dont need a return to regular order. Circumstances call for process that can help leaders make tough changes. A process that helps them look further ahead and pay for commitments that have already been made. Well have no choice but to throw over precious cargo. Thats the circumstance. When leaders weather sooner or later find it in their interest to tie themselves to the fiscal responsibility they will need a budget process that helps them make necessary choices. Enough of the metaphors. Here are a few friendly suggestions or amendments to the proposals connected budget plan i would suggest that we abandon Discretionary Program and mandatory programs in the 1990 budget act and instead see you programs that receive regular review. Its on the same basis as other spending. Where we are everything needs to be on the table. Rather than being based on how it is provided whether discretionary mandatory considers sending separate tanks and investment spending defined by both omb as including not only Capital Infrastructure the research and Development Human Capital Investment through education and training. As we look at that category of spending it would enable a decision to promise longterm economic and social returns overspending for current assumptions. When the budget plan is enacted will have a 30 of allocations in a twoyear plan instead of having a third year in the law in the next round should be enabling a new budget plan and that appropriators can continue because they will have established targets and they can move forward on that in Congress Continues to work on that. It also lines the process more appropriately with a budget envelope in which its good to see this group recognize the idea recognized by myself in the late great expert in colic we have lost in the last year glad to see this idea has developed out of growing interests. We intended on this to consider bigger Strategic Alternatives to have a set of policies. We wanted to focus mainly in the next year stovepipe agency and programs and provides the consideration of tax expenditures and revenue policies. We have proposed also that the budget on major policy objective would allow consideration of different changes of strategy and also use resources productively annual budget savings. This group enlisting the possible portfolios of tax spending provisions be considered together in a given to your cycle, they should keep that list openended so they can look at a major review the opiate and drugs addiction crisis or the threat of a pandemic or Something Big like retirement policy they could launch this review in a budget finally, its important to emphasize the process can be elected or sustained unless the line with critical interest of elected leaders. To virgins groups help them reach the kinds of big bipartisan agreement spinning reform process specific policies given where we are. [inaudible] we need to keep in mind where we are headed in the size of the challenge we face. I was also a member of the Convergence Group and i echo what others are saying. Its also important that what we tried to do in that convergence process so what can we do to build a foundation, platform to really look at the minds of the public and take subsequent steps down the road. What was started to do in the process was to begin to go down certain paths that we knew we could not solve right now but we wanted to build for the future. A particular longterm plan of some kind for the nation. Only the country in a much better physical shape. It would also assured the commitment over the long haul. Commitments to the children and the Security System and so forth that would be sustainable over the long term. We began that process and if you look at the elements like the fiscal state of the nation and the reports on the portfolio of the program we mentioned, these were all in part designed to focus attention on the importance of these major programs longterm. The belief that if you do that in future years and might be possible to go further and achieve longer objectives. One of these ploy to a budget plan. We dont do that today in any real way, we pass laws and set up Social Security systems we make projections and keep our fingers crossed that somehow it will work out. Occasionally we put caps on programs but no plan per se the input four. Other countries do this a little, so Major Industrial companies have some form of at least mediumterm plan called the mediumterm expenditure but we say lets have a plan for these areas of figure out how to stick to it. It is time for us to not only catch up to go further. There could be many ways to do that. Theres differences of opinion. I developed a proposal last year at the beginning of the conversion process. Theres only one way but its an attempt to figure out how we can do this. Give a copy of it in your package and you can look at it later. Essentially this idea that we put forward to the longerterm budget in this country would Mean Congress in enacting the longterm budget major commitments for the long haul including tax divisions like mortgage deduction as an example. For a plan like this to be the default was some enforcement associated with it. If congress didnt to anything else will stay on track to achieve those objections we suggested to do this to basic elements and changes of the budget procedure. First congress would debate and enacted 25 year budget for major Entitlement Program like Social Security and medicare. The source to achieve that. The federal taxes, share of general revenue tax but a plan laid out for the longterm for at least 25 years. Every four years the plan would be revisited. Congress could get the votes and decided to make a change it could do so but it would require statute to change that plan. It would therefore be the default over time. Secondly, there are be a procedure to keep to that plan. The way we suggested was that the Congressional Budget Office would develop it tenure moving average and if the actual spending starts to go either above or below an expenditure or revenues different from the actual plan itself there be automatic procedures to bring it into play. We propose to elements, commission element, that would put forward steps to put it into place. On track and if congress didnt to anything then changes would be made or, Super Committee bipartisan could provide an alternative way to stay on track. And if that was enacted in low post supersede whatever the commission would do. We thought of having a commission to push us to stay on track for budget enacted by congress but also allow congress to provide an alternative way to do that. The idea is to build on the Convergence Group in terms of information, focus on where we are in evaluating where we are and say lets go to the next step and build that into a longterm plan we heard it over and over again how difficult it is to play until pulled the commitments we have made. The bottom line of this approach whichever way one does it is for a longterm budget to be a default something we will stick to less we make an explicit change her decision to go in a different direction. Secondly a proposal that is completely neutral with regard to how big or small the government should be. Its not the same as saying we should put caps on programs but accord or an approach to doing it. But the congress and people decide what the commitment should be the lets have a plan to carry them out. Finally would be very visible. Something we dont it today and it is a major weakness in our budget process. Its one reason why were facing these massive deficits about the future. We have no idea other than to say were not going to touch anything. In conclusion, we have to address these kinds of sex stages of the budget process in this country. If were going to build no addressing governments that we absolutely have to reconstitute if are going to avoid over experiencing today. Thank you. Appreciate being here today. The start of a new reform how can process succeed . The last two temporary and congress were not able to develop develop policy change in the course of their mandate. But congress has succeeded. I like back on some of the budget reforms and offered generalizations of how the reforms are brought about. First exception all of the major durable reforms were adopted on the strength of a broad bipartisan consensus. Circulated a list of six major reforms in my onepage document. All of these process reforms commanded substantial report from the Minority Party from the time of their adoption. The single most important reform was enacted on a unanimous support. Is a process of compromise in which nobody got everything they wanted from the reform. In the end all members of congress believed it was better than what it was before one congress in a piecemeal fashion to take south of the budget as a whole. It is that congress cannot buy future congress. For Institutional Reforms to stick they must be widely accepted as legitimate so future members will want to preserve the new arrangement. Before stacking the deck and one party it cannot be expected to survive as changes in the majority part of congress. Reforms rely on political will to make them work. The budget process was extraordinarily complex. Even more so than it is today. Congress was committed to making it work and they went on to do so despite the difficulty for two years. Every Years Congress succeeding for the first 20 years. In developing this reform the convergence process brought together from the ideological spectrum. The new reforms joint select committee on reform contains an equal amount of republican and democrat and recommendations for both parties. This is a start the process. Second, past successful reforms another pattern that emerges as members of congress can come together around reform even though they might not agree to what the reforms will do. Successful dippers bring together different goals. In 1980 Congress First successfully enacted a budget reconciliation bill. It did so using an innovated maneuver not originally envisioned. It moved reconciliation up to the start of the process. The maneuver was grounded in the elastic cause. This innovation was not controversial at the time. It was not controversial because both simultaneously thought it would help achieve the goal. Conservative supported reconciliation because he thought i was only way congress can make its way and spending. Congress was side with those in justice and equity rather than specialinterest. Meanwhile others thought it would reduce the budget. Most remarkably the first use would not even controversial in the senate. Despite the fact that they are at odds with normal set of procedure. In the end it was established by members who agreed to do it despite disagreeing what the results would be. The same pattern as president of the reforms. Reason sometimes are at odds with one another. Successful Reform Coalition can and often to bring together strange things that are capable of forming alliances even when they cannot a tree congress has a complex institution which many members develop a personal state and ways of doing business. Requirements never have a opportunity to work on a blank slate. Past reform effort has succeed because they figured out ways to partially accommodate members invested in the status quo. This usually means reforms lay on top rather than displace them. When the budget act of 74 it was superimposed arose on top. Dealing with this recommended by the Convergence Group in which they seek to build upon existing institutions. Finally, i want to conclude that the effects of reform will evolve over time. Its not possible to predict how new processes will work. In some cases it may develop in ways that are consistent with reform. The Congressional Budget Office was designed to be nonpartisan but it took leadership of the cbo to show how it could work in practice and build it. By the same token institutional reform has unintentional consequences. The designers of the budget act never imagined budget reconciliation on their partisan line. Even after reconciliation began to be used was decades before it was used to enact a partisan program on a narrow partisan vote. Reagans 91 budget was simply made it via reconciliation received 80 votes in the senate. On the final approval in the house by unanimous consent. We only see budget reconciliation start to emerge as a vehicle in the 1990s. Most all did so voting in favor. Even those that fell below 60 still highly bipartisan. When then the 1990s. My final History Lesson is to recognize whatever is on the reform record will not be the last word. Just in the past the consequences will reverberate down to the future we can be sure future congresses will continue to need. Thank you to all for these excellent presentations. I want to begin with the committee and i think theres a lot of buzz in the air and assesses something could happen. Theres big turnout today is evidence of that. I think theres a level of skepticism that anything can be done. Theres a 60 vote Senate Threshold and no requirement for the house to vote on the recommendations. So was this panel doomed to fail . My expectations are lifted with the previous message. Its relaxing to the in the reform effort understanding that they dont know the ultimate shape of those reforms were will evolve over time and how theyre implemented. I hope people will come in with that attitude. I hope also there be a sense of urgency. I cannot predict it or how many people will see this as an opportunity to do Something Big and important to improve the budget process. And treating it that way but it is more likely they had to be at school more modest first step approach with that Development Rather than anything dramatic. And then tuesday lets try to avoid that and instead of building up too much expectation that those steps that are needed i think there is an opportunity there. Keep an eye out for opportunity to take that greatest advantage and that is the right place to have been. I was pretty skeptical of this process but our political environment has encouraged shortterm thinking on the part of members of Congress Every election has held out the possibility so that makes it hard to agree with the change of political power so why cut a deal now with better circumstances in a short timeframe . Perhaps this moment is a good one and so under those circumstances that that is acceptable regardless with that institutional power. Maybe we are in the era of an atmosphere. And we saw this definitely this isnt working well for any of us politically. So therefore with the agreement tuesday lets Work Together even though we have very different views what we are all losing with that Current Situation but that is an element in the equation. You have written about this quite a bit but what separates this particular document from all of the others that collect dust on a shelf somewhere . Ask this from the perspective of all these changes everybody who has worked on that comes up with the rational and logical idea. That number one to engage in tough fiscal decisionmaking and what about that jurisdiction of congress . And speaking of the Budget Committee and budget action plan which is like matt is concerned from established Committee Members on capitol hill. So how do you make those tough decisions and get over those jurisdiction . On the jurisdictional battle, we see congress get past those difficulties in the past they have done that. And it looks to me like a contemporary congress is in a better position with those internal turf battles in previous congresses because now the committees are less powerful and less able to block change that is objectionable. So if the will is there i think the institutional obstacles unless then in previously. But it is a paradox with institutional reform that the fact that it can be achieved is the product of a coalition also compared to carry out that new process. But in the absence of that as we continue to make that process work they dont they only work as long as the will is they are. They dont go on automatic so it isnt that the reforms are not important. They are that is how the complexes that you should function, but to get the members to do a reform is the precondition for them to carry that out. For talking about it that depend on those who were fighting for jurisdiction with the outcome if it is a zerosum game with the Budget Committee versus the appropriators or if they cut the prophet everybody loses as a result without opportunity to put that process where the appropriators do the work diligently but they are unable to finish the work so we see an opportunity to have a prior agreement and it gives them a chance to regain that authority through that process so i dont see the Budget Committee organizing as a committee. Yes. Quickly as you heard with the panel one of the things the group decided not to do was a radical shakeup despite that radical intervention but that said but also one of the steps was to look at the Budget Committee itself that really interest point to be a top Level Committee to strengthen that to bring in leaders from other committee so that becomes a more effective vehicle for the other powerful committees to reach an agreement. So that is how i recognize exactly what we said with that position change that we look at a procedural change to reinforce the ability to come to a decision definitely was a strong emphasis not just an afterthought or Good Government but so much so many things are going on that nobody can focus. So the report said lets look how to focus information in such a way in terms of giving signals that political process information can be a very powerful way to get members to not give up their parochial interest that go on a pathway towards an agreement because that recognizes what you said about the nature of the political process. We have heard how things are different from even 20 years ago those nostalgic references from the 90 or it was a different time or in the sovereign in the 1990s and looking at the tools of reconciliation that really the only way to get anything done was to use reconciliation not get rid of that to be sure but because it hasnt worked in the last 20 years clearly one of the main reason for that is the electric has long electorate has become so polarized on capitol hill, would forming a Better Process do anything to solve those fundamental division that prevent that longterm visionary thinking . Those are the challenges that we confront the divide israel the parties represent the constituency in the public and they disagree what they would like to achieve. But the political system requires us to act it isnt parliamentary for the strength of minority rule is what most of the time we have devised government since 1980. So that wont work. It just produces a headbutt and to be symbolic to know the only purpose of the budget is to lay down the marker but not to govern policy. One of the things i like about the convergent proposal is the process where the congressional budget is a product only in a try to get involved early to make a deal but that is more aligned with how the system works in reality and the process which was a product called the budget empowerment control act so the goal was try to deny the process but they needed president ial buyin in the risen dish isnt realistic. So that requires more president ial involvement that is constructive. One more question than from the audience. Do we need earmarks . Tom davis from our area said that is what holds the budget bills together we can get things done we could solve some big problems to bring back earmarks. I hear that. I am participating in a conference this week to improve congressional capacity and there were 50 interviews conducted in preparation for that conference. A number of time earmarks would come up to help to Work Together more effective. That is very striking that members and staff believe they are helpful to cut deals. I dont think it is a story of understanding how we got those budget agreement but it may smooth the process for other lowprofile legislation and key to understanding a fiscal deal. I agree with that. Earmarks have a very long history in this country it is a combination that isnt stable but now really that is a lubricant. And what i think the process that we talk about is to look at other ways to get those kinds of agreements. So you really dont need that to do that. So that is why when you develop information or a longterm plan with that review process what you are trying to do is change not decision architecture so it becomes easier and more natural with longterm planning if you could do that without having to use those earmarks that is a crude method to get to that same position but to be more systemic in those changes then even of those who disagree fundamentally even if they think they are in the majority by a combination of selfinterest and information. If you have questions, hold them up. First question is more of a proposal. Why dont we balance the annual budget and if it doesnt why dont we have all automatic benefits cut 2 until it does . The first point is where we are now if we try to balance the budget anytime soon a lot of things would go overboard it is great as a shortterm objective but not desirable longterm bb good to have a rough balance with revenue spending on the horizon that we also need to retain the ability to run a deficit when we need your surplus when we can. Usually it is formulated and constraining and i could also think of four or five or six other reasons why. So to have support over the years and places that we learned that the hard way and the implications of that even in terms of the disorderly nature of government so with the longerterm budget it isnt just a simple rule but a procedure to allow that are we going down the road we intended to go . There could be some gradual adjustment to get back on track which could be appealing to both sides of the aisle and that they. That is what i try to do in our proposal so i think those that put forward a simple approach force other discussions and conversations in that convergence process and so to negotiate these events to say how do we stop that procedure for those proposals that both kinds can trust . And we are all are getting to where we want to be. Anybody else . We have another one. From the National Active and retired association. It seems like some of the presenters that the process is appropriately design to hold lawmakers accountable so what would the voters actually recommend lawmakers try to reduce those sentences or that Something Else . What is the mindset of the voter toward fiscal responsibility . The voters want fiscal responsibility but accountabl accountable accountability is very difficult in our system. So we are aware the accountability is loss it is somewhat clearer with control but we rarely have that and even then the budget is a legacy of many decision that have occurred in the lead up to the present moment in the coming not responsible for the whole budget deficit. So where do you lodge accountability system with those institutional incentives for those that require hard choices we had half a process that only works when you have a Party Controlling the house and the senate you ask that party to take on shoulders the burden of raising taxes and cutting spending and the things that the voters will not appreciate and it is at odds with their system at the president at the present nothing that the congress can do by itself. So to recognize we deal with the shared responsibilities and there is no simple want instrument the voters can use to enforce its called. We are in a situation our system is not good at allocating pain. So there will be a lot of losers politically and that allows for consensus and shared responsibility and we have to Work Together ultimately to get something done. And again to hold members of Congress Accountable now we have a question from bill so francis your optimism something that could result, doesnt make more sense if the recommendation are before the midterms to actually produce something rather than the end of the month . What do you make of that date implication . A good point. I was trying to look on the bright side for the committee. But in the past when this happened coming up with a thousand reasons why congress should have stuck with the status quo. But what enables congress to act is a shared and broadly something has to change and we need reform to Work Together more effectively. And to come across party lines when that occurs. To more effectively counter the executive branch that is growing too powerful and with public esteem. There are members of congress across the iowa that shared urgency to do something and that overcomes the inertia it is very easy to see how this effort would fail as previous efforts had failed. But we look back at congressional history to see that isnt always the story. That is all the time we have for a panel today. [applause] b5 mac we are quickly joined by the two final panelists on the way out,. Hello mech nice to see you. In that wonderful. Thank for continuing to stick with us on this panel. This has been a long day filled with lots of ideas and proud to say there has been a lot of good work with process reform throughout the afternoon and i really thrilled to have this panel and be joined with the senators to talk about the Perfect Moment that this is about to be a year of budget process reform and working very hard on this issue long before it was cool. Now it is cool. Did you know that . You know and now king of these different kind of reforms i will throw out a couple of questions from their experience to legislate it is very old for us to come up with these great ideas on the outside to process around to get those great outcomes such as time they are well aware of those big challenges we dont have to go. We are here in this moment a big and productive effort to look at budgets and appropriation and process reform in we have talked a lot today about small incremental changes to make budgeting more training. And open also to the committee so start at the beginning so what problems you try to solve . I have been on the Budget Committee the whole time i spent in the senate ten years i have come to the conclusion the process completely useless and effective make you have to fix the underlying problem but to me that mean theres got to be a penalty for blowing through the budget right now is you have to math he felt whatever measure he will take the percent has been operating under the 60 vote rule four years so to demand that is no penalty whatsoever so there is a problem. Number two, the budget process only book that Senate Appropriation or the billions and billions and billions of dollars the tax expenditures with the unanimous recommendation thing we have to look at that and then the healthcare and the 3 trillion that seems to have fallen out of the managers we dont know why that happened with oversight focused so that and for the bipartisan process the Budget Committee now talks about the Majority Party to get around the 60 rule for the reconciliation measure then it goes back to sleep and doesnt wake up again and tell me another reconciliation measure. Now you have a committee that means something that addressing problem and if there is a reward for bipartisanship then they go into the foxhole in the first of all congratulate you to sitting for almost three hours of. It has to be washington left. Ever since i got to the senate we have been talking about this for years i have been asking for this select committee we will see if it makes a difference. I know if you talked about it today but many people dont understand this lie will go forward i hope you forgive me. I imagine people voted for that bill. But the shocking thing by the way the sentences were most of the problem. Not a fan of legislation and we agree on a lot but we have to appropriate phone bill you only average two and a half. Not only that congress in his wisdom shut the government down 20 times in those 44 years into the lower neck of debate. Coming from the business will think this is where the action is but it is a joke. Seriously it says nothing. So there are three steps in the process for those who have been working on this and senator whitehouse have been a leader and that to me putting that budget out cap for the Majority Party. Distance, market is a resolution so it is the version of the financial future of the country we have 315 billion the state department until a few years ago had not been authorized over 15 years. The party said you didnt half we will help you on the authorization process and Nothing Happened but now it passes the committee cant get on the floor and not even talking about democrats go back a few years. There is enough blame for both parties. This is insane taking to this point and actually defeo so to leave the bottom line so in my mind of the constitution describes as a matteroffact with total gridlock in the but they have really drive the process down. It doesnt matter which it doesnt matter which is people get but that is not acceptable. Listening to the two of you give us the insiders like view of what it is to be on the Budget Committee. If i did not do a one time. Business budget was mac but this is producing a product but do you not have meeting in i gave five minutes and i had a witness and we got those in the question. I got through it 15 minutes later senator whitehouse gave his then i couldve given his speech and he could have given mine. It creates a lot of the partisanship i believe and we start in january by the way and now we are five months into the year and we dont know the plan. Back to the appropriators they are the winners also with leadership because in the absence of any process or oversight or transparency you are abutting up your next those who have been in the subcommittees if they can make their packages work then they go straight through to the room and nobody sees the vote on the floor and then six people from leadership and the appropriation chairs go into how shall the deal and then the senate is left no chance to have a vote or debate and that is not democracy. But that does confer a very great power how we spend all of our money is decided by two people in a totally nontransparent environment. I sent many of us share that frustration completely that you two are u. S. Senators that seems to be a cool job but in the end you dont get to make decisions. We are in the process that is assigned to fail. That is why we try to do something about this. 23billion of debt. This is serious business. By the way you will solve the debt crisis by fixing the budget process alone but you wont until you start. So i think the players in this process the one thing i keep coming back to even where lung either make that with real consequences with the fiscal year and the calendar year and second to have a longerterm plan. With billions and billions of dollars that it could take decades to be built so we dont have that Capital Budget plan or how to allocate that. So we do have a bill together and actually does that with the debt as a percentage of gdp. It takes time to get there. We know that. It wont be fixed in ten or 15 years it is a longterm process but if we came out with an acknowledgment we came out with a solution but to hit that target to bring it back with guardrails we embrace that the work that we have been doing very quietly behind the scenes with no cameras passing the chairman with the committees to tell our views and these are small steps i hope the select committee will begin to coagulate through these recommendations. I think we both old considerable gratitude to the chairman in the Budget Committee who has put a lot of effort into this and then very thoughtful and frankly it will be hard for even bipartisan things to happen but chairman enzi has been terrific. And bringing up the idea we have supported for a long time it is a heavy lifter making huge changes press to move forward. Why it replace the debt ceiling . That is the only thing that is more dangerous. That is the only fiscal constraint out there that can block the entire system. But when you go through all the agony of the vote you have achieved nothing other than the selfinflicted catastrophe. In my view that is not productive legislation when you set a trap for yourself by managing to avoid the trap you set you have a victory. No. That is a time waster. We need to solve this problem having a longterm sustainable jet to gdp ratio with guardrails is a much more sensible way to go about doing that and if you look at the politics up close it is a poisonous moment on the floor. That hasnt worked since 1913 they just keep bumping that up. But with american politicians they always go to the back door that is a release valve the democrat republican message here to say 41 trillion is not acceptable we have to find a way to solve that that is what we differ to create a neutral platform to the process that is legal. We dont have that today where are the cameras . They actually argue tax increase and we dont get to do that. That is what is missing in the process. Also what you have overcome with is to find bipartisan cooperation because the bottom line it will require hard choices as the two Political Parties that are at each other with very little effort. A convergence came out but the nice thing is they brought a bunch of stakeholders who didnt trust each other and work them through a process with a shared set of recommendations. How do we do that in the senate or the Budget Committee . The incentive is to set up not to Work Together and i will add we just had two big bills contributing to the fiscal debt that we have that has added to this mistrust. So how do we prevent from this whole two working together and doing hard things . When you have the process set up so all of the rewards built into the process are rewards of partisanship, than that is what you will get. Partly would bring david and i having this conversation on the Budget Committee together is we have a shared common interest to fix the Budget Committee so it amounts to something or get rid of it we have other things to do with our time. But to make it effective again is a valuable common cause with a lot of bipartisanship and that no Work Together what will that look like . If you havent set up a process in which there is any reward for bipartisanship, then the only meaningful price be taken from the whole enterprise is a partisan reconciliation bill to jim something through under the 60 vote threshold. The only prize in the game. You either dont play the game at all but you have got to set up another path where the prize can be over a reasonable period of time with reasonable jet to mom debt to gdp ratio with a process that internally has teeth so they dont just blow through it, tax spending, regular spending and healthcare, and it creates that bipartisan path. In our proposal you dont even open that gait if you want to use it you have to be bipartisan so there is a reward for going there you cant solve americas problems to the Budget Committee as the process currently. So the Budget Committee by its structure capable to fix the process. There are smart people over the last 44 years but the problem is in my view, you dont just have one budget with 4 trillion in with 1 trillion of that is discretionary and the balance is all domestic Discretionary Spending so they say my side needs to cut spending. But 900 this this year 1 trillion next year with the annual deficit. So just cut there. Now another 3 trillion is another mandatory side. In the interest on the debt by the way doubling liking busters it has already doubled i think the answer to your question that we are in the crisis phase past the Tipping Point if we dont do something it will be age or coding and result that there is the debt that we are working on but also that budget process. The resin just one budget you can have a discretionary budget also Social Security budget and the medicare budget but those two trust funds go at zero in 13 years. If we have something now i promise the data have to tell Social Security recipients we have been responsible there will be something done then. Actually they just dissolve the government to bring in another government and other countries. We dont do that but we will have dramatic ramifications. Part of the problem we dont focus on the longterm they just say let me put my head down just to get through this year because they leave us when there are so many challenges we are not prepared to deal with. So one thing im curious is when you go home to your state , what do you hear from your voters . It is alienating and nobody can engage but what about the fiscal situation . If it is leadership driven if they dont care and the politicians tell them to care there is less discussion than before i think it will come back but do they understand . That condition of the populace of america to solve every problem and find every problem hurricanes, the fires we are losing the right to do what we want to do is to provide a safe and dash safety net even for people in emergencies. So to be responsible in terms of our financial duties that is why i hear back home i ran on debt people said you cannot run on that but we did. And they convinced people this was a crisis we had to do something about it. So i also think as a personal opinion i believe one of the reasons of the Approval Rating they so that responsibility is to form the government and by the way i will create a dictionary for all of the acronyms i have never heard before. But here it is similar for crowded washington. In rhode island, if i had to compare the concerns i hear about medicaid and medicare and Social Security against concerns i hear about the debt or deficit 90 one. It just isnt a big public concern. But the deficit discussion it has in overlay this isnt real but it is just politics. Or they want to come after my social for my deficits for my medicare. So there is the flinch builtin in recent years that you dont need to take the debt and deficit concerns seriously because they turn on and off and they tend to be a vehicle focusing on a specific step set of outcomes so if we end up with the circumstances that the people of america are associating the deficit with their medicare, we are in a heap of trouble. That is a false choice the way it has morphed itself on the Budget Committee and those who are watching this dont you come after that. So that is a real problem with that bipartisan process helps because and you can put together a package people can get behind because it has balance. It isnt taking turns to harbor the other side. But it is not a way but to so then you ensure credibility and if not by so we know there needs to be more bipartisanship and more consistency. But the time has run over. But i was thinking about that budget process commission we dont know who will run congress down the road. Creating rules of the game not the policies but the rules for the guard rails. So it does seem like there is an opportunity to come up with the solutions but we dont know them back of the areas of improvemen improvement. Thats tough. I am torn between and also like it is a treaty but i dont think it gets you very far so the alternative is to stop the Budget Committee and make people confront this problem head on realizing we dont have a process that is effective. Lets not pretend that we do but just knock it out and best of all and we need to provide back to congress this year. That is lightspeed. So the first thing you have to realize what a crisis since creates but since 2009 we have taken about 400 million out of Discretionary Spending. And that is where the problem is because of the way those are set up. We have to protect those but this is just the reality. That is why now is the time to meet chairman greenspan a couple times and he reminded me every time the meeting in 1983 talking about the budget process during the math they knew that it wasnt sustainable in here we are. And we still talk about this. You cant just do one thing because the structure itself is so bad the appropriating and authorization will never work but no matter what you do to change it you have to have consequences real to the member. So frustration was the stupidest thing coming out of washington in a tell that to anybody. It would never happen but it did. To say i voted against it but that day is over i can go home and tell people it didnt pass but i voted for it. That is all were doing. To account for the number one responsibility for congress. Senators, thank you very much for joining us. [applause] senators, thank you very much for joining us. [applause] for your interest but what i hope you take away is there is strong bipartisan interest to get this done. And to see that bipartisan optimism and then to improve dramatically. Thank you so much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good afternoon each has been assigned 30 minutes and how things can go from the argument. Good afternoon your honors Michael Council is working with me on this case. We