Hoagland. Test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test the media said senator stevens is trying to build a bridge to nowhere. Thats not true. Hes trying to build a bridge to a small island that only had like 55 people open it, Something Like that. So most people think there was no destination. Theyre just building a bridge. Its not true. So the argument could have been, are we spending too much money for that size population . Its a general argument. Unless your grandma lives on the island and couldnt get on the ferry in the winter and make it to the main entrance into the hospital, which was the issue. So the public doesnt know anything. They actually go to any town and say i think originally it was a bridge to nowhere. There is an india pronunciation. I cant name the little island. So as the press started and we jumped right in and started doing it for political reasons. The thing is, i dont know if i mean if were going to be able to you know, because, i think right now the constusion is experiencing a stress test and it didnt start with the current president. It started with, you know, long before. We havent declared war since 1945 and weve had 118,000 americans killed in war since then and Congress Just sits on its hands and we let it take pla place. And then what happens the partisanship gets in the way. When president obama stood up at his third or fourth state of the union and said i will sign no bills that have earmarks in them and i publicly criticized him and said, you dont have that power . And so some democrats said, you cant do that. Thats the president. But he was wrong. We know hes wrong, but we cant criticize so what has happened is, the party thats in power in the white house, theyll go along with the extraction of the constitutionally awarded power of the house. Were giving it away. Nobody wants to criticize the president if he or shes one of them. So thats how it has eroded. President obama said, im not going to sign any bills. We should have stood up, everybody, in the past and said, no, this is wrong. You cant do it. We didnt do it. And so now were assuming were not supposed to do it. And so, you know, you got politics. You got the president and you got you know this political stuff that says, we dont criticize someone in our own party. So, can we actually deal with this issue, you know in terms of some kind of legislation . I dont think so. I mean i think its an issue of the heart and the mind and that we have to deal with on whether or not its right and wrong and right now, were in this position because every president for probably the last 55 years has taken just a little and a little and a little and a little and were going to rule the day when we wake up one morning and find out we only have two branches of the government, barely three right now. I didnt intend to go off. But you know im furious about this stuff. Because were giving it away and were watching it. Were watching it in real time. And, you know, we have a bridge in kansas city. I was mayor. I was pushing name this kid i talked to him last night, senator vaughan never asked anybody to do that. I mean and so because we needed it desperately, i thought that you know im the mayor of this town and kid vaughan. Were going to name it george brett or you know after the quarterback len dawson . You know, anyway. Thank you. Id invite any of you to respond if you care to. You got to hit the button again. One quick observation. That is there is legislation in the senate right now which i do not know if its in the house. Its called article 1 legislation that deals with a declaration for the purposes of shifting that money and giving the power back. In fact, i think it was introduced in the senate by of all people senator cruz from texas and in a bipartisan manner. I would suggest you start looking at that legislation bipartisan to take back some of the power that you should not be giving up at all. Mr. Tim mondays. Timmoms. Thaurg, its a rewarding process. Im honored to be a part of it. One thing i was going to ask police ridge, was any of that included in the joint committee legislation. The idea that you would have fiscal targets, that was a part of the conversation i think ultimately a situation was made to make it more about a budget process and budget reform. That being said, the optional path for a bipartisan resolution with special features in the senate, that did include the resolution would establish a debttogdp ratio and sort of a glide path. Thank you. Mr. Hoagland, earlier i think you were asked if a twoyear budget would be politically manageable to oneyear budgets. What was your answer to that . Did you i think its difficult first of all the oneyear budget is not working, obviously. So i think its worthant effort here to try to do buy in at budgeting, where i think im having some difference of opinion with joint select committees recommendation is i feel like you ought to budget for two years and appropriate for two years. Not appropriate every year after the bienium. Thats my only critique of the joint select committees recommendation. Now the argument always comes back. But things are changing. Well, yes, they have changed. At least set two years budget and appropriate for two years and if you need supplementals, you have supplement also in the second session. I realize there is a number of appropriators here who disagree with me on that. I would actually agree with you. I also am a pragmatist. So the question then becomes, is our Current System better or worse than a twoyear budget and oneyear appropriation . Would you prefer to continue to do it the way we are or to do a twoyear budget, one year appropriations instead of is it better than nothing in. No i think. I dont like the Current System. I dont think its performed like its been the way it should operate and obviously the oneyear budget, one year appropriations is not working. Its delaying. So i would go to a twoyear process, i really would. I believe last year there were 237 people that cosponsored a bill in the house to get that passed, but it was never considered because largely the challenge with the Appropriations Committee wanting to do appropriation every Year Association guess i kind of said, one of the things we talk about on this committee, take whatever you can and not have a fight over whatevers left, so, if we could all agree, if theres no opposition to a twoyear budget one year appropriations schedule, i guess im sooind kind of saying, lets start somewhere and come back for some. I understand your question. All right. This is a start. Its a twoyear budget. If you have to have annual appropriation, go ahead. I would hope eventually you move to both twoyear budgets and appropriation. But its worth a start. Miss lynnp, can you discuss the last time major changes were made to the budget process . . Historically . So, id say that every congress there are rules adapted into the house rules package that have some effect on the budget process. The last significant one would be of 2011 that selected the joint committee on deficit reduction and discretionary caps. Thank you. The debttogdp ratio finishing up, is this something you all would be in favor of incorporating into the conversation and making it a part of the process or is that not something that you think is an important step in the right direction . Its a hard group to wrestle with that metric. Again for us, it was more about process than an outcome and that is information that should be brought into the process, but to mandate it being a part of the process to achieve a specific outcome is where we couldnt achieve conkens e census, because owe consensus, because people have differing views. It needs to be a part of the discussion, not necessarily the discussion. To be a part of the report as delivered to the district committees . Im sure our group would say we mandate it. I think it will happen naturally, so better information in the process is critical so you all can make the best informed decisions you can. If that becomes intent you put a mandate that it has to be a part of the process. Again, that can be a distraction. It might break a norm in terms of what or set a new norm that you dont want where there is true disagreement about how to interpret that metric, whether you think its high, low, how would it be interpreted in ord to make policy . Today is a debttogdp ratio about 78 i believe . 78. Historically its averaged around 40 . Weve gone through a number of exercises in terms of bringing that down. I can tell you given the demographics, the manneders to, what you have locked in spending going forward. I tell you it is very difficult to hold at 70 with what the decisions you would have to make. So its back to the issue of recognize figure you set that percentage of gdp you better be prepared for some very difficult decision up here both on the spending side and on the revenue side. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here for this important discussion. Some of us, many of us come from State Government in i dont know if every state does, both states use biennial budgeting. 20s, not most states, a lot of states do. It seems like federal government is many times largeer, more complex, expecting to get the work done in a matter of months versus a couple of years, unrealistic in my view. So i appreciate you contributing to this important discussion on how can we make this process better . One of the im in my third term and i got to tell you, i think everybody in congress understands for the most part the significance of the debt that we face and the how unsustainable this is. But one of the biggest things that ive heard ever since i got here was leak we cant do a whole lot about it with only 30 of the budget. Theres the mandatory versus Discretionary Spending question 1 one that is one thats really been a difficult obstacle in order for us to get our fiscal house in order. So i gis would like all of you, if you have some thoughts about how we could crack that future, how we could move forward in this discussions that we have better control over our spending and our revenue. I know there is politically, its a minefield. Its a difficult thing. But it seems to me that if were ever going to get our arms around this, were going to have to address it. And so in the short amount of time that we have, i know mr. Hoagland, in your testimony, i was unable to listen to you first hand, but reading, there was an effort, a report that mentions this, so maybe just start with you. Thank you, congressman. It had ten major recommendations. First of all was biennial appropriating. Also to do the total budget as you say not just focus on the onethird. We did talk about what congressman tim mons was talking about, setting some goal, having congress agree a goal. A goal of reduce tag debttogdp to this mix i fixed number. If you were to do that and make that law and consequences of not hitting those numbers, Something Like that didnt work out the way we thought it would, that there are serious consequence of not meeting those goals. I think that one way of making the process stronger is to do exactly what mr. Tim mons is suggesting here, to set a goal, five years, ten years, 15 years out, where we will hit that target. Well force you to look not just at Discretionary Spending. It will force you to look at the total budget. Id ask that means towards an outcomes. You asked what you can do. I think thats the whole process is so it can work so you can have the discussion. If you are not leading to a policy outcome, you are punting every time. So that was our perspective. Again, were talking about groups very right leaning, very left leaning and some in the middle. If we can fix the process, you can actually take on a big major issue. Regardless of your perspective on how much debt we should have. Ms. Lynch. I just want to say, i think most people think of the budget process as being an annual process when if reality about 70 of the budget is actually fixed. So i think that it could be helpful to look at the 80s and 90s. In the 80s and 90s you would look at Discretionary Spending and mandatory suspending and revenues. So you would look at that as a whole and what would be an appropriate amount for a deficit and then congress would use the budget resolution and then trigger the budget reconciliation process and they would use the budget reconciliation process to make changes to mandatory spending and revenue in a way that would be projected to reduce the deficit. And so those tools are Still Available to congress and you know i just think the 80s and 90s are a good example. Because you had the chambers controlled by different parties and the branches controlled by different parties and they were so utilizing those tools. Can i just answer that . Exactly no surprise coming from the Bipartisan Policy Center that this means both sides giving up something. Id lose my credentials as a staff. Revenues have to be on the table. I dont think you can do this all on the mandatory side or discretionary side to get close to reducing that gdp figure. Adidnt i appreciate your input on this very important topic. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to pull on a couple other threads. It is difficult to explain the inexplicable to my constituents when the budget and appropriation process goes off the rails going to a coat guard base where they were accepting donations of food because they found five weeks during the last shutdown was just sick. And its staking to me that when the process guess off the rail, the pain is felt by our constituents, with i the tattoo that each of us has on this committee oop our arms now is you know, fix this so that Congress Works better for the american people. I find myself wondering how do you get out of this bo, . Some of us through process reforms. I guess i want to mention, mr. Hoagland you mentioned there was some incentives and disincentives. We grappled with that on the last select committee to some degree congress find its way out of every mouse trap. If you saturday rule, it can waive it. Things like no budget no main i pain, no recess were rejected. Given there was some incentive path which was an expedited path in the senate. I mean, what are we not thinking of . Are there other threads either on the incentives, disincentives . Its strike its about congress doing its dam job its painful. Is there a force and function to get congress to do its job . I a again thank you, mr. Chairman. One of the proposals that i have warmed up to over the years is, if you cant get your work top by the beginning for those constituents for your coast guard crypt constituents out there, an automatic cr, a failure to reach that point, its automatically a continuation. If you write it into the wall, its automatic. You dont have to pass another cr. Its automatic. The incentive, the criticism, of course, is, those who want to hold down spending will say well have an ahmed cr. I would make it over a period of time it starts to reduce. But keep government funded at some level to avoid the issues that you have of government shutdow shutdown. Id add has the group wrestles with this this was multiple meetings of those 14, id say at least half we were talking about incentives or character sticks in one fashion or form. One conversation about earmarks, is that a potential incentive if you were to bring those back . We didnt think so. Ultimately i think when we came out is that there are so many things you could do, no budget, no pay. We talked about no fundraising. We kept coming back to one point that is the ultimate incentive that all of you have are elections. So, the pain is going to be there. Youre going to have to face the music. If you are going to get the budget done, youre going to face the praise. And time and time again. So again, the way we thought about it is better information, really putting this on the consciousness of the american people, putting it, therefore. If you all could come up with your own rules as you understand each other better than we could about this is what insenses us to get our work done or this will punish us in a way that it will create so much pain among ourselves we will actually do it, we thought that is left best to your hands. Ms. Lynch, is there anything on the menu that we havent talked about . Id say that, obviously, the different budget process proposals that are out there that are many and broad dont, i think in thinking about this, and i know that you are thinking about this, this is sort of like what is the problem . What is driving this problem so any reform proposals are related to what people believe is the problem. Can i ask you mentioned a provision around the state of the nation. Thats something in more of a revised way the joint select committee passed a recommendation on with unanimous support. Can you speak to that and what value you see in that specific reform . Thank you this one generated a lot of discussion among the Convergence Group. Ape gen the principle being having a very informed budget. Sobb sort of like the seminal document. So it is not just you all receiving the medical trustees report, the Social Security report, the estimate for this it all gets packaged in one place and that wrichts get to see it. All of you as policy makers get to see it and the way we envisioned it, if it really had that strength and simplicity, this is something that would be anticipated. In your town hall meetings, in the president ial debate, questions will be asked, what is your plan for the fiscal state of the nation and time and time again, folks would be on the hook to be able to respond to that in a way. We were encouraged by what the joint select committee did in a hearing context. The sell nam moment to get that information all in one place and really raise the american consciousness about this and policy maker consusness we think will be a net positive to the process. Mr. Woodall. If i can pull that with our substitutionalist there on the panel and mr. Hoegland, you are burdened with that responsibility. There is a difference to me about producing all of that information and if im aggressive, i can find all that information as i sit here today, we certainly see it on the Budget Committee, the bill introduced by my colleagues in the 110ings congress is to have the comptroller come to congress and present it. I put that in the same category as sticks. Ive already been elected. Im already supposed to be doing my job. To have an unelected person come and stand in the House Chamber and chastise me for not doing my job. I dont know how that had advances the process. From an institutional perspective, is there merit in having the unelect come and make that pitch orb would you target your sticks elsewhere . First of all i think having information, good information is always helpful, as you say, quite frankly, with all due respect, the information is out there. You can get the information if you need it. You know what the issues are. You heard it. You dont need a cbo director come and tell you. You know what the issues are. With all due respect, im fine with giving more information. I dont think that really will change things that much. I think you really need something thats harder than just heres the information and chastise you and you have a red face if you dont follow it through. I dont see that is going to change anything out there fundamentally in terms of your decisionmaking process. I would have harder sticks. I would have it cut if you are not getting your work done and have pain back on you. Can we have a discussion about how to inform our bosses as aggressively as were informing ourselves, i appreciate the Convergence Group came to the conclusion were supposed to throw them out every two years if theyre not doing their job or getting the right information out to folks in november. Perhaps there are ways we can do a better job of that as well. Ill just mention. We thought about in the last select committee, there was some discussion about the auto cr. This is one of those where my opinion changed the more i thought about it. Because again, there is sort of unintended consequences, no matter which direction you go, right . There is a potential unintended consequence, again if you do an auto cr with as you suggest sort of a deflator, you know, if that may serve the interest of some to never pass a budget or a real appropriations bill. You can do it with an inflator and that would serve others to never pass an appropriation bill. So i think its tricky. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you for being here, to our witnesses for being here. Im sorry, im joining a little late. I just came from another hearing. But you know, i know some have talked about this a little bit before we were definitely founded as a country on the idea of making sure we have a separation of powers. Our three branches of government over the years, congress has provided i believe too much discretion to the executive branch to carry out our loss. Its been a convenient tool for administration after administration allows folks not to have to work with congress. Power can be misused for their own agenda, according to Brendan Center for justice, there are currently 223 statutes to make policy in particular areas without going through ordinary law making processes for a national emergency, for example. I feel its imperative that in a priority of our select committee to figure out how we make sure that we take back congress legitimate powers. The legislative branchs powers over the Purse Strings is one of those primary checks and balances on the actions of the executive branch, so, ms. Lynch, i wanted to ask you, what do you think are some of congress options to make sure we restore that power that weve let go . Your mic, threw go. What i can say about that i think is that many people have argued that new budget process components have given for mou tore the executive, the empowerment control act would limit the person to up. Er money, some would argue it gave the executive commission to withhold that money they wouldnt otherwise have had. Sequestration people point to as a way of giving more power to the executive to enforce different budgetary decision and also some have argued the elimination of earmarks instead has put that power with the administration, so i guess i would say that looking at some of those issues and thinks about make how to reform those. But if we look more broadly in terms of those specifics and if anyone else has feedback, too, theres those specific why, but i think there probably is operational efforts and maybe youve talked about these a little bit already that we need to do, so that we are also making sure things are moving and making the decisions we need to make in a timely fashion. Yes. Congressman, when you were out, i suggest that there is a legislation called article 1 which would restore the National Security declaration power back to you to be able to overcome that but i have another suggestion while you might want to think about it particularly. And that is that you make the laws specific that no recissions can be submitted to congress six days prior to the end of the fiscal year. We had a situation here just recently, whether there was a possibility that there was effectively a way in which the president could commit recissions that you would not have an opportunity to act on. So i would change the law and make it certain that recissions could not be submitted within 60 days of the expiration of the fiscal year. And on a slightly different note, what do you think this select committees biggest take away should be from the joint select committees work . So, as representative from crs, we obviously dont make policy recommendations. I think that some of the take aways for myself in observing that summit that you really did see some maybe odd bed fellows as a way of bicameral reasons and bipartisan reasons and those did seem to ultimately lead to the recommendations that were included in the cochairs mark and included in the amendment. Anyone else have opinions on that, too . I think the biggest take away i took was biannual bugging has a lot of resonance on both chambers and both parties and i think there was a recognition that we could do better with respect to informing policymakers and the public and some of the other elements. Lastly, there are some changes that could be made to the Budget Committee to strengthen its hand in order to lead the process. Thank you. Im just about out of time so thank you, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Cleaver, did you have another questions . 30 seconds. Its called the gravana Island Bridge in ketchikan, alaska, thank you. With that clarification, id like to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. I also just want to acknowledge and give gratitude to the Committee Staff for the hard work they do in putting together these hearings and as well to the Appropriations Committee for letting us use their glorious room. Without objection, all members have five additional days to submit witnesses to the chair, to be forwarded to the witnesses for response. I ask the witnesses to promptly respond as you are able. Without objection, they will have five days for inclusion in the record and with that again my gratitude to all of you for participating and all the members showing up. With that, this hearing issed a adjourned. Thanks, everybody for response. Thanks, everybody thanks, everyby zbrrnlgs. The house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan has been showing unfiltered coverage from events and washington, d. C. And around the country so you can make up your own mind, created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Today experts on latin america discuss the challenges and successes of the mexico president. Like at 3 oompblt p. M. Eastern on cspan3 an line at cspan. Org or cspan radio app