Quote

It was determined, as shown in the report of the Commission, which I can read to you, but I know you are familiar with the report. It states there was disagreement on this issue, particularly as the subject was debated, that there were different opinions about it.

Any committee that is the slightest use is composed of people who are too busy to want to sit on it for a second longer than they have to.

The budget enforcement rules of the 1990s were an important part of getting the budget back into balance. It was done on a bipartisan basis. Those pay-as-you-go rules were tested and they worked. We are now in a one-party system, and we have thrown them out.

Too many of my Senate colleagues overdid it. They stayed on too long - napping through committee hearings when they should have packed up and gone home.

The British regulatory system was revised, so that bigger profits were encouraged, which removed the option of big spending on programming. Quality just fell off a cliff, and all the old hands either left or were fired for being too expensive.

Putting the budget ahead of the policy is the wrong way to do it. It's too often the way it's done in Washington.

The reason we have such a reform budget is because we've been thinking about these things for a long time.

If one committee controlled your entire budget, I think you might make some effort to build up personal relationships. I think it is a no-brainer.

They rushed to move it forward, uh, and then a lawsuit was filed and we spent many months litigating, rather than trying to come up with legislation and move forward on that front.

The debate on healthcare was not done like most of our conferences are done - meaning it was not all on television. There was this procedural feeling that the bill wasn't done thoroughly and didn't reflect peoples' wishes. It's not coincidence that upwards of 60 percent of folks in my district are against it.