for going forward. the adjustments that i've referenced will have to be negotiated on a bipartisan basis, and those negotiations will take time. i intend to give members of the committee an extended period to evaluate my mark. the initial phase of the markup will end tomorrow. we will have statements, but we will not complete our work tomorrow. there's nothing i would want more than to reach agreement as soon as possible. it could be that outside events such as a crisis overseas will drive us to coming together sooner than we might otherwise do. i hope that's not the case, but certainly that could happen. i would certainly be open to reaching conclusion as soon as possible, but i recognize what many have observed, that it is unlikely that we will reach agreement until after the election. i think that's just reality.

if you look at the original simpson/bowles proposal, it was designed to be voted on right after the 2010 election. it was designed because there was a recognition it was unlikely there would be an agreement right before an election. it may be that democrats and republicans can only come together when we are closer to the circumstance of all the tax cuts expiring and the sequester staring us in the face, so my own sense is we're going to have to give a period here for negotiations and discussions. i think we need to educate. i think we need to hopefully get people focused again on the need for a long-term plan. let me just conclude by saying

the fact is we have spending limitations in place for this year and next. they are contained in the budget control act, so we don't need a budget resolution to deal with next year's spending levels. the appropriators have already been given their assignments with respect to spending levels for next year's budget. that's done. they have already started working based on the spending limits contained in the budget control act, so we have those limitations, spending limitations for this year and next year, and we have the enforcement provisions for this year and next year. that's also contained in the budget control act. we also have ten years of spending caps. usually a budget resolution only has one, and the budget control act was not a resolution. a resolution is all, as you know, is purely a congressional

document. it never goes to the president for his signature. the budget control act is a law. what we don't have is the longer term plan, a ten-year plan to get us back on track. that's what i hope what i am laying down will stimulate discussion around. how do we put together a ten-year plan to get america back on track? that should be what occupies us in the days and weeks ahead. i'm going to stop there, and i'm happy to take questions that people might have. yeah, jonathan. >> what kind of input did you seek or did you get from the democratic leadership, from senator reid, and given the vote in the house on bowles/simpson which only got a handful of votes, how ready is washington for this? >> first of all, i consulted

members of the budget committee repeatedly. we had literally dozens of meetings. i have consulted the leadership of our party repeatedly. i have advised them every step of the way. i've been amused to see some of these reports that somehow something i said caught somebody by surprise. i don't know how that could be since they were advised every step of the way as to what i was doing and the timing in which i was doing it. with that, i don't speak for their reactions to this plan. i don't -- i've had a rule around here for a long time. i don't speak for others. i speak for myself, so i'd urge you to talk to them for their reactions to the specifics here. in terms of the vote in the house, i think it's very instructive. when i was asked for advice on the timing, i said i don't think it's wise to vote when they did

because right before an election people are probably not going to be ready to get out of their trenches. it's probably going to take waiting until after the election. that's why the fiscal commission plan was designed as it was to have a vote of the commission after the 2010 election. so my own feeling is this is the wrong time to vote in the committee. this is the wrong time to vote on the floor. we have budget limits, spending limits put in place for this year and next so we don't need to go to the floor for that purpose or through the committee for that purpose, because we have the budget control act, which, as i've said, is law, but we do need to try to maximize the chance that as we get closer to all the tax cuts expiring and the sequester from being imposed that we're ready to act. that's what i'm trying to stimulate is a discussion and a

planning exercise to get ready for what we all know is coming. yeah. yes. >> when did you decide you'd go this route? was it relatively recently, and secondly, you're going to get a lot of criticism from people who are going to say that you're basically gone back on your promise to hold a markup? what is your reaction to anticipation of that criticism? >> we are going to mark up. i don't know what could be more clear. we are going to mark up tomorrow. i am laying down a mark, so we're going to mark up. your first question? >> when did you decide to do this? >> you know, this was my first inclination. then we went through another exercise for many weeks of going in a different direction, and as we went through it i concluded just putting up another partisan budget plan probably is not

going to contribute much, so we changed course and went back to where i originally started. yes. >> why -- why do this markup now? i mean, republicans have been saying it's been over 1,000 days since the democrats have had a budget in the senate. senator reid saying he's not going to bring it up for a vote. you even said they are not going to reach an agreement until after the election anyway so what's the point? >> that's a very good question, and, you know, the answer may not be obvious. let me just say, after participating in the bowles/simpson commission as a member, the group of six, what becomes very clear is how long it takes to do this work, and we need to start the discussion and the negotiation now if we're going to be ready for what we all know is coming at us at the end of this year, the expiration of all the tax cuts, the

imposition of the sequester. it can't wait. those discussions can't wait. those negotiations can't wait. we i don't think will be prepared to vote before the election, but we do have to do the homework to be prepared for when we get to -- before we get to the end of this year. >> senator conrad? >> this woman is very patient, yeah. >> you have said that this would bring you -- would bring the congress closer to some sort of idea of how to replace the sequester which is one of the purposes of this. how does marking up an overarching budget plan help in that sort of effort, particularly given the deadline to replace that sequester? >> well, part of this plan is to replace the sequester with these other savings, so, again, i can't emphasize strongly enough, and i know this is sort of geeky

stuff, but the hard reality is that the amount of time it takes to put together these plans is really daunting. ask any member of the group of six. ask anybody that served on the fiscal commission. this takes weeks and weeks and months and months of effort, and so that's why i think it's important that we begin. again, we have the spending limitations in place for this year and next, so the typical timetable for budget is just not very relevant. what we don't have is that long-term plan, and that's what we need before we get to the end of this year, and that work needs to begin right away. >> what time frame do you actually see then? do you see putting out a budget resolution after -- do you see the committee actually voting on some budget resolution after the election and then that being the vehicle? take us through the exact

process. >> you know, i can imagine a number of different scenarios. you know, we've had budget resolutions approved as late as october. look, my strong preference would be to act sooner rather than later, but there's got to be a negotiation, and that negotiation's going to take time. we certainly know that, and it's going to be difficult, and it probably will not be concluded until after the election. i mean, if we're just honest with ourselves, that's probably what is most likely to occur. it may not occur then. it may be that, depending on election outcomes, that they decide to kick the can down the road a little longer and deal with this in the first part of next year. i can see any of those things happening. i can also see, and one thing i've said to my colleagues is, another reason we need to be prepared sooner rather than later is there are external events that could change the timetable, and i'm thinking specifically about europe. all of you have followed events

there closely. we certainly have. i don't think anybody can predict with precision what happens there, so getting prepared, doing the homework now makes a lot of sense. yeah? >> mr. chairman, how does this relate to the work ongoing with the gang of six to draft legislation? >> well, they could play a very -- they could play a very constructive role here in helping bring people together and surfacing options. one of the things i've said here, and i hope it's clear, the commission plan needs adjustment because it was acted on in 2010. so we've had other things happen since, so we know there have to be adjustments, and what those adjustments might be requires a lot of work, and a lot of work has been done by the group of

six, now the group of eight, but i think we are going to get good ideas from every member. yes? >> just so i'm clear here on the logistics of the process. you expect tomorrow to have opening statements and to play this down as the mark, but do you expect then to have votes on amendments on thursday? do you expect to have a vote -- >> no. >> -- on whether to have it adopted by the committee at the end of the week? >> no. the timing would be all wrong. if one is interested in really getting a result, which is my interest, the time is not yet right. nothing could be more clear. you couldn't have a clear message than the house vote. i think i got 38 votes. again, if you look at the way bowles/simpson was set up, it was set up to have the vote on that commission report right

after the 2010 election, and the reason was to maximize the chance to get a result, and that's what i think we've got to try to do here. now, i've also tried to be clear. i don't rule out being able to act more quickly if, for example, there was an external shock, but i think the greater likelihood is that it won't come until after the election, and so we've got a budget. spending limits are in place for this year and next. what we need is this longer term plan, and it's going to require a lot of negotiation, and the negotiation is going to take time. >> in what sense is it a markup though if you're not going to be talking about amendments? >> well, it's the beginning of a markup. it's the beginning of a markup that extends -- as markups have in the past, as i've said, we've had two markups that weren't concluded until october. >> the house -- bipartisan

agreement in the house got bowles and simpson's endorsement on their plan. what have you heard from them? have they endorsed this version, or where are you in the negotiation? >> i've talked to erskine boelgz in the last couple of days, talked to him again. i think you'll be seeing a very positive statement from he and senator simpson, and others as well who are interested in getting us back on track. >> so you're saying it's going to be months until there's an actual committee vote on this? >> could be. >> okay. >> the election, after all, is months away. >> republicans would say, again, that 1,000 days, why weren't -- why wasn't the committee doing this already? if this things takes days and takes and months and months like you said, same question, why today and not 1,000 days ago or earlier? i mean, what's -- >> well, look, i don't know how i could be more clear. last year a law was passed, not

a resolution, a law. that law provided spending limits for this year and next. >> but it wasn't a long-term plan like you were talking about today. >> that's true. that's why -- but it did provide the spending limits, the spending discipline, the enforcement mechanism. in fact, ten years of spending caps in a law that is in place. what we still need is a longer term act. the budget control act actually provided the opportunity for that longer term plan, didn't it, because it created a special commit we reconciliation-like powers to deal not only with discretionary spending but with entitlements and revenues. now, they failed, but they were given that opportunity last year in the budget control act. so now this year we have in place, because of the budget

control act, the spending limits for this year and next. what we don't have is that longer term plan because the special committee couldn't agree. yeah. >> one more question. some of the house members who put forward that simpson/bowles plan say it failed because members of congress don't know what it's in it. you're putting this forward and what is there to guarantee that the senate actually knows what is in this plan and knows what's in it after the election? >> that's a very good plan. as i was thinking through what's needed here is you need time to evaluate. you need time to educate. you need time to negotiate. you really do. and it's going to take a considerable time, and it's going to take considerable effort. anybody that was involved in the fiscal commission. anybody that was involved in the group of six, you're talking hundreds and hundreds of hours

that were put in by members on those efforts, and it's just going to take time. i know everybody is impatient. we all want to do it right now. i want to do it right now. i'm ready right now, but others are going to need some more time, and it is also true the fiscal commission report is going to need adjustment, and that takes negotiation. yeah. yes, sir. >> just to be clear. you said this was the original plan to offer bowles/simpson, but was it your original plan to have the extended markup, or did you come to that conclusion after consulting with colleagues very recently? >> yeah. it sort of evolved as we talked to people about how do you -- my question has been how do you maximize the chances of getting a result? thank you. >> sorry. i'm sorry. you've got one. >> i mean, we've been debating

simpson/bowles for more than a year. >> two years. >> two years. you put this as your budget. what is to prevent all of your colleagues from forgetting about all of this by next week? how does this -- >> there are two things that are going to focus people's attention. all of the tax cuts expiring and sequester. that is the thing that i believe has the potential, and i can't guarantee it will lead to a result. >> but between now and then, if there's not ever going to be a vote, what is there to force people to wrestle with this? >> all the tax cuts expiring, facing a sequester. i mean, you tell me what else. i mean, i don't know. those are the two forcing events that are coming our way that are going to create the next opportunity to do something the country needs us to do. yeah. this will be the last one. >> i guess i was wondering how much does this track with the language that was released by cooper and, b, do you think --

how much do you worry -- they said that they basically got shellacked from the left and the right once it -- from the left and the right when it came to be known that they were going to try to bring theirs to the floor? >> this goes back to the original fiscal commission. this is not any later iteration. that's what they did. this is -- this is based on the original bowles/simpson fiscal commission plan. thank you. we are going to be providing to you, for anybody that wants it as you leave, the mark, yeah, for sitting through all this. you deserve a reward for sitting through this.

>> here are the changes. social security is not in these numbers for the reasons i gave. it goes out two more years obviously now. third, the baseline, as i indicated is current policy instead of plausible, and the split on discretionary reflects the appropriations process of the last two years. >> sir, did you deal with the -- with any republicans on the committee or perhaps some of the republicans in the gang of six before you made this decision? >> no. >> so republicans have not seen th this. >> have not talked to members of the group of six because this was in the budget committee. >> okay. >> sir, was that the list of updates? >> changes, yeah.

here are changes in terms of -- from original bowles/simpson. >> from december 2010. >> there are four significant changes. one, as i said, social security is not in the numbers because under the budget law you can't have them. two, it goes out two more years because obviously that was 2010. the baseline for revenue is now based on current policy which makes the tax -- the revenue look larger, but it's exactly the same as bowles/simpson, but it's a current policy baseline instead of the plausible baseline, because virtually everybody has moved to a policy baseline now. and the split on discretionary, the -- the discretionary savings are exactly the same as business. on, but the split between security and non-security is somewhat different because we've adopted the props of the last two years.

and "book tv" is live tonight with "new york times" columnist ross douthat. his new book is "bad religion, how we became a nation of heartics." mr. douthat speaks with barb ray bradley hadley, npr religion correspondent and "washington post" colum nuclear missile michael garrison. watch it live this evening at 7:00 p.m. eastern on booktv.or, and today tax day, the deadline to file your 2011 said and federal returns and our facebook question today asks do you think you pay your fair share? read what others have to say and let us know your opinion. facebook.com/c-span.

for this year's student cam competition we asked students to create a video explaining what part of the constitution was important to them and why. today we're going to hoboken, new jersey, to meet with matthew delorenzo, an eighth grader from alisian charter school. hi, matthew. >> hello. >> your video was on capital punishment and the eighth amendment. why did you choose to focus on this issue? >> we were dealt with this project a little bit at the beginning of the year, and we were -- they gave us the whole constitution, and we had to look through the amendments and choose which ones we would like to focus on, and joey and i were reading through the amendments, and we were trying to see which ones stuck out to us and we read the eighth amendment which was the death penalty so we chose to do this because we both disagreed upon, it so we thought it would be a good issue to discuss. >> you opened your video with a clip from a republican

presidential primary debate. why did you choose to open with this clip? >> well, we mainly chose to focus -- to open with that video to basically start off showing how cool people can be about the death people and execution and show that how much a man with power that does agree with it can influence and people and citizens around texas so we thought it would be good to show how people thought about it and how people reacted to the video. >> throughout the documentary you debated three questions on the death penalty. why did you choose to focus on these three questions? >> well, mainly we chose to focus on these three questions because as we were doing the research for the death penalty, these were the three issues that mainly concerned the death penalty, and we thought these would be the three best to discuss in the video. >> and you interviewed an expert from the innocence project. how did she affect your understanding on the issue? >> she just made the view -- the

way i saw the executions stronger, and she made me notice how -- how more than not innocent people have been and are being killed in different states where execution is allowed, and she just made my view on execution stronger and made me see it better. >> you also interviewed several people on their personal opinions dealing with the death penalty. how did that help you understand the different sides of capital punishment? >> being able to talk to people and those are people that i see on a daily basis, and i know them on a personal basis, i was able to like connect with them and understand how they felt about it and see how they would feel if they were innocent in a predicament somebody close to them was being executed. >> and what was your favorite part in creating this documentary? >> my favorite part of creating this documentary had to be being able to speak face-to-face with people and being able to interact and connect with them

and get to know their story and how they felt about it and seeing their reactions towards it. >> and what would you like others to learn as they watch your documentary? >> i'd like them to learn that execution is not -- it's not the right thing to do. it's not humane. it's just -- it's just cruel, and it's not what we should be doing. there's other ways of justice, and i feel that this is not a good way to serve justice. >> matthew, thank you for talking with us today. >> thank you. >> and here's a portion of matthew's documentary, "the great debate." >> governor perry, a question about texas. your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. [ applause ] >> wait, did you just hear that? >> did you hear the people cheering? >> hits rewind that and take a second look. >> your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any

other governor in modern times. [ applause ] >> have you -- have you struggled -- >> my name is matthew delorenzo and when i see this clip it makes me wonder what the world is coming to when anyone can find pleasure or enjoyment out of execution, loss of any life no matter what anyone has done. >> i understand why the crowd was cheering because if you commit the most heinous crimes you deserve the ultimate punishment. >> in this documentary well debate three questions concerning the death penalty. >> number one, is the death penalty moral? >> number two, is the death penalty racist? >> them three, does the death penalty make us safer? >> and you can watch matthew's entire video, along with all winning documentaries, at studentcam.org and continue the conversation at our facebook and twitter pages. >> a fired general services administration official says he did not know taxpayers would be billed nearly $2,000 for a party in his luxury suite at a las

vegas resort. robert peck testified before the house transportation committee. it was the second day of hearings into gsa spending at agency's las vegas conference in october 2010 and on other travel. he has since been fired, and here's his opening statement followed by questions by members of congress. it's about 45 minutes. >> good morning chairman, ranging members of the subcommittee. my name is robert a. peck. i am deeply troubled and disappointed by what i have learned about the costs associated with the gsa's western regions conference held in october 2010. there were excessive and inappropriate costs that should never have been incurred. those planning it made fundamental errors of judgment. it is also troubling that procurement policies, travel policies, and other agency

procedures appear not to have been followed. while i was not personally involved in planning, conducting or approving the conference and the unacceptable conference expenditures described in the i.g. report, they took place within the pbs on my watch. i am not here to shirk that responsibility. i am deeply disappointed by what the i.g. reported. i have been removed from the job i loved, and i offer my personal apology that some people within the gsa acted as they did. the taxpayers deserve better than this. the actions of those responsible for the expenditures outlined in the i.g. report failed to meet the obligation we all owe the american people. those actions failed to meet the standards i expected from those employed in pbs headquarters and throughout the regions, and those actions dishonored the thousands of hard-working and dedicated federal employees i have worked with over the years. at the gsa and at other agencies, the federal employees and managers with whom i have worked in my times both inside and outside the government have