me. >> he hasn't done that? >> he hasn't done that. >> he has no obligation to either, right? >> well, no, give me an opportunity to respond, normally give 120 days. >> if nothing happens in 120 days, it's the end as f as you're concerned? >> it's the end of what we looked at. >> all right. fair enough. i have a couple questions regarding control of commission information. mr. bell, is it your experience under former chairman staff could bring policy measures to the full commission? >> under the previous chairman? >> yeah. your experience, under previous chairen it was the standard staff could bring policymakers directly to the full commission. i don't know firsthand but it's never come to us in a manner that was disputed like this. >> fair enough. yet in your report under chairman jasco, the staff was

not able to bring policy matters directly to commission, could they. >> could i help clarify that to some degree? the staff has periodic meetings. and during the course of those meetings, a variety of issues surface which is coming from the staff in and of itself. it's just that the manner by which the current chairman handles the agenda, if you would, is whether there has been disconnects with the previous chairman in the commission itself. >> do you think it's fair to say that the staff were constrained from communicating policy matters to the full condition or matters the chairman may have had a disagreement with staff. >> i think that as mr. mcmillan indicated, the staff does communicate with each of the commissioners. they generally know what the staff may be working on.

>> what becomes more difficult is when the staff is looking for guidance and wants to, for example, get a paper up to the commissioners, that that process has to go through the e.d.o. who in turn has to go through the chairman and it's at that point, even though the commissioners know, they may not know always real time items are coming up and how they're prioritized. >> you think the staff was constrained from communicating policy matters to commissioners at any time. >> i'd say yes. >> fair enough. according to your report, page 29, the executive officer of corporations e.d.o., said he didn't want differences between his budget and the staff's proposal and saw it as his budget. he also wanted to change or review in the staff's response to the commissioner's

questions. do you believe ruin laterally editing is an approprte way to manage information sharing? >> again, this chairman operated differently than previous chair men, and previous chairmen, it was an open and collaborative discussion of the budget. this chairman has sought to take the budget as his responsibility and has taken full responsibility for it. mean, if commissioned officers seek any information from any office, then all this information has to be filtered back through the chairman. for a response. >> it's your opinion unilaterally editing staff information supplied to the commission is an opponent -- appropriate way, then, to to manage agency information? >> no. >> your report on page 37 the chairman's budget estimate was

submitted to the commission without fundamental supporting documents presented by the staff, is that correct? >> correct. but i think that has subsequently, through the general counsel, has advised the chairman's office that he submits budget information to any of the offices, it has to be supporting documentation to suppt the budget, or the appearance here is everything is coming from the chairman itself. i think the chairman has recognized that in the future, any budget items that go forward has to have some supportive documentation from the office that provided the budg information. >> mr. chairman, i'm out of time. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks very much for being here today. tell you, sitting through

these hearings, i've come to the conclusion if i was teaching federal administrative law in law school i'd have the perfect case study to do. and also having been a county commissioner in the state of ohio where we had rules and regulations we had to follow, this is amazing. i know chairman barton expressed that in the last hearing and i'm just astounded by what i'm rathering today. also when i read the reports, i make lotsf tabs and everything else. but if i could, the question, you know, you said it's the prerogative of the chair who gets the information. but first of all, doe't this board sit as a quasijudicial board, mr. bell? would it sit as a quasijudicial board? >> was "-- a quasijudicial board? >> has to have all the information come before the board?

>> i think the commission as a whole has to make a decision. >> but the board makes a decision but it's quasijudicial that's doing this? >> y, i would agree with that. >> would you say the commission needs to make timely actions on theirctions before they have something come before it. because if you don't, justice delayed is a justice denied. would that be a fair statement? >> you would think after a certain time frame after anything has happened you would have motions going forward to end whatever it is you're in the process of doing. >> also following along, when the commissioner's internal figures say commissioners should vote for 10 office days. isn't holding that for that amount of time unfair in that situation? >> it seems unfair but there's

no -- i mean, the voting process is very laxed. it's not enforced to where it should be. >> i did find your report very interesting because on page 36 when you're talking about the chairman told the o.i.g. he did not see the he email from his staff not requesting an extension to vote. and then he said that the commission does not always act in accordance with procedures, for example, the procedures say the commission votes on matters within 10 days. but then he goes on, he said that the commission providers are a guideline and not absolutely rules which takes us back to what was said earlier, going back to the reorganization plan in section 1, section 2, it really lays out with the commission is supposed to be doing.

did the commission act the way it should be acting under its rules and regulations. >> no. >> ok. going on. on page 29, again,his report is fascinating. page 29, in talking -- when you were interviewing commissioner osendorf. he says the general council, the attorney, told the commissioner it was his experience that there were certain issues the chairman does not want to hear from him on. he goes on to say the conversation left him with an impression there probably was not an open trirmente to provide unfiltered advice to the chairman without fear of retribution. is this the way we have due process carried out in our administrative boards or commissions here? going back to the whole idea of

due process and getting something done" did that occur under the policy of the commission. >> that's what we were told. this is what commissioner osendorf said, the general council told him. >> and again, in your opening statement, again, intriguing. page 7 again in your first full paragraph, when you said in the second line, o.i.g. found the chairman had authority to direct staff to follow the f.y. 2001 budget gun and was not forthcoming to stop work on the s.e.r. to close out the activity. again, is that proper procedure under the law, under what ty have as the rules and regulations at the n.r.c.? >> no. >> just real briefly, when

you're saying not forthcoming and i heard the term by one of my fellow colleagues talking about being misled. are we talking about a word it should be -- is it a lie to mislead, is it a lie to not be forthcoming. or are we just talking about what some people like to talk about back home, that they call it a lie back home but today we'realking about a white lie? >> that's a characterization with a white lie or an outright -- it was clear the commissioners that spoke with the agents conveyed the fact they did not have all the information to believe that s.e.r. was going to be stopped as a part of that budget guidance memorandum. that's factually what we were told by each of the commissioners we interviewed. now, the characterization to his intentions behind it, the regular shots about it, we didn't get into that quite frankly with regard to what we were trying to do, was line up,

what occurred when and how did the document get out without their concurrence. that's what they told us. they had no knowledge the k. r s.c.r. would be stopped. >> my time has expired. i yield back. >> the chair will ask unanimous consent mr. markey be recognized for five minutes. without objection. so ordered. >> thank you very much. i find it highlyronic we're having a hearing to express the majority's apparent surprise that matters related to yucca mountain are sometimes political. this issue has been nothing but political fromed beginning. the department of energy was to select two scientifically sites, one east of the mississippi river and one west of the mississippi river. but the speaker of the house then said he didn' want it in texas. that was one of the sites. the second site was in washington state.

the majority leader said, i don't want it in washington state. it was out. the third side was in indiana. they said no. the fourth sight was in north carolina. the commissioner said they didn't want it in north carolina. mississippi itself was a potential site but they will a powerful delegation at that time and said they don't want it in mississippi. and john sununu, as the governor of new hampshire o on behalf of george bush said we didn't want it in the granite formations. so the nuclear -- so it all happened on a political basis. i was here. you make a political decision you'll end up with big scientific problems at the end of the day.

so congress actually -- this committee barred the department of energy from looking at any other site other than yucca mountain. we use political science, not real science to hand that nuclear queen of spades to nevada. that's the legacy this committee left. the problem is that yucca mountain has two fault lines running through it and is in an active earthquake zone. there have been more than 600 earthquakes within 50 miles of the site within the past 12 years. we jaw just how earthquakes can impact spent nuclear fuel in japan just a few months ago. oreover, in 1997,cientists found that plutonium from nuclear weapons tests that had been conducted just a few decades earlier had migrated a mile through water in the rock near yucca mountain which contradicted earlier assertions that the repository site was

geologically isolated from the water table. so basically what we had was congress writing aaw that yucca mountain was a nuchal came trez from -- nuclear alcatraz but scientists said it was more like a nuclear sieve. we heard that from the national academy of sciences in 1986 and heard it from them here but this committee and others ignored that warning. the obama administration that moving record with yucca muenten -- mountain and was not the appropriate political direction to take. but congress decided to slash funding for the project. the chairman greg yasgow did whatever office would do when a building plan a canceled, he

topped spending money, processing the permit. though members of this community accud him of doing something legal. but the general council found it was bell and entirely within his authority to do so. mr. bell, you said earlier that chairman's press release on your report wasis alone and you had no input. but isn't it true that you and your deputy saw the statement before it went out. upon chairman yasgow and you told the chairman's chief of staff you had no objections, is that true? no, that's not true. i read the statement but said that was his statement. we made no chances to the statement. i just saw the statement because he said he was going to put it out. >> did you say you had objection >> i did not impose to him. >> ok. great. so in finding number one, you

id two the commissioners didn't understand that when the chairman told them that he would be using the appropriations process to proceed with closer of the yucca mountain program, this meant the documents necessary for the yucca mountain license would cease being prepared. on page 23, your report notes when chairman q -- chairman yasgow suspected one of the commissioners didn't understand the discussion they had he directed a staff to follow up with the commissioner to be clear. do you believe the chairman was responsible for a failure by other criminals -- for a failure by others that it would begin adjudicated abilities when the application was withdrawn even after he tri to explain it to him? >> clearly he said the chairman was responsible.

>> is it his fault they didn't understand it? >> he had a responsibility to ensure that they understood the context of the four squares of that piece of paper. and if they're saying -- and what they related to us during the interviews was they never came to understand that the s.e.r. -- and i think sometimes the differences -- >> i have a hard time when two commissioners on the nuclear regulatory commission can't understand something this simple when they have to understand the most complex nature of nuclear matial. so to say that they didn't understand something so fundamental as to the way in which the regulatory process works, in my opinion, they did not do their job. they did not -- they had a responsibility after they were told that was the route the -- >> out of time. i thank the gentleman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, for five minutes. >> when the staff repord in

march of 2010 to the commission about their plans for completing the yucca safety evaluations in tight budget constraints, their plans were to complete volume one and volume three of the s.e.r. not later than i believe august and november of 2010 respectively, is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> now, according to your report, the e.d.o. and technical staff believed even if d.o.e. were to withdraw the application it would benefit the cntry to have completed the technical review, is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> the most critical portion of the technical review, the s.e.r. volume three was almost complete and on track to be committeed -- completed well before, correct? >> yes. >> the completion the end of august is consistent with a not later than november schedule reported to the commission in march, isn't it? >> just on that last question in regards to completion, that was not a necessary concurrence

and approval. while it might very well have been completed by the staff to be forwarded up, it still had to go through a concurance project including e.c.g. >> thank you p. when the chairman learned the report could be ready in august before the fiscal year, is it true he inserted himself into the process in june and directed staff to slow down? >> he directed the staff to maintain the current published schedule with regard to the release of the various products. >> did he not in fact -- did you have an addition to that? >> i would just note the august time frame was for volume one, it was not for volume three. volume three was anticipated in november. however, the majority of the work had been done and they believed they could get both volumes ahead of schedule. >> will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> which is amazing a

government agency would be good enough to move quickly instead of being way behind so in that aspect i would applaud the n.r.c. for being prompt. >> i'll go back and ask this, in fact, though, the chairman did direct staff to issue the s.e.r. volume 3 not earlier than november, isn't that correct? >> his je 11 memorandum speaks to not issuing volume 1 prior to schedule. it does also speak about other volume but only volume 1 is specifically identified as not beg released prior to august. >> ok. but prior to november was volume three. >> volume three was due in november, correct. >> now, was the impact of his actions in the s.e.r., volume 3, would not be completed by what date, you say octob 1?

>> november. november. >> ok. as your report on page 27, when senior staff discussed the chairman's action to slow the compleeks of the s.e.r., they indicated it would be contrary to the agency's value of openness and transparency to slow down that work, is that correct? >> our report reflects one manager told us that, correct. >> at least one commissioner also warned the chairman it was not a good idea to slow the process, is that correct. >> yes, one commissioner agreed it shouldn't be slowed. >> did the chairman listen to the senior staff and other coissioners and allow the staff review to continue with the same pace the staff themselves had set. >> no. the staff also informed the commission in march 30, 2010 it planned to work on any remaining s.e.r. volumes until f.y. 2010 funds were exhausted, is that correct? >> correct. yes.

>> were those funds exhausted by november of 2010? >>o, they were not. by the end of the fiscal year 2010 there was approximate $7 million remaining. >> ok. and in fact, according to your report, the n.r.c. staff, including the e.d.o. assumed as late as mid nept the c.r. guidance would continue the licensing review with those available fun as you said. so the draft c.e.o. them as of mid september bear it out. despite the chairman's instructions to slow down, staff plans to continue work usinghose f.y.i. 2010 funds. but the chairman changed that, that's where we are, right? >> the senior staff always anticipated they would be able to complete certain volumes and theyere relying on f.y. 2010 funds to do that. >> this was the chairman's policy, to slow walk these critical reports to october,

early november, and use his budget authority to ensure the staff findings would not be made public, is that correct? >> i think the report is reflective of the fact once it got into budget space you'd have to use another mechanism to change the course and since you did have the budget guidance memorandum everyone was complying with, it would have taken a calm at that juncture to move it over. >> my time is almostp. let me ask this question, did your investigation examine whether the chairman's actions were directed by or coordinated with the white house or senator harry reid? >> we have had no indications or interferences by anyone that came to us and assured us or stated to us that occurred. >> my question was did you examine that possibility. did you look io that? >> it was nothi that would lead us for that from the information the interviews we conducted. it didn't state that and didn't probe further. we stayed within the allegation

that was proper to us and no one said there was any interference by the white house at all. >> but did you ask? >> i want to get back with you on that one particular point just to ensure in our notes but i want to assure you that never came up. >> my question is, did you ask if there was any communications along the lines of what i just inquired? >> i have to get with you with regard to that specific question. >> thank you. with that i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes jafment -- the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you. i appreciate mr. markey's efforts to defend his former employee, but he alleged that maybe those other commissioners were derelict in their responsibility of learning as much as they could learn. did you find any evidence of dereliction of duty and learning other issues by the otherommissioners? >> no. again, i think it was clear when the commissioners were

interviewed by our office, they were very concerned byhe fact that they felt they did not have all the information. >> ok. now earlier, i think you, mr. bell, mentioned that the senior staff felt constrained in conveying information to the other commissioners. but just to be clear, would they have been constrained without instructions from the chairman as to what to communicate? would theon their own say we shall be constrained because of whatever, or would they know it would have been a directive from their chairman to not communicate certain issues? >> what i think was pretty common knowledge that any communications that went back to the chairman had to go through the chairman's office. >> so the constrain would have come from the chairman? >> it was just the way this chairman has elected to do business. if it's not a policy issue, and

his office control, whatever it was, whatever requesthe commissioners made, whether it be the budget or otherwise, before the commissioners got an answer it had to be vetted through the chairman's office.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> coming up on c-span, white house national economic council director gene sperling talking about the debt ceiling and the national debt from yesterday. "washington journal" against the top of the hour with topics that include military operations in libya, medicare spending, and the global food market. that is at 7:00 eastern. this week, the national telecommunications association is holding its annual convention in chicago. this weekend, we will show you some of those events. on saturday, executives from time warner, viacom, cox, and

comcast will talk about the state of their industry. on sunday, an interview with the fcc chairman and then a discussion on next year's presidential election with president obama's campaign strategist david axelrod and former rnc chairman ed gillespie. the convention coverage begins saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> your watch and cspan, bring you politics and public affairs every morning, "washington journal" connecting you with elected officials, policymakers, and journalists. watch live coverage of u.s. house of weekdays and weeknights, policy and supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. you can also watch our programming any time at c- span.org and it is searchable on

our cspan video library. cspan, washington your way, a public service credit by america's cable companies. -- created by america's cable companies. >> remarks from the white house national economic council director gene sperling on the debt ceiling and the national debt. he spoke at the committee for responsible federal budget and a new america foundation conference yesterday. we will also hear from former republican senator alan simpson who cochaired the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. >> i'm not going to reveal too much or negotiate here.

it is a very serious process. there is a real seriousness of purpose in the room. everybody at that table takes it very seriously and comes very well-prepared. it goes line by line for the details. the talks are tough but they are positive and progress continues to be made. let me make a few general points -- #one, we should be engaged in this process of seeking a bipartisan downpayment on deficit reduction regardless of whether or not there was a debt limit issue. it is important for us to show the american public and broader markets that despite our deep

divisions in washington, we are capable of coming together to make progress on getting our fiscal house in order and showed we can live within our means. i think that would be a very positive developments. . progress in the 1990's was not made all in one swoop. it was a combination of the 1990 budget agreement, the 1993 budget agreement, the 1997, and i think the commitment to a surplus for social security. making a serious down payment, making important progress matters and it would send a very important signal. we should do this regardless of whether or not there was a debt limit issue. that said, nobody should use the default for the united states as a threat or tactic for their

budget agenda and no matter how admirable were worthy of that agenda is. no one should ever use the first to fall to the united states with our legacy starting with alexander hamilton as acceptable form of a negotiating tactic. , no matter how worthy their ultimate objective is. second, our strategy this year was to get to the first initial budget and as soon as that was over to come forward and get a bipartisan negotiation going forward. getting that first part on took much longer than we would have liked or many people would have liked. that was done on friday night and on the next wednesday, the

president put forward a 12-year plan to get to $4 trillion in deficit-reduction. that plan was very detailed in some aspects such as the deficit cap, what we were doing on health care spending in the out years through our mechanism, and in other places we made clear we were willing to look at important targets like medicare and medicaid and other mandatories. and revenues and i think it sent an important signal that we were willing to look at all the major budget categories as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction plan. we believe that social security should be dealt with in its own right and should not be looked at as a means for dealing with a five or 10 year deficit problem.

as the president always has, we have encouraged a serious bipartisan negotiation and compromise on continuing this as a rock-solid insult and -- insolvent benefit for future generations. this is a component of a strategy to grow our economy consistent with our values which is to have a growing middle class in which success in our economy is not based on the accident of your birth but your ability to climb and the ability of a multi-ethnic society to rise and be part of a growing middle class without pushing and went out. that is the ultimate goal. we believe a strong deficit- reduction plan is a critical

component of that strategy. it is also important to insure that we are investing in the future. it is also critical that we do so in a way consistent with encouraging a strong recovery at this point. those are parts of the strategy that not only can go together, they should go to get it. let me make one point on the investment part -- i have heard for over 25 years, the discussions by so many people around this table as to why we as a country wanted to have a strategy to deal with the baby boomer retirement. truthfully, we were in a position when i look -- when i left at the end of the clinton administration that we were on track to deal with the retirement of the baby boom generation in a way that was not going to pass on significant debt to the next generation.

i will not go into how we lost our way but i will say the following -- part of the goal and purpose of that was to insure that the strain of a more aging society did not prevent us from investing in our children, in research, in innovation, the things that helped make our country great. the notion that as part of the strategy it fits well to cut those parts of domestic spending that are fundamentally about investing in the productivity and innovation and research of the future, to me, counters much of the fundamental goal in us being able to get our fiscal house in order. part of the goal was to insure that we did not starve the investment in our children and

education and research and innovation. to say that it does not matter or that it is a positive thing to be cutting those parts of our budget to levels we have never seen on record or not since the 1940's or 1930's, should not be part of our strategy. in fact, one of the things that we need is for people to make clear that not all spending is the same and to make the tough choices about those things that are critical to getting people opportunity to insuring that children's chances in life are not determined by the acts of their birth and make sure we are investing in the basic research and innovation that has helped us leave the world for generations to come. there is no question that one of the most difficult aspect right

now is whether or not when we look at a comprehensive deficit- reduction, revenues can be at peace on the table. that is the norm for a serious bipartisan budget agreement. this is what happened in 1982, 1983 on social security. 1986, the tax reform was revenue neutral but raise taxes on some and lord of others. 1990, 1993, and in 1997, even though there were were new revenues, there is agreement to continue from 1997. prime minister camera on -- cameron in his budget cutting in the u.k. includes a dollar of revenues for every $2 of spending cuts were about $3 in spending cuts for every dollar of revenue if you count interest savings. the reason this is important is

for three reasons -- one, to start for the numbers to work without revenues. some of the most on for some parts of the house budget agreement -- the house budget plan, were driven by the fact that without revenues they were forced to cut far too harshly in some areas particularly affecting the least fortunate and most vulnerable. so -- be on the number is not working out, for those of us who have been involved in major deficit-reduction plans, we know the following -- it is never popular. it succeeds because it is equally painful for everyone in a way that people think is fair. that sense of fair sacrifice is how those who vote for budget

agreements get the moral authority to ask for sacrifice across the board. we are a democratic administration and in our friend or, -- and in our friend or, we have saved over $1 billion in medicaid savings. we are essentially asking everyone to be part of the sacrifice. one loses their authority to ask the sacrifice of everyone if at the same time those being asked to take a pinch or to sacrifice in the short term for our long- term benefit feel that their sacrifice could have easily been avoided if it had not been for tax relief to the most fortunate. it is not just about the numbers working out. it is being able to tell everyone that everyone has to sacrifice. if you can suggest that all of your sacrifice would have been

unnecessary had it not been for extending for the most unfortunate, it makes the tough and difficult choices that elected officials have to ask of their constituents. finally, the sense of shared political sacrifice, the sense that when people go back to their groups that support them, to the people on their side, and explain why they did some very difficult things they can say that it was mutual. everybody held hands and did difficult things together that they could not have done alone. people compromised on longstanding positions not because they want to but because it was the only way you could get divided government to work together to do something larger and better for the american people. it is very difficult to do that if a huge components such as revenue is completely taken off

the table. my last point is to say that however we work this out, our sense of shared sacrifice should not be that if the toughest choices become too difficult, we default to asking those who are most unfortunate, poor, those with the least economic and political power to take the overwhelming bulk of the sacrifice. i asked that those -- i suggest that it should be acceptable in our dialogue for those of us to suggest how the tyranny of the numbers and cost millions of people their health care without being accused of being political. if one looks at the medicaid savings being asked, $770 billion in the house republican

plan, 35% savings in 2021. by 2029, nearly half. 2/3 of the savings of those funds go to people in nursing homes or to families with serious disabilities. if you -- is almost unimaginable that you can have that degree of savings without significant reduction in health care to those in nursing homes or those with families with disabilities unless you were to take it all from the other 1/3 which is 40 million or more poor children. to suggest that is to suggest is there a way -- does the tyranny of the money allows for another outcome? that should not be off the

table. there must be a way that we can have a discussion about what the impact on people is. i have not used in the phrases. i have not used in political jargon. i am just suggesting why the numbers in that particular area worry me deeply from a policy and values perspective, thank you. >> before you came in, it was suggested that in the 3:1 ratio, the republicans have given and the democrats have given nothing. >> what is that? >> expiration of the bush tax cuts. >> i have not gotten that e-mail yet. [laughter] i have not gotten that twitter or phone call. >> it was in the commission's

report. >> i know the president did not except the report. >> the disadvantaged, the poor, the veterans, it is all in there. here we are at the same point. gene is a great guy but this goes back to that, we will make -- will not make any progress. read the damn report. >> i did not comment one word about the bulls simpson plan. if i had, i would have done so in a complementary way. >> i have sat here and i am fascinated. everything you have spoken about, about the disadvantaged, the people on social security,

the people out of work, out of gas -- [inaudible] it was five democrats and five republicans on the commission. not talking about specifics. you're a great guy and a hell of a spokesman. [inaudible] [laughter]

there's not a single witness that said we would get double digit growth at of this for decades. -- out of this for decades. [inaudible] >> can we leave it there? >> yes, i think that well. >> it does not matter where it goes. they can't avoid the commission report. >> senator, in all fairness, i did not mention medicare in my remarks. i said that we needed to come together. i said what thought the conditions were for bipartisan compromise, that we had to be

able to move on. i suggested why the position that you have not taken that you could not have a penny of revenue was harmful to the sense of shared sacrifice and the numbers adding up and the political shared sacrifice that you would need to get a more significant deficit reduction bil. all i mentioned was medicaid. it is not a program that is often -- i don't mention it because there is political advantage to it. i mention it because the reason i came into public service was that i could use my privileges to defend those who have less privileged. these of the poor children in our country, these are the people -- all i said, senator, i did not say anything about your plan. all i said was that we did not go there. >> do you care as much?

>> the senator -- >> this is unfair that gene should be put in the position of defending himself this way. this is one of the problems with people who want to have these discussions but when someone says here's what might be going on, you don't say it the right way. gene is the only one in the room in these meetings and the only one who has been involved in negotiating these kinds of deals currently in government. i think it is unfair to be taking shots at him. if you disagree, just say you disagree. >> [inaudible] >> senator simpson, i will ask you to let jane who was kind enough to join us today -- jane, let me give you --gene let me give you -- let's wrap up with

of those who want to make comments for it was terrific etiquette. >> i'm sorry that my arrival changed everything. i did not use any phrases. i think we should be able to have those discussions about what the impact is. i believe very much in bipartisanship. i believe very much that we have to compromise as a country. i am in budget negotiations with people who i disagree with. these guys come to the table every day with a sense of seriousness, of very well prepared and we are trying hard to find enough agreement so we can make progress. i think that is in -- i think that is very important. we have disagreements. i don't think expressing those in a civil way are talking about the potential impact, again, i

because ithone aspect does not get much political coverage. it is not considered a political issue but it is something i am worried about. i complement the bowles-simpson plan in that it did a good job of trying to insure that whether you agree with all the aspects or not, there was shared sacrifice and there was not a sense of putting a disproportionate amount on those who have low income. i believe that we as a country, people have to be willing to move off their dime and move off their hard and fast positions, us included. you have to do so to gather and has to be a sense of mutual compromise and mutual shared sacrifice. that was the main point that i

was trying to bring. we will have differences. if they can be express' in civil way, that is all the better. i am not going to forego the ability to say where i am deeply concerned when things are going to hurt those who i think our less fortunate nor do i mean to impugn the motives or the intent of anybody who might be on a different position. for example, going back to my initial point, i think there are things that were in the house republican budget that were there because they had no choice because they had decided there were no revenues. there were forced again by the tyranny of the numbers to go deeper in areas than many of them would have preferred. i stood with my caveat which currently got me in trouble here is not that we should avoid the

harsh choices on revenues or medicare or anything else but as we do that, we do not put a disproportionately negative impact on those who have the least economic and political privileges. >> this morning, a house panel will continue to investigate a federal gun smuggling sting operation in mexico run by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern on cspan 3. later, a review of the british banking and financial services sector. we will hear from the british exchequer. live coverage from london today at 3:30 eastern. on c-span 3. >> this cspan networks, we provide politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history available to you on television, radio, online

and social media networking sites and find our content any time through the cspan video library and we take cspan on the road with our local content people, bringing our resources to your community. it is washington your way, the cspan networks, now available in more than 1 million homes, created by cable and provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" is next. we will take your calls and look at today's news pretty houses back in this morning and will continue work on agriculture department spending for 2012. they will begin the day with members speeches and legislative work is at noon eastern. live house coverage is here on c-span. coming up this hour, we will talk with a california congressman about his recent trip to the middle east and get his perspective on the u.s. military involvement in libya. military involvement in libya.