I am having a hard time accepting what you are saying here, so I want to be perfectly blunt about that.

I suggest that the information you are giving us right now may be, likewise, a mistake.

I would submit to you that you don't have the capacity to expand onsite.

We are puzzled. We have gone through 12 years where the FBI, GSA, intelligence community have all said that the FBI needs a facility to not only meet its current needs, but to meet its needs in the future.

I understand it is an FBI decision. I asked who was involved in making that decision. Solely FBI?

I just want to underscore the point that Senator Van Hollen made in regards to the congressional appropriations on the original project.

No input at all from the White House?

And what I am suggesting to you, make it two times umpteen years, because that is how this process has unfolded.

But this building will be at capacity.

You have to harden it the best that you can, which is going to take some space.

I hope, before you send us a prospectus for our consideration, that we have all of the detailed information available to us.

It is hard to understand how that is going to be met on a 6.6-acre site with 2.6 million square feet.

What you are saying defies logic. What you are saying is that the FBI can save money if it starts taking its employees out of the Hoover Building and putting them into temporary short term leases. Doesn't make sense.

We want the FBI to consolidate in its most efficient ways, and we understand that some of the functions may be better performed in other locations.

Of course, we are going through this now with our embassies, and paying a heavy price around the world because we listened to some people who wanted to be in a particular location, and now we have serious security problems that we are…

Do you have a facility for tomorrow?

You recognize that you can't proceed without Congress's authorization through our committees, correct?

Did you figure that into your projections, the realities of politics?

If we put too much of a strap on the Medicaid program, we are going to jeopardize long-term care for our seniors.

We do not really have a long-term care policy in America.

I disagree with the budget on the Medicaid cuts and the basis behind the Medicaid cuts.

I would just caution on another area in regards to the budget and imposing some additional costs on emergency care, which turns out to be non-emergency conditions.

The cuts you point out do not signify a lack of commitment by this Department to minority health issues.

I think together we can be more effective. We want to make sure you have the resources that you need here and are able to deal with the mission that we believe in: reducing disparities in our communities.

I was disappointed to see that where we have put newer resources into NIH--and I support that strongly--there was a reduction of resources at the National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities and a reduction of resources at…