But, I think it would be helpful for us to see the overall picture of what it is that we're biting off, here.

I wonder if it isn't time to stop and say, do we need a new strategy other than trying to just kill our enemies as they arise?

I would hope that, in your final recommendations as you're--in your exit interview, if you will--that you would emphasize the importance of that.

What I'm trying to say--just as Senator McCain said, it isn't about numbers; it is about the capability.

Isn't it true that in order to go to the 5,500, which is a fundamental change of mission?

Absolutely, and I think that is what has to be part of the discussion, because if the utilities insist on fighting and trying to overprice their storage, people are just going to say: I am going to buy my own storage, put it in the…

I almost objected, not because of any reservations about General Nicholson, but about my extreme admiration for you.

Does it make any sense to announce to an enemy that you're going to reduce your--not only your troop level, but your mission?

I would agree, and that is exactly where I would conclude. I am not anti-utility. I am pro-customer. I am pro-competition. I am pro-free markets. I believe the utilities have a tremendous opportunity here to modify and adapt their business…

as usual, my senior colleague from Maine has outlined this issue exceptionally well and covered the important points. I wish to add and amplify a few. The first thing I would say is that I yield to no person in this body in terms of their…

I can't understand any good reason to announce in advance to an enemy that you're going to reduce your troop levels.

That is absolutely correct. That I will touch on in a moment. That potentially changes the relationship with utilities and with the grid system. This is a good thing. This provides competition. Our whole system is based upon competition…

the Democratic leader has just outlined the issue that is before us today. I want to put it into some context. The first thing I want to say is that what we are talking about today is the most fundamental of American economic…

Any military leader would want to keep all the advantage to him, not provide any advantage to the enemy.

I think we are undercutting our own national interests by not being at the table.

As I read it, though, what you really found was it was the labor supply that you were analyzing, not people losing their jobs but people choosing not to stay in a particular job because they could have health insurance.

If we just collected the taxes owed, we would almost eliminate the current deficit.

How do we deal with the $18 trillion debt? I mean, balancing the budget would be nice, but we have still got an $18 trillion debt.

I was amazed when I got here that somehow, when you get inside the Beltway, the law of net present value does not apply.

I wish they would do it.

The tax expenditures now exceed the actual tax revenues.

I think we shortchange this whole process by saying, well, we are going to reduce the size of the Federal Government.

Unless we deal with the underlying growth of the cost of health care, that is going to eat us up.

The workforce is a big concern to me, and I think you are going to see potential other Government breakdowns unless there is proper attention to this over the next 5 to 10 years in particular.

I think that is an important point, because there was a lot of talk at the time that CBO says ACA will cost 2 million jobs, and that is really not accurate.