Bob Bennett

I think the USAspending.gov, the Coburn-Obama Bill, was a very good step in the right direction.

We have to have something that works.

One of the things that is wrong with this whole business of Federal procurement is that a number of businesses simply will not play.

So what I am hoping for today, Madam Chairman, is that we get an understanding of exactly what the state of affairs might be right now.

My understanding is that GSA is probably doing a pretty good job of dealing with this, but again they are acting, as the chart showed, under the direction of OMB.

I also want to thank Senator Collins for her graciousness in welcoming me to the Committee.

Yes. Can you say Social Security Administration?

there ought to be in the government some kind of common platform.

somebody has got to break down the stovepipes.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, both for your statement and your warm welcome.

I have a slight problem with what I hear of the President's vision. I hear it over and over again--full transparency.

If I can for three seconds be President of the United States, OMB should have ownership of this.

Well, I keep going after the locus of the vision, and you have given us two agencies in OMB, both of which you are responsible for--the E-Government and the OFPP.

You run the risk of getting the wrong contractor.

My fear is that we put this in place, discover that it does not produce any significant change around the world and then leaves us stuck with it.

In adopting a cap and trade system we are hinging economic growth on a complex contract and a convoluted market design both of which have yet to be tested in the real world.

the center of the crisis is not 'too big to fail.'

I guess one last--I have tried to probe into the Lehman Brothers decision because I, with the benefit of hindsight, think the Lehman Brothers decision is probably what triggered the mess that got us into the need for TARP.

The power to define becomes ultimately the power that controls everything.

Systemic risk, what is it? If we do not have a definition of systemic risk that everybody can understand and buy into, we are getting into a messy situation that could end up being just as bad as what we have just come through.

If the definition is clear and accurate, then the reaction on the part of the CEOs of the company will be, 'We want to avoid being stigmatized,' and the whole thing will be self-policing.

I do feel that failing to complete existing projects ultimately ends up as a waste of taxpayers' money.

Terminating ongoing projects obviously long-term creates an enormous cost for the taxpayer.

You are engaged in overkill, in my view, here.

Once I bought it for the first Seersucker Thursday, I was determined I was going to keep wearing it year after year because I'm not going to pay $150 for a suit and only wear it once.