Russ Feingold: “I am not talking about something that is actually discriminatory. It is simply inconsistent with the law and the policy…”

“I am not talking about something that is actually discriminatory. It is simply inconsistent with the law and the policy with regard to how these projects should be handled today to protect taxpayers--not in 1956. Second, the Senator from Colorado talked about the fact that, yes, our bill does try to make sure that this project, since it has been scaled down--and I give the Senator credit for that--in fact, that is what we authorized. We don't leave the door open for sort of behind-the-scenes reauthorization of this. He does point out clearly that in certain contexts it would be necessary to actually formally reauthorize the project for additional aspects of the project. But my understanding is--and the reason we offered this is--if this current scaled-down project is not built, there would not be a requirement of a new authorization; that the situation would revert back without the need for more authorization for the much larger project. I believe it was something like $750 million. It is not that the Senator is wrong about the fact that there are some situations where there might be the requirement for an authorization in the future. But if it isn't built--the Senator has alluded to the possibility it wouldn't happen--if, in fact, his central complaint is that it hasn't happened, and if it doesn't happen, we don't go back to an open process to figure out what this ought to be. It automatically gets reauthorized. That is what troubles me.”