CNN Options

[Summy]

Aired primetime (as was the last QT episode)

(IMG:http://s252.photobucket.com/albums/hh7/OliverHPerry/CHESTERQT.jpg)

CHESTER!: Hello and welcome to Question Time with Lars Johanson. For the second time in as many weeks, I must apologize up front to the Lars fans in the audience, as he is away on vacation. He'll be back next week -- for now, I am Chester Perry, Senator from Virginia and tonight's guest host.

Applause

CHESTER!: Let's meet our panel. To my right is the Lt. Governor of the Western Megaregion, Trent Reiber.

Lt Gov Reiber: waves Thanks for having me, Chester.

CHESTER!: Next to him we have House Majority Leader Maximiliano.

HML Maximiliano: Glad to be back on the show, Senator.

CHESTER!: To my left I have the latest Senate appointee, Washington Democrat Jack Gardiner.

Senator Gardner: Thank you for inviting me.

A CHESTER!grin

CHESTER!: Thank Lars! He only lets me dress up and play the host. well, last but not least is the Republican ranking member of the House FRAS committee, Congressman Rashid

Congressman Rashid: "Thank you for having me Senator Perry."

CHESTER!: Alright, well now that we're acquainted, let's get right to our first question. In the audience today we happen to have Matt Breitbart of the Wall Street Journal, who has graciously offered to ask the first question. Mr. Breitbart?

Matt Breitbart: Thanks, CHESTER! Nice to be here, you're looking especially dapper today.

CHESTER!: laughs well thank you very much!

Matt Breitbart: Your welcome. Panelists, the question I have today is related to Social Security, and more specifically the discussions the White House is having with Congressional leaders on reforming the system. Unfortunately Senator Wells is not here to give us an insider perspective, but he, Vice President Pooty are working on a deal to contain costs which would include means testing and other measures. Do you all believe that Social Security reform ought to be on the table, and what kinds of provisions do you believe are necessary to improve Social Security and maintain long term solvency?

CHESTER!: Congressman Rashid, I'll open this question up to you first.

Congressman Rashid: Thank you, Senator. I've had the pleasure of participating in the discussion which have shown a degree of bipartisan concensus that I've rarely witnessed in my time in Congress. As I said in the past, all options are on the table, whether it comes to increasing the eligibility age, reducing early age access and having the possibility of investing part of the contributions one makes. While I do not want to jump the gun on what has been done so far, there has been a plan that has been submitted to the CBO. I think the final plan when it does come out will include a bit of everything for everyone, and that means that we'll have to accept some things we may not have considered originally, after all, studies point out that well within 15-20 years the entire fund will be bankrupt.

CHESTER!: Senator Gardner, what is your perspective?

Senator Gardiner: Chester, I think means testing might very well be the death knell of Social Security. I think we all know that the chief reason the system has survived as long as it has, while other such government programs have been cut or even eliminated, is that it is a universal program that benefits everyone and therefore can't be framed as a welfare program for the poor. I think that if we want to see what sensible Social Security reform looks like, that would preserve both the system and the universality of its benefits, we need only look at the reform legislation that the House has considered in recent weeks.

CHESTER!: Congressman Maximiliano? Your take on the legislation Senator Gardner is referring to, and on social security in general?

Congressman Maximiliano: The legislation Senator Gardner is referring to are, or rather, were important steps to try and preserve a system that we can all agree is beneficial even if it needs some kind of reform, but they were sadly referred back to committee by the GOP, as we continue to wait for the White House bill.

Lt. Governor Reiber: May I interject?

CHESTER!: Of course. Let's have a perspective from outside of Washington.

Lt. Governor Reiber: Mr. Majority Leader, could you lay out specifically WHAT the bill does? I have some ideas of my own, but I think it may clear the air a bit to establish precisely what the measures we can all agree are beneficial are.

Congressman Maximiliano: Which bill are you referring to Lt. Governor? One of the House bills? Or the White House bill that I wasn't invited to discuss even while I was chairing the committee that would inevitably review it?

Lt. Governor Reiber: The bill in the House that you were referring to. Obviously. And I'm sorry to hear you weren't invited.

Congressman Rashid: Congressman Maximilliano, invitations were sent to one Senate Democrat and Republican each and one House Democrat and Republican each, you can't say that it wasn't a balanced way of deciding who should participate. Your predecessor in the House Majority Leader was the one who received the invitation, so it's not like the Democratic leadership was ignored.

Lt. Governor Reiber: Now hold on, let's get an idea of what this House bill does first before we get into the who invited who where why.

CHESTER!: Thank you, Mr. Reiber, but I'll be doing the moderating. Mr. Maximiliano, why don't we get an idea of what the House bil does first before we get into who invited who where and why.

laughter

CHESTER!: Mr. Maximilano?

Congressman Maximiliano: One bill segregated Social Security from the rest of the budget and took the income tax off of the FICA tax, the other required that surpluses be invested in either Treasury bonds or insured CDs And, if I may answer Rep. Rashid, while I wouldn't say that Democratic leadership was ignored, neither the Chairman nor the Ranking Member of the House Committee for Labor, Agriculture and *Social Services* was invited.

Lt. Governor Reiber: Neither was I...darned insiders.

Congressman Maximiliano: --And forgive me, that should have been income cap, not income tax.

Congressman Rashid: The House Majority Leader is not part of the Democratic leadership? And according to discussions we've had on the matter of the income cap, the negotiating group is operating with the income cap having already been removed –

Senator Gardiner: I'm sorry, could you clarify that? Does that mean they already agreed to remove it, or they think it's already been removed?

Congressman Rashid: – If I may ask the HML, aren't those bills, the first of which was referred back to committee with Democratic votes may I add, undercutting the Democratic representatives ont he negotiating group?

Congressman Maximiliano: Congressman, considering the fact that these negotiations tend to be long, drawn out affairs, not to mention the possibility of long waits even after the bill is finished, it seems to me entirely prudent to pass bills which are already done and through committee.

Congressman Rashid: According to legal advisors we've had comment on the matter, as long as the decision was not challenged in the courts, the cap was removed under President Cullen.

Senator Gardiner: But it was challenged in court, and overturned.

Congressman Rashid: With respect Congressman, bills take just as long to pass through the entire Congressman as these negotiations do in the matter. Furthermore, what we need is a single package of several measures passed at once, not simply a change here or there. We can't wait through several congresses for something we can do just now

Lt. Governor Reiber: Either way, regardless of the compromise, I think a do things need to happen –

Congressman Maximiliano: Any changes implemented by individual bills are issues that don't need to be included in the final, larger reform bill, or that can be repealed if that's what's needed.

Congressman Rashid: Then the matter will be taken under advisement and Senator, you are more than welcome to speak to Senator Wells and recommend that he brings it up. We don't want to shut down debate, merely save Social Security as quickly as possible.

Lt. Governor Reiber: I'd like to say something, but I do want to ask the Majority Leader one more question.

CHESTER!: I'm afraid we'll have to move on, gentleman. Mr. Reiber, feel free to comment and then we'll be going on to the next question.

Lt. Governor Reiber: Now I doubt I agree with you on much...I find myself considering the idea of a bill that four people from varying political belief systems might be a good idea, but we're obviously going to wait for the final product before passing judgement I personally would like to see some reform of the retirement age that's going to take the fact that people ARE living and living well for longer into account, and I don't think we SHOULD immediately dismiss possible solutions without testing their weight and I'm eager to see what the meeting produces. But Mr. Majority Leader, from the way it sounds –

CHESTER!: Holds up a hand. Thank you Mr. Reiber. We'll be moving on now. Our next question comes from a Mr. Petey. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. Petey: Hi. Hi, guys. Uh...I'm a bit frazzled by this whole Lubbock ruling, and I just wanted to ask your opinion of the court case, what you think of the ruling, whether you agree, or disagree, or where you stand on this.

CHESTER!: Let's have the House Majority Leader's perspective to start.

Congressman Maximiliano: The whole issue has been quite the shock for me personally. I knew that gay rights would be a divisive issue, and I knew that the fight for true equality would be a difficult one, but this is a setback that I would never have thought possible just a year ago. A plainly discriminatory ban upheld and the ensuing protests broken up by police? Just... shocking

CHESTER!: Mr. Rashid?

Congressman Rashid: I have two opinions as far as that situation is concerned. As far as the actual decision is concerned, I disagree with it because a. it can't be banned because it is a gay establishment as there is nothing agaisnt adults against forming groups based on things they have in common as long as it is legal and b. because the stated reason for Lubbock to oppose it doesn't pass muster since all clubs have equal chances of being health risks, whether they cater to bikers, gays or other such groups. But as far as the results, I think my democratic colleagues overreact in considering the end of gay rights, the Supreme Court has made clear it is not. And if the police wants to enforce a law that has not been struck by the courts, there is nothing that should stop them from doing so. It is up to the voters of Lubbock to show their support for that law or their opposition to it come next election.

CHESTER!: Do you agree, Senator Gardner?

Senator Gardiner: Speaking as a member of the group against which this law was targeted, the Supreme Court's decision saddens me beyond words. To be informed that I, my partner, and our friends are second-class citizens against whom any government body may freely discriminate as long as they can present some sort of cover reason for it is almost unbearable. But as a Christian who believes that all of us are children of God and therefore worthy of equal respect, love, and protection, the Court's decision to broaden the definition of rational basis so far chills me to my very core. With this decision, the Court has declared that any minority group which is not a "suspect class" may be freely discriminated against so long as any basis can be cited for it other than discrimination itself. This opens the floodgates for virtually any sort of government abuse.

CHESTER!: Mr. Reiber, what's your perspective? And what does this mean for your megaregion in particular?

Lt. Governor Reiber: I would like to say that I don't support the decision made by the Supreme Court, personally, and I'm particularly distraught at the use of *tear gas* on the protesters to make them disburse...I think there were better ways for the situation in Lubbock to be handled. As for my regional government in particular, I don't think this changes anything for us. If there is a loophole for abuse, we must remember that it takes someone to abuse that loophole for abuse to come into play, and I think myself and the Democratic leadership are opposed to laws like Lubbock's and won't let them pass on a regional level.

CHESTER!: So is the panel this evening all basically in opposition to the Court ruling? Turns to audience. What happens when everyone agrees? Shall we all just go home now? Laughter.

Congressman Rashid: Whatever we think of the decision, I think we're noticing more political hyperbole from the part of the Democratic representatives. Being gay has not been made illegal, nor has gay marriage, in whatever constituencies allow it, been made illegal. Ultimately, this is a matter for the people of Lubbock to clear up next election, and until then, this law is as valid and worthy of being enforced, however seen fit, as any other on the book.

Senator Gardiner: Being gay hasn't been made illegal, but under the standard applied by the Court in this case, engaging in sexual acts with an individual of your same gender could very well be banned for the same reasons and upheld under the same standard. This case is nothing less than a full-frontal assault on 14th Amendment protections in this country. Under the standard applied by the court here, a given government body would merely need to have a reason -- not a good reason, just a reason -- and its decision to discriminate would be upheld.

Congressman Rashid: Then that's a bridge that will be crossed if ever we need to, but as the Lt. Governor said, it's only in knowing when the law can be exploited that we can deal with the situation. And again, I would refer you to the very comment made by the Supreme Court confirming that this was only a very limited case with a limited view... But if the Democrats want to man the barricades against a non-existent assault on rights, then certainly we've seen hyperpartisan politics of the sorts from their caucus this Congress .

Senator Gardiner: They might very well say that, but if it's their contention that this case has no wider implications for 14th amendment protections at all, then they are either being disingenuous or they have not considered the implications of what they have done to their conclusion.

Lt. Governor Reiber: And if the implications go further than they intended through the ruling, couldn't they hypthetically correct themselves?

Senator Gardiner: They could, but given the rightward tilt of the current Court, I very much doubt as if they will any time soon.

CHESTER!: Alright, gentleman. We shall have to leave Lubbock for the time being. Our next question is from a Ms. Wagner. Thanks for waiting, Ms. Wagner. Please step up to the mic and ask your question.

Ms. Wagner: My question has to do with the Declaration of the Right to Life Act currently being considered by the United States Senate. As a pro-choice woman, I want to know why members of Congress feel they have the right to invade my right to medical privacy specifically those who say they don't want the Government in the room with me and my doctor when it comes to Healthcare? Also, how can one be opposed to abortion and yet support Capital Punishment and claim with a straight face they are pro-life?

CHESTER!: Senator Gardner, we'll start with you.

Senator Gardiner: I believe that you have a right to privacy, Ms. Wagner. But in this area, as in others, your rights end when they encroach on the rights of another, in this case on the rights of the unborn child. I'm afraid, however, that I cannot answer the second part of your question, as I consider myself pro-life in all areas of policy, not just in this one, and I am therefore opposed to capital punishment as well.

CHESTER!: Mr. Rashid? Is there any validity to the accusation that promoting pro-life AND pro-capital punishment policy is a form of hypocrisy?

Congressman Rashid: The pro-life side or in this case the one that supports capital punishment and at the same time opposes abortion is in truth the pro-innocent life side. It is an extreme disrespect to the sanctity of unborn, innocent life to put it on par with hardened murderers who have squandered away their god-given rights and turned to a life of crime. Innocent life merits protection, not those who have chosen to live a life opposed to the right path that God has set us on and chosen to harm society.

CHESTER!: Mr. Reiber, let's get your view next.

Lt. Governor Reiber: I think the Congressman brings up an excellent point. I have to agree with both of the panelists so far on the issue that, yes, while the woman may have a right to her body, the right of the child she is to give birth to inside of it is incumbent on that right. But I have to agree with Congressman Rashid that it's a logical fallacy to equate the death penalty and abortion and assert that people who support the first and oppose the second are somehow hypocritical. I believe that every individual has the right to life, yes, but I don't believe that the right to life completely knocks off the death penalty as an option. Our justice system is meant to dispense justice, and I don't see the justice in someone who has killed another person to drain resources from the victims' family and society at large after they have so clearly violated another's rights through terminating THEIR right to life.

Congressman Rashid: Well said, Sir.

Senator Gardiner: I firmly believe that there is that of God in every human being on Earth, that spark of Inner Light that is the conduit to the divine. That is why I believe both that we are all entitled to equal treatment and that it is against the will of God to do violence against any one of us.

Congressman Maximiliano: Well, I find myself in quite the interesting position of being the only one here who opposes the death penalty but supports a woman's right to choose an abortion. Now, I agree with Senator Gardner when it comes to the death penalty, which I find is a heinous act, which serves no real purpose as a deterrent and amounts to little more than societal vengeance; but when it comes to abortion, I'm of the opinion that it is a medical procedure and a completely private matter, and no matter how distasteful I may find it, I believe in a woman's right to have that choice and that freedom.

Congressman Rashid: Why is it that you value the life of a criminal over that an innocent baby, Congressman?

Congressman Maximiliano: I value all life, we just happen to disagree where that life begins.

Lt. Governor Reiber: I don't quite buy the idea that the death penalty is nothing more than an act of society vengeance. Our justice system is meant to dispense justice in the end. I want to know, Congressman, what is just about the fact that an individual who has murdered someone, who has denied an individual their most basic posession and their future will now simply spend life in prison. Through a life in prison, the murderer will now be entitled to the support of society, and most likely the support of of the friends and relatives of the victim...someone wronged them and now they have to pay the piper for it.

Congressman Rashid: The same God that has called for us to respect the innocent and to help others and to do good is the same God that has mandated that criminals be brought a degree of justice and punishment equivalent to their crime.

Senator Gardiner: If I may interject... The Biblical translation is "Thou shalt not murder" in the Ancient Hebrew.

Lt. Governor Reiber: Tell me...what is it about an objection to this that is vengeful? What's just about the victims of a crime now being forced to prop up the criminal who committed it. Someone who is likely in prison for life with no chance of contributing to society again.

Congressman Rashid: Precisely, Senators. And I find it an extreme insult to our soldiers that Senator Gardner has just placed what they do, protecting us against terrorists and other evildoers, on par with a street murderer and an assassin. An extreme insult.

Senator Gardiner: I am sorry if my beliefs offend you, sir. But I believe that, as any man, by dint of birth, is a child of God, then that man is my brother, and it is against the will of God that I should ever do violence against my brother, no matter is crime.

Congressman Maximiliano: Congressman, my faith is important to me on a personal level, but my policies are not guided by my religion, they are guided by my rationality. As for the claims made by the Lt. Governor, I cannot see how, based on his statements, the death penalty can be considered as anything more than society vengeance –

Congressman Rashid: With respect, Senator, if you believe that then you should resign. We are all entitled to be pacifists, but the people who decide on matters of foreign security should not be of the type to forego defending our nation through arms if necessary.

Congressman Maximiliano: His stance, that it's unjust that the victims of a crime be forced to "prop up" the criminal, essentially boils down to a desire for revenge.

Lt. Governor Reiber: No Mr. Majority Leader, it's justice and security. If you don't agree with what I believe those to entail, that's fine. But don't tell me my beliefs are based on motives that I don't have.

Congressman Rashid: Vengeance does not bring back those we have lost Congressman Maximiliano, the death penalty only mandates that society not be responsible for decades and decades those who have murdered the innocent. I do not want my tax dollars to go to murderers when they could help the poor and otherwise needy.

Congressman Maximiliano: It has been statistically proven that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime: how then can it be about justice and security?

Senator Gardiner: I am called to witness for equality and for life wherever and whenever I can. Today, I have been called to witness in the U.S. Senate. If my constituents disagree with my witness, then it is their prerogative that I be returned to my home in Washington. But I shall not surrender my seat.

Lt. Governor Reiber: When did I talk about deterrence, Congressman?

CHESTER!: Holds up hand. With that, I'm afraid we'll have to move on, gentleman. I figured since Lars is away, the mice may as well play as the adage goes, and I've come up with a new quick-fire segment to finish our episode. Each panelist will have one open question to direct to a single other panelist. That panelist will have a chance to respond. Because of time concerns, we'll not have an opportunity to go any further than that. Just one question with one answer. Since he's already fresh from questioning a member of the panel, we'll let Mr. Reiber begin our quick-fire segment. Mr. Reiber? One question for a fellow panelist

Lt. Governor Reiber: Pauses to consider. Senator Gardner, where do you stand on our nation's energy policy regarding oil shale drilling, offshore drilling, and ANWR drilling...feel free to hit each.

Senator Gardiner: I am opposed to the use of drilling to meet the energy needs of our nation. I believe that we must find clean, renewable energy sources, not sources that destroy our land and water, pollute our air, and will eventually run dry and leave us worse off than before.

CHESTER!: Thank you, Senator. Go ahead with your question next.

Senator Gardiner: This question is for my Democratic colleague from the House. What is your stance on the issue of universal health care, and what do you see as the best means of bringing it about?

Congressman Maximiliano: I believe that good health is a fundamental right, and that every American should have access to free, quality health care provided by the state. Sadly, I feel that this is not the kind of reform that we can implement in one feel swoop, so I would rather begin with a public option and work our way up from there.

CHESTER!: Congressman, do you have a question for a fellow panelist?

Congressman Maximiliano: Yes, this is for the Lt. Governor: if the death penalty isn't about deterrence, what is it about?

Lt. Governor Reiber: As I said before, it's about justice. If someone deprives someone of their right to life, they have first and foremost shown that they are a danger to society and that the risk involved in giving them even the chance to do so again is too great against innocent people to give them that chance. Second, I don't think it's just to the people who are already facing the loss of their loved one and friend to be forced to contribute their time and treasure to supporting such a dangerous person and someone who will never be able to return that contribution.

CHESTER!: Thank you, Mr. Reiber. Since you've already had an opportunity to ask a question, we'll jump over to Congressman Rashid. Go ahead, Congressman.

Congressman Rashid: Congressman Maximiliano, 38 states and 3 of the 4 regions have laws against gay marriage, the people of those states have spoken loudly and clearly on the matter. Just why do you and other Democratic leaders want to fly in the face of public opinion when you didn't make it clear you would do so last election?

Congressman Maximiliano: Congressman, as I made clear during the debate, I and my Democratic colleagues consider this a civil rights issue, and I quite simply refuse to accept a state of affairs where any group, in this case gay men and women like Senator Gardner sitting next to me, are treated differently from everyone else because of who they are.

CHESTER!: To finish, Lars likes to ask a lighter question, so I'm going to have our panelists answer one of my favorite questions I've received since being elected Senator. A young girl from Kentucky asked me after a speech of mine, "Mr. Chester, how do you eat your toast, and how do you eat your steak?" I'm not sure how these foods became connected in her mind, but there we have it.

Senator Gardiner: I eat my toast with grape jelly and my steak medium-well.

Lt. Governor Reiber: Drenched in butter and medium-rare, respectively.

Congressman Rashid: I eat my toast like I eat my steak, covered in gravy and with cheese melted on it..

Congressman Maximiliano: There are a couple of issues Lt. Governor Reiber and myself agree on after all: buttery toast and bleeding meat

Lt. Governor Reiber: Right on!

Laughter

CHESTER!: Well, on my farm I eat my steak rare and put a fresh fried egg on top of my toast, sunny side up. And with that, my friends, we conclude this episode of –

Congressman Maximiliano: No onions?

CHESTER!: Only when in season, my friend!

Laughter

CHESTER!: In seven days we'll all be fortunate enough to see Lars back in action. Until then, enjoy your toast, enjoy your steak, and enjoy your week! Thank you to our panelists and good bye, everyone!

[Summy]

Aired primetime

(IMG:http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01009/question-460_1009767c.jpg)

*Intro music plays

Lars Johansen: Good evening everyone, and welcome to Question Time. I'm your host, Lars Johansen. I'd like to start today by thanking my good friend Senator Perry for hosting in my absence. And with that, let's meet the panel. For the Democrats under the microscope this evening are Governor Natalya Warren of the Northeast and Senator Addie Jackson. And for the Republicans, House Minority Leader Calvin Durham and Senate PPT Sorenson. We're filming tonight from Lynchburg, Virginia, and with that, let's get to our first question.

Lars Johansen: In a highly publicised speech in Lubbock, Texas, Senator Buford Justice said that "the homosexual lifestyle is not only immoral, but it's unhealthy". Do the panel agree with this statement? Senator Sorenson?

Senator Sorenson: No I don't agree with that statement, Lars. Yes, homosexuality is immoral on many different levels, but I would not equate that immorality with some sort of unhealthy state of mind or being. Senator Justice is obviously wrong with labeling all homosexuals as unhealthy. Its not as if they are carrying a contagious disease, but rather just partake in immoral behaviors.

Lars Johansen: Thank you Senator. Senator Jackson?

Senator Jackson: That statement is beyond the pale, Lars. Sexuality isn't a choice- and it's not like these so-called "immoral behaviors" hurt anyone. I'd ask everyone here if GLBT sex in their region has hurt them personally. And I'd imagine the answer would be no. That said, it's sort of what a lot of folks expect out of Senator Justice- who has a sharp if somewhat misguided mind. What is more disappointing is how he was able to go on and on about the evils of homosexuality while a lot of Republicans who may accept that homosexuality isn't all that bad just sit silently. He's wrong. And it's wrong to let him go on without challenging his comments.

Lars Johansen: Governor Warren. As an open lesbian, were you offended by what Senator Justice said?

Governor Warren: I most certainly was offended by his comments. These comments were based completely in ignorance. Unsafe Sex is unhealthy, it doesnt matter whether the individuals are straight or gay. As to the morality of the behavior, whos morality are we going to use to define what we should consider moral and immoral?

Senator Sorenson: The morals of the majority of American people comes to mind, Governor.

Lars Johansen: I'd like to bring in House Majority Leader Durham here. Mr Durham, do you believe that homosexuality is immoral and unhealthy?

Congressman Durham: *chuckles* No, Lars. I don't. Senator Justice was way out of line on this one. First off, I don't think it's any federal government official's place to start labeling entire groups as diseased or immoral. It's that kind of talk that just inflames the divisiveness of this country. I'm of the personal belief that we should end this union between marriage and the federal government. We should let the regions and the states decide on where they stand with marriage. It's ridiculous to assume that members of Congress can sit in Washington and dictate whether or not people, people which they don't know personally, can get married or not. It's these kind of issues that need to be left up to the states, Lars.

Senator Jackson: I'll build on what COngressman Durham is saying- he's right that Congress shouldn't be deciding whether people can get married or not. They should just let them all get married. Which many in Congress have tried to do, but are always shouted down by "morals."

Governor Warren: If Senator Justice was really out of line why did you sit silently while he spewed this message?

Lars Johansen: In fairness, Governor, he has just condemned them on national television. That hardly constitutes 'standing by'.

Senator Sorenson: I disagree there, Senator. We have a responsibility to protect the sanctity of Marriages. If Adam and Steve want to get married, then there is always civil unions or common partnerships.

Senator Jackson: Funny you mention that. I authored a bill that would allow for national civil unions. Feel free to sponsor it if you agree that civil unions are OK .

Congressman Durham: Mrs. Warren, this entire affair got drastically out of hand. You had the left labeling the entire South as racist, comparing them to those who stood in opposition to the civil rights movement. How many Democrats vehemently came out against that portrayal that didn't have their seat in Congress or the governor's mansion riding on Southern support?

Governor Warren: How many regions outside of NAS offer civil unions or common partnerships Senator Sorenson?

Congressman Durham: I'll openly condemn Senator Justice's remarks right here and now... Republicans aren't as passive on this issue as the left would portray us as, Lars. Our own Mrs. Rebekah Henry tried to get a rehearing before the Supreme Court when the Lubbock decision was annunced. How many Democrats stood up for Mrs. Henry?

Senator Sorenson: None as I recall. Though correct me if I'm wrong, but the West was considering something at one point on the matter, Governor.

Governor Warren: Yet you said if they wanted to get married they could get one of those? How exactly is that possible if no region offers them?

Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson, and then we have to move on.

Senator Jackson: Well, let's compare the number of Republicans trying to do something- 1- versus all those who called for a Godly nation and continuing to ban the gays. Too many to count. I wish I could have been there with Ms. Henry. I really do.

Senator Sorenson: As I recall, you, Senator Jackson, were preoccupied with a tour slamming my region. I hardly call that wishing to be there.

Senator Jackson: Did I insult Dixie? Please, point to my words. Otherwise, keep your bull to the Senate floor.

*Natalya Warren chuckles*

Lars Johansen: My next question. The recent FBI report showed a large increase in firearm attacks upon police officers across the United States. Does this mean we should as a nation be rethinking our approach to gun control? Governor Warren?

Governor Warren: I don't think the issue is necessarily gun control. We need to be looking at the reasons why our youth are choosing a violent lifestyle, and working to fix the root problem. We need to get these kids off the streets and away from those negative influences. More Gun Control wont solve the root problem. It's an ineffective band-aid.

Lars Johansen: Congressman Durham?

Congressman Durham: I couldn't agree with the Governor more. Placing nationwide controls on Second Amendment right is an ineffective and temporary solution to the problem. Our regions, states, and cities need to look into the causes of why these people are turning to crime, and attempt to rectify those situations.

Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson?

Senator Jackson: Well, I'm glad that Congressman Durham said it like it is- gun control is one of many solutions. And I think we need to look at ways we can use that in conjunction with better programs such as Governor Warren mentioned. After-school programs, mentoring programs- all of these things give kids a reason to do wholesome activities and stay away from gun crime and gangs. Job training will do the same thing. But there is a place for sensible gun control. And I hope that we can seriously consider it someday instead of trying to eliminate them all. Our founders might have intended to have a right to bear arms, but they never wanted a right to kill police officers.

Congressman Durham: Lars, people aren't going out and shooting cops because just because they have a gun... They're shooting cops because they're being driven to desperation. To suggest we should eliminate guns altogether doesn't just go against the principles that our country was founded upon, it perpetuates the acceptability of oppression and tyranny.

Senator Jackson: I never suggested that.

Lars Johansen: Senator Sorenson?

Senator Sorenson: I agree with Senator Jackson - but to an extent. After-school programs, mentoring programs, and job training in conjunction with increased assistance to local police departments will help stem the tide of gun violence. But to say that we need additional gun controls? Out of the question.

*Addie Jackson shrugs and holds out his hands*

Senator Sorenson: Educating people that violence is the answer is the solution; turning our countrymen into vulnerable masses against thugs and criminals isn't. We've got to come together and get over this incessent fear of guns.

Senator Jackson: Cop killers, though... that's acceptable. Apparently.

Senator Sorenson: Hardly. Increase penalities against those who uses guns in a violent manner.

*Senator Jackson nods at this*

Governor Warren: I think its very important to remember that some of the states with the least amount of gun control had the lowest crime rates while states with more gun control had higher crime rates. Gun Control is not an effective way of deterring violence.

Senator Sorenson: But don't place the sins of the few on the innocent many. I think we can all agree on that, Governor....well...most of us, anyway.

Senator Jackson: What kind of crime rates, governor? All crime, or specifically shootings? I mean, if it's against the law for certain people to own certain firearms, then yes. Crime will be higher as people are prosecuted for disobeying a law. Though I do want to add that correlation does not implay causation. The Governor might have the causation the other way around.

Lars Johansen: Do the panel believe that the United States should intervene militarily in a country to prevent cases of genocide? Congressman Durham?

Congressman Durham: No. We aren't the world police. It's regrettable to see these kinds of situations occurring, but unilateral intervention often just exacerbates the situation and leaves lingering problems once we withdraw.

Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson, you have issued a strongly worded statement about the situation in Burma recently. What do you think of the principal of humanitarian interventionism?

Senator Jackson: I think it's something that we should strong consider in all situations. I'm sure Congressman Durham would go the other way if, God forbid, ethnic violence came here to America. We need to be willing to engage our allies, the international community as a whole, but when push comes to shove, we can't rule out military force. We used it to stop the evils of fascism, communism- why not the evils of ethnic cleansing?

Congressman Durham: I'd ask that the Senator not make statements on my behalf, Lars... To be honest, I may be happy with a country occupying my homeland and settling things for a few months or years. But, again, unilateral military intervention is a temporary fix that often exacerbates the problem. The Senator acts like we can just wave a magic wand and expect this type of violence to just go away. The fact of the matter is that there are situations that we don't understand. And to go in with a huge military presence and try to rectify things just leaves us with a high bill to pay back at home, and a situation where violence will continue as soon as we withdraw.

Senator Jackson: Expect to solve the problem? Like we did with our allies in the Balkans? I'd much rather do this through the international community. But we can't sit on our thumbs if there's something behind these 200,000 dead.

Lars Johansen: Governor Warren?

Governor Warren: I have to agree with Senator Jackson. We should definitely build an international coalition if possible, but we should not stand idly by while hundreds of thousands are murdered in the name of ethnic cleansing. I want to ask, where are those morals that so often guide social policy when it comes to issues like this?

*Senator Jackson nods*

Senator Jackson: And to respond to the Congressman, we're holding a hearing in the Senate just so we CAN find out more.

Congressman Durham: Yes, and I'm sure you're going to learn the intricacies of the situation by listening to "experts" talk about it for a few hours, then that'll justify intervention at the taxpayer's expense and the occupation of another country.

Senator Jackson: Experts such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security. I would imagine they know what is actually going on. I look forward to hearing from Secretary Cameron- when the hearings start.

*Senator Sorenson chuckles*

Lars Johansen: Senator Sorenson?

Congressman Durham: If you're going to occupy a country based on a six or seven hour synopsis of years of ethnic struggles between different populations, I suppose that's your prerogative. But I disagree with that course of action.

Senator Sorenson: I'm with Senator Jackson and Governor Warren on this. The international community should be involved, but at the same time we should not sit idly by while innocents are being mercilessly killed. If it takes a hearing to find out more information, then so be it. I'd rather be informed about a potential genocide than not.

Governor Warren: I want to know. Did the Congressman support the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? The current action in Mexico?

Senator Sorenson: Thats hardly relevant to the orginial question, Governor.

Congressman Durham: I didn't support Iraq, I supported Afghanistan because it was a retaliation to an attack on U.S. soil, and I support the current bilateral action in Mexico because, again, it was the result of an unstable and dangerous climate for American citizens on the border. But I hardly see how any of that relates to genocide.

Governor Warren: All Military Action is at the tax payers expense, and the same exact problems that exist for wars over genocide exist for "just" wars.

Congressman Durham: I'll agree that taxpayers end up paying the burden, but I'd rather it be spent on securing the well-being of American citizens.

Governor Warren: Isolationism doesnt work Congressman

Lars Johansen: Alright everyone, I think we've covered that topic now, let's move on.

Lars Johansen: My final question of the night is this: Do the panel think that President Pizzuto is making enough public appearances, or is it even important for a President to be seen frequently in public? Governor Warren?

Governor Warren: I dont think its necessarily important that he be seen in public frequently, but that people need to be able to see that hes doing things. Hes had some very good initiatives, such as ENERGY, but I don't think hes selling his message strongly enough. There is a perception, real or false, that hes not doing anything.

Lars Johansen: Senator Sorenson?

Senator Sorenson: I tend to think for the most part President Pizzuto is out in the public eye for them to see that he is doing an effective job as President. But then again, I say this as a person from the outside looking in. I'm fairly certain the President's schedule keeps him from being in the public eye as much as he'd prefer to be. You'll just have to ask him yourself, Lars, to be certain.

*Senator Sorenson Facepalms*

Lars Johansen: Congressman Durham?

Congressman Durham: I think that there's more going on than people realize, but yes, Lars, I do believe that the President needs to be more proactive in his relationship with the media. On the other hand, it's difficult for a President to find a happy medium between too little press coverage and too much press coverage. You're likely going to get assaulted either way. But in the case of President Pizzuto, I do believe he needs to be more public. I think he's doing a good job as President, and I think he's doing a lot of good for the American people. But he does need to be more public with it.

Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson?

Senator Jackson: I'm inclined to agree with the Congressman, actually. I'm sure the President is busy- I know the American people certainly hope he is. But I also think he could be out there more. When he appointed Justice Graham, there was no announcement aside from a paragraph in the press. Ditto with the Federal Reserve Chairman. There's a lot about the President's agenda that we don't know if it even exists or not because we haven't heard him talk about it since the election. I would hope though, that we could all agree that President PIzzuto has a hard job, but that it couldn't hurt if he were out in public a bit more.

Senator Sorenson: Of course he could, Senator. Just like some of our colleagues in Congress could do better on their attendence records. Sometimes though, things happen that are out of our control. You should understand, I hope.

Lars Johansen: Alright, that was our final question of the night, but we do have time for a quick quick-fire.

Lars Johansen: Do the panel prefer the Beatles or Elvis?

Governor Warren: Elvis

Senator Sorenson: Beatles

Congressman Durham: Beatles.

Senator Jackson: Elvis. At least he's American.

Lars Johansen: ... And that's our show ladies and gentlemen. Thank you to our panel, particularly to Senator Jackson who has made his third appearance on the show this evening.

*music plays out*

[Summy]

Aired daytime

Title: The Lone Star Report
Author: Bill McCoy

(IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport2.png)

McCoy:
Good evening and welcome to the Lone Star Report. I’m Bill McCoy. A massive power outage has ravaged the east coast, grown out of an electrical grid inadequate to our energy needs. Political leaders from both sides of the aisle, together with President Pizzuto have worked together on an energy plan to address this vital infrastructure. Congressman Wyatt, who in the past Faught Like Hell for an extremely expensive investment in water infrastructure now Fights Like Hell to make sure we don’t invest in the infrastructure to prevent future electrical grid failures. His alleged reasoning? He objects to the bill’s investment in renewable energy as well as petroleum. Just for comparison—the idea that we should invest in renewable energy and petroleum, as this bill would do, is the positions of the American Petroleum Industry.

It is with a heavy heart that we must report that Senator Saramento died in the blackout. May he rest in peace.

Senator Winters collapsed on the Senate floor shortly thereafter and he and Senator Devereaux have both retired. That’s right folks, three of the greatest champions of freedom in the Senate have all been lost. We are not amused.

In lighter news, Congressman Walsh has railed against the rulings of Speaker Dixon’s “lackeys” on the Rules Committee. These “lackeys” included then-Minority Leader Reiber and Congressmen Cobb and Wallace, all republicans who supported most of the rulings Walsh was objecting to. Gosh, wonder if that’s why Reiber was dethroned mid-session.

Congresswoman Topol indicated to the American people, during floor debate, that sex is great and without it live wouldn’t be much fun. Congressman Rodriguez has been seen near Topol’s office with extreme frequency of late…

President Pizzuto’s moderate masquerade suffered a severe blow recently as he nominated a strict constructivist to the Supreme Court. Isn’t it funny how allegedly “strict” readers of the law like Justice Graham keep interpreting “all men are created equal” as “discrimination is A-OK”?

Of course, the big news of the day is Lubbock’s decision to eradicate legitimate businessmen for serving gay citizens and its later rescinding of that decision after they got the cost estimate for the second set of water fountains.

See, me I’m not quite sure whether I should be more disturbed that we have a Chief Justice stating that "It goes without saying that the mere desire to pander to the prejudices of a bigoted majority is not a legitimate state interest.” Immediately before defending the desire to pander to the prejudices of a bigoted majority; or that fully half of the other judges on the court insist that such pandering is a legitimate state interest.

I just wanted to say, there is very little about this situation that doesn’t offend me. I am offended by a supreme court that sacrifices freedom and common sense on an altar of bigotry. I am offended by liberal media outlets that somehow suggest that such bigotry is synonymous with the south and not with a few backwards southerners like the Mayor of Lubbock and our freshman Supreme Court justice. And I am offended by Congressman Wyatt’s assertions that opposition to a few bigoted individuals is synonymous with opposition to the south.

Meanwhile, Senator Justice said a lot of stupid and ridiculous things. In other news, the sky is blue.

Fiona Morey:
I’m Fiona Morey and Uncle Bill was kind enough to let me present our Senatorial Freedometer Reading. The higher the number the better the pro-freedom rating. Negative numbers are bad. Maximum possible rating is five points. And without further ado:

Freedometer Reading:
5, 4, 3
2 Fitzgerald, Gerrard
1 Calhoun, Jackson, MacLeod, Perry, Santos-Carter, Wells
0 Everhardt, Foster, Sorenson
-1 Justice, Khula
-2 Halfhyde, Markovitch

Fiona Morey:
Just to add—Gerrard and Halfhyde are both new enough that they haven’t had the opportunity to rack up as many points, positive or negative, as they might have. And Gardner remains too new to get a reading.

(IMG:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/axfseilf/lonestarreport1.png)

<commercial break>



McCoy:
And finally tonight we are joined by Senator Abigail Gerrard who recently replaced Senator Winters. Despite her newness to the Senate she all ready has amassed on of the two top spots on our freedometer reading and has all ready had legislation—the Puerto Rico Democracy Act--passed through congress and signed by the President. Welcome Senator.

Gerrard: Thanks for having me, Bill.

McCoy:
Upon your ascent to the senate you put forward a number of pieces of legislation, among them a bill to institute an election day holiday to encourage voting and to place the question of Puerto Rican democracy in the hands of the Puerto Rican people. How important do you consider voting rights, is it more or less important than say—public education or health care? And what else do you plan to do in the future to ensure the vitality and integrity of our electoral process?

Gerrard: Voting rights are the most fundamental aspect of any democracy, including, of course, ours. As such, they should always go first - however, we must not forget public education or health care are of vital importance, too.

As for my future plans, with the Puerto Rico Democracy Act signed into law, I plan to fight to enact whichever changes Puerto Rico votes for. And, of course, I will continue working in the Senate to increase voter turnout, through initiatives such as the already mentioned Election Day holiday, or same day registration, among others.

McCoy:
In the senate, you have been quick to defend a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her own body. In one instance, you introduced an amendment to an abortion restriction bill that would add a ban on the federal death penalty. Can we count on you to continue to protect life from government extermination, or was that just a one-time poison pill designed to sink an undesirable bill?

Gerrard: I strongly oppose the death penalty, Bill. My amendment wasn't a one-time poison pill - it was an intent to improve a piece of legislation which, unfortunately, wouldn't get any better, reason for which I voted against it. As Senator, I will continue pushing for a federal death penalty ban until the day I leave office.

McCoy:
You voted against the confirmation of Justice Graham citing among other things his “troubling” views on individual liberties. It has seemingly taken no time at all for these chickens to come home to roost in the controversial Lubbock ruling. Is this precisely the kind of trouble you foresaw, or does this go beyond the concerns that you had anticipated?

Gerrard: I foresaw controversial rulings like Lubbock, just not precisely Lubbock. I think it's now obvious we were right about Justice Graham's views in discrimination and liberties.

McCoy:
The Lubbock situation has become a bit of a flash point and as with any flashpoint the news gets dispersed. Between the outlandish antics of Senator Justice and Congressman Wyatt, the passive resistance of protesters, the legal implications, the shocking willingness of so many alleged defenders of freedom to simultaneously deny individual civil liberties and the freedom of store owners… what’s really important—what should we be focusing on here?

Gerrard: American citizens were being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, and the Supreme Court ruled it was a perfectly legal thing to do. This fact is what we should be focusing on. Fortunately, the ban was repealed, but let's not forget the ruling hasn't been reversed! Congress must act to ensure this never happens again, and a giant step forward would be passing the Created Equal Act, which is already gaining strong support, currently having 50% of the Senate's membership in its list of sponsors and co-sponsors.

McCoy:
You’re still relatively new in office. What plans do you have for the future?

Gerrard: I intend to continue serving the great people of the Midwest to the best of my ability. Hopefully, I'll be given the honor of their direct support and six more years to continue devoting my time to improving the state of our region and our country.

McCoy:
Senator, thank you so much for joining us this evening.

Gerrard: My pleasure, Bill.

(IMG:http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab90/Knuckle_Curve/seal-1-1.gif)

[Summy]

Aired daytime

(IMG:http://j.imagehost.org/0943/mashasnation.png)

HOST: Maria Natalya Richards

(IMG:http://j.imagehost.org/0333/masha.png)

Maria: "Hello all, I'm Maria Richards and welcome to Masha's Nation. We're happy to welcome you to our first show. Each week we will invite three candidates to join us in the studio for an interview on both issues and personal questions. You'll get to know a little more about what makes them tick and their plan for America. This week we're joined by Democratic Senator Jack Gardner, Independent Senator CHESTER! Perry, and my favorite DINO, my brother, Dmitri Kowalchuk the Governor of Dixie.

Maria: So please welcome our first guest, Sitting Democratic US Senator Jack Gardner, to the couch.

*Jack arrives and is seated*

Jack: Thank you for having me, Maria.

Maria: So, you were recently appointed to replace Senator Devereaux, it must be a great honor being entrusted with this kind of position.

Jack: It is. I hope that I will be able to live up to the standard of excellence that she set in the Senate.

Maria: Well I'm sure you'll be more than capable Senator. Now you recently were quite a large face in opposition to the Lubbock decision and you have publicly stated your own sexuality. Are you concerned at all this is going to hurt you in the next election? Your opponent doesn't seem to be the.....how do i say it.....the positive campaign type.

Jack: I don't believe it will hurt me at all. The people of the Northwest aren't in favor of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and I can't imagine they'd hold it against me that I've stood up to it in the Senate.

Maria: 'Well I'm glad to see people are willing to step up. You have alot of courage for doing so. Now as a Senator in your region you have a senior senator who is...controversial to say the least. Whats it like jumping into a position where you need to work closely with the King of Objections, Senator MacLeod?

Jack: Ken MacLeod and I don't agree on much philosophically, it's true, but I've found him to be the sort of person who's willing to reach across the aisle and work together on those issues we do have in common. My second bill that I introduced, in fact, was the Gardner-MacLeod Withholding Elimination Act. Really, he's simply committed to what he thinks is right, and even though I generally disagree with his conclusions, I respect his commitment to principle.

Maria: He definitely is one of the few people in Washington that seems to hold onto his principles no matter what. Now heading back to the Lubbock case, one thing you engrained in your speeches and comments alot was God. As someone who supports gay marriage and gay rights, I understand the idea of equality for them. But also growing up orthodox, i know the church takes a very staunch position against such things. How is it you feel homosexuality fits with Christianity?

Jack: That's a bit of a complicated question, Maria. The answer lies with the teachings of my faith, the Religious Society of Friends. We believe that every human being is imbued with what we call the Inner Light, a small portion of God's essence, through which one may, through prayerful, silent communion, continue to receive God's revelations, much as the men who wrote the Bible received them. Do you understand what I mean?

Maria: I suppose so. You say God is talking to you through this inner light.

Jack: Well, in a way. I don't hear voices. But I have felt God's love, and I have felt Him guiding me toward to those things which are right and away from those things which are wrong. And one of the things that are right is a love and respect for each and every one of his children, no matter how they might be different from me.

Maria: So those churches or faiths that take the idea that homosexuality is a sin are misunderstanding what God has said? Or is there something else to it?

Jack: I don't claim to have a monopoly on God's ultimate truth. Only God is infallible, and I am not God. I can only act according to God's will as I understand it. And I understand it to mean that God has created all of us, and it is both wrong and arrogant to try to second-guess God by assuming that someone is somehow less than you are because He created them differently.

Maria: Very Interesting Senator, the next issue I wanted to bring up was kind of on the opposite end. Since becoming a Senator you've become a large supporter of pro-life initiatives. How did you come to your position on abortion?

Jack: Many years of soul-searching and prayer. I finally came to the conclusion that I really do believe that life begins at conception, and if I am opposed to the taking of human life, I must be against the practice of abortion except in the most extreme, medically-necessary circumstances.

Maria: So are you also against the death penalty then?

Jack: Yes.

Maria: Its nice to see consistency Senator. Now you're going to be facing Lt. Governor Reiber here in the upcoming election. Why are you better than Mr. Reiber to represent your region?

Jack: I believe that my values represent the values of the people of the Northwest. The values of simplicity, integrity, equality, and peace. I believe that the people of the Northwest want to be represented in the Senate by someone who believes that it is the role of government to provide comfort to the afflicted, ensure equal protection before the law, advocate for a government free of corruption, and support a foreign policy of strength through peace. And I believe that I can and will be that person.

Maria: Well we wish you the best of luck Senator. Is there anything you'd like to tell the Northwest before we close out?

Jack: Maria, I think the only thing I can ask of my constituents is to vote their consciences this November, and not be swayed by mudslinging or fearmongering. I'd like this race to be won or lost on the basis of idealism, not cynicism.

Maria: Well thank you for visiting us Senator. Best of luck in November.

Jack: Thank you. And thanks again for having me.

*Jack will rise and exit. Maria will then move on to introducing the next guest*

Maria: So our next guest is a bit interesting. Currently the only independent serving in the US Senate and defeater of former Senator Valerian, please welcome Senator Chester perry to the couch.

*Senator Perry enters and takes a seat*

Perry: Thanks for having me, Maria.

Maria: So Senator, you are a very down to Earth kind of guy, whats it like moving from the farm to the Senate?

Perry: It's certainly an adjustment! To be honest if I weren't so passionate about working hard on behalf of Appalachians, I'd probably be miserable. I enjoy the people I work with, but the Senate can become a tedious body of politicization and gridlock at times.

Maria: I imagine so. Especially with the filibuster twins there now. One thing I was hoping to ask is, recently Dixie news said that a sizable portion of people see you as being a pretty straight line Republican in terms of record, What do you have to say to that?

Perry: I don't take much stock in polling before election day, but I think the closer attention people pay to my work this session, the more they'll see I've been quite bipartisan. As chairman of the DAC committee I've worked quite closely with Senate Minority Leader Addie Jackson and probably my most noteworthy piece of legislation, the ENERGY Act, was coauthored with Democratic Congressman Aaron Waters.

In fact, I spoke with your brother a few times as I was writing the section on disaster relief!

Truth be told, I've worked alongside whomever was willing to join me in leading our nation in the right direction, regardless of their party affiliation.

Maria: Interesting, So do you think that label is really just there because I few people just see you on the Caucus list and say Oh hes just a republican hiding in a green name?

Perry: That's the temptation, I'm sure. I anticipate being slandered to that effect in the upcoming election, but I'm not ashamed of being an independent and I'm not ashamed of being a member of the Republican caucus in the Senate... I accepted their offer to run on their behalf for a reason. What matters is that when the rubber meets the road, partisan labels mean little to me. Appalachia comes first when I make a decision, politics a distant second.

Maria: Indeed, and its a shame labels pretty much control Washington. But back to the ENERGY Act you mentioned. Anyone checking the news on it noticed our last guest had tried to cut some gas and coal provisions from it. Why do you think we should put efforts into Coal rather than just expanding on renewable resources?

Perry: My belief in clean coal technology is two-fold. First, coal is a reliable, cost-effective, and completely domestic energy source. The coal industry employs many hard-working Appalachians who help fuel our nation's industry. Second, at present there is the pragmatic issue of percentages. Renewable energies make up so little of our domestic energy use that even if we could increase their share of the energy market tenfold overnight, we would still need to employ a significant amount non-renewable energy. Why not ensure that energy is completely domestic and with the application of new technologies, far cleaner than it was in the past?

Maria: But is there really any such thing as clean coal? I grew up in Pittsburgh and you know we had alot of coal. The words that came to mind certainly did not include clean.

Perry: I understand, but those who visited Pittsburgh in the 1990s and then again today would be amazed at the difference. The city has shown how effective ecofriendly municipal practices can be, and the coal industry has done a remarkable job employing various technologies to further reduce the impact of coal energy.

Maria: Part of that I have to feel is all the steel mills leaving but I do understand your point Senator. Anyway your opponent in the upcoming election is former Appalachia Governor Bryan Mclaggen. The man was fairly popular, are you concerned at all?

Perry: Absolutely not. I'm not sure what Mr. McLaggen has been up to lately, but in the past he's been an enthusiastic and eager political leader. I'm excited by the level of discourse which will be possible with such a capable opponent -- this campaign has the potential to leave Appalachia all the better no matter the result. I'm sure Mr. McLaggen would agree that while he and I differ on many issues, this campaign can certainly be a celebration of Appalachian democracy and a wonderful arena for our region to consider its vision for the future.

Maria: It will certainly be an exciting race to watch. Of course theres also two other fairly important races in your region with the Governor and Lt. Governor's seats up. How do you feel about your regional government's job lately?

Perry: I have a lot of respect for Governor Kowalchuk and I feel we share a lot of the same philosophies on leading for the people first and politics second. While I wouldn't say we agree on every single issue, he an I have worked together on occassion and our conversations are always quite productive. I would certainly say our interaction has always been positive... The campaign for governor will be bittersweet for me no matter what the result. I have worked closely with Senator Sorenson in the Senate DAC committee and we have a very good working relationship. I deeply appreciate what she has done for Dixie, just as I appreciate the Governor's work in our region thus far.

Maria: I imagine its going to be a hectic race there given the relative positions. But we're coming to a close so I want to give you the last bits of time, is there anything you'd like the people of Appalachia to know?

Perry: I'd encourage the people of Appalachia to be proactive about their decision this November. Investigate the work and the public voice of each candidate over the past two years rather than campaign gimmicks. I'm running for reelection because I believe I've delivered on the promises I made two years ago and I still have work to do for our region in the years to come. If Appalachians look at my body of work and agree, I'd appreciate their support on Election Day.

Maria: Well thank you for visiting us Senator and good luck in November.

Perry: Thank you very much, Maria. I enjoyed the opportunity to have a chat.

*Senator Perry will exit and Maria will look back to the audience*

Maria: Our Next Guest is someone very dear to my heart, my big brother and the Governor of Dixie, Dmitri Kowalchuk

*Dmitri enters and hugs Maria before sitting down*

Maria: "Welcome to the couch Governor."

Dmitri: "Fantastic to be here. Masha."

Maria: "So how is everything with our friends to the South?"

Dmitri: "Fairly good, we're working through some new legislation. We have some possible funding opportunities coming up through Congress so we're excited about those prospects."

Maria: "Oh yes, you just finished your budget didn't you."

Dmitri: "Yes we started out with a 12.8 billion dollar deficit and I'm proud to say we managed to widdle it down to nothing. That's good for us but at the same time it makes cutting further very very difficult as we've already cut a lot of department budgets. So really we just have to be creative and careful with what we decide to spend on."

Maria: "God forbid you have to levy a tax Dmitri!"

Dmitri: "Well people shouldn't have to pay more. If Dixie doesn't have the money and we can't find a fair means to get it then we don't spend it. There's a lot of programs I'd like to do but we just don't have the cash for. There's a lot of tax cuts I'd like to make but we just can't sustain the budget shakeup at this moment."

Maria: "Now...you've been subtlety attacked by Senator Sorenson for spending Rainy Day Fund Money. Care to explain?

Dmitri: "Yes I saw that and its a shame it was made an issue. The two largest expenditures of the rainy day fund were a $600 million dollar tax break on the people of Dixie and a $1.1 Billion dollar expenditure to remove a alcohol excise tax increase. Given the economic climate, the $600M was necessary and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. The $1.1 Billion was actually proposed by our Republican Lt. Governor. It was a sizable amount and you know it was supported by both parties. I think anyone who has worked with Lt. Governor Hood knows he's a good man and would'nt propose thsi if he did'nt think it was safe, so I do feel comfortable taking notice of his judgment on things like this.

The only thing lately that was considered for funding was the Cypress Forest bill which is actually being amended since we are likely to be seeing $150 million in a disaster grant I actually worked with Senator Sorenson on. We're going to boost that bill's funding for wetland and coastal cypress forest conservation to $50 million from 30. That'll go a long way towards rebuilding natural hurricane barriers and I'm happy we came to an agreement with the lt. Governor on it."

Maria: "You memorized all that?"

Dmitri: "I just know it. Its what I do. I've shed my athletic ways and become a budgetary nerd."

Maria: "Ok, different subject, recently there was the situation in Lubbock. If it had happened in Dixie what would you of done?"

Dmitri: "Well first and foremost it would be a local issue. I would expect them to enforce their own law. If at any point the safety of the protesters or the people eating at the other establishments had become an issue we'd of sent in regional police to make sure their rights were respected. Honestly, it was a nice sigh of relief when I got word that Dixie didn't have anyone really considering it.

Maria: "Interesting. Now for my last question. I asked Senator Perry what he thought of the regional government, in reverse what do you think of the upcomnig Appalachia Senate race?"

Dmitri: "Well Senator Perry has been a devoted Senator and I appreciate his discussions with me on things like the ENERGY Act. Former Governor McLaggen has also been a very strong voice in Appalachia and really regardless of who wins, the region will have a good Senator who will work hard for them."

Maria: "Well we're almsot out of time, Thanks for comnig on Dima"

Dmitri: "Anytime."

*Dmitri will remain on the couch as she closes out*

Maria: Ladies and gentlemen, thats all the time we have for now. If you'd like to know more about these candidates you can visit us at CNN.com/masha and get links to their websites. Join us next week as we welcome three new candidates to the couch. Have a great night.

[Summy]

Aired primetime

(IMG:http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01009/question-460_1009767c.jpg)

*music plays in*

Lars Johansen: Welcome to Question Time, with me, Lars Johansen. Before we start the show proper, I'd like to first thank Senator Chester face to face for the fantastic work he did hosting the show in my absence - Senator, thank you.

Senator CHESTER!: My pleasure, Lars

Lars Johansen: I'd like to say that I think that you are probably the only politician in Washington who could pull off moderating this show as you are, as far as I know, the only elected independent in Washington, is that right?

Senator CHESTER!: That's correct, Lars. Although I hope to have more who follow me.

Lars Johansen: Alright, and with that, let's meet the rest of the panel. For the Republicans under the microscope this evening, Senator Buford Justice and Congressman Jon Snow. And for the Democrats, Senator Jack Gardener. With them is the independent voice for Appalaicha, and my friend, Senator CHESTER! Perry.

Lars Johansen: Let's go straight to the questions. My first is to Senator Justice. Senator, I don't know if you caught Question Time last week - we had a long discussion on your views on homosexuality, and I'd like to give you the chance to respond tonight. Do you maintain that homosexuality is immoral and unhealthy?

Senator Justice: I most certainly do - it is condemned in the Good Book as a sin, and as I cited at a recent town hall, numerous peer reviewed studies have shown that it is an unhealthy sin to commit, with homosexuals being more promiscuous and more diseased than the general populus.

Lars Johansen: Senator Gardner?

Senator Gardner: Well, as a gay man who is neither promiscuous nor diseased, I would have to respectfully disagree with my colleague's claims. I would also note that the studies he cites were completed while I was still in middle school, so they are hardly conclusive for the present day.

Senator Justice: I urge the gentleman to present more recent studies which support his position then. Lets hear them.

Lars Johansen: Senator Justice, are you concerned that your views are offensive to homosexuals?

Senator Justice: No I'm most certainly not. I'm not concerned about offending those who engage in pedophilia or zoophilia, so why should homosexuality be any different? Just because a sexual deviancy has moved towards the mainstream in some parts of the world, doesn't mean it's changed.

Senator Gardner: *muttering* God, give me strength.

Lars Johansen: Congressman Snow?

Congressman Snow: Well Lars, my personal belief on the issue is that Homosexuality is not immoral. As for unhealthy, I feel like all promiscuous sexual activity tends to be unhealthy. That being said, however, the immorality and health risks of homosexuality don't really matter much in the current debates we have. Our individual freedoms include the freedom to do man immoral and unhealthy things.

Lars Johansen: Senator CHESTER!, I'd like to bring you on here. Do you think that Senator Justice is correct, and if not, do you think his speech could be considered hate speech?

Senator CHESTER!: Well -- no and yes, Lars. No, I do not agree completely with what Buford is saying. While we both celebrate the teachings of the Bible, we differ in where and when we feel it's the job of the federal government to get involved in enforcing its principles. I do not support same sex marriage laws, but I do not support government-mandated anti-homosexuality measures, either. As far as your question about hate speech, I do not think what he is saying should be prosecuted against. Again, this is an issue of freedoms -- who wants Washington legislating on what is in someone's head? Not I, that's for sure.

Senator Justice: But, and I refer to the Lubbock case, isn't just an issue of morality, but also of public health.

Senator CHESTER!: I think that's a red herring, myself.

Congressman Snow: Well, now, if that's the case, then we should just ban all bars. Promiscuous sexual activity goes along with much alcohol intake.

Senator CHESTER!: I think there'd be a case to ban entire universities if sexual activity were a justification!

*crowd laughs*

Senator Justice: Most places in Texas have heavily restricted alcohol. I believe that only about thirty counties are wet with the rest dry or partially dry.

Congressman Snow: Exactly. If public health is an issue, then why is only homosexual promiscuous sexual activity being, supposedly, curtailed here? You yourself, Senator Justice, have shown that many locales in our great state see the problem with alcohol intake. Why, then, did Lubbock only take this kind of action against homosexual businesses?

Senator Justice: Homosexual communities have an unbelievably disproportionate rate of disease compared to the size of demographic which they actually are. I'll end with a statistic released by the CDC in 2008 that 63% of all newsyphilis cases were men who have sex with men. And they make up what, 2 to 4% of the population? That is why they are a severe public health danger.

Senator Gardner: What percentage of the population are people with syphilis?

Senator Justice: I'm afraid I don't have the figures to hand

Senator CHESTER!: Buford, would you support an outright ban on smoking?

Senator Justice: As a proud smoker, I would not.

Senator CHESTER!: Then I find your logic problematic, as smoking has been proved to be lethal. Though I, too, would disagree with banning smoking, under your logic we would have to.

Senator Justice: Smoking is not contagious.

Senator Gardner: Second-hand smoke kills.

Senator Justice: No it doesn't. Not unless you live with a smoker for example, or work in a smoky environment, and that is your personal choice.

Lars Johansen: Senator, don't you claim that homosexuality is a choice?

Senator Justice: Yes I do. But you know when you're around a smoker, we are distinct. You don't know if a sexual partner has HIV or whatever they're carrying.

Senator Gardner: I've always sort of been curious, Buford. If being gay is a choice, when did you decide not to be gay?

Senator Justice: Because I was raised a Christian.

Senator Gardner: So was I. And yet, I am still attracted to men.

Senator Justice: With all due respect sir, no true Christian lives an immoral lifestyle and cannot see it to be wrong.

Senator Gardner: With all due respect to you, judge not, lest you be judged.

Congressman Snow: Have you never lied Buford?

Lars Johansen: Gentlemen we have to move on now.

Senator CHESTER!: ...back to your point, Buford. I think it's as obvious you're having sex with someone as it is that you are around a smoker. It's an issue of freedoms and government restraint.

Lars Johansen: Let's go to the next question. Secretary of Homeland Security Cameron, and Governor's Houston and Renzetti recently ordered an evacuation of El Paso as a precursor to an offensive against the cartel in Juarez. Do you think Americans have the stomach for an evacuation and a war on our own soil. Congressman Snow?

Congressman Snow: Well, I know that the evacuation will be very hard. But I think the people of El Paso understand the severity of the issue. The cartel in Juarez is, arguably, the greatest threat to the safety of the people of El Paso. This offensive is an important step to protect our borders. We have the stomach to do what is necessary to protect our wives and children, Lars.

Lars Johansen: Senator Justice, as one of the local Senators, do you think your constituents will tolerate being ordered out of their homes by the military for this offensive?

Senator Justice: As I stated earlier today, I hope that they will remain calm, and that the evacuation goes peacefully. The narcoterrorists who are running rings around the inept Mexican government need to be vanquished for the safety and security of everybody on the border.

Lars Johansen: Senator Gardner?

Senator Gardner: If the choice is to leave their homes and seek safety or stay and risk being killed, I certainly hope they will comply with the evacuation.

Lars Johansen: Senator CHESTER!, if this was Charlotte, rather than El Paso, do you think you would be supporting the forcible evacuation of an entire city?

Senator CHESTER!: Lars, I'm thankful Appalachia been threatened in this way... I think the opportunity to take another course of action has perhaps passed us by. At present I have the utmost trust in Secretary Cameron and Governors Houston and Renzetti; if this were Charlotte, I am sure Governor Kowalchuk would likewise be proactive in making the best decision possible for the people of our region.

Lars Johansen: Alright, we seem to have reached a consensus of sorts, so I'm going to move on. Senator Perry, the ENERGY Act, which you co-authored with Democratic Congressman Aaron Waters, is currently bogged down in the Senate. Have you been frustrated with the repeated attempts to amend the bill?

Senator CHESTER!: I am certainly disappointed by the amount of partisanship which has gone into the delay in bringing much-needed changes to our energy grid and in getting vital relief funding to people who were hit by the blackout, especially when the bill was written in a bipartisan nature to begin with. While I respect efforts to improve the legislation, I think it's intolerable to see some in the Senate using it as a platform for sending a political message.

Senator Justice: I completely disagree with that assessment. What the sponsors of this bill don't want you to know is that it would more than double our budget deficit and contained $100 billion of new spending before there were bipartisan efforts between both Democrats and Republicans to make this less of the financial blackhole than it was to begin with.

Senator CHESTER!: Senator Justice is unfortunately mistaken.

Senator Gardner: I feel that, overall, the legislation is a very good idea, and I support it. However, I agree with my colleague from Texas that there needs to be more provisions balancing out the increased spending.

Senator CHESTER!: I am fine with cost-offsets. The bill was designed to be as revenue-neutral as possible and contained a great deal of cost offsets right off the bat.

Senator Justice: A great deal? The bill's cost is over $120 billion with about $100 billion not cost offset at the start. If that's a great deal then Danny DeVito is the tallest man alive.

Senator Gardner: I would note, however, that nearly $100 billion in new cost offsets have since been added to the bill, so it is no longer as problematic as it was at the beginning.

Senator CHESTER!: In addition, many of the cost offsets would have over five years saved quite a bit more than the 20 billion Buford is claiming.

Senator Justice: There have been about $82 billion added in cost offsets, there is still a long way to go and then there is still the House version to contend with.

Congressman Snow: Lars, I can say, as a Representative, it is very heartening to see Senators from both sides so concerned with spending in this economy. I only wish my fellow representatives were as cost-conscious.
01:03 Gardner I would estimate closer to $89 billion.

Senator Justice: There are a range of costs with some, I'd rather be safe with the pocket books of ordinary Americans than have them be sorry later.

Senator CHESTER!: Either way, the amount of spending in the bill are significantly lower than the amount it would cost to continually repair and rebuild our nation in the face of repeated blackout disasters.

Senator Justice: It is not the job of the federal government to intervene in this way. Now I'm pretty sure that there's no mention of "smart grid" in the list of items which Congress can spend revenue on.

Senator Gardner: But interstate commerce certainly is mentioned.

Congressman Snow: I am going to have to disagree with my fellow Texan here. According to his logic, our interstate system should not exist. There IS indeed such a thing as national infrastructure.

Senator CHESTER!: Senator Justice, are you prepared to tell the citizens of Applachia and the rest of Dixie and the Heartlands who were affected that their federal tax dollars cannot and will not aid them in cleaning up this disaster or preventing future blackouts?

Senator Justice: It says we can regulate interstate commerce, not spend vast amounts of money doing it ourselves. And yes Senator, I am perfectly prepared to follow the constitution letter for letter and refuse to support your illegal bill.

*CHESTER! throws arms up in air*

Senator Gardner: So, it's your contention we can regulate interstate commerce, as long as we don't in any way spend money on it?

Senator Justice: We do not have the constitutional authority to build a smart grid, or to fund its construction. If the people of the United States really want that, then that right is reserved to them, not some know all interventionist Congress.

Lars Johansen: Aren't you a representative of the people though, Senator?

Senator Justice: No, I am not a Representative of the people, that would be the Heartland's Congressmen. As a member of the United States Senate, I represent the Heartland. And has my colleague not heard of interstate compacts, worked pretty well with medical licensure and sharing water.

Senator Gardner: But how can individual regions build a grid that stretches beyond and between any individual region? An interstate authority that handles issues affecting multiple states and regions sounds like the exact definition of a federal government.

Senator Justice: No, an interstate compact allows select regions to enter into an agreement voluntarily - so wouldn't force the West to join the rest if it didn't want to.

Senator CHESTER!: Gentleman -- Constitutional debate aside, there are a lot of people hurting in my region and still trying to pick themselves up after this blackout, and there are millions of Americans still at risk from our outdated electrical grid. I would hope that for both of you, no matter what your reservations are on the bill, that you'd join with me in at very least voting for closure and giving the people Appalachia and elsewhere the courtesy of a straight up-or-down vote.

Senator Gardner: I already have voted for cloture.

Senator Justice: In that case, I urge them all to write to their Governor and ask him to begin work on a smart grid. I will not be voting for cloture, and I will vote against this bill.

Lars Johansen: Alright Gentlemen, let's move on to our final question of the evening. You'll have to indulge me as this is something of an insider-baseball question, but why are so few Democrats willing to come on QT and face the tough questions? Congressman Snow?

Senator CHESTER!: *laughs*

Congressman Snow: Well I think my best guess is that Speaker Dixon won't let them!

Senator Gardner: Personally, I suspect it's because Thursday is must-see TV night.

Senator Justice: Too scared to face public scrutiny!

Senator CHESTER!: QT IS must see TV, Senator!

Lars Johansen: Here here!

Senator Gardner: More so than Survivor or The Office?

Lars Johansen: I asked that question not to make a partisan point - I've never revealed this but I'm an independent - but it does seem to me that it is harder to get Democrats to come on the show than Republicans. Except Senator Jackson and Senator Gardner, who I can't seem to get rid of!

Senator CHESTER!: I would watch paint dry if it was hosted and moderated by Lars.

Senator Justice: We, in the Senate can't get rid of Senators Jackson or Gardner either.

Senator Gardner: Well, we are both up for election this year.

Lars Johansen: Alright, thank you Senator Justice, Senator Gardner, Senator CHESTER! and Congressman Snow, and thank you at home for sticking with us through our eighth episode. Good night!

*music plays out*

[Summy]

Aired daytime

Live With
(IMG:http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3584/rockefellerlogo.gif)

JACKSON P. ROCKEFELLER
(IMG:http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/1505/1720jfk20jr21.jpg)
Live from Toledo, Ohio

THE BUDGET CLOCK TICKS TOWARDS SHUTDOWN
As Congress prepares to adjourn with no budget from the Treasury, the countdown to shutdown begins

ROCKEFELLER: So, where's the federal budget? I have no idea, and neither does the rest of the nation or Congress.

We are currently working on making the Budget as best as it can be, and it will be sent to Congress soon. In the meantime, the President and I would like to ask you, as well as your former colleagues in the Congress, to refrain from trying to score political points from this.

ROCKEFELLER: Score political points? That's a hefty accusation when we're facing yet another federal shutdown, and it comes from the man who seems incapable of providing Congress a budget on-time. Just to understand what a federal government shutdown looks like, in case anyone forgot the debacle from a decade ago, let me run down the list for you:

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
How Will It Affect You?

CLOSED: Veterans' Care
BACKLOG OF VETERANS' HEALTH CARE & FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

CLOSED: National Parks, Sites, Museums & Monuments
CLOSED: Passports & Visa processing
U.S. TOURISM INDUSTRY DIES

CLOSED: Center for Disease Control & Prevention Surveillance
CLOSED: National Institute of Health's Disease Hotline
NO EMERGENCY INFORMATION OR DISEASE TRACKING

CLOSED: Federal Toxic Waste sites
NO TOXIC WASTE CLEAN-UP

CLOSED: Bankruptcy Processing
FAILURES IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS

CLOSED: Federal Law Enforcement Recruitment & Training
PUBLIC SAFETY & EMERGENCY RESPONSE FAILURES

CLOSED: Child Support Case-file Processing
NO CHILD SUPPORT FOR SINGLE MOTHERS

FURLOUGHED: Thousands of non-essential government employees
DELAYS & FAILURES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID BENEFITS

ROCKEFELLER: Every single person in Congress should be telling the President to whip his Treasury back on track. We can't have a repeat of Secretary Cole's last budget debacle. The threat of a federal government shutdown is very serious, and it looks like the Treasury is not taking it very seriously, especially when the only response we get from Secretary Cole is, basically, a demand for us to go easy on him and not talk about the budget. He can request all he wants, but I'm going to keep the spotlight on it because I know from experience how long the budget process can be, how difficult it can get and how bad a shutdown can hurt millions of American families.

KEEFER: It's beyond me how this Administration and Congressional Republicans can not only ignore the impending budget problems and looming budget deadline, but actually attack Speaker Dixon and House Democrats for passing a continuing resolution. With this Treasury's track record, we're better safe than sorry.

NARE: Safe than sorry, perhaps. But, there is a hint of politics in the water here. We still have a few weeks. Is the Treasury pushing it? Yes. But, we've seen Congress work fast on the budget before. Why couldn't they do that again if necessary?

ROCKEFELLER: Because the last budget was an extraordinary circumstances where Congress came together due to the inactivity of the Treasury. It was not the norm and should never be. Congress needs to hold budget hearings, consider appropriations, amendments and then send it to the Senate floor where the debate process begins anew. And as we all know, Congress does not work fast and it never has, except under those special circumstances. Washington has been passing a federal budget for quite some time now. This is not something new.

KEEFER: But the Pizzuto Administration would make you think they had to reinvent the wheel with the budget, and that's ridiculous. In the last budget, Secretary Cole promised bipartisan talks and never held them. Congress didn't see a budget until the deadline was on top of the country. Americans would have shutdown, except that, excuse me for naming you Jackson, Senator Rockefeller and other Congressional leaders held their own budget talks and made sure the process was organized, bipartisan and hastened, literally upending the normal process to pass a budget before the deadline hit. And prior to that, Congress passed at least two continuing resolutions! And now Republicans are screaming politics? Spare me!

NARE: In all fairness, the White House has held bipartisan budget talks already. And, from what I've heard, the White House is considering adding in some Democratic proposals to his budget.

KEEFER: If you mean putting the parties in two different rooms and telling them different things, then sure. That's not the same thing as putting both sides in the same room and telling them to make the budget process work in a timely, fair and equitable manner. That's a leadership failure, again, on the Treasury Secretary whose credibility in Washington ranks him as the least trusted cabinet official and, perhaps, the least trusted person in Washington.

ROCKEFELLER: I'm no fan of McKenas Cole, specifically for his handing of the budget, but that's a heavy charge to make.

KEEFER: And I stand by it. Secretary Cole should have been fired after his last late budget. President Pizzuto should not put this nation through yet another budget scare. With plenty of time to hold talks with both sides of congressional leaders, together in one room, and propose a adequate budget in a timely fashion, the blame should fall squarely on Treasury Secretary McKenas Cole. However, we've been here before when the last budget almost never happened due to Secretary Cole's inaction. Yet, Cole still has a job; therefore, this failure lands in President Pizzuto's lap. After the last late budget and the shutdown scare, the President knew better this time, but did nothing about it. The fact is that Secretary Cole should have been fired more than two years ago. But, the President let the Treasury's failure to produce a timely budget slide back then and now we're facing another federal government shutdown scare.

BLACKOUT CRISIS GIVES BIRTH TO
BIPARTISAN ENERGY GRID REFORM MOVEMENT
As blackouts spill across the nation, will Congress pass major energy grid reform?

Live with Rockefeller
Senator Chester Perry
CHAIRMAN, SENATE DOMESTIC AFFAIRS & COMMERCE COMMITTEE

Congressman Aaron Waters
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI

ROCKEFELLER: Welcome to Senator Perry and Congressman Waters. Thanks for joining me. The Blackout Disaster of 2022 has highlighted the risk of our aging energy grid. Beyond the obvious economic problems this causes, the grid poses some very serious the national security risks for the entire nation. Together, you've proposed the ENERGY Act.

WATERS: Yes we did. I'm glad to be on to talk about, Senator. Thank you.

PERRY: That's correct, Jackson. As the Chairman of the Senate DAC committee, I called a bipartisan hearing on the blackout disaster and in the days which followed, Congressman Waters approached me about coauthoring legislation. He and I both felt this issue long overdue for action. Pertaining to national security -- a blackout occurring at an inopportune time could well risk cutting off government agencies from one another during a time of national crisis. The vulnerability of our energy grid displayed during this year's recent tragedy make it a potentially attractive target for terrorists in the future.

ROCKEFELLER: Energy issues, including the energy grid, can be a contentious political issue in Washington. Why did the two of you decide to collaborate bipartisanly on the ENERGY Act?

PERRY: Congressman Waters and I are both legislators more concerned with getting things done than winning political points. The unfortunate reality, however, is that others in Washington do not share the same conviction. A bill coming from only one side is often doomed to defeat, even when it is drafted in a moderate manner – some would point to CHOICE as an example of this. The decision to work together was therefore a no-brainer. We each had a number of ideas to contribute and as members of the majority caucus in each Congressional body, we felt our collaboration would increase the odds of smooth passage.

WATERS: From the moment news of the blackout broke, I began working on drafting legislation that would completely overhaul the energy grid int he United States. After years of pushing it back and pushing it, it finally became an overhaul was necessary. When Senator Perry, as chairman of the Senate Domestic Affairs Committee, announced that he too was working on solutions, I offered him my services. Two minds are often better then one, and we thought it would send a great message - not just to the rest of Congress but to the American people - if we worked together on this issue. I am proud of our work and thoroughly enjoyed partnering with Senator Perry. This is the kind of bipartisanship that Washington needs more of. Unfortunately, it seems the bipartisanship hasn't translated well to the Senate debate on the bill.

ROCKEFELLER: The process wasn't easy, and it never is in Washington as I'll personally attest to. So, you held meeting with the Pizzuto Administration and with other members of Congress. Who, specifically, did you speak to before proposing the bill? What types of restrictions or pullback did you get from folks inside the beltway? Was it difficult to bring key Administration officials and members of Congress on board?

PERRY: Absolutely. The time it takes to draft legislation increases exponentially with each additional chair at the table. While I spoke briefly with Secretary of Defense Everson, who was very helpful in discussing Defense-related cost offsets, the Administration representative working with the Congressman and I was Secretary of Interior Schurz. The Administration was thankfully receptive from the get-go, and the Secretary pinpointed only a few minor alterations which would be required. Additionally, he offered with the help of Secretary Everson a few additional cost offsets which were added. I should also mention that I had several productive conversations with Dixie Governor Dimitri Kowalchuk, who worked with me on ensuring the region most impacted by the blackout received the aid it needed to move on from the disaster. In my experience, the largest group of detractors so far inside the beltway have actually been Senators from regions outside the blackout's effective range; there are members of the Senate content to drag their heels to send a political message, and they have little sympathy toward the people in Appalachia and other regions still struggling to recover from the blackout.

WATERS: It was actually surprisingly easy to bring the Administration on board. Senator Perry first approached the Administration with our ideas, and then we both held numerous discussions with Secretary Schruz. There wasn't much in the bill we presented to the Administration that they didn't like and they only wanted to make a couple tweaks. We also talked to the President briefly and he was supportive. There was hardly any pushback from them, and, to be honest, I was very surprised. I also believe Senator Perry talked to a couple Senators before we introduced it, but he would have to attest to that.

ROCKEFELLER: While receiving a large amount of bipartisan support, the ENERGY Act has drawn opposition from folks like Senator Buford Justice due to its large cost figures and lack of emphasis on the private sector. Others have amended the bill to remove natural gas and have added in major cuts to non-energy programs to pay for the bill. What is your reaction to all of this? Do you think these changes will help or hinder final passage of the bill?'

PERRY: It's true, there has been some considerable opposition from a few members of the Senate. There are those balking at the idea of investing in our domestic energy future and would rather provide another band-aid for a gaping hole in our country's infrastructure... I would suggest in the long run this legislation will put our nation in a much healthier position. By embracing modern, domestic energy technologies, we can vastly improve our nation's economy and our security from foreign threats at the same time. As far as the removal of natural gas – and I would point out there has been opposition to clean coal technologies as well – such amendments are frankly short-sighted. There is no reason for to push the status quo when it comes to our nation's energy policy. Huge investment in foreign oil simply won't cut it anymore; if we don't make sure we have the domestic energy infrastructure and technology soon, we'll be importing energy for decades to come, crippling our economic growth. In my view it's absolutely vital we pass this legislation; I would encourage viewers who share my concern to contact their legislators in support of passing the ENERGY Act.

WATERS: First of all, let me say that I do not understand how Senator Justice can attack the bill for not having an emphasis on the private sector. The entire overhaul of the energy grid is a matching fund system. That is, the government will match 35% of the costs made by the private sector to overhaul the energy grid. this bill is driven by the private sector. On the attacks on the cost, this bill will cost us just over $100 billion spread out over 10 years. Some estimates say that the overhaul of our energy grid will save us as much as $100 billion a year, not to mention the security risks posed by the security grid which could cost a lot more if we were attacked. I'd say that this is well worth the investment. And, I would like to speak briefly on the exclusion of natural gas and other similar provisions: the key to the smart grid is also implementing technologies that will complement the grid. This means cleaner, more efficient energy sources and clean running cars like plug-in hybrids. For the smart grid to work as efficiently and as cheaply as possible, there need to be mass implementation of these complementary technologies. Natural gas, specifically, is very important to this country. First, increased production of natural gas would create thousands of jobs in the United States, especially in my region of the Heartland. But it would also help to end American dependence on foreign oil and the Middle Eastern dictators who hold us hostage with their oil sales. The benefits are win-win. In the House, I am going to fight to put these provisions back in, because they are important to the bill and important to the country. But ultimately, I don't think they will have any effect on final passage.

ROCKEFELLER: Million of affected Americans are angry, and rightfully so, at the failure to address this problem before this crisis hit. Former Energy Secretary Abrams noted that both Presidents Bush and Obama invested heavily into constructing a smart grid, but those programs died after their administrations left Washington. Do you think any blame rests on the Cullen and Pizzuto Administrations for not paying attention to the aging grid?

WATERS: I don't think the blame lies specifically on anyone. I think whats important is that it is now very clear that the energy grid is failing and we need to do something about it. ENERGY is the solution that will save future Americans billions of dollars in energy costs and protect them from attack. I hope my colleagues in Congress recognize the benefits of this bill, and join Senator Perry and I in pushing this bill forward.

PERRY: I think the blame could start there but needs to spread far wider. Anyone in the halls of Congress – myself included – had an opportunity to bring attention to this issue before the crisis hit. As I said before, what Congressman Waters and I are trying to achieve is long overdue, and to press forward we must put more focus into accountability than blame. In the wake of the blackout disaster there is no longer justification for pandering to the status quo or dragging one's heels on energy reform. While the Pizzuto Administration shared the Cullen Administration's blind eye toward our energy grid, the President has been an important advocate for bipartisan reform since then. Focusing on the past is tempting, but criticism at this juncture belongs more appropriately in the lap of legislators who as we speak are delaying the ENERGY Act even in the face of a looming national crisis.

ROCKEFELLER: With my two cents, I'll say that grid reform needs to pass Congress and be well funded, and this needs to be done in a timely fashion. We cannot wait another year while Americans continue to reel from an outdated, weak and vulnerable energy grid. This is a matter of national security and it must be fixed now. Furthermore, energy reform legislation is long over due as well, despite bipartisan action of the past. These are areas that must be addressed now by Congress and the White House and I thank you, gentlemen, for your willingness to act bipartisanly which is never an easy task in Washington. Trust me, I know.

ROCKEFELLER'S FINAL WORD

ROCKEFELLER: Congress has alot on its plate - from dealing with an inactive Treasury poised to send the nation into yet another shutdown scare to the blackout crisis affecting millions while some in Congress refuse to help pass energy grid reform -- its not an easy session, but they never are. Tough choices and tough politics. But, I think we all appreciate the ray of hope we seen in rare instances of bipartisanship today. Compromise takes courage, and I'd like to send this segment by applauding those who've had the guts to work with both sides of the aisle because, in these past six years, it's been a rare sight. So, with the budget deadline ticking down and the dire need for grid reform, I hope Washington takes notice and, perhaps finally, learns something. Until next time!

[Summy]

Aired daytime

*music plays in*

Lars Johansen: Welcome to Question Time. Tonight we're broadcasting from the Kennedy centre in downtown New York City. With me on the panel to answer the tough questions are, for the Republicans, House Minority Whip John Wallace and Congressman Matthew McCoy, and for the Democrats Congressman Drew Blackford, and Senate Minority Leader Addie Jackson!

Lars Johansen: Let's go to our first question of the evening. Speaker Dixon's decision to temporarily prevent members from making morning comments speeches on the House floor set of a firestorm of partisan debate in the House. Should ordinary Americans care? Congressman Wallace.

Congressman Wallace: To be quite honest, yes, they should. The Morning Comments has long been a place where members of the House can speak about any subject they so desire, so long as it within reasonable bounds. Regarding what happened with the closing of the Morning Comments, I do not believe merited the actions taken by the Speaker.

Lars Johansen: Congressman Blackford, what's the feeling in the House Democratic caucus about this episode?

Congressman Blackford: Well Lars, personally, I understand where Wallace is comming from. However, seeing as Morning Comments is not a place of debate, I support the Speaker's decision. As far as how the entire House Democratic Caucus feels, I can't say for sure. But mostly we stand by the speaker's decision.

Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson, what's the perspective from the senior chamber on this?

Senator Jackson: Shutting down morning comments? Well, Lars, no one's said a word. As to your original question of should the American people care, I think the answer is yes- so long as they remember to care about a thousand other things that are far more important going on. For instance, the lack of healthcare debate save for a Senate committee, the lack of any budget or even any proposals from the White House- even though the House Democrats are evil for submitting a continuing resolution, we're going to get onto those issues in due course. And, since the House is now open once again for Morning Comments, I think that by continuing to make this an issue- or at least try to- we're ignoring the bigger questions out there.

Lars Johansen: Congressman McCoy, your thoughts?

Congressman McCoy: Well, I certaily agree with Mr Wallace. Speaker Dixon has a history doing things like that, and for the Democrats, I think it's quite important to remind that it was actually the Majority Leader who kicked off this whole debate by responding to Mr Wahls's morning comment.

Congressman Blackford: Yes, he did respond. I'm not defending him. I'm defending the Speaker for takeing action.

Congressman McCoy: And she took action, yes. But she also forgot to call the House Majority Leader to order. Unlike Mr. Walsh we had to remind her of doing so. Another thing she is quite famous for.

Senator Jackson: *Chuckles and shakes his head*

Congressman Blackford: I agree she should have called him to order as she did Mr. Wash. No arguments from me there. However I thought we were talking about the Speaker clsoing Morning Comments.

Senator Jackson: This is the biggest issue we face as a Congress, Lars. Any wonder why the approval of the Congress is so low?

Congressman McCoy: It is certainly not the biggest isues Congress faces, but we are able to see a pattern here. But thankfully this issue has been resolved and we are able to move on.

Lars Johansen: Let's move on to our next question. Do we need a continuing resolution for the budget? Senator Jackson.

Senator Jackson: I won't say we need one now. But the comments coming from one side- the President's party- are ridiculous. Saying we don't need one just because there's still time left? I'd ask any Republican here why it would hurt us to actually have one of these in place just in case there isn't a budget. I'm not trying to sell the White house short- after all, they passed a budget more or less close to on time before, so they're probably on top of it now. But given that there's been no speeches on what budget proposals- even basic ones- that the White House is proposing this year, not a peep out of the Treasury Department... can it really HURT to have a resolution?

Lars Johansen: Congressman McCoy? You're a Republican. Why does having a CR hurt anyone?

Congressman McCoy: Because it's not about ensuring to prevent a government shutdown. It's a political stunt. The Senator has said it already: There is still time left. So bringing a CR up when there's enough time left. I would agree that a CR is necessary if it was about one week before Congress adjourns, but it hasn't achieved anything than another round of ugly partisanship.

Senator Jackson: Ha!

Congressman Blackford: But whose fault is that?

Senator Jackson: It's a two way street.

Congressman McCoy: Yes, the President has not presented the budget within the first months, but what's the big deal? There is enough time to pass a solid and good budget. So why not giving the White House the time instead of attacking the President and the Secretary?

Lars Johansen: Congressman Wallace?

Congressman Wallace: Well Lars, I think this continuing resolution was really nothing more than a stunt, as well. The House Democrats tried to create a crisis out of thin air, as they have all session. I distinctly remember Majority Leader maximiliano expressing doubts about the administrations punctuality on delivering the budget much earlier this session, yet there was no real public pressure put on the White House.

Congressman Blackford: And I think the opposition, such a vocal one as it has been, is nothing more than a stunt. I was always told, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Congressman Wallace: With this much time left in the session, though?

Congressman McCoy: The House Democratic Leadership has a history in attacking the White House, based on nothing more than suspisions and party affiliation.

Senator Jackson: I just want to be clear, Lars, on what my co-guests here tonight are saying. Any continuing resolution is bad because ONLY Democrats are pushing it? Not because it might get in the way of the White House putting together a budget?

Lars Johansen: Alright Gentlemen, I think we've done that topic to death, let's move on. With the evacuation of El Paso underway and the military preparing to attack border cartels in Juarez, do the panel think that the drug war can ever be won with tanks and bullets?
00:42 Lars Congressman Wallace?

Congressman Wallace: Well, we have been having a lot of military success with our joint teams along the border haven't we? The drug cartel has continued to commit violence along the border, and they are not going to just lay down their weapons if we nicely ask. I wish we did not have to displace the thousands of people in the El Paso area for something like this, but I believe it was the cartel that pushed us to these measures.

Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson?

Senator Jackson: Guns and bullets? Well, they seem to work. I have my own thoughts on the decision to evacuate El Paso- I think the jury is still out on both whether it was a good idea and whether it was planned and executed with forethought. But if we want to talk about the War on Drugs in general, violence is not going to be the only way to do it, plain and simple. We have to remove the power that the drug lords have but cutting them off financially. Make it so they don't have a monopoly over illegal drug trade. You do that, and you save far more lives than just removing them from power.

Lars Johansen: Hang on Senator Jackson - on that point - are you criticising the Department of Homeland Security for the planning of the evacuation?

Senator Jackson: Not at all. But wouldn't you say it's a bit early to praise him? Unless you know the numbers of how many successfully left within that 36 hours. But as I was saying, we need a balanced approach. Killing gets rid of the drug lords- for now. There can always be more, until we address other aspects of the problem, which I haven't seen as much recently.

Lars Johansen: Congressman McCoy?

Congressman McCoy: I think that both, Mr Wallace and Mr Jackson are right. Military forces are a good tool to weaken the power of the drug lords, and god knows it's about prime time that we're doing that. However, we also have to adress, as the Senator has pointed out, other aspects, like finances of the drug lords.

Lars Johansen: Well, they're financed by selling drugs

Congressman Blackford: Obviously. I agree with what has been said, the Military action has for the most part been successful. But it is definately too early to call this one accurately. But over all, what are the underlying causes of the strength of the Cartels? People in Poverty are often tempted to use, or sell drugs. In my mind, as long as we have those living in Poverty, there will be drugs. I don't mean to be a pessimist, but I think ultimately there can be no victory on the war on drugs.

Lars Johansen: Alright Gentlemen, let's move on. My final question of the night is about Governor Kowalchuck of Dixie. Given that a piece of legislation the Governor strongly championed regarding the subsidising of bibles in Dixie was recently struck down by a district court, do the panel think that the Governor's chances in the 2024 Democratic Primary have taken a hit? Congressman Wallace?

Congressman Wallace: Well, being a daily reader of the Bible myself, I understood the spirit of that bill. But as for the resulting court case hurting the Governor's chances, I would think that Democratic primary voters would not take this event into account over other issues.

Congressman McCoy: As being a Republican, I can't be too sure about what I'm going to say next: But given that more Democrats tend to spend not that much time on religion like most of Republicans do, I think that his chances have been hurt, especially with the far-left base of the Democratic party.

Lars Johansen: Senator Jackson, you've been rumoured as a possible candidate in 2024 for the Democrats. Are you running, and do you think that Governor Kowalchuck can realistically now run anywhere outside of the deep south?

Senator Jackson: Am I running? I really don't know yet. I'm up for Senate again, and there's a lot of stuff that still needs doing. Healthcare, education, energy... all things we're working on in the Senate as a whole, and I don't have any plans on abandoning that yet. That said, I'd like to, but I don't know. As for the Governor, he could certainly run for President. And I don't think the bible tax exemption would the top of his problems, however. If he wants to run, I wish him luck.

Lars Johansen: Alright gentlemen, that's all we have time for this evening. Thank you to all our guests, and to our fantastic audience. Good night.

*music plays out*

[Summy]

Aired daytime

Live With
(IMG:http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3584/rockefellerlogo.gif)

JACKSON P. ROCKEFELLER
(IMG:http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/1505/1720jfk20jr21.jpg)
Live from Toledo, Ohio

THE BUDGET BLAME GAME
The White House & Congress spar over late budget

ROCKEFELLER: Remember when I asked "So, where's the federal budget?" We now know it was with the Treasury for more than a week before it was turned over to Congress. After two years and hours spent in budget meetings with Congressmen from both parties, you'd think the White House and the Treasury would know what they wanted to do with the Budget! Yet again, it was delivered with not enough time for both Houses of Congress to consider it through the normal channels. Now, the White House is waging an all-out assault on the House of Representatives blaming the Democratic majority for the need of a continuing resolution. And, so, the Vice President made a statement on the budget yesterday and I think its only fair to break down and explain the reality as opposed to the fiction floating around here....

Months ago the House Democrats claimed that we had to pass a continuing resolution because the President and I would fail to submit a budget on time. Of course, that continuing resolution was passed with months left in the budget process and was done simply to paint President Pizzuto in a negative light and to allow House Democrats to score cheap, political points.

ROCKEFELLER: It's called a track record. Any smart person operates on past experience. Throwing 'politics' at the continuing resolution carries little weight now that people see, hey! we really do need one! It was only smart planning, and it's been decades since Washington passed a budget without a continuing resolution passed first.

KEFER: The last budget was ridiculously late. This is the Vice President playing politics, trying to throw the blame off himself and the President. It's not very smart to refuse any of the blame, Mr. Vice President. Afterall, it was the Pizzuto Treasury that caused the last shutdown scare forcing folks in Congress to be wary of this budget process in the first place.

NARE: I'll admit -- attacking the continuing resolution was probably a bad move by the White House, especially since they now need it.

ROCKEFELLER: It's the Administration's own fault the budget was late two years ago, so its not so much politics as it is a simple precaution for Congress to pass the continuing resolution.

Of course, today, thanks to foot dragging on the part of BIC chairman Topol, Speaker Dixon, and Leader Maximiliano we might not have enough time to pass a budget. The President and I submitted the budget with more than 2 weeks to pass it.

ROCKEFELLER: Seems the Vice President conveniently forgets that it was Republican U.S. Senator Buford Justice who, very recently, objected to the continuing resolution in the Senate, and that same Republican is now threatening to derail the budget passage with a filibuster on another bill. But, oh apparently that's not an issue? I beg to differ. The fact is that the budget process normally takes three weeks, not two -- and that was not allotted for in this White House's budget time-line, making it a late budget.

KEFER: Of all people, Mr. Pooty knows that the congressional budget process can take up to three weeks in the House of Representatives where it can take more than six days in committee and more than six days on the House floor - that's already twelve days, and its not counting its time in the hopper, the wait time between debate and voting, and wait time between its transfer from committee and the House floor.

ROCKEFELLER: So, let's call it a total of 14 days in the House, minimum, for the normal process to be carried out. That's the Vice President's two weeks right there, without counting time needed for Conference Committee, which with the split Congress could take at least two to three days and then at least another three days for re-approval by both houses. All said, the normal Congressional budget process takes three weeks.

KEFER: And why did the Treasury sit on the budget for more than a week? The Administration has had years now to plan out its budget proposal. Congress needed more than two weeks, yet the budget sat in the Administrations' hands!

NARE: In all due fairness, the White House does need time to discuss their proposal after receiving the official numbers.

ROCKEFELLER: A few days? Sure. But more than a week? No. That's no excuse. The Treasury should have been more prepared, even if only for the mere fact that we've been warning them for almost two years about this very situation!

The budget was presented with more than enough time to pass; however, House Democrats stalled the budget and bogged it down in unnecessary process.

KEFER: The budget was on time? That's a joke and a half.

ROCKEFELLER: As we've outlined, the normal budget process in Congress can take three weeks, or even more depending on the situation. And the White House did not ask Congress to fast-track the process-- in fact, the President has continually insisted that his would be submitted "with plenty of time", so there was no request from the White House to rush the process whatsoever. If there had been, then perhaps I could see reason for the Vice President to be upset with the process.

KEFER: This new panic mode is simply the President and Vice President trying to pass the blame for a late budget and the possibility of a shutdown onto someone else. Where does the buck stop? Apparently, not with this Oval Office team.

NARE: Despite the White House not requesting a rush job, the House Democrats could have been quicker. Sure, we know that house rules require certain timelines, but folks in the House could have hurried things up a little more than they did.

KEFER: With the President sitting on his hands, as usual, and insisting there was plenty of time, why should anyone rush? Plus, the House had already taken the precaution of passing a continuing resolution. Why allow the White House to force a rush job on the budget? They know it takes weeks to consider it - and if they wanted people to hurry, they should have asked instead of panicking in the 11th hour.

ROCKEFELLER: On a live telecast from D.C., I welcome Speaker Jennifer Dixon to the show.

Live with Rockefeller
Jennifer Dixon
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
(IMG:http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee197/ThomasUSG/kirsten-gillibrand.jpg)

ROCKEFELLER: We've been waiting for the budget for quite some time, but suddenly the White House is now waging an 11th hour attack on the House claiming the process has been too slow. Have you been dragging your feet on the budget?

DIXON: Hardly. We have gone through the normal procedures in the House for the budget which begins with Committee. Now I know that suddenly the President is calling the process of a bill going through committee an "unnecessary process." Earlier in the session when I brought up a few bills and they skipped committee, I was attacked for skipping this vital part of the House where committee members could speak their minds and represent their folks back home. That was when they hoped to sneak in some amendments in committee. But when we send the budget to committee, now I'm the bad guy. It's okay I'm used to it by now, anyone with this job has to have some thick skin. The bottom line is, the budget passed committee with some excellent amendments, at the top of the list, protecting the funding for our public education, and now it's on the floor and we'll pass it very soon.

ROCKEFELLER: Could you have sped the process up? If so, why didn't you?

DIXON: The budget went through the committee process because that is the proper course. I mentioned before I was attacked when I circumvented the process a few times but now that its "their" bill which doesn't get to skip ahead in line now its a travesty. This country, because of the foresight of the House Democratic Leadership is half way to being protected from a shutdown because we knew the President and his Treasury Secretary would deliver this an inch away from being too late, like the last budget when we needed, I think, two CRs to keep us out of shutdown. The one we did covers us into the next Congressional session. Of course Senator Foster is too busy telling me how to lead my chamber to be bothered to bring it up for a vote after failing to use a super majority to give the President his own health care fiasco, and Senator Justice is too busy trying to grind everything to a halt for them to put the country in front of their Party. If, God forbid, this government shuts down, its the fault of the Senate Leadership and the White House for not signing the CR. The House did its job in looking ahead.

ROCKEFELLER: Even if you had rushed things, like the White House has suddenly said you should have done, would less than two weeks have given the budget its due consideration and allowed you to work out differences with the Senate in Conference Committee?

DIXON: Considering the Senate may be shut down with a filibuster and their own budget has seen some very big changes in amendments the Conference Committee deliberations are going to be very involved. The White House said they gave us just enough time, purposefully, to rush it through the House and the Senate, do a quick group hug in the Conference Committee and get it to his desk in the knick of time. This is plain and simple an attempt by the White House to sweep another inept performance under the rug and pass the buck. The people at home are smarter than that and they see that two nearly late budgets are not an aberration, that's a pattern. Our House has performed all session with high activity and steady leadership. It's a shame we haven't seen that out of the Senate or the White House in the last 6 years.

ROCKEFELLER: Thank you Madam Speaker. And now we have former minority leader, Senator Addie Jackson with us...

Live with Rockefeller
Addie Jackson
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE SOUTHWEST
FORMER MINORITY LEADER
(IMG:http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/qq32/aboltik/AddieJackson-1.png)

ROCKEFELLER: With all this focus on the House budget process, tell me what's going on in the Senate. I've seen tons of amendments, at least half coming from the Republican caucus, and a filibuster threatening to close down the budget.

JACKSON: Well, it seems like there is some general agreement, albeit unspoken, that the best thing is to just get this passed. Given the size of the minority in the Senate, coupled with the importance at getting the budget passed, there is little that can be done, sadly, in the way of ensuring that our government agencies get more than is appropriated under the current budget. There aren't many in the Senate- Republican or Democrat- that think this budget is perfect and the end-all and be-all, but for the first few days at least, there seemed to be some consensus that this is something that needs to get passed and the battle just isn't worth it. Of course, all that changed when certain members of the Senate showed up and started to pull out their old tricks. We're seeing amendments, like we have too many times before in the Senate, to abolish funding for agencies that one or two members of the body consider "unconstitutional." It doesn't look like these will pass, though this same "unconstitutionality" is now being used to slow up a harmless continuing resolution and potentially delay the budget to a dangerous extent. And the current filibuster looks like it might cause quite a few problems here, but the Democratic minority alone is nowhere near large enough to put an end to these obstructions.

ROCKEFELLER: A bunch of these amendments to the budget, specifically those coming from Senator Justice, are quite alarming. Specifically, completely eliminating funding for Social Security, the EPA, transportation, Health & Human Services and education funding. I'm surprised the White House isn't up in arms about these proposals, aren't you?

JACKSON: There are really three ways to go about this, Jackson, and neither is all that surprising to me. One- and this gives the benefit of doubt to the White House- they know that these amendments have no way of ever passing the Senate much less making their way to the President's desk, so they don't see any reason to get in arms about it and possibly cause problems within their own caucus. Two, the White House just isn't interested in commenting. There have been so many other issues that the White House hasn't responded to or has made one comment on and ignored the rest, including the evacuation of El Paso, Texas, which now has completely slipped the mind of anyone other than Secretary Cameron. Maybe they've used their one press release on the subject to talk about what they see as obstructionist Democrats. Lastly, and this is perhaps the most damaging but I'll admit is absurd, the White House might even agree with the changes. I know that the President wanted more than the 5% cuts that were in the budget, and given the lack of debate on areas such as education and health care in the last few years in the Senate- the body which can best reflect the views of the White House given the sizable majority- suggest that what we have is a conservative White House, and one that seems to have drifted a bit more to the right since the 2020 elections. Like I said though, this seems to be the most absurd of the tree suggestions, and I'm sure it's not true at all. But the silence isn't all that surprising, and I'm sure these amendments will be voted down without so much as a whimper.

ROCKEFELLER: Senator Justice's filibuster could also close down the Senate's passage of the continuing resolution, which Senator Justice objected to in the first place. That sounds like a recipe for a federal government shutdown to me. What's it look like to you?

JACKSON: I think you might be right. Depending on how long this filibuster continues, it could shut down a lot of things in the Senate, including both the budget and the continuing resolution. And really, this is bad for everyone. I'm sure there are those in the Senate and House who are perhaps delighted at the prospect of a government shutdown- after all, it ends all these programs that they misguidedly view as "unconstitutional"- and they have a way to do it with this filibuster that prevents them from looking like obstructionists. It'll be interesting to see how long the filibuster lasts before this starts becoming a real concern- and if or when the White House starts tightening the screws.

ROCKEFELLER: There's a lot of blame throwing happening between the White House and the House of Representatives right now. Can you make heads or tails of any of it and how does it affect the budget process in the Senate?

JACKSON: I think it's ridiculous. I think it's particularly ridiculous that the President and the Vice President want to use their press offices to continually harp on Congressional Democrats while downplaying completely, for instance, the long gap between the end of the bipartisan "idea bin" that President Pizzuto opened and the release of any information regarding the budget. Personally, I think that it's a good thing that the Senate has stayed out of this entirely, and really there was a lot more cooperation in the Senate, such as the bipartisan support for my amendment that would restore funding to the Department of Education. I don't see the goings-on between the White House and the House of Representatives as having any effect on the budget process in the Senate. Just like I'm sure the current filibuster will have little effect on the constant blame game that is being perpetuated by the White House.

ROCKEFELLER'S FINAL WORD

ROCKEFELLER: While the media and Democrats are being asked to avoid politicizing the late budget, both the President and Vice President are attacking Democrats for, literally, following the normal budget process. And now that the White House realizes they have to pass a continuing resolution, a fact the House Democrats saw coming a mile away due to this Administration's track record, the President and the Vice President are all in a huff -- but they did this to themselves. If the White House had been immediately prepared and realized that Congress needs a certain amount of time to follow the normal budget process, then this all could have been avoided -- like I've been harping on for nearly two years now. But, now we're faced with the reality of a late budget, a senate filibuster and a possible federal shutdown yet again. Until next time!

[Summy]

Aired in primetime

*Music Plays In*

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Hello, and welcome to the second season of QT! I'm CHESTER! Perry, former Senator of Appalachia and occasional host. Lars Andersen is away on assignment. Sitting with me tonight are four distinguished guests. To my right is the Governor of the West, Ms. Renzetti.

Next to the governor we have Republican Congressman George Silas.

While we typically have politicians on QT, tonight we have a treat as the managing editor for BI.com, Eliza Jacobs, joins us in studio.

And last but not least the esteemed Senate Majority Leader Archie Foster is on my left.

Senator Foster: Great to see you, CHESTER!

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Let's get right to the issues. News headlines about American concern over events in Burma came to a front recently as CBS has alleged Interior Secretary James Cameron has mischaracterized the nature of the conflict in Burma. Should he resign? I'll direct this first question to the Senate Majority Leader... you voted for his confirmation, Senator Foster. Is it time for Secretary Cameron to bow out?

Senator Foster: I think Secretary Cameron has shown himself to be an extremely competent leader. To suggest that differing opinions on semantics should mean his resignation I think is extreme. Genocide by definition of the UN or not, it is clear that the situation in Burma is abhorrent to American values.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Fair enough, let's open this question up to others -- does anyone here think the calls for resignation are warranted?

Congressman Silas: No I do not. Not only has CBS wrongly accused Cameron of lying, but they themselves need to look up the word genocide. What they did wasn't reporting, but rather a disgrace to journalism by inputting their opinions that whatever Republicans do is wrong even when they face genocide. I stand by Secretary Cameron.

Governor Renzetti: His resignation at this point in time would undermine our efforts to crack down on cartel activity in the West and Heartland. I've worked extensively with the Secretary, and I can personally attest to his professionalism, competence, and ability. Just because his statement on a completely abhorrent mass murder does not strictly adhere to UN definitions does not mean he is a liar... and it certainly does not mean he should resign.

Nicole Jacobs: Over 200,000 Karen are dead. Arguing over whether or not it is a genocide is to be quite frank pointless and is just semantics. What's important here is that hundreds of thousands of people are being executed and that is what we should be focusing on.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Well I think there's a fair amount of agreement, here, then. I'd like to ask guests in one sentence: to what level should the US look to be involved?

Congressman Silas: I believe that America should send our military to save the lives of the Karenese people.

Senator Foster: I think the United States should be involved to the extent that we can effectively end the violence and murder of the Karen population.

Nicole Jacobs: US involvement should have come since the Cullen Administration but it should try to avoid military if possible.

Governor Renzetti: I haven't been in the Group of Eight since 2014, so my knowledge on the situation is largely limited to what is in the public sphere... at this time, I think that an appropriate response would be firm but restrained action... perhaps if things do not improve, if we could get our European allies to join a multilateral action to end the murder then we can put boots on the ground.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Governor Renzetti, you sure can craft a long sentence!

*laughter*

Governor Renzetti: *Smiles.* I can be longwinded when not in front of a teleprompter.

Nicole Jacobs: Are politicians allowed away from teleprompters?

Congressman Silas: May I add that as a member of the committee that held a hearing on this issue, that all diplomatic actions have, according to Secretary Cameron, been exhausted.

Governor Renzetti: Joe Biden was.

Senator Foster: Look where that got him.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Let's move on to something which may cause a little more disagreement... I'd like to talk about the beginning of Presidential election season. Ms. Jacobs, what do you make of the early developments?

Nicole Jacobs: I think the early movements have been extremely interesting and show that this could be a divided election. On the Democratic side you have Governor Warren and Speaker of the House Dixon who have both declared. Governor Warren famously left the GOP to become a Democrat and both are known as key liberals. We have heard some other possible DNC names that we will be reporting on soon. On the GOP side you have Senator Justice who might be the most polarizing Republican in the General but who could do very well in a GOP primary, and you have the expected announcement from VP Pooty and some other names being thrown out there. It is clear the primaries are starting early and should be fun to watch. My question for the GOP is Pizzuto fatigue. Does it exist and will it play a factor in the primaries?

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Fair enough... Congressman Silas or Senator Foster?

Senator Foster:I think early announcements are distracting and disruptive. take Speaker Dixon for instance, it's unlikely that her Presidential campaign won't adversely affect her ability to govern in some way. --Legislate, rather.

Congressman Silas: All I have to say is that I think it's funny that Dixon actually thinks she can be the next president.

*Audience member yells SORENSON FOR PRESIDENT!*

*Audience, Chester, and Renzilla laugh*

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Let's step back, Congressman. Do you think there is fatigue amongst Republicans over the Pizzuto Administration?

Congressman Silas: Absolutlely not. I believe we are more energized than ever.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Governor Renzetti, let me get your take on this. Do political ambitions affect a leader's the ability to govern?

Governor Renzetti: Well, running a campaign of any sorts takes a lot of effort. But, speaking from personal experience... I think that it is possible to balance duties as a caucus leader and a presidential campagin

Senator Foster: Possible, but is it good for the American people?

Nicole Jacobs: Every sitting candidate who runs for election to some extent does it

Congressman Silas: *To Renzetti* Will you run for President, Governor?

Governor Renzetti: *to Silas* I don't know at this time... I'm more interested in closing out my term as Western Governor at the moment. But when I do know, I'll let it be known

Nicole Jacobs: The same question can be posed for Senator Justice who we reported is preparing a run. Mr Majority Leader do you believe the Senator cant do his job in the Senate and run?

Senator Foster: I have heard absolutely no indication, other than on your blog, that Senator Justice is preparing for a presidential run

*Audience laughs*

Governor Renzetti: *To Archie* I will say I am not a fan of every year being an election year. I didn't declare my intent to run in 2012 until rather late in the cycle. Whether it is bad for America... I don't think so

Nicole Jacobs: *To Archie* Well with due respect that was not an answer.

Senator Foster: I'm in no position to answer such hypotheticals. I'll wait for confirmation from Senator Justice.

Congressman Silas: I believe that being a Senator is not the same as being the Speaker of the House and that if he runs, it won't impact America as much.

Nicole Jacobs: Thats you skating the issue sir. You brought up someone in a position running for President is bad for their position. If Senator Justice runs is it not the same problem?

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Ms. Jacobs, let's move on.

Governor Renzetti: I am confident that Speaker Dixon will be able to handle her duties as Speaker of the House while running for president. It is a little bit more responsibility then House Minority Leader... but I was able to do that.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Speaking of the House, there's been yet another attempt to bring Congressional representation to Washington, DC. We'll start with Congressman Silas: Should DC be given a Congressional delegation?

Congressman Silas: Yes. It is wrong that they can be taxed without being represented and I believe that stating otherwise is like stating just because you live outside a state you don't have a say.

Senator Foster: It boils down to is a significant number of people who are fulfilling their obligations as citizens without proper representation.

Nicole Jacobs: If they can have electoral college representation then yes I think it's fair that they get Congressional representation.

Governor Renzetti: I agree.

Congressman Silas: Although I do hope that they'll be less liberal and vote in Republicans when they do get a say. *winks*

*Scattered laughter*

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Congressman Silas has taken the words right from my mouth... is the expectation that DC representation would benefit the DNC valid? Will Republicans look to block it on those grounds?

Senator Foster: I would hope that objections to DC representation would be founded more on the problems it poses for the Founding Fathers' idea of what our national capital should be, and not over partisan issues.

Congressman Silas: Often times, in the past before the Civil War, states were admitted based on slave status to keep the balance of power between those who had slaves and those who opposed slavery. I believe that Republicans are afraid that having DC representated will give the Democrats more power, and thus may vote against it. But they have a freedom of opinion, and they should be able to express it in Congress.

Nicole Jacobs: I think that is a very good question. DC is a reliable state for the Democrats in Presidential elections so there is at least a reasonable expectation that it would swing the DNC's way but then California went for Pizzuto in 2016 so it proves there are no "safe party states" so its possible that Republicans could win representation in DC.

Governor Renzetti: Its my opinion that electoral reform should be predicated on the issue of fairness, not which party will benefit from that action. And, Ms. Jacobs does raise a valid point about my home state. However, I would not be surprised if that issue was brought up. And it is worth noting that DC would be a relative drop in the pond in the Mid-Atlantic senate region

Congressman Silas: *To Jacobs* You're right, I would stand no chance of winning in DC.

*Ms. Jacobs erupts in laughter, and the audience laughs at her reaction*

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Well, we'll certainly see how that develops in the coming days.

As always, I like to end episodes of QT with a round of questions asked by you, the guests. We'll go around the table and each guest will be able to ask a question directly to a guest of their choosing. We won't be following up on these questions for the sake of time and civility... does everyone understand?

Senator Foster: Yes.

Congressman Silas: So I can't ask Jacobs if she has a man in her life?

*Audience and panel members laugh, including Ms. Jacobs*

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Alright... Governor Renzetti, we'll let you begin. You may pose a question to any of our guests.

Governor Renzetti: Agh... on the spot. I guess... I would like to ask something of my fellow Southwesterner. I know at least some members of the Western congressional delegation have been working on legislation to undo the decision in Southwest v. United States... I.E. force the federal government to pay the cost that the Western government incurs imprisoning illegal immigants as per federal laws. Would you support such action, since your position as Senate Majority Leader would lend... some heft to the issue?

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Senator Foster?

Senator Foster: While campaigning for the House Republicans this last election season, I made a promise that we would fully compensate the West for the illegal immigrants imprisoned there. I wasn't lying. It's an issue that Senator Reiber, Senator Jackson, and I are both committed to acting on. Senator Jackson's bill has been scheduled to be brought before the Senate, and will very soon.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Thank you, Senator. I'll let you ask the next question

Senator Foster: Alright, well I'll ask a question back to Governor Renzetti. Governor, two years ago we faced against each other for the seat you currently hold. You made many claims in that campaign, including one that I "never was, and never will be a leader". After the near implosion of the Democratic caucus in the regional legislature, your disappearance for a significant amount of time and the apparent lack in direction and energy from your party in the West and your office, where's the leadership promises that helped you beat me?

Governor Renzetti: My disappearance this last session was inexcusable. I did do substantial work behind the scenes, out of the public eye, in both coordinating border security efforts with the Department of Homeland Security, as well as with the regional bureaucracy and then Lt. Governor Reiber to turn a six, almost seven billion dollar deficit into a balanced budget that cut. axes across the board. But there definitely was a deficit in leadership this last session, and a large part of it is my fault. It will not happen again. I will make it my goal to do four years of work in the next two, to make up for lost time. And I am sorry.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Thank you, Governor.

Senator Foster: I appreciate your honesty, Governor.

*Applause*

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Ms. Jacobs, you can ask the next question.

Nicole Jacobs: My question will be for the Majority Leader.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Ok...

Nicole Jacobs: A few days ago we reported on BI that there was a renewed effort by the President and you to pass CHOICE through the Senate and that Senator Reiber was testing the waters of your Senate Caucus. CHOICE was, as you know, put through a GOP controlled House several years ago pretty easily but since has been dead in the Senate due in part to GOP opposition to the bill. Do you think you have the votes in the GOP to pass CHOICE unamended? Or will you have to try to get some DNC Senators on board? And if you cant pass it unamended is your party prepared for it to go to the Conference Committee and possibly back through a very different House?

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Senator, there were about three questions there, but I'm confident you can craft a single answer.

Nicole Jacobs: *Laughs* Sorry! I'm used to interviewing...

Senator Foster: The members of my caucus that have their objections have made them clear. We're hoping to work around their objections and find some common ground with the Democratic Caucus. But right now I'm not making any promises or predictions.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Thank you, Senator. We'll end this round with a question from Congressman Silas.

Congressman Silas: Well I'm sorry to put Foster back on the spotlight again, but my question is also for him.

Senator Foster: *Chuckles* Go right ahead.

Congressman Silas: Senator Buford recently posted an article that stated that the Republican Senate has failed every Republican by stating the Senate has essentially passed numerous liberal bills, even ones that started as conservative, and that we should be expecting better of the Republican Senate members. My question is, what is your assessment of the performance of the Republican Senate as stated by Senator Buford?

Senator Foster: Our caucus has always been more ideologically diverse than the Democrats. Part of my jobs has been trying to find a strategy to deal with the individual positions of each of my colleagues, my ideas of what we should doing and of course the agenda of President Pizzuto. We have done a lot to pass common sense, conservative bills on debt reduction, gun control, abortion, and a number of issues. Senator Justice and I had a conversation after that Op-Ed was published and we agreed that he pursued that issue in a way that was... less than desirable. However I think I have done a good job balancing a moderate agenda that most Americans can get behind, and respecting the positions of Senators as liberal as Senator Markovitch and as Conservative as Senator Justice and everything in between.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Thank you, Senator. Well, that concludes the factual portion of QT for this evening. We'll leave with a question from the lighter side.. many of you know I'm a huge fan of baseball and an even bigger fan of food. Are you going to a game this season? If so, what will you be eating?

Senator Foster: I don't have tickets to a Diamondbacks game yet, so I'm not sure. I know I'll be catching as many games as possible on television with my family and a bowl of popcorn.

Congressman Silas: Well being from El Paso, I support their little-known baseball team called the El Paso Diablos. I will of course be attending a game and I will eat nachos. I always eat nachos when I watch sports.

Nicole Jacobs: Well being from Massachusetts we're obsessed with all things Boston sports. I do intend to go to a Red Sox game or two this year and my favorite food at the games are cheese fries, hot dogs and a beer or ten! laughs.

Governor Renzetti: I always go to a Padres game with my staff, and have hot dogs and... soda, every year. So I will be going soon. Smiles.

Fmr. Sen. Chester: Well as for me, my beloved Washington Nationals and I will be hoping Steven Strassberg can put together a 13th consecutive Cy Young-winning season... and I'll have a dog with ketchup and onions

Senator Foster: Now I'm getting hungry.

Nicole Jacobs: Anyone got a beer?

Fmr. Sen. Chester: ...and with that this episode of QT is complete. For Senate Majority Leader Archie Foster, for BI.com Managing Editor Eliza Jacobs, for Governor of the West Amanda Renzetti, for Congressman George Silas, for Lars, for our studio audience, and for hot dogs and baseball, thank you, and good night!

*Music Plays Out*