Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Feb 13th, 2009 :: 3:30:10 to 3:41:05
Total video length: 9 hours 27 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:1,363 Duration: 0:10:55 Discussion

Previous category: Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Next speech:

Lisa Murkowski

3:29:57 to 3:30:21( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: improve the in our country. and for those reerntionz i will be support -- dismie for those reasons, i will be supportive of -- and for those reasons, i will be supportive of this bill. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the chair recognizes from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i want to acknowledge the remarks of my colleague from connecticut and thank him for

Lisa Murkowski

3:30:22 to 3:30:43( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: his efforts to focus on the housing issues that face this nation right now. as he has mentioned, if we are not able to get to the root cause -- which is that the housing deback l and the dpail failures that we have -- the housing debacle and the fai failures that we have seen -- all of our

Lisa Murkowski

3:30:44 to 3:31:05( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: efforts may not be successful. i thank you for your efforts in that. i know that we will continue working on this together with the administration. but it's essential that we focus on the housing piece. mr. president, later this afternoon or this evening we're going to be voting on the conference report for the american recovery and reinvestment act.

Lisa Murkowski

3:31:06 to 3:31:26( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: i was one of those 37 senators that voted against this bill earlier this week, and i'd like to take a few minutes this afternoon to speak to some of the reasons why i was why i will be unwilling to support the conference report when it comes before us later. principal concern in voting

Lisa Murkowski

3:31:27 to 3:31:50( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: against this -- the senate measure at the time was the scope of the spending. and it's not just the scope of what we have in front of us with this particular bill, this package of 90 billion. there was an article in the "washington post" on wednesday,

Lisa Murkowski

3:31:51 to 3:32:13( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: a chart that outlines all of what we have been spending here in the past year. the header is "it adds up. the federal government has committed at least .8 trillion in loans, investments, and guarantees since the beginning of 2008." "the yo funding coming in from the

Lisa Murkowski

3:32:14 to 3:32:35( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: federal reserve at .8 trillion trillion." "from the fdic, .22 trillion." "from the treasury" -- this includes the tarp moneys that we authorized back in october -- "71 billion. the joint programs that include the guarantees of bank of america, citigroup, 19 billion."

Lisa Murkowski

3:32:36 to 3:32:58( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: and th it includes not only the programs fannie and freddie at billion, but then at the bottom we have the senate bill for the current stimulus package at that time coming in at 38 billion. it's almost inconceivable what we are talking about in terms of

Lisa Murkowski

3:32:59 to 3:33:19( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: the outlays that we are putting forward. the cost of this stimulus package that we have before us now, as everyone in america knows, is 90 billion right in there. but when you account for the interest, which we need to do -- that's part of the bill -- the

Lisa Murkowski

3:33:20 to 3:33:43( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: cost increases to more than trillion. it's about1.2 trillion. so you add this into the outline of what i'v just laid out, and the cost to america is considerable. and where do we get this money? where do we get it from? we don't just tell

Lisa Murkowski

3:33:44 to 3:34:04( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: to turn the printing presses on full-bore. let's go. let's print the money. now, we've got to borrow. we sell treasury bills, we sell debt. who buys it? well, people like the chinese, others from outside this country. so it's not just cranking up the presses and printing more money.

Lisa Murkowski

3:34:05 to 3:34:26( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: we will be paying for this. my children will be paying for this. and so we've got a responsibility to make sure that what we spend is spent wisely. now, the focus of this stimulus, of course, is the even if it actually creates the 4 million jobs that the white

Lisa Murkowski

3:34:27 to 3:34:49( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: house once promised, then those jobs, if you piece it all out -- do the math -- these jobs come at a cost of about 00,000 apiece. but what we're seeing now is well, probably not 4 million jobs. even the most optimistic economists are now estiming that what we're looking at would

Lisa Murkowski

3:34:50 to 3:35:11( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: create or save less than 2.5 million jobs. now, mr. president, i noted the comments from the senator from connecticut about the need to fix housing first, and i strongly agree with that approach. but this afternoon, i'd like to speak to another issue. as the ranking member of the committee on energy and natural resources, i want to spend some

Lisa Murkowski

3:35:12 to 3:35:32( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: time on another aect of the bill. this is an area where millions of new jobs are promised, and that's in the area of energy. there is absolutely no no doubt -- that we must facilitate the development of renewable resources, increase our energy efficiency, and pursuehe many, many innovative solutions to the challenges that

Lisa Murkowski

3:35:33 to 3:35:53( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: we face when it comes to how we -- how we consume, how we use, and how we create energy. but i am not satisfied with the energy provisions that are contained in this measure. i'm not satisfied that they're timely, that they're targeted, and that they're temporary, and by adopting this conference report, i think we're missing out on some significant

Lisa Murkowski

3:35:54 to 3:36:14( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: opportunities that could revive our economy and improve our energy security at little or heavily no cost to our taxpayers. -- or hopefully no cost to our taxpayers. now, when it comes to criticism, there's plenty of room to be critical. one of my this afternoon is not necessarily the items that are included in the stimus but

Lisa Murkowski

3:36:15 to 3:36:36( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: perhaps some iefts that were left out. simply put, this package makes no effort to increase domestic production of our traditional resources, such as oil and natural gas. so what we've done is we've focused on the new technologies to the total exclusion of those tried-and-true technologies, and

Lisa Murkowski

3:36:37 to 3:36:57( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: i think that this kind of creates this false dilemma. it says that can energy is the only viable option for energy development, job creation, when in fact it might not be the most effective option at this time when we're trying to pursue jobs and get the country strong again. consider the benefits that could be brought about by greater

Lisa Murkowski

3:36:58 to 3:37:18( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: production of oil and gas here in this country. one rent study outlines that the full development of domestic oil and gas resources could generate up to 1.7 trillion dollars in revenues for the federal government, creating a many as 161,000 new jobs by 2030. the revenues from the production could be used to provide a

Lisa Murkowski

3:37:19 to 3:37:40( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: tremendous down payment on the long-term strength and security of our nation. but instead, as result of what we'll be doing here today, american taxpayers are ultimately going to be paying .2 trillion because of the decisions that we're making. now, setting aside my concerns about the priorities, i think it

Lisa Murkowski

3:37:41 to 3:38:02( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: is very uncertain that the funds that are provided by this can be spent in a cost-effective way. and perhaps the best example of this is within the department of energy itself. it's set to receive roughly 5 billion in the conference report that we are looking at now.

Lisa Murkowski

3:38:03 to 3:38:25( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: and d.o.e.'s total budget for fy 2008 was 4 billion. so assuming thathe department receives similar funding fa fy 2009 appropriations -- and we're going to be debating that after this recess break -- d.o.e. will receive almost triple its historic level of funding in less than three months.

Lisa Murkowski

3:38:26 to 3:38:46( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: so, what we've got is just an unprecedented level of spending within the department. c.b.o. is concerned about how we spend this out as well. they determined that department would only be able to spend 24% of its funding bore the two-year deadline. the energy department, along with so many of the other departments that we're dealing with, simply doesn't have the

Lisa Murkowski

3:38:47 to 3:39:08( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: time to gear up and properly spend with a level of accountability so much money over such a short period. so the question then needs to be asked, will this level of funding become the new baseline for the department? if it does, we will have significantly expanded federal spending at a time of unprecedented federal deficits.

Lisa Murkowski

3:39:09 to 3:39:30( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: and if it doesn't become part of the baseline, then that crashing sound that you will hear is going to be the gears that are grinding back down as funding returns to n i would suggest that such -- such wild swings in funding are disruptive and one of the most ineffective ways to spend our

Lisa Murkowski

3:39:31 to 3:39:51( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: taxpayer dollars. the stimulus, by giving government agencies completely unprecedented amounts of money for sometimes nonexistent programs, also sets up near-perfect conditions for waste, fraud, and abuse. this is exactly what the american taxpayer doesn't want to see. the example i'll give you --

Lisa Murkowski

3:39:52 to 3:40:12( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: .2 billion is provided for block grant programs for energy efficiency. the conference report provides 00 million for a competive grant system that does not currently exist and for which there is no administrative process. the presiding officer: the senator has used 10 minutes. ms. murkowski: permission for an additional one minute, unanimous consent. the presiding officer: without

Lisa Murkowski

3:40:13 to 3:40:33( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. making matters worse, it provides an additional .1 billion to state energy program but imposes conditions to receiving funds that are currently met by only a handful of the states out there. another example i want to lee u with, mr. president, is the smart grid.

Lisa Murkowski

3:40:34 to 3:40:55( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: very important, we agree. .5 billion to the smart grid. this was authorized at 00 million in the 2007 energy bill. it's received zero funding to date. is it possible to expect that we can ramp up to .5 billion in two years in a rational way? we don't even have the standards in place for the

Lisa Murkowski

3:40:56 to 3:41:05( Edit History Discussion )

Lisa Murkowski: interoperability framework. mr. president, i don't think that the american taxpayer is concerned so much about how much we spend so long as we do it

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid