Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding 03-09-11 on Mar 9th, 2011 :: 1:32:15 to 1:37:40
Total video length: 6 hours 38 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:170 Duration: 0:05:25 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Claire McCaskill

1:32:00 to 1:32:21( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: of extolling and saying -- the presiding officer: the senator has used ten minutes of time. mr. paul: -- will be gone. so i glor the american public and those here to look at problem and say to congress, we're not doing enough; you must cut more. thank you, mr. president.

Claire McCaskill

1:32:15 to 1:37:40( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Claire McCaskill

Claire McCaskill

1:32:22 to 1:32:44( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: the presid from missouri is recognized. ms. mccaskill: i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. skirl skill mr. president, we need to make serious and substantial cuts and we need to be able to compromise. cuts and compromise needs to be the dialogue that is occurring across the island and with each other. i have great respect for some of my completion on the other side

Claire McCaskill

1:32:45 to 1:33:06( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: that say that we have -- some of my colleagues on the other side that say we've a structural debt problem and we have to get to it. certainly we do. but it is completely wrong that we would do massive, massive cuts all in one fell swoop right now with our economy in the position that it is. that would cause just as big a cris as our failure to deal with our long-term structure debt.

Claire McCaskill

1:33:07 to 1:33:28( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: so that's where the compromise part comes in. we've got to do significant cuts now. we've got to put everything on the table and look at our long-term debt structure. and we need to figure out how we do that in a bipartisan way. because we're going to fail our country if no one is willing to compromise. the house's resolution frankly

Claire McCaskill

1:33:29 to 1:33:50( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: was not smart in the way they did the cuts. no one in any business would take all of the cuts out of one small sliver of their business. they would look at their entire business to try to find cost savings. it was not smart. all the pain was in one place. and they are killing off the very part of our budget that has

Claire McCaskill

1:33:51 to 1:34:12( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: the best chance of increasing economic activity in this country. the building of roads and bridges, the educating of our kids, the research and the science and the development. so while their cuts were more substantial than the democrats' plan in the senate, they were not smart cuts. they were not-for-profit -- they did not spread the pain around. on the other hand, the senate

Claire McCaskill

1:34:13 to 1:34:34( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: has not gone far enough. it is frankly disappointing to me. i still think that there are way too many p denial around here about the nature of the problem and how serious it is. and i don't think we're demonstrating to the american people that we understand the nature of the problem when we present an alternative proposal with such a small number of cuts.

Claire McCaskill

1:34:35 to 1:34:56( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: so, really, the sweet spot is somewhere in between these two approaches. pain needs to be spread more broadly throughout the budget so the pain is not so acute in one area of the budget. we need to look at all of the programs, put it all on the table, and we need to be willing to compromise. let me out a couple of places where i think some of these compromises could come easy.

Claire McCaskill

1:34:57 to 1:35:18( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: the senate version that we're being asked to support today -- which i will not be able to support -- the senate democratic version increases the president's budget in 15 different programs. think about that. we're trying to cut, and our appropriators have come up with a plan to increase 15 of the president's budget requests.

Claire McCaskill

1:35:19 to 1:35:39( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: by a total of $2.6 billion. we're going the wrong direction here. we should be, at a minimum, cutting what the president has recommended cutting, and frankly i think we need to go even further. and the pentagon -- let me just give one example that came up with a hearing yesterday. so people understand that there are real savings. we've got a pentagon that we

Claire McCaskill

1:35:40 to 1:36:00( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: can't audit. we haven't been able to audit for decades. and it is frustrating that we don't have business systems in place that allow transparency and that allow wise choices in terms of the expenditure of dollars. yesterday i talked with the head

Claire McCaskill

1:36:01 to 1:36:21( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: of the navy and the marines about a system that they're putting in place to track equipment. good idea, snriet we want to track equipment. now, the army is putting in a system to track equipment. now, here's the rub: they share equipment. now, would you think that these two systems are going to talk to each other? oh, no. no, they've been done separately. they don't talk to each other.

Claire McCaskill

1:36:22 to 1:36:42( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: dink software. we're going to have to spend more money for a mechanism so that the two systems tracking tracking siment equipment -- sometimes equipment they're sharing -- and by the way, each one of these system ofs is billions of dollars. we could save billions of dollars by just saying to the army and to the marines, use the

Claire McCaskill

1:36:43 to 1:37:03( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: same software. use the same pravment that's the kind of savings that we can find in the pentagon if we just look at the g.a.o. high-risk list. the air force has been trying for years to put a resource management software in place. they're saying they can't even get there until 2017. are you kidding?

Claire McCaskill

1:37:04 to 1:37:24( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: we have got to be more efficient with the dollars that we spend at the pentagon, and we won't be if we always say "yes" and we never say "no." there will be no incentive to find savings, to find more jointness among our different military branches in terms of administrative costs if we always say "yes" and never say "no." so the pain has to be felt at

Claire McCaskill

1:37:25 to 1:37:40( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: the pentagon, too. we cannot do this without pain being felt at the pentagon. it's got to be across the board, it's got to be more substantial than $6.5 billion, and we all have to be willing to compromise. i will be voting "no" on both proposals for that reason. but i am anxious to sit down.

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