Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding on Mar 12th, 2008 :: 6:45:21 to 6:51:02
Total video length: 9 hours 29 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:234 Duration: 0:05:41 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

6:45:10 to 6:45:21( Edit History Discussion )

a set aside in the budget to be added to the $3.5 billion to make a toament of $7 billion. it doesn't add anymore to the deficit or outside the deficit than is currently indicate ed in the current

Claire McCaskill

6:45:21 to 6:45:32( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: budget resolution. in other words, the another $35 billion right now, only $3.5 billion is allocate ed to infrastructure. with this amendment, $7 billion would be allocate ed to infrastructure. mr.

Claire McCaskill

6:45:21 to 6:51:02( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Claire McCaskill

Claire McCaskill

6:45:32 to 6:45:43( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: gregg: so you're saying -- if the senator would yield fort -- actually, i have the time. if i could ask the senator another question. you're saying that your amendment simply reallocates the $35 billion --

Claire McCaskill

6:45:43 to 6:45:57( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: mr. nelson: $3.5 billion. excuse me. mr. gregg: but there was $35 billion put in the mark that was available for stimulus. and are you reallocate ing those dollars or are you putting $3.5 billion

Claire McCaskill

6:45:57 to 6:46:13( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: on top of those dollars? mr. nelson: not on tomorrow but reallocate ing of that $3 pay 5 --of that $3.5 billion an a additional $3.5 billion within the $35 billion to infrastructure making a total

Claire McCaskill

6:46:13 to 6:46:26( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: of $7 billion within the $35 billion. freeing mr. gregg: and if i could ask further, where are you taking the money from in. mr. nelson: well, it wouldn't be taking money. it would be allocate

Claire McCaskill

6:46:26 to 6:46:38( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: ing money that has not yet been allocate ed. so there would be other projects that would not be funded because of this. but it wouldn't be taking any money away from anything already allocate ed because

Claire McCaskill

6:46:38 to 6:46:49( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: the balance of it is unallocate ed. mr. gregg: there is not a 920 -- this is not offset with a cut in the 920 account? mr. nelson: it moved from function 820 over to 400. mr. gregg: i'm not sure

Claire McCaskill

6:46:49 to 6:47:03( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: i understand how this is paid for. mr. conrad: might i be able to help? the senator from nebraska is exactly right. what he's doing in this amendment, which i support, is of the $35 billion which

Claire McCaskill

6:47:03 to 6:47:14( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: is un unallocate ed, the second stimulus stimulus, an insurance policy against further economic down downturn, he doesn't add any money. what he does is, of the $3.5 billion that was reserve ed

Claire McCaskill

6:47:14 to 6:47:31( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: for infrastructure in the $35 billion, he is doubling that amount to $7 billion of the $35 billion for infrastructure, which i think is a wise thing to do, because i frankly think the infrastructure

Claire McCaskill

6:47:31 to 6:47:44( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: projects are the most stimulative. we know for every $1 billion spent one highways and bridges, 45,000 jobs are create ed and those are jobs in america. as you know, the money is reserve ed -- the

Claire McCaskill

6:47:44 to 6:47:55( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: budget committee doesn't have the ability to dictate at the end of the day how it's use ed. the committees of jurisdiction will do that. but what the senator from nebraska is doing is sending

Claire McCaskill

6:47:55 to 6:48:06( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: a message that of this $35 billion billion, instead of $3.5 billion dedicate ed for infrastructure projects that are ready to go -- in fact we know there are more than $3.5 billion of infrastructure

Claire McCaskill

6:48:06 to 6:48:20( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: projects ready to fund -- mr. gregg: if i could reclaim my time, i think the explanation is that this is a reallocate reallocation within the $35 billion in the original budget which was basic basically

Claire McCaskill

6:48:20 to 6:48:32( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: add to the deficit? mr. conrad: that is true. mr. gregg: thank you. the senator is ready to proce ted. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the r:senator from alabama. mr. sessions:

Claire McCaskill

6:48:32 to 6:48:45( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: i would send and amendment to the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from alabama, mr. sessions, for himself and others, proposes amendment

Claire McCaskill

6:48:45 to 6:48:56( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: numbered 4231. mr. sessions: skilled that the readeing of the amendment be dispensed withit. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president, we are dealing with an important issue,

Claire McCaskill

6:48:56 to 6:49:11( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: and that is the budget of the united states. under the budget act and rules we've established, though a budget can be passed without a 60-vote margin, a supermajority, but a simple majority, i think

Claire McCaskill

6:49:11 to 6:49:31( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: that's a healthy rule because for years there were so many difficulties in create ing a budget, so it rulely gives the majority party -- so it really gives the majority party the power to pass a budget.

Claire McCaskill

6:49:31 to 6:49:43( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: and the power of a majority party alone to pass a budget means that that document is a define ing document and itt defines the agenda for that party, and it tells where they stand on matters of taxing

Claire McCaskill

6:49:43 to 6:49:58( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: and spending and deficits and the like.~ i just say that to say s that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who promoted their move to majority status, and i certainly understand that goal,

Claire McCaskill

6:49:58 to 6:50:10( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: indicated over the last several years that president bush was spending too much that they would be more responsible if given control of the congress and they would produce a better budget for working

Claire McCaskill

6:50:10 to 6:50:20( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: families in america. and i would just note that this budget has a major increase in spending, as did last year's, over the president's request for domestic or discretionary spending and it contemplates

Claire McCaskill

6:50:20 to 6:50:38( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: a major tax increase, and it will fairly and objectively stated increase the deficit. so i'm concerned about that and want to make that statement. this amendment, our chairman conrad is a wonderful

Claire McCaskill

6:50:38 to 6:50:49( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: gentleman, a fabulous leader of the committee, asked that i offer it on the floor and not in the committee so i agreed to do d that. it was a fair request. so i would like to explain the amendment

Claire McCaskill

6:50:49 to 6:51:02( Edit History Discussion )

Claire McCaskill: that i just offered. it creates a deficit neutral alreserve fund for border security, immigration enforcement and criminal alien remova l programs. it sets aside room in the budgete to fully fund

Kent Conrad

6:51:02 to 6:51:17( Edit History Discussion )

Kent Conrad: existing border b security and immigration enforcement programs. it's another statement, also, if passed by this congress c that we meant what we said when we said we wanted board irsecurity and

Kent Conrad

6:51:02 to 6:53:20( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Kent Conrad

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