Senate Proceeding on Jul 29th, 2009 :: 6:19:35 to 6:23:20
Total video length: 11 hours 18 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

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

Views:19 Duration: 0:03:45 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

6:19:32 to 6:19:52( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: really address all of these american taxpayer and i'll be on his sievmen mr. bennett: mr. president, i say to t senator from oklahoma, if they'rintherrien a goi to try to write this in -- if

6:19:35 to 6:23:20( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Robert Bennett

6:19:53 to 6:20:14( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: they're going to be meeting to try to write this in the proper way, i want to be part of it. the senator from oklahoma made one reference to efficiencies and he said he wants a bidding process that's i want to step out from the scientific debate into another circumstan this bill, that has to do with

6:20:15 to 6:20:35( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: my own state this a, and i can give an exact example. we have a cleanup program in southern utah dealing with the cleanup of an old uranium plant, the tailings from that plant are right next to the colorado river, and the fear is that

6:20:36 to 6:20:57( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: leaching from that -- the tailings from that plant are going into the colorado river, not only threatening the fish but population downextreme, but population downstream, downstream states. all right, a contractor was necessary to clean up the

6:20:58 to 6:21:18( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: tailings pile. and there was competive bidding that went on and the contractor w chosen and is now involved in a very significant multimillion-dollar cleanup program. as i understand the language -- as of the senator from oklahoma's amendment -- because we are appropriating more money

6:21:19 to 6:21:39( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: for that bill, we need another competitive bidding proceeding to see if that's the right contractor. this is a contractor that's looking at 10 years, 12 years kind of contract, and every time a new appropriation is necessary in each bill.

6:21:40 to 6:22:00( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: it would seem to me that it makes sense that once we have picked the contractor through competitive bding, there does not have to be a competitive bid every year to see whether or not another contractor can now move in, take over, and make the thing work. it's possible that we could.

6:22:01 to 6:22:21( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: it's noble this first contractor might be running up costs in fashions that he shouldn't be doing,nd there should be a review. but i agree with the senator from north dakota that this is too much of a broad brush in that i was involved as a freshman

6:22:22 to 6:22:44( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: senator with respect to concessions at national parks, angered the ranking member of that committee when i sided with some other senators in the majority -- the democrats at the time -- to change the rules with respect to concessions in national parks because i said, this is a rigged bidding situation where the incumbent contractor is always going to be

6:22:45 to 6:23:05( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: taken care of, and we finally got that done. so i'm completely in sympathy with what's trying to be done here, but i discovered in going through that process, same general idea, different set of facts, that it's more difficult than it looks on the surface. that's why i'm supporting the

6:23:06 to 6:23:20( Edit History Discussion )

Robert Bennett: chairman in the amendment that he is offering, but if there ising to a this gets more efficient in the pattern in which is written, i want to be part of because i'm completely sympathetic to the effort to try to see to it that we have open