Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the legislation that is going to be voted on in a few hours. I have listened to the last couple of speakers, and while I certainly respect Senator Coburn's commitment to fiscal responsibility--and he and I have worked together on a number of projects in that regard and have the same view of many of the spending habits around here--I have to say, I am a little confused by the opposition to this legislation by my friends across the aisle. We have two ways to spend money around here: one, through the appropriations process; the other is what I call tax goodies. These goodies are called tax expenditures. What these do is they basically say to whatever group has successfully lobbied for them: You are not going to have to pay all your taxes. So there are two ways we deny the Treasury money. One is by spending money. The other is by telling people: You do not have to pay the money the Tax Code says you owe. And we put into the Tax Code special deals. Many of those special deals are done because the case is made that they spur economic development or they spur some kind of activity in our country that we think is desirable. A good example is the interest deduction on people's homes. The notion is that we want to encourage people to buy homes, so we allow them to deduct the interest they pay on those home loans against their income tax. Charitable deductions are another good example. We want people to give to charities, so we say: Do you know what. You do not have to pay as much in taxes if you give to charity. The realty sector is full of tax goodies for the development of real estate and the creation of jobs that go with the development of real estate. One of the big tax expenditures we have in our Tax Code is goodies for Big Oil. That is what this is about. Can we get to where we need to be on our structural debt and our annual deficit without touching the Tax Code? No way. Are we going to have to look at revenues for multimillionaires? I think we are. Are we, obviously, going to have to look at spending? Of course we are. And aren't we going to have to look at the tax goodies? Well, I would surely hope so, because, frankly, as some of my colleagues across the aisle have said--and I thought they agreed with us--cleaning out some of those goodies could potentially lower taxes for everyone. So where do we start with the goodies that are in the Tax Code? Might we not start with the most profitable companies in the history of the planet? Do they need this extra money we give them by telling them they do not have to pay the taxes other companies have to pay? How many quarters will we have where we read the headlines: ``Record-Breaking Profits for Big Oil''? How many times are we going to read that before we are willing to take the baby step--just the baby step--of saying: Maybe these tax goodies for Big Oil are not a good idea in light of our deficit and our debt. Maybe this is a good place to start. They made north of $35 billion in the last 3 months. I know there are all kinds of things that are being put out there to kind of hide behind as we cast this vote because this is a tough vote for people who vote no. How do you explain to your constituents--who are struggling around their kitchen table to figure out how they can afford to drive their kids to soccer practice--how do you explain to them that we think that instead of $123 billion of profit Big Oil is going to make this year, they need to make $125 billion? That is what this is. Instead of making $125 billion--north of $125 billion--of profit this year, Big Oil is going to have to suffer along with only $123 billion in profit. And that $2 billion we want to take back from them is going to go toward the deficit. How do you explain that to people around their kitchen table? Oh, this means the cost of fuel is going to go up. Everyone has debunked that. Really? The cost of fuel has gone up just fine and they have all those subsidies. I remember when oil was $55 a barrel and they had all these subsidies. By the way, all these subsidies did not help them go out and do what they needed to do to keep the price of fuel down. By the way, today a letter was sent to the FTC by myself and other Members of the Senate saying: What about this refinery process? Talk about economic illiteracy. Anybody who believes the oil companies today are making 7 cents of profit on a gallon of gas has no idea what is going on with refineries right now. A year ago at this time, refineries were operating at a capacity of close to 90 percent. Today, they are only operating at 80 percent. Why would that be? Their profit per gallon of gas--just the refineries--has gone from less than 40 cents a gallon to 80 cents a gallon in a matter of a few months: 80 cents a gallon of refinery profit. Some of these refineries are independently owned. But many of them are owned by the big five, the big five big oil. So why is that capacity down? Is it because they do not have crude to go through the refining process? No. There is plenty of crude. And how about this. We are giving these big oil companies tax goodies, and what are they doing today? They are exporting a record amount of oil and fuel from the United States--exporting. They are sending it to South America and Mexico. So while my constituents are suffering mightily at the gas pump, week after week, these guys are sending the oil they have produced with our tax goodies to another country, instead of putting that additional supply into our supply chain, which, in turn, reduces the price. The more supply, the less the price. So, one, they have cut back refining capacity. Two, they are exporting more. And they want to say it is about drilling. Really? We have more rigs drilling right now in this country than we have had in many years. We have production higher at this point--domestic production--than it was at the end of the Bush administration. We just issued 12 new deepwater permits in the last few months. There are all kinds of leases out there that are not being explored. Meanwhile, cha-ching, cha-ching--these big oil companies are continuing to make profits that make your jaw drop. So, honestly, seriously, you talk about economic illiteracy. I will tell you what economic illiteracy is. It is thinking these companies-- what about the free market I always hear about from the other side of the aisle? What about that free market? Why do they need our tax goodies to help them if this is truly a free market? Maybe they are right. Maybe we shouldn't pick on Big Oil. But what a great place to start. Frankly, if we can't take these things away from the most profitable companies in the history of the planet, how are we ever going to take them away from the mohair industry or how are we ever going to do what we need to do with the Tax Code in the real estate sector or any of the other goodies we have larded up our Tax Code with to make it so complicated and so long that, frankly, the people who get the most advantages out of it are the families who can afford to hire accountants and tax lawyers. Meanwhile, the real tax rate for most Americans is much higher than the real tax rate for most multinational corporations. So I think economic illiteracy is to spend a lot of time talking about the debt and deficit and not being willing to take this baby step to take back $2 billion a year that these companies get that they do not need and they are not using to hold down the price of gas. I mean, when I realized how cynical this whole process has become is when today I got a question from a reporter that said: Well, the oil companies say most of these profits are going to these pension companies. Give me a break. You know, really? Really? These guys want to talk about free market and how this is all about the bottom line, and then they want to try to hide behind the fact that some of the pension funds have stock in their companies, that somehow that justifies them feeding at the public trough? Talk about greed. Talk about greed. So I think this legislation is a real litmus test because if we can't do this, then I question what we can do to right this ship that is all about the footprint of the Federal Government, how much money we are spending and how many tax expenditures are out there. And anybody who tells you this is about raising their taxes--no, this is about saying to them: You have to pay the taxes the free market says you should pay, not avoid taxes by these extra goodies. This isn't about raising their taxes; this is about saying: You need to pay your taxes the way average citizens do, as it relates to their businesses. You should not get this extra help in the Tax Code that allows you to avoid taxes. It is a tax expenditure. It is real money that will come to our bottom line as it relates to our deficit, and it is important to get it done. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I honor the 30th anniversary of Brewer Science, an innovative, high-technology company from Rolla, MO. When Brewer Science was started by Dr. Terry and Paula Brewer in 1981, it had only three employees. Like so many small businesses in our country, the company has grown and expanded because of its commitment to hard work, innovative solutions and exceptional service for its customers. From humble beginnings, the company has grown today to 263 employees working globally to bring groundbreaking technology to companies worldwide. Brewer Science is best known in the microelectronics industry for introducing ARC brand bottom antireflecting coatings in 1981 to microchip makers. In the past 30 years, they have expanded their portfolio to include optoelectronic coatings, protective coatings, bonding processes and nanotechnology products, which enable the manufacturing of advanced integrated circuits, sensors and displays throughout the world. As Brewer Science has continued to grow, their vision and philosophy have remained consistent. The milestone that I ask us to honor today is a tribute to this vision. Brewer Science has translated their success in business into a better community for Missourians. Brewer Science has had a positive impact on its community through service, volunteering, and donations to various arts, educational and environment programs. Brewer Science's passion for providing dedicated service and their emphasis on innovation serve as an inspiration for all Missourians. Their achievements deserve the highest commemoration. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in recognizing the 30th anniversary of Brewer Science.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the thousands of peace officers who tirelessly serve our country and our communities. Having just commemorated Peace Officers Memorial Day on May 15, I want to specifically acknowledge the 162 officers killed in 2010, including 5 from my home State of Missouri, who laid down their lives in service to others. This past week in our Nation's Capital thousands of police officers, deputy sheriffs, State troopers, investigators, and agents gathered in fellowship as brothers and sisters united by a bond of service and sacrifice. Every year, they gather to commemorate their fallen at the National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial where the names of nearly 19,000 officers who have been killed in the line of duty are etched. Nationally, the average age of the officers killed in 2010 was 41; the average length of their law enforcement service was nearly 12 years; and, on average, each officer left behind 2 children. While there is no way we can fully restore the families, the coworkers, and the communities of our fallen law enforcement professionals, we can offer solace and tribute in the hope that they know we honor them and their sacrifice. The profession of a being a peace officer in this country is unique in many ways and its challenges are many. We expect our officers, deputies, troopers, agents, and investigators to uphold the law of the land without compromise and without blemish. We expect them to run toward the sounds of gunfire, to transform chaos into order, to provide comfort to the afflicted and injured, to protect the vulnerable, and to facilitate justice for the victimized. We ask them to do this at every hour of the day, every day of the year, in every climate and place where the American flag flies. The most amazing thing is that our peace officers exceed every one of these expectations, and for this we remain eternally grateful. Much like our military, peace officers are ordinary men and women who choose to answer a call to become extraordinary heroes. They are our moms, our dads, our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors, and our friends. Our peace officers understand duty before self. They understand what it means to miss holiday meals with their loved ones. They understand that long hours of calm may turn into moments of intense violence. They understand they are sentinels, standing in the gap between our loved ones and those who would do them harm. In closing, I offer my humblest and sincerest gratitude to the families and loved ones of our wonderful peace officers. They, too understand sacrifice and commitment, and without their enduring support, the men and women behind the badge would not be able to accomplish all they do. To those who wear the badge and answer the call to serve, I humbly say thank you, and I ask my fellow Senators to join me in acknowledging them.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I rise to make some brief comments about people at home I am so proud of. Over the past 3 weeks, my home State has been the site of heartbreaking destruction that resulted from a series of severe weather incidents throughout the State. We have also had the privilege of witnessing great acts of bravery, compassion, and neighbors being neighbors in response to these incidents. I wish to take just a moment to recognize the incredible character of Missourians and particularly to recognize the contributions made by the citizen- soldiers and airmen of the Missouri National Guard. Today, weeks after historic flooding began, we continue to see its life-altering effects, in my State and others all along the Mississippi River. My prayers, and those of my colleagues, go out to all those who have and will continue to have their lives altered by this tragedy. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Missouri delegation to make sure that the Federal Government provides the assistance necessary to help Missourians affected be tragedy to get back on their feet. Already, the President has granted the first Federal disaster assistance to individuals and households across the State. More announcements will come as damage assessments are completed. USDA is also poised to assist and will start holding public meetings in the affected areas to inform farmers and landowners of the help that they can receive. One thing that has struck me about the response to the storms has been the dignity and class with which Missourians have carried themselves. In my State, families have been driven from their homes, pushed away from their jobs, lost everything. Whether it is a family in North St. Louis whose home was destroyed by a tornado, or a producer whose family farm was submerged when the levee protecting it was intentionally breached, Missourians have drawn on their faith, their families, and their neighbors to pull through. I had the opportunity to spend time with some of these families during my trip to view flooding in southeast Missouri. Their courage is inspiring, and is an example of the American spirit that we all hold dear. We have had a rough year. The last 3 weeks have been particularly destructive, starting with the tornado and strong winds that ripped through the St. Louis area on Good Friday, April 22. This tornado, rated an EF-4, was estimated to be the strongest to hit the area in nearly four decades. As the tornado and storms battered the St. Louis area, rain continued to fall on southeast and southern Missouri. When Governor Jay Nixon made the decision to deploy the Missouri National Guard to assist local emergency responders in their efforts, it marked the 20th time in the past 6 years that the Missouri National Guard has provided such assistance, including the last time that catastrophic flooding struck the State, in 2008. Since their deployment to respond to this latest disaster, the Missouri National Guard, under the strong leadership of their adjutant general MG Stephen Danner, has provided invaluable support to the Governor, the Army Corps of Engineers, local responders and citizens across the scores of communities that have suffered damage. Two events from recent days provide a perfect summary of the service that these brave men and women continue to perform for the people of my State. Last week, the citizen-soldiers and airmen of the Missouri National Guard joined the people of Caruthersville, in Pemiscot County, to rapidly erect a secondary flood wall to support the existing wall. This wall, made of 60,000 sandbags stretched across over 3,000 feet, helped to provide safety and peace of mind for a community that feared the worst. A couple of counties away, Missouri National Guard members helped to save a 93-year-old trapped in her car as she tried to cross a flooded Black River. One of the guardsmen on the scene, seeing his first emergency duty, remarked ``we weren't there to be heroes, we were just doing our jobs.'' The citizen-soldiers and airmen of the Missouri National Guard, while ``just doing their jobs,'' have played an important role in supporting the flood response efforts of their neighbors. A member of the 1138th Military Police Company said it best when he said ``nothing makes you feel as good as being able to help your neighbors in Missouri.'' The Missouri National Guard, and the people they valiantly serve, are and will continue to be the embodiment of those words and the spirit that we all strive to personify. I thank them for their bravery, for their selflessness and for being great neighbors. We will all stand by to be of assistance as everyone recovers from the natural disasters that have brought such destruction to the State I love.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I think there are times around here that we lose sight about what real people are doing in our home States. I think we lose sight of the struggles, their daily struggles, how they live their lives with integrity and honor every day and go to work. Yesterday, we got a call in my office from a young lady. She was on her cell phone. She is a nurse, a nurse's aide at the VA hospital in St. Louis. She was on her break, and she was on her cell phone. She talked to the young lady who answers our phone and said: I want you to tell the Senator that I have got kids, and I bring home the paycheck. The way I feed my kids is with my paycheck I get working here at the VA hospital, and I am scared. I am scared about what is going to happen if all of a sudden I quit getting my paycheck. I have no place to turn. I am a single mom, and I am very worried. Then, she said: Would you hold on a minute? Then she handed her cell phone to someone else in the break room at John Cochran VA Hospital, and then that woman handed the cell phone to another woman. By the time this conversation was over, the young lady who answers the phone in my office had talked to half a dozen women who do not make a lot of money, who go to work every day caring for our veterans in a veterans hospital. You know what they all said? Why is this happening? Why is this happening? If Latonya and her friends were here right now, I would say: You know what, that is a darn good question, why this is happening. This is not a game. This is not a game of ping-pong, where we are hitting the ball up and down this hall from the House to the Senate, fighting over divisive social issues that, frankly, our country has struggled with for decades and will continue to struggle with. This is about running our government and about the money it takes to run our government. That is all it should be about. It should not be a time for us to argue about Gitmo. It should not be a time for us to argue about women's reproductive health. It should be about funding our government. We have many other occasions we can debate those issues and disagree. And reasonable people do disagree. But now is not the time to debate those issues at the 11th hour, when Latonya is not going to get a paycheck to feed her kids. I am for cuts. I have been the odd man out many times in caucus fighting for cuts. I worked on spending cuts last year with Senator Sessions from Alabama. I continue to work with Senator Corker about cuts. I am somebody who said the original proposals that my caucus made were way too little. But you know what I am beginning to feel like? I am beginning to feel like I have been duped, because I thought that was what this was about. I thought it was about cuts. Let's review the facts. The chairman of the House Republican Budget Committee and the Speaker of the Republican House said we need to cut $32 billion out of the remaining budget this year. I have to tell you the truth. I did not think that was unreasonable. I will admit, I am to the right of much of my caucus on some of this cutting stuff. But I did not think that was unreasonable. So I was glad when we went to the Republicans and said: You know what, we will cut. We will cut what you wanted to cut. In fact, we will cut more than what the House Speaker and the chairman of the House Budget Committee wanted to cut. That is where we are today. We have put more cuts on the table than they initially recommended. I am beginning to realize this is not about cuts. This is about a much more extreme agenda that has to do with social policy, not about money. They keep moving the goalpost. What is the number? They keep moving the goalpost. We have gone more than halfway. In my neck of the woods, that is called a compromise. We have the Republicans controlling the House, the Democrats control the Senate. That is why compromise is so important. What is wrong with a compromise? Let's do the compromise, fund the government, and get on with it, so Latonya can get her paycheck and the other women who work with her at the VA hospital can get their paycheck. They will not take yes for an answer on cuts at this point. They want to make it about something else. Was the CR today just about military pay? No. No, it was not. I did notice one thing they did not put in the CR today. Why will the House Republicans not pass the bill we had asked them to pass to cut our pay if the government shuts down? I will certainly not take a paycheck, and no one should take a paycheck. Why is that not being passed by the Republican House of Representatives? Why was that not put on the CR today? They want to, once again, pass something about moving people out of Gitmo, which has nothing to do with the budget for the rest of the year. When they were doing the Gitmo thing, why did they not put the pay for Members in there? Why did that not occur? I know the talking point is that--this is one of the talking points we are hearing from the other side: Well, you should have gotten this done last year. We can get it done today-- we can get it done today. We have gone more than halfway on a compromise. This is no longer about the cuts. This is not about the money; this is about an extreme agenda. Latonya's paycheck and the paychecks of her friends in the break room at the VA hospital hang in the balance. Let's review what happened last year on the budget. The Republican Party participated in every Appropriations Committee in the Senate, and every Appropriations Committee passed a bill. At the end of the year, that bill was brought to the floor because the appropriators believed the Republican appropriators were supporting the bills they helped write. In fact, those Republican appropriators stuffed that bill full of earmarks for Republicans. Hundreds of earmarks for Republicans were stuffed in that bill. It was brought to the floor. I remember the night it was brought to the floor. It was in the lameduck. Then the Republicans decided they did not want to support it anymore. By the way, it was not as if passing anything around here was easy last year. If anybody was paying attention, it was about: Let's drag this out. Let's be stubborn. Let's make sure they have to get 60 on everything. Is there blame to go around that the budget did not get done last year? Sure. There is blame that can go on both sides of this aisle. I am not here to say it was the Republicans' fault or the Democrats' fault. But certainly it takes a lot of nerve to say the only reason we do not have a budget is because the Democrats were not willing to pass a budget last year. It was a little more complicated than that, if people will remember the facts as they occurred at the time. So it appears to me now that there are certainly a lot of people down the hall who want the shutdown. I was interested when I saw in the paper that when Speaker Boehner announced to his caucus they were preparing for a shutdown, he got a standing ovation. Well, I can assure you, there are no standing ovations in our caucus. There are no standing ovations. I will tell you what, when I go to sleep tonight, I am going to be thinking about Latonya. I am going to be thinking about her kids and what she is telling them tonight and what not getting one paycheck means to that family. Just one paycheck can make the difference, can send a family down the path of getting behind on the mortgage, behind on the bills, and then not having a way to catch up. That is what we should be thinking about right now, not about those social issues that we disagree on and that we can debate and disagree on for many years, as we have for the last 40. But really, can we get a number? Can we make the goalpost quit moving? Can we agree on the cuts and then get on to the hard work? How embarrassing is it that we are fighting over literally a few billion dollars in difference. If this is so much about cutting the debt--for another day, I want to talk about this, but, really, the Republican budget was released this week. Guess what it adds to the deficit over the next decade. The Ryan roadmap adds $8.2 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. That is how serious they are getting about the deficit. It cuts taxes for a lot of wealthy people. It doesn't do much on the deficit. I am all for cuts. I have stood for cuts. I will continue to stand for cuts. This government has to shrink. But what is going on right now is a political game. It is shameful. It should stop. We should make an agreement on the numbers, move on, and make sure Latonya gets paid. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am honored to chair a subcommittee of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that focuses on contracting oversight. I can stand here with certainty and tell my colleagues and America and Missourians that contract problems in the Federal Government are substantial, they are expensive, and they have to be fixed. While we are all focused right now on trying to make the Federal Government spend less money and be more efficient, there are times that contracting problems have significant consequences beyond that of money being misspent or wasted. Sometimes contracting problems have human consequences. One example would be some of our soldiers who were electrocuted because of substandard contracting work as it relates to showers in Iraq when they were standing up for us in a military conflict. Last summer, a problem surfaced relating to Arlington National Cemetery, and this was a contracting problem. So last summer, my subcommittee held a hearing on the contracting incompetence at Arlington and what the consequences of that incompetence were. As heartbreaking as it is, we learned that because of mismanagement of contracts at Arlington, graves had been misidentified and remains had been buried someplace other than where families had been told they had been buried. Obviously, this is a breathtaking revelation when we think about what Arlington National Cemetery means to the veterans of this country and to our Nation. It is sacred ground. It is the kind of place that America needs to know is being run well and that the remains of our heroes are being handled with the utmost deference, respect, and dignity, and certainly Americans have the right to know we are burying our heroes exactly where their families are told they are being buried. In the committee hearing last summer, I estimated, based on what we knew at that time, that as many as 6,600 graves had been misidentified. The Army responded quickly and forcefully. I wish to recognize that Kathryn Condon, the Executive Director of the Army National Cemeteries Program, and Pat Hallinan, the Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery, have been responsive and I think have been working hard to clean up this mess. However, we now have recent reports which indicate that maybe I underestimated the significance of this problem and maybe this problem is much larger than I even anticipated. At the time, when I used those numbers, people seemed to think I was exaggerating. So we introduced a bill to make sure there is accountability as it relates to Arlington, with a number of cosponsors, including Senator Brown, who was the ranking member of the committee at the time, along with Senator Collins and Senator Burr and Senator Lieberman. We introduced a bill that would aim at accountability at Arlington, requiring some reporting to us in 9 months, requiring that the Secretary of the Army continue to be held accountable on this huge problem at Arlington National Cemetery. I think now is the time to get some interim information because information has now surfaced that potentially many more graves have been mishandled. There is now a criminal investigation because we had eight urns discovered in one grave site last fall as we were working on this legislation. While I am glad the legislation has become law, that doesn't change the urgency of the situation. I have today written to the Secretary of the Army, Secretary McHugh, and I have asked for immediate information on an interim basis about what has happened to clean up this mess at Arlington, where they are in the process, and what is the truth about graves that have been identified, have not been identified, and potentially never will be identified. I have asked the following information of Secretary McHugh: First, I want to know the number of grave sites that have been physically examined to identify the remains there. I want to know how many grave sites have been determined to be incorrectly identified, labeled, or occupied, and the methodology used to make that determination. I want to know immediately how many families have been contacted regarding problems with the grave sites and the number of families who have requested that those grave sites be physically examined. I want to know what the procedure is for contacting families regarding actual or potential problems with the grave sites and how these procedures have been implemented since our hearing last July. I want to know from the Army how they will be able to correctly identify all grave sites by the end of the year and the estimated costs and time required to complete an examination of that nature. I have asked the Secretary of the Army to respond to this letter in a week. I have asked what progress they have made. This is not something we can sweep under the rug and say we have done the best we can. This is not that kind of problem. I have veterans all over Missouri who walk up to me when I am in the grocery store, when I am at the mall, wherever I am, and say: Don't give up on fixing Arlington; it is too important to all of us. I do not want this cloud hanging over Arlington National Cemetery. I have been honored to attend funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. I compliment the Army for the job they do in terms of the Honor Guard and the dignity those services embrace. But management has a challenge. I want to make sure this does not go off the radar screen in terms of a problem that has to be fixed. It has to be fixed because of the values we embrace in this country. I look forward to the response from the Secretary of the Army. I look forward to continuing to work with Kathryn Condon and Patrick Hallinan, who I do know are trying, but this is something we have to continually be transparent about in terms of reporting to the public the progress we are making so every family member and every American, when they go to Arlington National Cemetery, doesn't ever have to wonder if they are showing respect to the hero at the grave site that is identified on the marker. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, last week Kansas City lost a treasure. A very special person to the Kansas City community passed away last week. This is a man, Mike Murphy, who was loved by just about everybody in the area. While his family and friends are gathered now in Kansas City for his memorial service--I am sure there are hundreds who are there--I would like to place these words in the Congressional Record in his memory. Obviously, my prayers go out to his family. Mike Murphy has been part of the fabric of Kansas City for almost 50 years. For over 40 years, he was the most dominant local radio personality in all of the Midwest. He was popular. In fact, he became radio lore. At times over his career, over 50 percent of people listening to the radio in Kansas City were listening to his program. He began his career in radio in 1968. He went on to rise to a class by himself in local and regional radio and, in fact, was the winner of the prestigious Marconi award in 1998. Thousands of truckers and salesmen throughout the Midwest heard him on the mighty KCMO and became his fans and his friends. His program was an essential part of their day. Why? What was there about this guy? He really did not have a political agenda. Unlike today, he was not busy trying to get people all upset about the issues of the day. He did not take sides on political issues. He rarely had big stars as guests, but from time to time they came through wanting to promote something. Because his show was such a dominant show in the area, they wanted to get on it. He was just a funny, irreverent guy who always made you feel as if you knew him when you listened to his program. He talked like a real person. He did not try to show off his intellect. He was smart as a whip, but he never felt the need to impress anybody--I mean anybody. He just wanted to be your pal. He was fun and funny. He is most famous in Kansas City for starting the second largest St. Patrick's Day parade in the country. How did he start it? In 1973, he was having a drink at a bar that a buddy of his owned. He and a very prominent PR guy who worked in campaigns around Kansas City, Pat O'Neill, Sr., and maybe one or two of their other friends, called Larry Moore, a local news reporter, and said: We are going to start a parade. They went out of Hogarty's bar, marched a few blocks, and they got a little film on TV that night, and the Kansas City St. Patrick's Day parade was born. Years later, and thousands of floats and hundreds of thousands of spectators, every year in the St. Patrick's Day parade, where was Mike Murphy? On a garbage truck. He always rode on a garbage truck. It was his way of signaling to the people of Kansas City: I am no big deal. I don't need a fancy car. I am happy up here on the garbage truck. He was getting upset about Kansas City's heritage at one point, so in 1996 he decided: We need to have a cattle drive again through Kansas City--harkening back to the days of a frontier town, and the stockyards were an important part of Kansas City's legacy. What did he do? He started a cattle drive through downtown Kansas City. He would get some amateur cowboys and then invite a lot of his pals to get on horses and take these cattle down the main street of Kansas City. He loved characters. He thought being called ``a little goofy'' was the highest compliment you could pay him. He loved to talk about UFOs and aliens. His show was a vacation from serious. His humor was never at the expense of someone else. I was so fortunate to be one of the many who became part of his large group of regulars. It all began with a phone call to his show when I was driving back from Jefferson City to Kansas City as a young State legislator. This was over 20 years ago. He was saying stuff on the radio--of course, I was listening to Mike Murphy as I drove because everybody listened to Mike Murphy. He was saying something on the radio that was not correct. This is before cell phones. I pulled my car off the highway. I remember to this day exactly where it was. I got on a pay phone, and I called his show because he was saying something that was not correct. I was scared to death. He took my call. I was scared. He was funny. And we became friends. Like hundreds of other people just like me, we became friends. In fact, we became such close friends that he taunted me until I agreed to be part of the cattle drive. One year, there I was on the top of a horse riding through downtown Kansas City behind a bunch of cattle. That might have been the last year of the cattle drive because I think that was the year some of them escaped into a parking garage in downtown Kansas City, and the Kansas City police were called to see if we couldn't get them off the top of a multistory garage in downtown Kansas City. I was blessed to be in a bleacher seat to watch his heart at work-- from his annual Salvation Army show to small acts of kindness to mere acquaintances, to his incredible loyalty to his friends. His heart was as enormous as his patience for BS was small. He also had no patience for pompous. Some of his famous shows were shows where someone came on his show who would be considered a big deal, a star. If that person began being arrogant on Mike Murphy's show, if that person started talking down to Mike Murphy's friends--his listeners--Mike would let him know in no uncertain terms that the interview was over, that he was not interested in allowing anyone to talk down to his pals--his listening audience. I will never, ever forget the twinkle in Mike Murphy's eye. It is important that he remain one of Kansas City's brightest legends of all time. My hope for Mike Murphy's memory--I am not surprised that Mike chose the first 17 days of March to meet his Maker because of the fun he had around St. Patrick's Day. My hope is that every St. Patrick's Day in Kansas City, people will raise a glass to Mike Murphy, and when they do, they will tell a funny story. It would be great if that story would be about Mike Murphy, but the most important thing is that it is a funny story. Let me tell you, Mike will not care if it is not even true. To Mike Murphy, the kind of man who walks as a giant among us and we do not even realize it until he is gone, a man who never lost sight that the little salesman out there driving in his car and the mother at home doing her family's laundry were the most important people on the Earth--here's to you, Mike. Godspeed, my pal. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I would like to discuss my amendment, No. 139, to S. 23, the America Invents Act, on pending claims in false marking cases. I want to raise the issue so we can consider it in the future as this legislation progresses. The Patent Act provides a cause of action against those who ``falsely claim that their products are patented. A successful false-marking claimant must prove two elements: first, that an unpatented article has been marked as patented; and second that the marking was done with intent to deceive the public. These actions can hurt small businesses, start-ups and inventors who will be deterred from competing with such products. The underlying bill alters the false marking provision by stipulating that the statute may only be privately enforced by a person who has suffered a competitive injury. In addition, damages would be limited to those that are adequate to compensate for the injury. However, the legislation would also apply the newer rules to pending claims. These include claims that are now in the court system and under negotiation. By changing the rules in pending claims, the legislation allows potential wrongdoers to use the new law to protect themselves from past conduct. This sets a bad precedent for our legal system and could absolve potential wrongdoers. My amendment would simply require that the changes to false marking provisions to apply only to prospective cases going forward. Small businesses and inventors that have expended considerable resources to protect themselves should not be penalized by a provision that retroactively eliminates pending claims. My amendment is not an attempt to gut or strike the false markings provision. It is simply a modification to address the concerns of current litigants, consumers and small businesses. I urge my colleagues to strongly consider this issue going forward.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, we need to make serious and substantial cuts and we also need to compromise. Cuts and compromise need to be the dialog occurring across the aisle and with each other. I have great respect for some of my colleagues on the other side who say we have a structural debt problem and we have to get to it. Certainly we do. But it is completely wrong that we would do massive cuts all in one fell swoop right now with our economy in the position that it is. That would cause as big a crisis as our failure to deal with our long-term structural debt. So that is where the compromise part comes in. We have to do significant cuts now, we have 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 are going to fail our country if no one is willing to compromise. The House resolution, frankly, was not smart in the way they did the cuts. No one in any business would take all 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 that all the pain was in one place, and they are killing off the very part of our budget that has 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 development. So while their cuts were more substantial than the Democrats' plan in the Senate, they were not smart cuts. They did not spread the pain around. On the other hand, the Senate has not gone far enough. It is, frankly, disappointing to me. I still think there are way too many people in denial around here about the nature of the problem and how serious it is, and I don't think we are demonstrating to the American people we understand the nature of the problem when we present an alternative proposal with such a small number of cuts. 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, and we need to look at all the programs, put it all on the table, and we need to be able to compromise. Let me point out where I think some of the compromises could come easy. The Senate version, 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 are trying to cut, and our appropriators have come up with a plan to increase 15 of the President's budget requests by a total of $2.6 billion. We are going the wrong direction. We should be, at a minimum, cutting what the President has recommended cutting. Frankly, I think we need to go even further. The Pentagon. Let me give one example that came up in a hearing yesterday so people understand there are real savings. We have a Pentagon that we can't audit, and we haven't been able to audit for decades. 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. In a hearing yesterday in the Armed Services Committee, I talked with the head of the Navy and the Marines about a system they are putting in place to track equipment. Good idea; right? We want to track equipment. The Army is also putting in a system to track equipment. Here is the rub. They share equipment. You might think these two systems will be able to talk to each other. Oh, no, they have been done separately. They do not talk to each other. It is different software. We are going to have to spend more money for a mechanism so the two systems' tracking equipment--sometimes the equipment they are sharing--can see what is going on. By the way, each of these systems is billions of dollars. We could save billions of dollars by saying to the Army and to the Marines: Use the same software. Use the same program. That is the kind of savings we can find in the Pentagon if we just look at the GAO high-risk list. The Air Force has been trying for years to put resource management software in place. They are saying they can't even get there until 2017. Are you kidding? We have to be more efficient with the dollars we spend at the Pentagon, and we will not be if we always say yes and we never say no. There will be no incentive to find savings or 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 the Pentagon too. We cannot do this without pain being felt at the Pentagon. It has to be across the board, it has 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, I am anxious to sit down at the table and find those compromises.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I wish to make real cuts and move forward in a responsible way to show the American people we get it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a patriot, a businessman, a loyal father, and an American hero. Though Leonard Truman Ferrell--``Buck'' to his many family and friends--was laid to rest at Arlington Cemetery this morning, I know that his legacy lives on in the community that he helped build, the family that he nurtured, and the soldiers with whom he served. Today I would like to take a few moments to honor Buck's life and the contributions he made to his community. Born and raised in southeast Missouri, Buck was imbued from an early age with those quintessential American values so prevalent among the members of the Greatest Generation: integrity, service to others, determination, and an undying sense of patriotism. Since Buck's family didn't have much money growing up, he learned at a young age to live within his means and to place little value on worldly possessions. ``My father didn't have a lot of worldly goods,'' Buck once said, ``but he was a rich man in character.'' I know I speak for many when I say that Buck, first and foremost, was also a man rich in character. Buck was also a patriot of the highest order. Having served in the U.S. Army during the Korean war, he fought for 2 years on the Korean Peninsula and earned, among other decorations, the Combat Infantry Badge, the Presidential Unit Citation, two Silver Stars, and two Purple Hearts. Wounded multiple times, Buck never faltered and steadfastly manned his post, whether in a frontline foxhole or as a heavy weapons trainer for new recruits. In light of his outstanding service, Buck was even offered a battlefield commission. Though he chose not to accept the commission, Buck returned home and remained an active member in a number of veterans' organizations, like the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, for the rest of his life. Never forgetting the country that he fought to protect, he raised--every morning--an American flag in his front yard. As you can guess, Buck's dedication to others and stalwart work ethic continued long after his military service ended. For 25 years, he worked at the McCrate Equipment store in Caruthersville, MO, and retired as the general manager. As a member and former deacon at First Baptist Church, Buck helped sustain a thriving congregation, and he also took on a number of leadership roles in the local Masonic Lodge and Kiwanis Club. His extensive community involvement earned him the Pioneer Heritage Award from the Pemiscot County Historical Society and recognition by the Missouri State Legislature for his enduring impact in southeast Missouri. But even with all of these commitments, Buck always had time for family. He and his wife Patsy Malin Ferrell raised four wonderful children, were the beloved grandparents to four grandchildren, and one great-granddaughter. In fact, I can personally attest to the great job the Ferrells did with their children--their talented daughter Christy is currently an invaluable member of my staff and is seated along with many other members of the Ferrell family, in the gallery today. My prayers are with them all in this time of loss. Mr. President, I ask today that my fellow Senators join me in recognizing Buck Ferrell, not only because he was a great Missourian, but also because he embodied the true American values that have cemented American society for generations. Buck worked hard, served God, fought for his country, and loved his family. In short, he lived a life worth living.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in honoring the 10th anniversary of Missouri River Relief and their dedication to preserving Missouri rivers. As a lifelong Missourian, I have visited and enjoyed the natural beauty and recreational opportunities along the Missouri River. These riverbanks and waterways are treasured attractions throughout Missouri. The Missouri River enjoys over 1 million visitors from across the Nation each year who have the opportunity to experience the splendor and excitement these natural resources provide for our state. That is why I am so thrilled to acknowledge the work of the Missouri River Relief program. Founded in 2001, Missouri River Relief began with just a few Missouri River enthusiasts dedicated to cleaning up our State waters. Ten years later, 12,000 Missourians have joined their communities in fighting for this cause, removing over 1 million pounds of trash and debris, making our waters safer for all to enjoy. In 2010 alone, over 1,100 student and teacher volunteers helped clean over 70 miles of river. Missouri River Relief has contributed to promoting river education throughout the State. By sponsoring recreational activities and festivals that incorporate the arts alongside river education, this organization has made it their mission to teach Missouri families about our local rivers and how the rivers contribute to our environment. This project has received an outpouring of State and corporate sponsorships that have made this growing cause a reality. Neighboring States have also included their support, cleaning up almost 400 miles of the Missouri River. The trash gathered from these clean ups have included recyclable and environmental friendly particles that have been turned into useful resources. Working to preserve one of our country's most affluent and beautiful rivers, this organization deserves our gratitude and commemoration. Missouri River Relief is committed to water safety and education and its service to the community stands as an inspiration to all Missourians and a strong signal of our State's continued growth and success. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in recognizing the 10th anniversary of the Missouri River Relief.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, like my colleague, I appreciate the work he has done on this issue. We have been talking about this for a number of weeks. Our staffs have been hammering out the details. I will be candid. As I left my office, some members of my staff said: OK, good luck walking that plank. We will see how it works out for you. Because this is politically risky, what the Senator and I are trying to do. As I was riding over here on the tram to make this speech, I got a text message from one of my kids. All of a sudden it became clear to me what this is like. This is like saying no when you are a parent. It is so easy to say yes to your kids. When they want something, when they want to do something we think is risky, the easiest thing in the world to do is to say yes. When they want money, when they want to have a new car, when they want to borrow your car, when they want to go spend the night at a friend's you do not know very well, when they want to stay out later, when they want this, that, when they want to go to the mall, it is so easy to say yes. It does not take a lot of time. It makes them happy. You feel good. But there is always that voice in your head that says: If I am going to be a good parent, sometimes it is more important to say no. Well, we have a bunch of people in Congress who have made a lifetime career of saying yes. I understand it. We run for office around here. We want everyone to be happy with us. We want everyone to love us. We do not want to disappoint anyone. We do not want there to be controversy about the decisions we make. So how do we avoid the controversy? We say yes. We say yes. And we have said yes and yes and yes until we find ourselves at this point in our history where our unwillingness to say no, our unwillingness to embrace controversy and political risk, has led us to an economic brink, a place where if we do not do something that is going to make some people angry, that is going to cause some negative ads to be run against us, then we are not doing our job as stewards. That is all we are here. We are passing through. We are not entitled to these jobs. We borrowed these jobs. They belong to the American people, and we have a responsibility as stewards to say no now, to say no. I remember when I used to tell my kids: It is so much easier for me to tell you yes. And they would say: Well, it is easier for you. It was easier for me. I would say: The right thing to do is for me to say no. And they would say: Well, that is not easier for us. That is beginning to be what is happening around here. I have noticed some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying: We are going to cut, cut, cut, cut. Now it is all bubbling up, with all the people saying: No, you can't cut our subsidy; No, you can't cut the oil company subsidy; you can't cut a farm program; you can't cut this; you can't cut that. Everyone is coming out of the woodwork to protect the spending that is embraced by our bad habit of saying yes. So that is why this bill is necessary. This is like telling Congress: You have to be better parents, and if you cannot muster the courage to say no, these cuts are going to happen anyway. It is like a discipline for us. And I do not go here lightly. I do not go here without understanding the political risks involved. But I go here because I deeply believe it is necessary for our country. We cannot get control of the deficit if we do not control spending. Let me talk for a minute about debt and deficit because as I go out and talk to people, there are a lot of people who use those two terms interchangeably. They do not understand. There is a big difference between the debt and the deficit. The deficit is like your monthly budget and not having enough money to come in to meet your monthly expenses. We talk about the deficit on an annual basis: How much money is the government bringing in and how much money is going out. When more is going out than coming in, we have a deficit. What happens to that deficit every year? It goes on our debt. It is like a family's mortgage. But instead of us paying down the mortgage every year, we keep adding to the mortgage every year. That is why we now have a $1.4, $1.5 trillion deficit this year. We are going to spend that much more than we take in this year. We have $14 trillion in debt. That is the long-term mortgage our country has right now that we owe someone that we have to pay. So we have to get hold of this debt. I want to compliment the President of the United States because the short-term spending stuff is important. And I want to compliment Senator Sessions. He and I have worked on short-term spending caps for over a year. But now it is time for us to look at long-term discipline and what we can do to get our country on a glide path where we no longer are precariously on the edge of not being the strongest economic power in the world. Our deficits are unsustainable and our debt is out of control. This bill takes a very measured approach, gives us time to figure things out. It is not like the ridiculous proposal over in the House where we are going to cut $2.5 trillion this year. Anybody who thinks that is going to happen, I have a tutu you need to wear down the hall tomorrow. That is a ridiculous proposal. That is impossible to do. But this bill is possible and responsible. This puts us on a glide path to say to the American people that our spending is going to be capped at a certain percentage of our economic activity in this country. That is possible, and it is responsible, and we should do it. Who is to blame? Let's be honest about how we got here. The biggest factor in our deficits the last 2 years is our poor economy. I know, I know; you would think it is the stimulus. You would think it is TARP. It is not. Political cheap shots but not true. The biggest fiscal hole we are facing is because of the poor economy. The biggest increase in spending in the last 2 years? You would think it was the auto bailouts or you would think it was the bank bailout or you would think it was the stimulus. It was not. Do you know what the biggest increase in spending was over the last 2 years? Unemployment benefits because of our bad economy. That was the biggest increase in spending over the last 2 years. Our fiscal hole has grown primarily because of a bad economy over the last 2 years. But there also have been bad decisions by both parties over the last decade. When Clinton left office, our debt--he may have been running a surplus in terms of the deficit, but our debt was $5.7 trillion. When Bush left office, he had doubled it from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion. And today it is $14 trillion. Over the past decade, we have had two wars we did not bother to pay for, a brandnew Medicare entitlement--brand spanking new--that was not means tested. We are buying Warren Buffett's prescription drugs. Go figure. Like we are busted and we are buying multihundred-million- dollar billionaires prescription drugs, and we did not bother to pay for it. We have had increases in discretionary spending by both parties that increased our deficit and exceeded inflation. I want to talk a minute about the boogie man of the TARP and the stimulus. I am so sick of that being blamed. It is so wrong and factually incorrect. We have tax cuts that go on forever that have contributed to this. We have wars that we are fighting that have contributed to this. We have entitlement programs that are not paid for. But the stimulus was a one-time expenditure. It is not something that goes on. It has no tail. Anyone who understands economics and understands the balance sheet of the U.S. Government knows this problem was not the stimulus. One-third of the stimulus was tax cuts. The last time I looked, unpaid-for tax cuts were the way of the world. One-third of the stimulus was tax cuts. Another third of it, almost, was unemployment benefits. That is not the problem. And TARP? Let's be honest. It was a genius decision in many ways because it stabilized our financial sector, and it has cost us a mere fraction of the money that was used on a temporary basis to make sure our economy did not twist down the drain, as it was likely to do had President Bush not intervened with his economic team to ask us on a bipartisan basis to do something that was in the best interest of our Nation. We can move on as to who is to blame because now we have to talk about tomorrow's problems. I am proud the President is dealing with short-term spending by his freeze. I am proud he is working on earmarks and all of the other things that are a symptom of the disease around here. But our challenge is long-term spending. In the long term, spending is going to drive the debt up even higher. Medicare and Medicaid cuts are going to double by 2021. Social Security is going to increase by 70 percent by 2021. We have to look at those issues and make sure on a bipartisan basis we do what is responsible. We have to make sure these programs-- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--are stable and secure for my children and their children. If we cannot agree even on the modest measures such as the 3-year discretionary spending cap Senator Sessions and I have been pushing for over a year, I question whether we have the discipline to do the hard work. Getting control of spending is very hard, but we have to do it, and we have to do it now. First and foremost, we need to focus on eliminating the waste and mismanagement. That is what drives Americans crazy. It drives people crazy that we are spending money on duplicative programs and we are not even checking to see if they work. It drives them crazy when the Federal Government runs huge deficits and we are paying out $55 billion in improper payments at Health and Human Services and $12 billion of improper payments by Treasury to people who do not even qualify. It drives Americans crazy when we do not make the reforms our auditors recommend. The Defense Department has 1,200 suggestions that have been made by our government auditors about how it can manage its money and its programs better, and they have not acted on almost 1,200 of them. It drives people crazy we are running deficits when we have Departments such as the Agriculture Department and Homeland Security that get failing management grades for 8 straight years. And it drives people crazy when we are running deficits and we are passing appropriations bills with $15 billion worth of earmarks. I have been working hard to try to clean up all this waste. We have been working on contract management. I have never requested an earmark. I voted against every omnibus appropriations bill that has come to the floor since I have been a Senator, and I have worked hard for the last year with Senator Sessions to cap spending. Now I look forward to working hard with Senator Corker and many of my friends in the Republican Party to work on the Corker-McCaskill bill to put a cap long term on spending in the Federal Government. As I say, this is a bold step. It has risks. And if this bill is distorted and twisted, it could cost me my Senate seat. I will say that again. If this bill is distorted and twisted, it could cost me my Senate seat. But it is a price I am willing to pay. It is a price I am willing to pay for my country and, more importantly, it is a price I am willing to pay for my grandchildren.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, like my colleague, I appreciate the work he has done on this issue. We have been talking about this for a number of weeks. Our staffs have been hammering out the details. I will be candid. As I left my office, some members of my staff said: OK, good luck walking that plank. We will see how it works out for you. Because this is politically risky, what the Senator and I are trying to do. As I was riding over here on the tram to make this speech, I got a text message from one of my kids. All of a sudden it became clear to me what this is like. This is like saying no when you are a parent. It is so easy to say yes to your kids. When they want something, when they want to do something we think is risky, the easiest thing in the world to do is to say yes. When they want money, when they want to have a new car, when they want to borrow your car, when they want to go spend the night at a friend's you do not know very well, when they want to stay out later, when they want this, that, when they want to go to the mall, it is so easy to say yes. It does not take a lot of time. It makes them happy. You feel good. But there is always that voice in your head that says: If I am going to be a good parent, sometimes it is more important to say no. Well, we have a bunch of people in Congress who have made a lifetime career of saying yes. I understand it. We run for office around here. We want everyone to be happy with us. We want everyone to love us. We do not want to disappoint anyone. We do not want there to be controversy about the decisions we make. So how do we avoid the controversy? We say yes. We say yes. And we have said yes and yes and yes until we find ourselves at this point in our history where our unwillingness to say no, our unwillingness to embrace controversy and political risk, has led us to an economic brink, a place where if we do not do something that is going to make some people angry, that is going to cause some negative ads to be run against us, then we are not doing our job as stewards. That is all we are here. We are passing through. We are not entitled to these jobs. We borrowed these jobs. They belong to the American people, and we have a responsibility as stewards to say no now, to say no. I remember when I used to tell my kids: It is so much easier for me to tell you yes. And they would say: Well, it is easier for you. It was easier for me. I would say: The right thing to do is for me to say no. And they would say: Well, that is not easier for us. That is beginning to be what is happening around here. I have noticed some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying: We are going to cut, cut, cut, cut. Now it is all bubbling up, with all the people saying: No, you can't cut our subsidy; No, you can't cut the oil company subsidy; you can't cut a farm program; you can't cut this; you can't cut that. Everyone is coming out of the woodwork to protect the spending that is embraced by our bad habit of saying yes. So that is why this bill is necessary. This is like telling Congress: You have to be better parents, and if you cannot muster the courage to say no, these cuts are going to happen anyway. It is like a discipline for us. And I do not go here lightly. I do not go here without understanding the political risks involved. But I go here because I deeply believe it is necessary for our country. We cannot get control of the deficit if we do not control spending. Let me talk for a minute about debt and deficit because as I go out and talk to people, there are a lot of people who use those two terms interchangeably. They do not understand. There is a big difference between the debt and the deficit. The deficit is like your monthly budget and not having enough money to come in to meet your monthly expenses. We talk about the deficit on an annual basis: How much money is the government bringing in and how much money is going out. When more is going out than coming in, we have a deficit. What happens to that deficit every year? It goes on our debt. It is like a family's mortgage. But instead of us paying down the mortgage every year, we keep adding to the mortgage every year. That is why we now have a $1.4, $1.5 trillion deficit this year. We are going to spend that much more than we take in this year. We have $14 trillion in debt. That is the long-term mortgage our country has right now that we owe someone that we have to pay. So we have to get hold of this debt. I want to compliment the President of the United States because the short-term spending stuff is important. And I want to compliment Senator Sessions. He and I have worked on short-term spending caps for over a year. But now it is time for us to look at long-term discipline and what we can do to get our country on a glide path where we no longer are precariously on the edge of not being the strongest economic power in the world. Our deficits are unsustainable and our debt is out of control. This bill takes a very measured approach, gives us time to figure things out. It is not like the ridiculous proposal over in the House where we are going to cut $2.5 trillion this year. Anybody who thinks that is going to happen, I have a tutu you need to wear down the hall tomorrow. That is a ridiculous proposal. That is impossible to do. But this bill is possible and responsible. This puts us on a glide path to say to the American people that our spending is going to be capped at a certain percentage of our economic activity in this country. That is possible, and it is responsible, and we should do it. Who is to blame? Let's be honest about how we got here. The biggest factor in our deficits the last 2 years is our poor economy. I know, I know; you would think it is the stimulus. You would think it is TARP. It is not. Political cheap shots but not true. The biggest fiscal hole we are facing is because of the poor economy. The biggest increase in spending in the last 2 years? You would think it was the auto bailouts or you would think it was the bank bailout or you would think it was the stimulus. It was not. Do you know what the biggest increase in spending was over the last 2 years? Unemployment benefits because of our bad economy. That was the biggest increase in spending over the last 2 years. Our fiscal hole has grown primarily because of a bad economy over the last 2 years. But there also have been bad decisions by both parties over the last decade. When Clinton left office, our debt--he may have been running a surplus in terms of the deficit, but our debt was $5.7 trillion. When Bush left office, he had doubled it from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion. And today it is $14 trillion. Over the past decade, we have had two wars we did not bother to pay for, a brandnew Medicare entitlement--brand spanking new--that was not means tested. We are buying Warren Buffett's prescription drugs. Go figure. Like we are busted and we are buying multihundred-million- dollar billionaires prescription drugs, and we did not bother to pay for it. We have had increases in discretionary spending by both parties that increased our deficit and exceeded inflation. I want to talk a minute about the boogie man of the TARP and the stimulus. I am so sick of that being blamed. It is so wrong and factually incorrect. We have tax cuts that go on forever that have contributed to this. We have wars that we are fighting that have contributed to this. We have entitlement programs that are not paid for. But the stimulus was a one-time expenditure. It is not something that goes on. It has no tail. Anyone who understands economics and understands the balance sheet of the U.S. Government knows this problem was not the stimulus. One-third of the stimulus was tax cuts. The last time I looked, unpaid-for tax cuts were the way of the world. One-third of the stimulus was tax cuts. Another third of it, almost, was unemployment benefits. That is not the problem. And TARP? Let's be honest. It was a genius decision in many ways because it stabilized our financial sector, and it has cost us a mere fraction of the money that was used on a temporary basis to make sure our economy did not twist down the drain, as it was likely to do had President Bush not intervened with his economic team to ask us on a bipartisan basis to do something that was in the best interest of our Nation. We can move on as to who is to blame because now we have to talk about tomorrow's problems. I am proud the President is dealing with short-term spending by his freeze. I am proud he is working on earmarks and all of the other things that are a symptom of the disease around here. But our challenge is long-term spending. In the long term, spending is going to drive the debt up even higher. Medicare and Medicaid cuts are going to double by 2021. Social Security is going to increase by 70 percent by 2021. We have to look at those issues and make sure on a bipartisan basis we do what is responsible. We have to make sure these programs-- Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--are stable and secure for my children and their children. If we cannot agree even on the modest measures such as the 3-year discretionary spending cap Senator Sessions and I have been pushing for over a year, I question whether we have the discipline to do the hard work. Getting control of spending is very hard, but we have to do it, and we have to do it now. First and foremost, we need to focus on eliminating the waste and mismanagement. That is what drives Americans crazy. It drives people crazy that we are spending money on duplicative programs and we are not even checking to see if they work. It drives them crazy when the Federal Government runs huge deficits and we are paying out $55 billion in improper payments at Health and Human Services and $12 billion of improper payments by Treasury to people who do not even qualify. It drives Americans crazy when we do not make the reforms our auditors recommend. The Defense Department has 1,200 suggestions that have been made by our government auditors about how it can manage its money and its programs better, and they have not acted on almost 1,200 of them. It drives people crazy we are running deficits when we have Departments such as the Agriculture Department and Homeland Security that get failing management grades for 8 straight years. And it drives people crazy when we are running deficits and we are passing appropriations bills with $15 billion worth of earmarks. I have been working hard to try to clean up all this waste. We have been working on contract management. I have never requested an earmark. I voted against every omnibus appropriations bill that has come to the floor since I have been a Senator, and I have worked hard for the last year with Senator Sessions to cap spending. Now I look forward to working hard with Senator Corker and many of my friends in the Republican Party to work on the Corker-McCaskill bill to put a cap long term on spending in the Federal Government. As I say, this is a bold step. It has risks. And if this bill is distorted and twisted, it could cost me my Senate seat. I will say that again. If this bill is distorted and twisted, it could cost me my Senate seat. But it is a price I am willing to pay. It is a price I am willing to pay for my country and, more importantly, it is a price I am willing to pay for my grandchildren.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, very briefly, I am proud to join Senator Grassley and Senator Wyden in their long crusade on this issue. I am giddy, frankly. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe we are this close to amending the Senate rules by a wide margin. I will predict this will be a very lopsided vote, which is ironic. I do not think there has ever been anything that has taken as long as this has that is going to win by as big a margin as this is going to win because people were stubborn about holding on to their secrecy. It is a lot easier to do business, a lot easier to get your deals if you do not have to be public about it. So there are very few things that you can grab a hold of in the Senate and actually see to the finish line, and I believe this will be the finish line. But let me say one warning. If anyone thinks they can figure out a way around this, all of us who have worked on this are not going to give up. So 6 months from now, if something is not moving and no one knows why and we figure out that one person has decided to own the holds, such as the minority leader--I will just own all the holds-- that is not going to work, because we will come right back and we will point out to the American public: Believe it or not, they are trying to get around this rule. So a warning to everyone: If we are going to amend the rule, be prepared to live by it because it is the right thing to do. I think our stock will rise with the American people. I think the transparency is essential. I am very proud that it appears--I will keep my fingers and toes crossed because it has not happened yet--we have bipartisan agreement that this nonsense is going to end. I wish to thank my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, because I think he has been essential in these negotiations as it has related to an amending of the rules as it relates to the secret holds. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, when I arrived in this Chamber 4 years ago at this time, I had no idea what the ways of the Senate were. I had an idea that this was a place where people came to debate and to have a collegial relationship with fellow Senators across the aisle. There had been a lot of problems with ethical issues in the Capitol. So one of the first things that happened to the class of 2006 was S. 1, and S. 1 was a far-reaching ethics bill that included things such as no more free flights on corporate jets. It included new requirements in terms of gifts from lobbyists, and it also included a provision that I did not know at the time had been worked on by Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley for many years. That provision said we were not going to have secret holds anymore. So imagine how great I felt on January 18, 2007, that we had done this comprehensive ethics bill that was going to clean up our act, and that we were not going to have secret holds. Well, I find it ironic that Senator Alexander says: Well, just use the rules. Just use them. Well, so when I started figuring out that the game around here in the last 18 months had developed into a game of secret holds, I asked my staff: Hey, did we not have something in S. 1 about secret holds? Not knowing really the relationship that language had to Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley. So my staff pulled out the legislation and we looked at it. I said: Well, right here it says they cannot do it. So I began coming down to the floor and using the law. I did exactly what Senator Alexander recommended. I came down here and began making motion after motion, which under the language of that statute would seem to indicate all of the Senators supported--except for a handful--that once you made these motions people would have to come out of the shadows and claim their holds. Well, that is when I discovered the people who voted for this, or a bunch of them, did not mean it. They did not mean it. It was window dressing. They were not sincere about ending secret holds because we discovered, when we started trying to use that language, some of the folks who voted for it were doing the old switcheroo. When they were called upon under the law to reveal their holds, they would just hand their hold off to someone else. That is when I began getting frustrated with the games that were being played. I thank Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley and others who have worked on this, but I will tell you what is the most depressing thing I have heard today: that this is something that has been worked on for 15 years. Now, seriously, think about that. We have allowed people to secretly hold nominations and the people's business, and there have been Members trying to clean it up for 15 years. We wonder why we are having trouble with our approval ratings. Nothing is more hypocritical than all of the sanctimonious stuff I am hearing down the hall about the new era, no more business as usual, no more. We are going to have accountability and transparency. But yet we seem to be embroiled, down at this end of the hall, with not even being able to get beyond a secret hold. This should not be hard; this should be easy. Now, some of the other provisions that are being debated today, I understand there is concern about the power of the minority in the Senate. I think those concerns have been addressed in the resolution that has been presented by Senator Merkley and Senator Udall and Senator Harkin from Iowa. But if we cannot get 67 votes to end secret holds and amend the rules, how seriously can we take anybody who claims they want accountability and transparency in government? I mean, this is the hall of fame of hypocrisy. This is not just hypocrisy, it is the hall of fame. So that is why I think we have to get busy and get the secret hold provision done. I would like to see us get all of these reforms done. I wanted to spend a second on what Senator Alexander's suggestion was. His suggestion was to use the rules. Well, honestly, does he think the way to solve this problem is to force the majority to stay here all night, with staff, spending the taxpayers' money to force someone over and over again to say, ``I object''? We cannot make the minority talk. So that means the majority, whether it is Democrats or Republicans, has to stay all night and call the question. They do not have to have--I mean, we could do live quorum calls, but that is what we need to do to make this place work? That is his suggestion, to force the people who are objecting and the staff and the people around here to stay here all night every night until someone breaks? That is a good idea? I think that means someone has probably been around here too long. It does not sound like a good idea, that it is not a commonsense idea that we would be promoting on Main Street in Missouri. I think it makes more sense, if you are the minority and you want to block legislation that you own it. Just own it. Block it. That is what the Senate is about. The minority can continue to block legislation whether the Democrats are in the minority or the Republicans are in the minority. They can block all the legislation they want. They just have to own it. They have to be willing to say they are blocking this for the following reasons--because we think it is important--and let the people decide. Same thing with holds. You want to hold something, hold it. But let the people decide whether you are being reasonable or whether you are-- really what I was disgusted to learn is how many people were using secret holds. In fact, they brag about it. They are using secret holds to get something else. I am going to hold this nominee in this department because I want money for a community center in my town. If you do not give me money for a community center in my town, you cannot get the Deputy Secretary of the Interior through. I mean, I am making up this example, but this was actually going on. It is like you secretly hold something so that you can get them to give you something else. That is the essence of the backroom dealing that people are disgusted with. Own it. Be proud of it. Defend it. Debate it. But do not hide it. That is what this is all about. I thank all of my colleagues who have worked on this. I just want to close with this comment: Bad habits have consequences, and if we do not take this opportunity to fix what is going on in the Senate--this is not the way the Senate has operated for hundreds of years. If we do not change this path, then we are going to be on this path forever. And if the minority now does not think that when the time comes they may not be in the minority anymore, if we do not think we have not learned from them--seriously? This place is going to be dysfunctional as far as the eye can see because they will fill the tree and we will just block everything. Then they will block everything and we will fill the tree. This is going to go on forever until there are enough people around here who are willing to set aside the political maneuvering and do what is right for the future of deliberations in a body that we all want to be proud of. But right now we cannot be so proud of the way we operate. I thank the Senator from Oregon and all of the Senators who have worked on this issue. I hope we can pull back from the brink because that is where we are. We are about ready to institutionalize a way of operating around here that is not something that any of us should be proud of. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Senator Barbara Mikulski for her trailblazing career in the U.S. Senate. As we begin the 112th Congress today, Senator Mikulski will begin her fifth consecutive Senate term making her the longest serving female Senator in American history. She joins legendary Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith in the history books today. This accomplishment is a testament to her dedication to the State and the people of Maryland, and a commitment to serve which I aim to emulate with my constituents in Missouri. She is, quite simply, a remarkable, dedicated, focused and perseverant woman and these attributes have led to this wonderful moment in her continued service. Starting out as a social worker in Baltimore, and later becoming a member of the Baltimore city council, Senator Mikulski went on to become a U.S. Representative for the Third Congressional District of Maryland for 10 years. In 1986, she was elected to the U.S. Senate where she has served ever since. Barbara Mikulski has continuously broken barriers for women and made history in her over 40 years as an elected official. And yet, in this 112th Congress, even as we mark this historic moment for women in the Senate, Senator Mikulski carries on her career in such a way that sets aside the pomp and circumstance of making history and instead remains focused on the most basic, pure and selfless form of public service. In closing, although Senator Mikulski's tenure in the Senate as a woman is an important milestone, I believe that it will ultimately be the Senator's leadership fighting for women, children, seniors and veterans which will be her lasting legacy in Congress. I have had the fortunate opportunity to work with Senator Mikulski on some of this historic legislation for women and families, including the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act to protect against pay discrimination, and the TRICARE Dependent Coverage Extension Act which expanded health insurance for military families. I want to congratulate Senator Mikulski on her pioneering career in civil service and on making history in the U.S. Senate today; I am humbled to be working on historic legislation alongside my colleague from Maryland.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I think that every Senator is understandably proud of their own State, but today I have special reason to be proud of Missouri. Just last week, Vice President Biden awarded the 2009 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Awards to five different companies and three of those five companies hailed from the great State of Missouri. The Baldrige Award recognizes only the highest performing companies in the U.S. in terms of quality and performance, and the fact that three out of the five awards went to Missouri companies is a testament to the spirit and work ethics of Missourians. Heartland Health is a health system based in St. Joseph, MO, that has an extraordinary commitment to improving their patients' health rather than just treating patients' sicknesses, as is all too often seen in the healthcare community. The staff at Heartland Health recognizes that while providing world-class treatment for acute illnesses is vital, it is equally important to understand why individuals become ill, and they do everything possible to prevent those patients from ever needing hospital care in the first place. Their mission is: ``To improve the health of individuals and communities located in the Heartland Health region and provide the right care, at the right time, in the right place, at the right cost with outcomes second to none.'' This is not just a catchy slogan, but instead it is a commitment that has yielded results. Heartland Health is among the top 15 percent of all U.S. hospitals in patient safety; they have achieved 90 percent patient satisfaction, and they have done all this while at the same time saving millions of dollars by realizing efficiencies. As our entire country struggles with providing quality healthcare at affordable prices, I invite anyone to visit the ``Show Me'' State, where Heartland Health stands as an example for how a commitment to quality can yield the best care available affordably. They have been appropriately recognized with the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, joining a select group of companies that are the best of the best, and I applaud Heartland Health and all of the great men and women who make up its team for their achievement and their work. Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies in Kansas City, MO, plays an integral role in the underappreciated work of keeping our Nation's nuclear arsenal in working order. The Kansas City Plant works to provide the National Nuclear Security Administration with electrical, mechanical and material components manufactured to exacting quality specifications to help meet key national security objectives. Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies uses a Six Sigma Plus Continuous Improvement Model and it has resulted in an unmatched level of customer satisfaction. Honeywell has also been a key partner in the transition to the new state-of-the-art Kansas City Responsive Infrastructure, Manufacturing and Sourcing, KCRIMS, facility, which officially broke ground in September. They have been a steward in ensuring safety, quality and efficiency in all areas of their work, especially with respect to the production of the nonnuclear components for the Nation's nuclear weapons with NNSA. Honeywell's outstanding work has also provided an essential foundation for a continued partnership at the new KCRIMS facility and the company's ongoing role as a strong member of the local Kansas City community. I am deeply proud of the work the men and women on the Honeywell team carry out at the Kansas City Plant and of its central importance to our Nation's national security and I could not be more pleased to see them recognized for their work with this preeminent award. MidwayUSA is a family-owned business located in Columbia, MO, that has been providing shooting, hunting and reloading supplies for over 30 years. The company, started by Larry Potterfield and his wife Brenda, exemplifies the ``Made in America'' motto by employing hundreds of Missourians who are themselves passionate about hunting and shooting, two activities that are centerpieces of Missouri's rich sportsman culture. The passion of Larry and Brenda shows in the quality of the work of their entire team. MidwayUSA has earned 98 percent customer retention, and a 93 percent customer satisfaction rating, both remarkable achievements. While MidwayUSA has progressed over time from taking orders by mail, then phone, and now via the internet, one thing that has not changed is its mission, ``To be the best-run business in America, for the benefit of our Customers.'' They are doing a great job accomplishing just this. In pursuit of that goal they have become ISO 9000 certified, won the Missouri Quality Award for Performance Excellence, and now they have been recognized with the 2009 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. In growing from nothing more than a simple idea to one of the leading shooting supply retailers, MidwayUSA has shown what dedication to quality and performance, coupled with building an exceptionally committed, dedicated and skilled workforce, can produce in a business. I would like to congratulate the entire MidwayUSA team on their success. These three companies, which are not just among Missouri's finest, but, as we now know, among our Nation's very best, have so much to be proud of. They embody the ``Show Me'' spirit when it comes to showing how a business should operate. Congratulations Heartland Health, Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies in Kansas City and MidwayUSA on winning the 2009 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. I look forward to seeing what these companies and their employees accomplish next. I know it will be something great.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Arizona on many things when it comes to appropriations, including that I have made a decision that earmarking is not a process that I think is the appropriate way to spend public money. But I am a little confused about some of the righteous indignation coming from the Republican side of the aisle about this bill. The omnibus 2010 they have sitting out there--they are wanting the American people to think this document came from Democrats. They want the American people to think that omnibus 2010, all of those pages sitting there, were done by Democrats. They weren't done by Democrats. Those pages were done by Democrats and Republicans. Every bit of that document was drafted by Republicans and Democrats, right down to the earmarks. And for the minority leader to stand here and act as if this document is something that is the fault of the Democratic Party when he well knows he has been involved--I have been involved in terms of trying to get the number down, and I am glad we succeeded in getting the number down, as has been referenced, to the Sessions-McCaskill number, but this was a bipartisan effort to get the number down. The irony is, guess who has earmarks in there. The minority leader, who just voted on a moratorium for earmarks 10 minutes ago. Did he pull his earmarks out? No. Did any of the Republicans who voted for a moratorium on earmarks pull their earmarks out before this bill came to the floor? We could have eliminated a few pages. So I just don't think the righteous indignation works. This was a bipartisan effort, drafted by Republicans and Democrats. It came to the floor after months of work by Democrats and Republicans. It was presented to this body in a bipartisan way to vote on. I wasn't going to vote for it. I am against it. So I think I have a slight bit of credibility to call these guys on this notion that this is something that sprung from nowhere out of some back room on the Democratic side of the aisle. This sprung from a bipartisan effort of the Appropriations Committee, and every Member on that side of the aisle knows it. They know it. And they know the earmarks in there--there are almost $700 million of earmarks in there from people who voted on a moratorium on earmarks. That is like being half-pregnant. They should have said, before this bill ever came to the floor--and they were asked: Would you like your earmarks pulled out? No, no. They were perfectly willing to vote no and take those earmarks home. So, on one hand, I would have voted no had we had the vote, and I said that from day one. I voted no on the omnibus last year. I voted no on another omnibus because I don't think it is the right way to appropriate. But this is an equal-opportunity sin. The problems with this process don't lie on one side of the aisle; they lie on both sides of the aisle. And the notion that the Republicans are trying to say this is just about the Democrats is the kind of hypocrisy that gives us the lowest ratings we have in terms of confidence of the American people. We need to own up here. This is not about the Democrats. This is about both sides of the aisle and a flawed appropriations process that couldn't get to the floor because of a lot of obstructionism, and when it finally did get to the floor, it came in one package. But it is not fair for the Republicans to act as though all those pages came from the Democratic side of the aisle. They certainly did not. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Let me just say that had the tone of the minority leader's remarks been the same as the Senator from Tennessee, I probably wouldn't have felt as passionately as I did. I agree with the Senator from Tennessee about the vote on this bill. I have publicly said I wouldn't support it. I didn't support it for a number of reasons. But if we want to work together, then we have to quit trying to score cheap political points. The notion that the minority floor leader tried to give to the American people that this bill was somehow concocted in some back room by Democrats--everybody knows that is not true. Everybody knows that until about 8 hours ago, there were a bunch of Republicans voting for this. Now, am I glad they are not voting for it? Candidly, I am. I am glad you guys managed to get everybody to not vote for it because I am opposed to it. But what I think was most offensive was trying to trot this bill out here and put a label on it and try to say to the American people that this was something that was done at the eleventh hour to be jammed down people's throats. This was something done in a bipartisan way. Thad Cochran had a huge role in that bill, as did every other ranking member on all of the subcommittees on appropriations. So it is offensive to me--it is not that we are defeating the omnibus. I like that. But what is offensive to me is that we have gotten into this bad habit of trying to score cheap political points. And for Senators to come to this floor and say ``we won'' and do this kind of stuff when you know how many Republicans worked hard on provisions in that bill-- and, in fact, Republicans worked hard--frankly, harder than our side did on McCaskill-Sessions. We had 17 Democrats supporting it. You had unanimous support. I was pleased that we came together in that bipartisan way to bring the number down. We won in bringing the number down to the level Republicans wanted, along with 17 Democrats. That is what Sessions- McCaskill was. I think if we can go forward in the manner the Senator from Tennessee has spoken of, then it is important that we quit trying to mislead somehow the American people that the bill we were going to consider was the product of the Democratic Party, because it wasn't. That is what causes frayed feelings. You know, the Senator from Tennessee and I have had long discussions. He was surprised to hear about how angry we were on this side and some of the tactics that were being used. I was surprised to hear about how angry some of the Senators on the Republican side were at some of the tactics that were being used. If there is going to be a moment that we come together, then we need to work a little harder at not scoring cheap political points such as were scored a few minutes ago by the minority leader.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, December 17; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the New START treaty.