Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, the START treaty will be open to amendments tomorrow. Senators are encouraged to come to the floor to offer and debate their amendments. Rollcall votes are possible to occur throughout the day.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I----

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a joint statement by myself and Senator Hatch regarding the Porteous impeachment be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I think it goes without saying there are things Senator Bond and I might disagree on, but today is not a time to talk about those things. I rise for a few minutes to talk about Senator Bond and the things I most respect and admire him for. It could be a very long list, and I don't want to take too long, but I am going to hit the high points of the things I think demand that anyone who has paid attention to Missouri needs to respect and admire this man for. For 42 years, he has served the State of Missouri. Let us start there. He loves the State we call home. I would say that he knows it better than any living person in the world. He understands it, he is dedicated to it, and he has made Missouri his life's work. For that, he deserves my respect and admiration. Secondly, he has made major sacrifices to serve. As the leader said, he graduated first in his class from the University of Virginia Law School; a graduate from Princeton. I don't need to explain to anybody in the Senate what that could mean in terms of one's career, in terms of making money. Christopher Kit Bond could have been wealthy beyond anyone's imagination. He had the intellect, he had the personality to succeed in any business that he decided to engage in, and certainly in the practice of law. I think in today's world there is so much cynicism about the people who choose a career of political service. This is a great example for civics classes throughout this country, to see that this is what we are talking about--someone who chose not to make big bucks, not to travel the halls of power in the private sector, but to toil in the fields of being a public servant. Yes, there are many things about being a public servant that are grand and glorious, but there is a lot that is not. I would challenge anyone to go to as many farm bureau picnics as my colleague has gone to and not admit a little bit of fatigue. I would challenge anyone to have attended as many State fairs as my colleague has attended and not confess a little fatigue. I would challenge anyone to go to what my dad used to call the ``slick ham suppers'' in small communities across the State after a long week of work, because he knew there were people there who were going to be rewarded by his presence and that it was part of his job. He realized that was very important. So I am very respectful and have great admiration for the fact that he has toiled in the field of public service for all these years. The third thing I respect and admire about him is how proud he is of his family and how devoted he is to his wife. It is wonderful to behold when someone exudes love and admiration and devotion to those people who are most important to all of us--our families. I have watched Senator Bond as he began to immerse himself in foreign policy, and I know it was because he went to bed every night and woke up every morning thinking of Sam, and Sam's service and what Sam was doing and feeling, that compelled him to do as much as he could in the Halls of Congress to help men and women such as Sam Bond throughout our world. Fourth, and maybe this is the best one, Senator Kit Bond is not afraid of a fight. I think that is terrific. You know, Missouri is a tough State. It is a tough State in that anybody who tells you their reelection is certain does not know or understand Missouri. Every election is a battle in Missouri. He has a record of nine and two in those elections. And for our beloved team, the Missouri Tigers, he and I would take that record any year in football. He has had three campaigns for Governor and four campaigns for the Senate from the State of Missouri, and his record is nine and one in those elections. Let me tell you, that is one remarkable achievement because in Missouri we have some strong-minded folks. We have a bunch of folks on one end who are very loud and very opinionated, and they are not going anywhere, and we have a bunch of folks on the other end who are just as loud and just as opinionated, and they are not going anywhere. But in the middle we have a grand and glorious group of very stubbornly independent people. I like to point out to people that the State of Missouri elected John Ashcroft Governor and Harriett Woods Lieutenant Governor in the same election. Now, many of you may not know who Harriett Woods is, but I can assure you my colleague and I both know these two people--John Ashcroft and Harriett Woods--and they had absolutely nothing in common. They had completely divergent ideological views of the world, yet Missourians elected both of them. Why? I will tell you what that grand and gloriously stubborn streak of independents want in Missouri--they want someone with a smile. Check for Kit Bond. When you think of Kit Bond, you think of him smiling. Even if his teeth are gritted, and he is telling you something you don't want to hear or you can tell he is angry at you, he is still grinning. They appreciate his intellect. He has always been an intellectual giant, and that is important when you are toiling the fields of public service. His integrity. There was never a doubt in all of these years of Kit Bond's service that this was not a man of the very highest integrity. And finally, a work ethic. And gee howdy, Missourians want a work ethic. They want somebody who understands that they are working hard and they want to see you working hard, and that is exactly what Senator Bond has done for these 42 years. He has worked very hard, even down to planting his chestnut trees himself on the farm in Mexico. So the magic formula of a ready smile, intellect, integrity, and an amazing work ethic has put him in the same category as some of Missouri's very greatest. From Thomas Hart Benton to Senator Christopher Kit Bond, he has shown the world and shown our country what hard work, what somebody who loves the middle of America and all that it represents can do in the Senate. He has been a wonderful role model for many of us in Missouri, even if we don't always agree on every issue. And by the way, I will tell this story today: When I took my desk in the State auditor's office, there is a tradition in the State auditor's office in Missouri that all the previous State auditors' pictures are around your office on a photo rail at the top. I sat down at my desk on the first day having been elected State auditor, and I looked up and who was directly across from me--Kit Bond and John Ashcroft. I will confess I moved the order so I didn't have to look at both of you every single day. But you were a reminder to me that there are many different ways to serve. It is with a great deal of reluctance that I say farewell to Senator Kit Bond in the Senate. He has served here well, he has served his State well, and I hope he remains a colleague and friend of mine for many years to come. With the utmost admiration and respect, I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, our Constitution is a glorious thing. It is in fact the envy of the world. One of the most effective and elegant elements of the foundation of our government is the provisions that provide for the checks and balances of our three branches of government. It has been an incredible honor to participate in the impeachment process that was devised by very wise people very long ago, which actually provides the American people the reassurance that the Constitution is working the way it was designed to work when it comes to the checks and balances of the three branches of government. The responsibilities of the modern Congress, both the House and Senate, are extensive. I don't need to spend much time talking about how busy we are right now. But the fact that we set aside everything that we were doing and came together and sat as a Senate and listened to the arguments and deliberated extensively about this impeachment should be reassuring to every American. I think the results are interesting in that it reflects that each Senator made an individual decision about the Articles of Impeachment. There was some unanimity on some of the counts, but on others it was Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and progressives, on both sides of the question. I think that shows the extent to which everybody made an independent judgment and took their responsibility very seriously. I want to take a few minutes now to thank some people who are unsung heroes. Obviously, I thank the distinguished vice chairman, the Senator from Utah, for his support, experience, and wisdom in discharging the committee's duties. He was essential to this process and a great rock for me to lean on at many turns during this process. I also thank the 10 other members of the Impeachment Trial Committee for their devotion and diligence and commitment to this important work. Then I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about the staff. I want to begin with Derron Parks, who is seated with me on the floor of the Senate. Derron walked into my office and was hired to be a legislative assistant for health care, in the middle of some pretty difficult times on health care. Then I said to him, ``By the way, can you run an impeachment of a Federal judge, also?'' As a brandnew member of my staff, he took on incredible responsibilities. All of the thanks I have received belong to him because he worked hard, he worked smart, he was a great leader, and he did a remarkable job of marshaling a bunch of Senators, a bunch of staff, a bunch of witnesses, a bunch of evidence, a bunch of legal research, and he did it in a way that I think the Senate can be very proud. Also, I thank Tom Jipping, Senator Hatch's staff person, who helped with this as the deputy staff director for the Impeachment Trial Committee. He also put in an incredible amount of work and gave a very valuable contribution. Justin Kim, counsel, was very important because whenever there was a disagreement about what was the right road to take in terms of historical precedence, rule of law, decisions on motions, he was always a good sounding board. There was always more than one smart lawyer in the room so that the ideas could be bounced back and forth and somehow we could come up with the right answer based on the law, the Constitution, and historical precedent. Rebecca Seidel was also very valuable to the committee. She is another counsel who was essential in this process. Erin Johnson, deputy counsel and chief clerk, did, frankly, some of the most difficult work, and that was making sure we had a quorum during the trial, which was hard, as you can imagine. Keeping Senators in one seat for an extended period of time is tough. She managed to make sure that we always had the quorum the law demanded. Lake Dishman, another member of the staff, did a wonderful job. Susan Navarro Smelcer, an analyst on the Federal judiciary, CRS, did wonderful work for us in terms of allowing us some help on the research of the historical precedence and decisions that guided our way. Morgan Frankel, Senate legal counsel, was on the floor for the conclusion of this impeachment matter. Like Senator Hatch, this wasn't his first time to deal with impeachment matters, so he was a wealth of information and wonderful help to us. Pat Mack Bryan also did great work. Grant Vinik and Tom Cabayero were also from the Senate legal counsel staff. All of the committee members had staff people who helped. I will not put all of their names on the record now, but they will be made part of my entire statement. I will have more comments on the impeachment proceedings that I will insert in the Record. I will conclude by saying that I am very proud to be a Senator today. There are days when that is not as easy to say. There are times when this place is pretty dysfunctional. But I am very proud of the Senate and how we conducted ourselves during this very important and grave proceeding. I think the responsibility was handled as the Founders would have wanted us to handle it, and I think we should all be proud of that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 8, 2010, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a joint hearing entitled ``Examining the Efficiency, Stability, and Integrity of the U.S. Capital Markets.''

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 8, 2010, at 10 a.m. in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a McCaskill amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am proud we have been able to get this passed today. This is a giant Christmas present with a bow on it or a Hanukkah gift with a bow on it to thousands of American families, to let them know we are paying attention. We have very short attention spans around here. When the cameras aren't rolling, we have a tendency to move on to something else. We are always kind of gravitating toward the political fight. This legislation should send the appropriate signal to our Nation's military, to our Nation's veterans and, most importantly, to the families who have loved ones buried at Arlington National Cemetery that we are paying attention and that we are going to continue to pay attention until we get this right. Our American pride depends on it. It is the ultimate act of patriotism. So I am proud of the fact that we have been able to get this legislation passed today. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I also rise today to talk about a subject that is, frankly, as depressing--in fact, more depressing--than the reality we just faced this morning on the floor; that is, the heartbreaking incompetence that has been uncovered at Arlington National Cemetery. This is, in my opinion, the most sacred ground we have in this country. This is where our highest ideal of an American is laid to rest. The ceremonies that take place every day, day in and day out, at Arlington National Cemetery are a great source of national pride. For the thousands of families who have loved ones buried there, they deserve to know that location is being run with the highest level of integrity and professionalism. In July of this year, my subcommittee on contracting discovered they have to be bitterly disappointed because due to contracting problems, you cannot be assured that people are buried where Arlington National Cemetery tells you they are buried; that even though we spent millions of dollars on contracts to make sure the system was reliable in terms of the location of the burial of these heroes, the contracts have produced nothing. In fact, the discovery was made that there were many instances where what it said on the tombstone was not true. We began working and the hearing was mind-boggling because there was so much finger pointing--``not my fault,'' ``not my fault,'' ``not my fault''--discovering there was no real chain of command at Arlington National Cemetery. Unlike the rest of the military and the rest of the Army, it was not clear who the people at Arlington even reported to. That is the management incompetence that breeds all kinds of nonsense, when there is no accountability. And there was no accountability. So I think the Army has taken this seriously. They clearly are embarrassed, as they should be. They are working to methodically go through the cemetery and make sure they find any instance where there is a discrepancy in terms of the burials. Just a few weeks ago, we learned that they now discovered another grave site where eight urns of cremated remains were located. The tombstone was marked ``Unknown.'' Now, can you imagine there is actually someone who went back eight times to the same location to dump cremated remains in one grave? We have been able to identify some of those remains, and those families have been notified and they will have the proper burial. They will know the location. Unfortunately, one of the sets of remains we cannot identify. It has been reburied ``Unknown.'' But as we methodically go through the cemetery and try to correct these instances of heartbreaking incompetence, we have to have some legislation in place that provides the right accountability and oversight. I had introduced a piece of legislation along with my ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, Senator Brown of Massachusetts, and we have tried to work this through the process, which everyone around here knows is painfully slow, and even more painfully slow over the last 18 months since the Republican Party has been rewarded for their strategy of block everything, including things they support. I am encouraged that it is my understanding that after I came to the Senate floor yesterday and said I was going to make a unanimous consent motion, not only have the Democrats all cleared this legislation but the Republicans have also. I think that is a good sign. I wish we had more good signs. But this at least is a good sign. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans Affairs' Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3860 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6399 and that the Senate then proceed to its consideration.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; further, that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session of the Senate. Senators should expect a live quorum at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, December 7, to begin the impeachment trial of Judge G. Thomas Porteous.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. 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 2 p.m. on Monday, December 6; that following the prayer and the 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, and that following any leader remarks, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. So it is not that we are not passing a tax cut for everyone, we are passing a tax cut for every person in America. We are just saying, maybe on that second million, we might ought to take that $300 billion and put it in deficit reduction. So it is not the first million, it is the second million and the third million and the fourth million and the fifth million that you would have to go back to a rate that we had in the days when we had massive job creation, and these guys did well.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. McCASKILL. I think the point the Senator is making is really important. I want to ask a question of him, through the Chair. So what we just voted on, basically, that 53 Members of the Senate--that used to be a winning number around the Senate until this new era of we have to have 60 votes for motherhood and apple pie--53 Members of the Senate voted to make sure everyone in America had no tax increase on their first $1 million in income. Is that correct?

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I must compliment both my colleagues, Senator Dorgan and Senator Boxer, for calmly laying out the issue. Frankly, I feel a little bit like I am in the Twilight Zone. I certainly paid attention to the results in November. Anybody who is in this building paid attention to the results in November. Somehow the Republican Party thinks what happened the first Tuesday in November is that the American people wanted them to raise taxes on 99.9 percent of Americans in order to make sure the tiniest little sliver at the top gets a deficit-busting, China-borrowing, print-more-money tax bonus? I do not think that is what the people were saying. It is beyond comprehension that these folks have talked about deficit reduction. Oh, ``deficit reduction''--how many speeches have we listened to--``our grandchildren.'' I have listened to Dr. Coburn and I have listened to Senator DeMint and I have listened to so many Republicans talk about deficit reduction, deficit reduction, deficit reduction, and the tiny little fig leaf they are hiding behind is the complete fallacy that a small differential in personal tax rates to people on their second million dollars of income is going to create jobs. It is not going to create jobs. The people who are making more than $1 million are not going to take a 3-percent personal tax cut differential and create jobs. The job creation occurs with small businesses. It occurs with people in the middle class. It does not occur when someone has another $100,000 to put in their investment fund or another $300,000 to put in their investment fund. I think people need to understand that 53 Senators voted to give a tax cut to everyone--everyone, we do not care how rich you are--because you get a tax cut on your first $1 million of income. So even if you make $3 million, you are getting the tax cut. If you make $5 million, you are getting the tax cut. If you make $10 million, you are getting the tax cut. You are getting it on the first $1 million. So everyone in America was denied a tax cut, by the vote that just occurred, by the minority of the Senate, not the majority. The majority of the Senators who were elected to come here voted to give 99.9 percent of America a tax cut and thinks maybe that other $300 billion will be saved on that little 0.1 percent of America. That $300 billion, that would be a good thing to put against the deficit. It would be a great thing to put against the deficit. So do not take these guys seriously about deficit reduction. Do not take them seriously. It is a joke. Some of these people who voted no just now did not even vote for the Bush tax cuts. Some of the people who just voted no on giving a tax cut to 99.9 percent--in fact, to give a tax cut to everybody in America on their first $1 million--some of the people who voted no did not even vote for the Bush tax cuts. They knew they were irresponsible at the time. But now they have somehow tried to convince the American people they are looking after them. As I said yesterday, I tell you who they are looking after. They are looking after the families who are deciding which home to go to for Christmas: Should I go to my home in Florida or my home in California or maybe up in the mountains or should I stay in the city or the people who are deciding: Where should we spend New Year's Eve? Should we go to Paris? Maybe we should go to Rome for New Year's Eve. They are not focused on the folks who are trying to figure out if they can get what their kids want for Christmas. And 53 votes--if you think about that, there was a time in the Senate that all kinds of things--in fact, my recollection is that is the exact number of votes Clarence Thomas got to join the Supreme Court. Can you imagine in this day and age a controversial Supreme Court nominee not having to get 60 votes? Clarence Thomas got the same number of votes as we just cast to make sure everybody in America gets a tax cut on their first $1 million in income. I come from a State where elections are very close and, in fact, I remember when I passed my first amendment on the floor of the Senate. The vote was 51 to 49. It seems amazing to me now. That was just a few short years ago that we had votes that were 51 to 49. They were not requiring 60 votes. That was back before motherhood and apple pie needed 60 votes. One of the Senators came over to me after that amendment vote--it was 51 to 49--and they said: Boy--they were teasing me about how close the vote was. I said: Senator, in Missouri we call that a landslide. This vote we just had--53 votes--in Missouri is a landslide. It is depressing to me that we have gotten to this level of posturing, that they are saying: If you do not give people a tax break on their second million, nobody gets one. I am going to say it again: If you don't give people a tax break on their second million, nobody gets one. Really? Are they going to hold on to that position? Deep down in my gut I cannot believe they are going to do that, that they are going to go home and explain to their voters: Yes, well, you don't get a tax cut because this guy I know on Wall Street who makes $15 million in his bonus this year didn't want to have to pay the same rate he paid in the 1990s when everybody cut a fat hog and did very well. We created millions and millions of jobs in the 1990s with these same tax rates. It is not like we are going back to the Roosevelt era of taxes. We are not going back to 75 percent of your income going to taxes. We are talking about a 3-percent difference for people who make more than $1 million. So I hope this gets through to the American people, and I hope they realize this is not what this election was about. This election was about holding down government spending, and my colleagues and I agree. I have been working on trying to get a cap on Federal spending with Senator Sessions for over a year. It is about tightening our belt on spending. But it is also about having a level playing field for the middle class in this country and not making it about the special interests that have jammed this Tax Code with so many provisions. Most people do not realize that over 70 percent of Americans do not even itemize. So imagine how many tax provisions have been written for the wealthy. We have books and books of tax loopholes for the wealthy. As Warren Buffett has said--he does this great exercise every year in his office, which I think is fascinating. He has everyone who works in his office--from the people who clean the boardroom, to the people who park the cars in the parking lot--they calculate all the taxes they pay every year and figure out everything from sales tax, personal property tax, Federal tax, State tax--earnings tax in some localities--they calculate all of it and figure out what their real tax rate is. He said the folks who work for him who have very modest incomes, pay, I think it is 33 percent, 34 percent of their income in taxes, and he pays 16 percent. Now, what is wrong with this picture? Listen, I have nothing against people who have captured the American dream. My husband is one of them. His first job out of college was in a steel mill. Since then he has taken huge risk as an entrepreneur, huge risk, and he has created thousands of jobs--thousands of jobs--in his lifetime, and he has done very well. We are very blessed. Does he need this tax cut? No. Do we need it? No, we do not. I think the people who are in that tax bracket have a great deal in common with my family, those who are worried about going back to the 1990s tax rate on their second million and their third million and their fourth million.

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, back in July of this year, the subcommittee I chair on contracting oversight held a hearing about heartbreaking incompetence at Arlington National Cemetery. Because of a series of management errors, bungling, neglect, the contracts that were supposed to be executed to make sure we were keeping track of America's heroes in our most sacred place in this country--we discovered that, in fact, the officials at Arlington National Cemetery were not sure who was buried where. The reaction I have had to that hearing has been so reassuring because as I travel around Missouri, person after person comes up to me, so many veterans, saying: Thank you for getting on top of this disaster at Arlington National Cemetery. Since that hearing, when it was very clear there was no direct line of authority in terms of managing Arlington National Cemetery--that they had no problem issuing multiple contracts for millions of dollars and getting absolutely nothing for it, an acknowledgment that they did not have a system that was adequately keeping track of the location of burial for potentially thousands of America's finest--we have continued to stay on top of this and have realized that more and more problems continue to arise. This morning, it was reported nationally that they now found a grave site that has eight different urns buried--eight different urns-- cremated remains buried in one location with a tombstone that said ``Unknown.'' And, of course, they have been able to identify some of those remains--gratefully, they have--and they are contacting those families. But as a result of the hearing, I filed legislation, along with Senator Brown, who is with me on that committee as the ranking member of that committee. Together, we filed a bill, with a number of cosponsors, setting up some basic oversight of Arlington going forward--basic but very important--making sure we have review of contract management, making sure we have compliance with an Army directive, making sure we have a report on the grave site discrepancies that have arisen, so we can be assured that every family in America who looks upon Arlington as the last resting place for their family member can be assured that when they go to visit their loved one, they are indeed visiting their loved one. So we filed this bill, S. 3860. After we found out about these additional problems that have arisen, I now feel a sense of urgency about this. I know my colleagues on the other side have said we are not doing any other legislation except making sure we get a tax cut for millionaires. I am hoping they will make an exception to the rule because if we do not provide adequate oversight right now, when will we? Is there a subject more important than our oversight and making sure those we should honor the most are, in fact, being treated with the kind of dignity and respect they deserve rather than just being thrown in a gravesite that says ``Unknown''? So I am going to make a motion tomorrow--we will be in session tomorrow--for unanimous consent to pass this legislation. I know I am being impatient. We are supposed to let these things sit on the calendar for months and months, and we are to hope that nobody puts a secret hold on it, and we are to get frustrated not knowing who has a hold on it or why. We have 38 members of the judiciary who have been sitting on the calendar who came out of committee unanimously. But, no, we can't take those up. We can't do anything until we do unpaid tax cuts for millionaires. I am hoping my Republican colleagues will give the millionaires a rest tomorrow. I am hoping they will get off the case of helping the millionaires and the billionaires so we can unanimously pass this bill. That is the best we can do right now to make sure our loved ones-- because they are all of our loved ones. We love the men and women who are buried at Arlington National Cemetery, from John F. Kennedy to the soldiers none of us has ever met. We love these Americans, and we need to do everything we can to make sure there is proper oversight of what is going on at Arlington National Cemetery. So, tomorrow, I am hoping we get an exception to the edict that we got from our friends on the Republican side of the aisle. I am hoping they will allow this bill to go through by unanimous consent because, I will tell my colleagues, I am not comfortable going home for my Christmas holidays with my family until I am sure we have done everything we can for the families who lost loved ones who reached a final resting place on this Earth at Arlington National Cemetery. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, sometimes we selectively like certain testimony and dislike other testimony around here. My friend from Alabama is so proud of Mr. Zandi. I think it is important we put on the record what else Mr. Zandi said. Mr. Zandi said if we had not passed the stimulus, we would have a depression. Now I hear the other side saying there was nothing worse than the stimulus. Mr. Zandi said if we had not done the stimulus, we would have a depression. Now, I think Mr. Zandi would also say, if he were here right now, that the least stimulative tax cut we could do is a personal tax rate at the very highest bracket. Do you know what he would say is the most stimulative thing we could do to the economy right now? Unemployment benefits. And what are we fighting over? They are blocking the most stimulating thing we can do for the economy to do the least stimulating thing for the economy for the millionaires and billionaires. Let's go over that again to make sure we understand this. The same economist my Republican friend is hanging his hat on has said, time and time again, the only thing that stood between this country and a depression was passing the stimulus. Now my colleagues want to use that same economist to justify holding up unemployment benefits, holding up the START Treaty, national security, and holding up any other business of the Senate, judicial nominations, work that needs to be done, to protect the millionaires and billionaires. We do not need to argue about whether tax cuts are good. I think we have shown that. The proof is in the pudding. All my Republican friends know we have passed tax cut after tax cut. We have passed tax cuts for almost everybody in America. We passed tax cuts through payroll taxes. We passed middle-class tax cuts. We passed tax cuts for small businesses, which they were busy opposing. That is rich. They opposed the tax cut for small businesses, and now they want to go to the mat for the millionaires. People need to understand what they are saying. The reason the economists say do not raise taxes in a down economy is because we want money to go into the economy in a recession. We are trying to get money to circulate. We are trying to get investment. We are trying to get people to buy things. So that is why we look at spending on an emergency basis like a stimulus. And we look at tax policy and figure out what is the most stimulative thing we can do with the Tax Code to help this economy. That is why we focused on the middle class and small businesses. And they are stuck with those millionaires. Now, I am very blessed; my husband's first job out of college was in a steel mill. I worked my way through college as a waitress. My husband has been very successful in business. When I talk to him--and he is an economist, very bright--when I talk to him about the various things we can do to stimulate investment--he has invested in many businesses through the years, created thousands and thousands of jobs--when I ask him is a 3-percent differential in your tax rate going to make a difference in your investment decisions next year, he kind of laughs. It may make a difference in terms of how much money he has to invest in one thing or another, but this is not the engine of our economy--a 3- percent difference in the tax rate for people who make millions of dollars. What does make a difference is a tax cut for the rest of America. Here is where their argument falls apart even further. How many times have we heard our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the deficit? Here is the dirty little secret. They do not want to extend taxes temporarily because we have a down economy. They want to do it permanently. They want to go borrow trillions of dollars from China to make sure we keep this tax break there for the millionaires permanently. They are not focused on the next year. They are not focused on the next 2 years. They want to blow the lid off this deficit and not pay for a dime of it by extending them permanently. So he can say: Well, we don't raise taxes in a down economy. Then they ought to immediately acknowledge that this should only be a 2-year extension. But they will not even acknowledge that at this point. We agree on permanent tax relief for the middle class. Book it, Danno. We agree on that. Let's get that done: permanent tax relief for the middle class. All of us agree on that. I, frankly, think it is time we start looking at the deficit, take the least stimulative money that we spend, which is this extra money for millionaires, and put that against the deficit. We will never get this deficit solved if anybody thinks we can do it on discretionary spending. I have worked hard on discretionary spending. Senator Sessions and I have sponsored an amendment and put it before the Senate time after time trying to get our colleagues to accept a cap on spending. We have not been able to get it across the finish line. I am confident we will in the coming months, and we will put a cap on spending. That is part of the equation: take a hard look at entitlements, figure out if we really need to be buying prescription drugs for millionaires with tax dollars when we are in debt. I do not know. I do not think that makes a lot of sense. That is part of the entitlement program I think we should take a look at, as to how many rich people we are buying prescription drugs for. Then, finally, we need to look at tax policy. If we can't bring the tax rate for millionaires--not talking about a corporate tax rate, not talking capital gains, not talking about dividends, I am talking about the permanent tax rate--if we can't bring it back to the 1990s--find me a millionaire that didn't do well in the 1990s. I would like to meet one. Man, it was tall cotton in the 1990s for wealthy people in this country and, by the way, it hasn't been bad for the last 10 years. We haven't seen a lot of job creation after this tax cut. We created 22 million jobs in the Clinton years with the tax rate we want to go to for the millionaires, and they created 1 million after this tax cut was created--22 million versus 1 million. Really? We want to blow the lid off a deficit for that kind of job creation? No, we don't. I wish to clarify one thing. Senator Kyl didn't yield for a question. I didn't ever say there was a threatening on START in the letter written by the Republicans. I said Senator Kyl today--and let me read the quote. If taxes all can't be resolved and voted on and completed, and spending for the government for the next 10 months completed by next Monday, I don't know how there is enough time to complete START. Keep in mind, we have had 16 hearings on START; close to 1,000 congressional inquiries. It is hard to find somebody who understands the threat who doesn't support START. They are saying: Well, the verification doesn't go far enough. We have no verification now. So Senator Kyl is the one who is saying that if we don't get everything done by Monday, they are done on the START treaty. I think I can speak for my colleagues on this side of the aisle. We are not done. We are not ready to go home. We want to stay here until we make sure we cut taxes for the middle class and continue that tax cut for the middle class. We want to stay here until we get that START treaty done, and we want to stay here and make sure we get an agreement to continue to fund the government. We will stay here, and I think most of us are willing to stay here weekends, all night, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and the day after Christmas. I think we will stay here as long as it takes to complete this work. So the sooner we find out the compromises they are willing to make, the better. Will they hold the middle class hostage, are they holding unemployment benefits hostage, and now will they hold the START treaty hostage for tax cuts for millionaires, the least stimulative tax break we can give? I hope not. For the sake of our economy, the future of this country, our grandchildren, deficit reduction, and national security, I hope not. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?