Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I say to the Senator through the Chair that an awful lot of economists have met with I think all the Senators about the frustrations we have with this economy. So the question we have asked over and over is, What is the most stimulative thing we can do for the economy? What can we do in terms of our actions that will provide injection of the most money into the economy and therefore create the most jobs? I am wondering if the Senator could share with us what it is that is the most stimulative thing we can do.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Let me ask another question.

Mrs. McCASKILL. We obviously passed this tax cut a decade or so ago, and they decided to make it temporary, not permanent, when it was passed. So there was a decision made by the Senate that it wasn't worthy of being permanent, that it was temporary. So now here we are, it was temporary, and we have to decide whether we make it permanent. That is really where the rubber meets the road because--and correct me if I am wrong--they made it temporary to see if this tax cut for the wealthy would create jobs. I am so sick of hearing on every TV show in America, well, if you give a 3-percent tax differential to the wealthiest people in America, they are going to create all these jobs. Well, I am trying to figure out where the jobs are that this tax cut for the wealthy created. This was an experiment. It didn't work. It didn't create the jobs. That is why we have this debate right now. We have to decide whose side we are on. Are we on the side of the middle class, with shrinking income, with more frustration because they can't do some of the basic things with their families that they always assumed they would be able to do in America or are we going to continue a bonus to the wealthiest Americans which doesn't even stimulate jobs? In fact, what we are going to do today is we are going to make a number of unanimous consent requests for things that will create jobs and see whether we can get our Republican colleagues to go along. The Senator was here for that debate, but I am assuming one of the reasons it was temporary was to see if this experiment in more bonuses for the wealthy would trickle down and create these jobs. It has been a decade, and I ask the Senator, how well has it worked?

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, my friend from Wyoming, who is a good guy, just said that the motions we are making, unanimous-consent motions--that these things could have been brought up earlier. Oh, if only it were true. If only it were true that we could have brought these things up earlier. If anybody has been paying attention, they would understand that our friends across the aisle have been blocking everything, including motherhood and apple pie, for the last year. They have voted unanimously to move judicial nominations out of the Judiciary Committee, and then they languish and they will not allow us to bring them up for a vote. Then my friend said we need to stop the theater. Well, let me tell you what theater is. Theater is when a Senator says: If we cannot get everything resolved and all of the spending decisions made by Monday, well, then, I just don't think we can do the START treaty. Theater is having 42 Senators say: We will not participate unless you do what we want to do today. That is theater. That is theater. Theater is saying: Well, you could have brought this up earlier, when everyone knows they blocked everything we wanted to bring up. That is theater. What you are seeing on this side right now is a healthy dose of indignation on behalf of the American people who are hurting. I think back. I think back to elections past when great patriots were accused in the most vivacious ways of being soft on national security. I remember a Senator who lost his limbs in battle who had advertisements run against him that somehow he was soft on terror because of a twist and distortion of a vote he had cast in the Senate. Now fast forward. We have a treaty that the military unanimously supports, that the Secretaries of State for those Republican Presidents who warned us about loose nuclear weapons and terrorists--their Secretaries of State have stood up and said this is the thing to do. The ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, Senator Lugar--is there anyone more respected on what we should be doing to protect this Nation than Senator Dick Lugar? And they are holding this treaty hostage to protect millionaires. Has it come to that? They now are willing to risk national security, the security of this Nation, because they refuse to allow us to stop the extra-big tax bonuses to millionaires and billionaires. Can you imagine what would have happened to somebody in my party who had the nerve to stand up in the face of our allies, our military, bipartisan support, everyone from Pat Buchanan to Colin Powell, who has said to the American people that this START treaty is necessary? And they are saying: Well, if you don't give us a tax break for millionaires by Monday, we are going to go home. Really? It takes your breath away. It just takes your breath away. I have some unanimous-consent requests I will also make today, but I really want that to sink in. We have reached every goalpost they have put up on the START treaty, and then they have moved it. We have no verification of nuclear weapons in Russia right now, and we haven't for months, and they are nibbling around the edges because--do you know what I believe this might be? I might believe this is part of the strategy that was announced by the leader of the Republican Party that their No. 1 priority is to defeat President Obama, to damage him. They want to deny the passage of this treaty, I believe--it certainly has the appearance, anyway, that this is about damaging President Obama. We should be focused on our national security. We should be focused on giving tax cuts to Middle America. We should be focused on tax cuts to small businesses. We have done net tax cuts in this country of $300 billion in the last 18 months, and all of those tax cuts were focused like a laser on the middle class and on small businesses. Do not let anybody sell you a bill of goods that the Democratic Party is not fighting for tax cuts for Middle America and small business. Now, we are not so excited about the millionaires. Those are not stimulative. They have not created the jobs. It has been an economic experiment that has failed. Once again, the trickle down did not trickle. And it is time for us to get busy, make these tax cuts permanent for the middle class, and continue to try to reduce our deficit. I see my friend. Nobody has worked harder, and I have tried to be a partner with him to reduce spending in the Federal Government. But this all of a sudden ``we are going to take our football and go home if you don't give us what we want by Monday''--and here is the richest part of this. The person who is saying ``we are going to go home on Monday if we don't get it by Monday'' is the person who is negotiating. He is supposed to be negotiating at 5:30. I mean, it is like looking in the mirror and saying: Hey, if you don't get it done by Monday--if he wants to get it done by Monday, then be reasonable about the millionaires. Be reasonable about the millionaires, and we can get this done, and we can go home and celebrate Christmas with our families and come back and start hard next year to reduce this deficit with a good downpayment-- $300 billion going to reduce the deficit because we are not going to give a very small, incremental tax increase to people who have plenty of cash right now. What they really need, those millionaires, they need the middle class to have some money to spend to create the demand. That is the economic policy that makes sense in this climate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I yield the floor so the Senator from New York can be recognized.

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 talk about an amendment we will be voting on tomorrow concerning earmarks. Since coming to the Senate, I have decided I am not going to participate in what I think is a very flawed process. I don't think it is the right way to spend public money. I am not going to quarrel that some of the projects that have been funded are not meritorious; they are. In my State, some of the projects that have received earmarked funds are wonderful expenditures of public money. But it is the way in which the money is expended that is a problem; the way to decide it is the problem. It is the process. There have been a number of defenses of earmarking. I am going to spend a couple minutes debunking the defenses of earmarking. I will tell you my favorite one: We are somehow abdicating the power of the purse that is delineated in the Constitution. Give me a break. We decide every dime of Federal money. Congress makes the decision on appropriations for every Federal program. How is giving up a secretive process, where nobody is sure how it is decided who gets how much money--how is getting rid of that somehow removing our constitutional authority to make spending decisions? It is like they want the American people to believe that if we quit earmarking, the appropriations process is going to go away, that we will no longer pass judgment on the President's budget, that we will not have oversight over Federal money. It is silly and absurd. In some ways, it is almost insulting. The constitutional powers to decide how Federal money is spent will remain with the Congress long after this bad habit has been broken. Make no mistake about it, it may not be this year, it may not be next year, but the American people are on to us. They now know and understand that earmarking is about who you are. It is about what committee you sit on. It is about whom you know. If this is such a fair process, if this is something we should be proud of, then I want someone to come to the floor and explain to me how they decide who gets the money. I ask it at home all the time, and I say: If you know, will you tell me because I am a Member of the Senate and I don't know. In some committees, the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee get more money than everybody else. In other committees, they don't. Where is that decided? In what room? Is there a hearing? Can I go and watch? When the money is split, who is in the room? Who is on the phone? If we are brutally honest with the American people, we will tell them that is a process we don't want them to see. Yes, we are better because we reformed. I am proud my party led the reforms on earmarking right after I came to the Senate. Now your name is on your earmark. I will tell you what is not public. Do you know what people at home actually believe? They believe the Senators don't pick the winners and losers. They actually think there is some mysterious process, but what we don't know is what are all the earmarks that Senators say no to. Senators say no to these earmarks. It is not a committee that says no to these. It is not a chairman. Each individual Senator decides winners and losers. I don't think the losers know that. I think the losers think that Senator had nothing to do with them being a loser. If we can make all that public, this would be a much less popular activity because all of a sudden the people who wanted the bridge in this part of the State would realize that the Senator thought the bridge on the other side of the State was more important. So we take credit for the earmarks we get, but we are not willing to own the fact that we have chosen winners and losers. Finally, this notion that somehow the bureaucrats are going to decide--most of the money taken for earmarks comes out of programs that are grant programs and formula programs and are decided by population or by local people. It is not Washington bureaucrats. They are supplanting the judgment of one person for the local planning process and the State planning process. That is not the way. I hope people vote for the Coburn-McCaskill amendment. This is the wrong way to spend public money. Whether it happens tomorrow or 2 or 3 years from now, make no mistake about it, the American people are tired of it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles Against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. will meet on Tuesday, November 16, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct an executive business meeting. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Erin Johnson at 202-228-4133.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I come to floor today to tell a sad, sad story of hypocrisy. It is not the first time we have told stories of hypocrisy around this Capitol Building, but this one is a particularly sad story of hypocrisy because right now, the ending is ugly. In America, we like nice endings. This story of hypocrisy has a very bad ending. The name of this story is, Who is trying to buy your government? There are folks out there right now trying to buy your government. The saddest part of this story is that we have no idea who they are. So why is it a story of hypocrisy? Well, we can start with how we got here. I have heard so many times--I cannot count how many times I have heard my colleagues in the other party talk about the evils of an activist court: Well, we have to make sure we do not have activist judges. Well, no, I am not opposed to this nominee because he is appointed by a Democratic President; I am opposed to this nominee because of activism, evil activism. We have to watch out for activism. So along comes the Citizens United case. If you looked up ``judicial activism'' in a reference book, you would find the title ``Citizens United.'' This Court went off the tracks. They created precedent out of whole cloth in an effort to turn our democracy into a race for the highest bidder. I think it is hypocritical for people to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and be eloquent--because these are all smart people--very eloquent about the evils of judicial activism and then proceed to dismantle a system that is all about the public's right to know. There is another part of this that is hypocritical, besides the notion that somehow conservative people are not judicial activists. They are not judicial activists when they are active for something you believe in. Then it is not activism. In other words, judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder. I can think of a lot of Supreme Court cases that could back up that assertion. The other thing that is so hypocritical about this is the ridiculous notion that so many people in this body have talked about transparency like it is so near and dear to them. We must have transparency. We must have an open door. We must have sunlight. Let me read a few quotes. This is rich: Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited . . . Think about that term, especially when we realize where it came from. Public disclosure of campaign contributions and spending should be expedited so voters can judge for themselves what is appropriate. Good, old-fashioned common sense. That is from the leader of the Republican Party. How about this one: I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all the money we raise and how it is spent. And I think that sunlight is the best disinfectant. That came from the leader of the Republican Party in the House. I think the system needs more transparency so people can more easily reach their own conclusions. I couldn't agree more. That comes from the Senator heading up the Republican effort to elect Republican Senators this year. I could go on and on. We have a Supreme Court decision that turns the section of the IRS Code, 501(c), into an open bazaar. What was supposed to be not political and not for profit is now a mushrooming industry of nonaccountable, unaccountable organizations that nobody has any idea where they are coming from, who is writing the checks, and what their motivations are. These groups have fallen into a regulatory nirvana. There is no regulation. There is nobody watching. There is nobody asking questions. These are social welfare organizations, 501(c)(4)s, like Crossroads, which is one that sprung up. It has been the top spender. It hasn't been the Republican committees or the Democratic committees. The top spender in the Senate races is a group we have no idea what it is or who is writing the checks. We have to realize they don't even have to file anything with the government, with the IRS, until February, March, April. How many people think these organizations are going to be around after November? Really? How naive are you? They have to find some excuse, right, because this is embarrassing that they are blocking our efforts at making campaign finance contributions transparent? One can't really say: Hey, we are going to change our mind about transparency because we have an election to win and we have a bunch of rich people out here who want to write big checks or big corporations that want to write big checks. So what do you do? You try to make it about the big, bad unions. These rules need to apply to unions too. Unions are doing ads right now. They should be saying what unions are doing them. We should know where their money comes from. We do know where their money comes from. It comes from their members. But we ought to know who is doing it. This law requires the same thing of unions that it requires of anyone else writing big checks. Who is going to buy your government? It could be like a game show. We could have a big wheel and spin the wheel and people could guess who is buying the government. I am worried about government contractors. There has been big money in government contracting. I have noticed from firsthand experience that when we start shaking the trees of these government contractors, they fight back. As I have tried to clean up some of the contracting messes that have littered the financial landscape of the Federal Government, I have run into an amazing amount of resistance from the underground power of these government contractors. Let's look at Blackwater. We know they have created dozens of fake names to do business with the government. Many of them are noncompetitive. Many of them are highly lucrative. They are hiding the identity of their company for purposes of contracting. Can colleagues imagine what they are capable of if they get to write checks to influence elections with nobody knowing it? I am in big trouble. I have gone after a lot of these big contractors. Now I think my picture is probably on a lot of their dart boards. Now they don't have to worry about throwing a dart. They don't have to worry about it. All they have to do is anonymously write big checks. Millions of dollars. Write a check for $10 million. Blow out an election in a State. Nobody has to know who did it. Foreign interests, yes; the Citizens United case created all kinds of loopholes that are actually delineated in the case. They explained the loopholes that are being created, if one reads the entire decision, for foreign corporations. It is like after that case we have fallen down a rabbit hole in terms of everything we should believe in in terms of our election processes. In the old days, they used to have the term, ``the bagman.'' The bagman was not exactly a positive term for people. The bagman was the guy who was in charge of carrying the money around in a bag. There was a time in this democracy where they actually did that. Big bags of cash were carried around and delivered to people's desks in every level of government in the country. The people in this great democracy rose up and said: We want to clean up this mess. We want candidates to have to report how much money they are getting. Some States said: We want to limit how much they are getting. We limit how much we get. I don't know why we are not honest about this. I don't know why they don't just propose an alternative bill that we do away with any kind of limits. Frankly, it might be a better tradeoff. If somebody put a gun to my head and said: You have to choose. Do you want all the money being spent on campaigns disclosed where it is coming from or do you want limits, I think I would take the disclosure because I trust the American people. If they know who is paying the bill, they can make a good judgment whether they trust what that commercial says or what that mailer says or what that robo call says. Trust is the great intangible around here. We can't do our jobs with dignity and with honor if we are hypocrites and if there is not trust. Does anyone imagine that the American people are going to trust us more when we have open season on elections by the highest bidder? I implore my colleagues, clean up this mess with us. Don't put the last nail in the coffin of bipartisanship. This should be a bipartisan effort. One rich guy who has a grudge against you can make unfair commercials and never be held accountable, regardless of whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. I am not as offended by the notion that wealthy people can spend their money however they want as I am by the notion that they can buy elections with it and not be held accountable. We have a very wealthy guy in St. Louis, Rex Sinquefield, who is spending millions of dollars influencing elections and issues in Missouri. I kind of admire the guy. He is up front about it. He is not handing checks off to Karl Rove somewhere. He is very up front. Trust is the great intangible. Everyone who blocks the effort to require full disclosure of money that is being spent on political campaigns does great damage to the most precious commodity we have in this country, and that is the strength of our democracy. I hope the American people, who are pretty cranky right now--and I get it; they are upset; they ought to be really mad about this--hold every one of us accountable. If you are not willing to support a bill that will require full disclosure of people who are spending money on political advertising, then I don't know how seriously we can take anything you say you stand for. Let's get the DISCLOSE Act up now. Let's clean up this mess. I guarantee my colleagues, it is going to have an ugly ending. This story will not have a good ending unless we change the plot. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring the work of Reverend Sam Mann, a leader in the Kansas City community. Reverend Mann's retirement is yet one more wonderful milestone in a life of service. Sam was raised in Eufala, AL, and made Kansas City his home as a young man. Over the years, he has been a tireless civil rights advocate in Kansas City and the Nation. He marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and participated in numerous activities to raise awareness of race and justice issues. Since 1971, Sam has been the pastor of St. Mark's United Methodist Church in downtown Kansas City. He has been the executive director of United Inner City Services, a multiservice community-based agency, since 1967. I have always known Reverend Mann as ``rubber band.'' This derives from the time I was walking with him through a roomful of young children who were attending a program he had designed that predated his establishment of the St. Mark center. From the beginning, Sam was always looking out for children. As we were walking through the room, the children were pulling on his coattail saying, ``Reverend Mann, Reverend Mann'' but it sounded like ``rubber band, rubber band.'' From that day forward, he has always been ``rubber band'' to me. Sam believes in the importance of education and has been a strong advocate for early childhood education. Under his leadership, St. Mark Child and Family Development Center was established. This center started in a church basement and now is located in a beautiful state- of-the-art facility. In addition, the center serves as a neighborhood anchor, providing a safe, warm and attractive site for a variety of community services. St. Mark annually serves approximately 225 very low and low-income families through its early childhood education program, before- and after-school program and summer camp. These children and their families have been forever impacted by Sam's work and dedication. Sam was the founder of the Presbyterian Urban Ministers Network, was a cosponsor of Kansas City's Urban Peace & Justice Summit, and served on the Board of the Black Archives of Mid-America. For 25 years, he has served as chair of Kansas City's local chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. While we hope that retirement affords Sam some much deserved relaxation and time on the golf course, we also look forward to his continued involvement in education projects and social justice issues important to the lives of Kansas Citians. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in congratulating and honoring Reverend Sam Mann on his retirement.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles Against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. will meet September 21 and 22, 2010, at 8 a.m., to conduct evidentiary hearings. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Erin Johnson.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Mr. Michael Frey, a disabled Missouri veteran whose courage, perseverance, and fortitude are remarkable and in keeping with the finest traditions of Missouri and American values: hard work, independence, humbleness, selfless sacrifice, and more. As a young 19-year old soldier in Vietnam, Mr. Frey served as a squad leader in Alpha Company 3/21 of the 19th Infantry Brigade. On July 14, 1969, Mr. Frey and the members of Alpha Company were ambushed near the Chu Lai base camp. His spinal cord was shattered by enemy fire, and the injuries rendered him paralyzed from the neck down and dependent on a ventilator for assistance in breathing. Given the extent of his injuries, many doctors would have given Mr. Frey a short time to live, but this special Missourian was about to prove that his case and that he himself was special. Mr. Frey returned to the United States and began receiving full-time care through St. Louis-area Veterans Administration, VA, hospitals, where he gained the respect and admiration of the hospital staff for his resilience, problem-solving approach, and positivity even as he faced almost unthinkable limitations. On December 7, 1984, 15 years after his spine was shattered in Vietnam, more than double the time individuals with his type of injuries are projected to survive, Mr. Frey moved out of the Spinal Cord Injury facility at Jefferson Barracks Veterans Hospital and into his own home--a remarkable accomplishment for a person with complete tetraplegia. Since then, Mr. Frey has lived on his own for over 25 years, and he is still going strong. Today he actively manages his daily care with the help of a team of care specialists, and he continues to take full charge of his health through preventative care and regular collaboration with VA doctors. He has the benefit of a strong social network and a self-confidence that has allowed him to bounce back from setbacks. He also remains an avid St. Louis Cardinals fan and regularly attends games. In fact, Mr. Frey developed a special friendship with the late, great St. Louis Cardinals broadcaster Jack Buck, who befriended Mr. Frey in the 1970s and encouraged him along the way. Having survived over 40 years since his injury, Mr. Frey is one of the longest living tetraplegics in the VA system. I honor him today for his wonderful example in coping with his disability. His spirited approach to life is emblematic of the courage, honor, and strength of this country's veterans who fight for our freedom. His partnership with the many great professionals in the VA healthcare system in St. Louis, who at once serve him and revere him, is uplifting and embodies how our VA system can work best. I join the people of Missouri, and all Americans, in saluting Mr. Frey's courage and to humbly thank him for all that he has done, and for all that he endured, for this country. Mr. Michael Frey is a true American hero.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Mr. Eero Saarinen. Mr. Saarinen was born in Finland on August 20, 1910, immigrated with his family to the United States in 1923, and became an American citizen in 1940. A master of American 20th century architecture, Mr. Saarinen passed away on September 1, 1961. In 1948, Mr. Saarinen won the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Competition with his design for the Saint Louis Gateway Arch, creating a monument which, in his words, ``would have lasting significance and would be a landmark for our time.'' One of our Nation's most iconic monuments, the Gateway Arch symbolizes Saint Louis' role as the ``Gateway to the West'' and celebrates our Nation's westward expansion. Famed architect Cesar Pelli commented that the Arch is ``a perfect combination of a free gesture with a romantic view of modern technology.'' Today, the Arch remains Mr. Saarinen's most widely recognized work. Mr. Saarinen also designed several well known structures including the Trans World Airlines Flight Center at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport and the main terminal at Washington Dulles International Airport, which is renowned for its gracefully curving roof, suggestive of flight. Missouri is fortunate to also host the Firestone Baars Chapel. Designed by Mr. Saarinen, the chapel features a unique four-foyer design, and is located on the campus of Stephens College in Columbia. In addition to his accomplishments in the field of architecture, Mr. Saarinen was also a groundbreaking designer of furniture. In 1956, he created the tulip chair, featured on the original Star Trek television series and considered a classic of industrial design. In recognition of his many achievements, Mr. Saarinen was elected, in 1954, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, considered the highest formal recognition of artistic merit in the United States. In 1962, Mr. Saarinen was posthumously awarded the Gold Medal from the American Institute of Architects. The highest honor bestowed by the organization, it is conferred in recognition of a ``significant body of work of lasting influence on the theory and practice of architecture.'' On behalf of me and the people of Missouri, it is my sincere pleasure to honor the life, achievements, and enduring contributions of Mr. Eero Saarinen to Missouri and the Nation.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the extension of the Federal Aviation Administration authorization, which includes a number of critical policy reforms that will make our skies safer for millions of Americans and their families. On the evening of February 12, 2009, Continental flight 3407, operated by Colgan Air, departed from Newark International Airport for Buffalo, NY. The 45 passengers and five crewmembers were just miles from the Buffalo airport when a series of events resulted in the death of all aboard as well as a father on the ground whose home was the unfortunate final resting place of flight 3407. Over this last year and a half, I have gotten to know many of the families of the victims. They are a constant presence here in Washington, DC, working to improve safety conditions so that others are spared the same loss they have had to endure. Sitting in my office last spring, as the NTSB began to release information on the crash, I discussed with the families the tremendous value of their advocacy. For decades the system has been slow to change and in the mean time innocent lives have been lost. We discussed the possibility of seizing on this very legislation as a vehicle for change--to bring accountability and transparency to the system--to strengthen the training requirements and push forward to achieving--not just ``one level of safety''--but a ``higher level of safety.'' As I speak to you today many of those family members are with us here in Washington. It is because of their tireless efforts--their unwavering pursuit for justice--that we are in a position today to take some of the most significant steps in improving the safety of the nation's aviation system in years. The measures we are considering in this extension are the result of bipartisan efforts in both the Senate and the House yielding a number of provisions that I have worked to advance--and that aim to bring increased oversight and accountability to the system that force the FAA to respond to the growing concerns over crewmember fatigue and commuting--that strengthen the training requirements for our commercial pilots to ensure that those who are trusted with the lives of so many have the critical experience needed to safely operate an aircraft and respond accordingly in the event of an emergency. I want to recognize my colleagues, Chairman Dorgan and Chairman Rockefeller, who have been working around the clock on trying to bring the FAA reauthorization bill to the floor. We still have work to do, and I look forward to joining them after the summer work period to see the larger legislative package, which is long overdue, sent to President's desk. It is my sincere hope, that these good people who have suffered such sorrow at the loss of mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, husbands, wives that they can return home, their heads held high, knowing that they turned their loss into action, and that their efforts might spare others the same pain that they themselves have endured. I thank the families for their strength. I thank them for their steadfast advocacy. The American people owe them a debt of gratitude for the work they have done over these many months.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles Against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. will meet on Wednesday, August 4, 2010, at 1 p.m., to conduct a hearing. For futher information regarding this meeting, please contact Erin Johnson at 202-228-4133.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in recognizing Devon Alexander ``The Great'' of Saint Louis, MO. It is an honor to celebrate and pay tribute to Devon's undefeated boxing career and commitment to giving back to his community. Devon was born on February 10, 1987, in North Saint Louis. Seven years later, he began his boxing career after discovering a gym run by St. Louis police officer Kevin Cunningham. The gym was housed in the basement of a former St. Louis City Police Station in the neighborhood of Hyde Park, which had one of the highest crime rates in the city of St. Louis at the time. Devon continued to improve in the sport of boxing, eventually joining the ranks of the most recognized amateur boxers in the United States. His long list of accomplishments stands as a testament to his love of the sport and personal dedication to success. As an amateur, Devon participated in almost 300 fights and won every title possible in St. Louis and many at the national level. The titles included four-time Silver Gloves national champion from age 10 to 14; three-time Police Athletic League national champion; 2001 Junior Golden Gloves national champion and Junior Olympic national champion before moving on to win the World Junior Olympics, where he was also named Best Boxer; 2003 U.S. National Champion for those 19 and under; the U.S. National Championship in 2004 in the 141-pound junior welterweight division; and was invited to join the U.S. National Team. On May 20, 2004, at the age of 17, Devon made the decision to become a professional boxer. He continued to win and amassed a professional record that stands at 20 wins and zero losses. As a professional boxer, Devon faced and received praise from some of boxing's most recognized names. On August 7, 2010, Devon Alexander ``The Great'' marks his return to St. Louis to defend his undefeated title. He is a strong example of what hard work and perseverance can accomplish. Devon's journey from adversity to success is an inspiration to countless others and it is truly commendable. Devon will use all proceeds from the ``Devon Alexander Hometown Hero Celebration'' that will be held on August 1, 2010, at St. Louis City Hall, to benefit nonprofit boxing organizations in the St. Louis amateur boxing community. Devon Alexander ``The Great'' has made the city of St. Louis and the State of Missouri proud. I ask that the Senate join me in honoring Devon Alexander ``The Great'' for his personal success and service to the Saint Louis community and to our country. I am proud to recognize this extraordinary Missourian and wish him many more healthy, happy, and successful years to come.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles Against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., will meet on Wednesday, August 4, 2010, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Erin Johnson at 202-228-4133.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, on April 13, 2010, the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles of Impeachment Against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., adopted two rules to govern aspects of its pretrial proceedings. On July 14, 2010, the committee adopted two additional rules. The first rule, adopted pursuant to rule 26.7(a)(1) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, establishes seven members as the committee quorum. In the interest of fairness and continuity, and consistent with prior impeachment trials, the committee adopted this rule and established a ``natural'' quorum of at least seven of its members to receive evidence and conduct the business of the committee. The second rule delegates the authority of the committee to the chairman and vice chairman to conduct the daily operations of the committee. This includes, but is not limited to, hiring staff, issuing administrative orders, ensuring compliance with those orders, communicating with counsel for the parties, determining a course of proceeding, and for any other purposes necessary for the committee to discharge its responsibilities and address any other administrative or procedural matters. The third rule delegates to the chairman, in consultation with the vice chairman, the committee's authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses called to testify or produce documents during all committee proceedings. Senate impeachment rule XI grants to the Impeachment Trial Committee the power granted by Senate impeachment rule VI to the Senate ``to compel the attendance of witnesses.'' The fourth rule, adopted pursuant to rule 26.7(a)(2) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, reduces to one member the committee quorum for taking sworn pretrial testimony. Judge Porteous has asked to examine certain witnesses in advance of the committee's evidentiary hearings, which will begin on September 13, 2010. Although the pretrial examination of witnesses in a Senate impeachment trial remains rare, the committee has concluded that it should, in the circumstances of the present impeachment, permit a limited number of them. The rule implements the committee's determination that pretrial examinations may proceed before a quorum of one member. As with prior impeachment proceedings, and pursuant to the rules of this committee, the evidentiary hearings will take place in the presence of a natural quorum of at least 7 of its 12 members. I ask unanimous consent to have those rules printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I congratulate Mr. Jeff Theerman, executive director of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, MSD, on his election as the new president of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, NACWA. Mr. Theerman is an accomplished leader and committed environmental steward. He has dedicated his career to the improvement of the environment and public health in Missouri, and throughout the Nation. Without a doubt, he is ideally suited for this national leadership position with NACWA. Mr. Theerman has served Missouri through his work at MSD for over 25 years. In October of 2003 he was named MSD's executive director, willingly and ably accepting accountability for all aspects of the utility's operations. As MSD's executive director, Mr. Theerman leads one of the Nation's largest wastewater and stormwater management utilities, providing services to approximately 1.4 million people in the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County. Under his leadership, the MSD currently operates seven wastewater treatment facilities, treating an average of 330 million gallons of water per day and maintaining 9,649 miles of sewers. Since joining others in founding NACWA 40 years ago, the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District has benefitted from its active engagement with the organization. A member of NACWA's board of directors since 2004, Mr. Theerman has served as the organization's secretary, treasurer, and vice president. It is fitting that his election as president coincides with the 40th anniversary of NACWA's advocacy on behalf of the Nation's clean water agencies--and the environment we all value so much. Mr. Theerman is a great example of accountable and responsible leadership in my State. Under his able leadership, NACWA looks forward to proactively and effectively addressing the complex 21st century water quality challenges we face as a Nation. On behalf of myself and the people of Missouri, it is my sincere pleasure to congratulate Jeff Theerman on his election as president of NACWA. I am certain his actions will ensure continued water quality progress for St. Louis, MO, and the Nation.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles Against Judge G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., will meet on Tuesday, July 13, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. or such other time as may be convenient, to conduct an executive business meeting. For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Erin Johnson at 202-228-4133.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, a few months ago we completed debate on one of the most significant reforms of American health care in decades. As a result of that work we will see over 30 million Americans who haven't had access to health insurance gain that access. The law that we passed helps all Americans, but especially the most vulnerable, gain access to quality, affordable health insurance. Today I rise to recognize an organization that for 10 years has been similarly working to provide care for our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. The Association for Community Affiliated Plans, ACAP, is a national trade organization representing 51 community-based health plans in 25 States, together covering over 7 million people. Its nonprofit Safety Net Health Plan members provide health coverage through public insurance programs, primarily Medicaid, Medicare, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, delivering desperately needed health services to low-income and vulnerable Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. Coordinating with State and local governments, community groups and health care providers, ACAP plans, by delivering the services made possible by Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP, serve as a safety net for those who fall through the gaps in a system that largely relies on employer-provided or privately purchased coverage. In 2000, 17 safety net plans, often started by community health centers who were serving uninsured and Medicaid patients, came together to form ACAP. In the ensuing decade ACAP plans have grown from covering 1 million people in 2000 to 7 million today. These plans, like Children's Mercy Family Health Partners in my home State of Missouri, remain deeply rooted in their communities, serving those who need help the most. Over 55,000 of my constituents receive their insurance from Children's Mercy Family Health Partners as they provide a critical safety net that makes a difference in Missouri. I commend the Association for Community Affiliated Plans and its members for their service to our Nation's underserved populations, as well as congratulate them on their 10th anniversary of supporting the Nation's nonprofit Safety Net Health Plans.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to our Korean war veterans and to express my strong support for and admiration of the Harry S. Truman Library Institute, the nonprofit partner of the Truman Library, that is leading our Nation's commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the start of the Korean war. On this important anniversary, we must not forget the lessons from this oft-forgotten war, nor the men and women who demonstrated legendary courage and valor in the face of unspeakable brutality. Sixty years ago in Independence, MO, on June 25, 1950, President Harry S. Truman received word that the free people of South Korea had been invaded by some 135,000 communist troops from the North. America's 33rd President responded swiftly and decisively, for, in his words, ``In my generation, this was not the first occasion when the strong had attacked the weak.'' Today, the fateful crossing of the 38th parallel by communist forces stands as the opening paragraph of one of the most brutal chapters in our American history, the Korean war. It is impossible to understand our world today--and to have an informed view on the conflict that continues to seethe on the Korean peninsula--without understanding the Korean war. And yet, the first conflict in the Cold War is sometimes called the ``Unknown War,'' or worse, the ``Forgotten War'' because it is not widely taught, studied or understood. That is why, on this important occasion, we must rise to honor the courage and sacrifice of our Korean war veterans--so we can never forget. We cannot and will not forget that nearly 1.8 million Americans served in Korea, along with the forces of the Republic of Korea and 20 other members of the United Nations, to defend freedom and democracy. We will not forget that nearly 33,739 Americans died in battle during the war. We will not forget that nearly 92,100 troops were wounded in action during the conflict. We will not forget that more than 8,100 men and women never came home, and are still listed as missing in action or prisoners of war. We have, as we recognize the 60th anniversary of the start of the Korean war, an important opportunity to examine the roots and legacy of the Korean war and to honor each individual who, in the defense of freedom, bravely faced aggression of devastating tyranny. I urge all Americans to observe the 60th anniversary of the Korean war and to take this opportunity to learn about the conflict and, most importantly, the men and women who participated in it. Their legacy is one of great honor. I want to recognize the Korean War Veterans Appreciation Ceremony--held on June 21, 2010, in the hometown of one of Nation's great leaders, President Harry S Truman, as a sterling symbol of our Nation's commitment to always remember, understand, and honor our brave Korean war heroes and the history of the Korean war. I want to especially recognize the men and women at the Harry S Truman Library Institute who tirelessly labored to make the Appreciation Ceremony possible and a tremendous success. It is with great regret I will not be able to join many Missourians, many veterans, my esteemed colleague, Congressman Ike Skelton, who is a tremendous student of military history, and keynote speaker GEN David Petraeus, a modern-day American war hero, on June 21 in Independence to recognize this anniversary and celebrate Korean war veterans. However, I know this will be a momentous event on a momentous occasion. I stand with all of those at the event in remembering the Korean war, in honoring Korean war veterans, in paying respect to the remaining POWs and MIAs and the fallen servicemembers, and in celebrating America's freedom, which has for so long been guaranteed by our fighting men and women.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today, we are going to be voting on a significant yet controversial resolution introduced by Senator Murkowski. This resolution, S.J. Res. 26, squarely confronts the issue of how the United States will address the issue of climate change and the regulation of greenhouse gases. The resolution speaks directly to whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency should be allowed to regulate sources of greenhouse gases. This is an important issue for the U.S. Senate to address. In short, the Murkowski resolution disapproves of EPA's recent endangerment finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. This rule is a result of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling directing EPA to make a determination as to whether or not greenhouse gases are a public endangerment. After 2 years of consideration of the scientific evidence, the EPA found that six greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. Senator Murkowski's resolution would nullify this decision. While I am sympathetic to the concerns raised by Senator Murkowski, the impact of her resolution would be, among other things, to negate the significant progress the EPA has made in increasing fuel economy standards for vehicles. For that reason I am unable to support it. Instead, I am working with my colleague, Senator Rockefeller, to pass his bill, S. 3072, of which I am a cosponsor, to preserve the EPA's ability to regulate emissions from vehicles but allow the Congress an additional 2 years to address the regulation of all other sources of greenhouse gases. Like, Senator Murkowski, I believe that the best way to address climate change is to allow Congress time to pass comprehensive legislation, not rely on regulations handed down by the EPA. A legislative approach would allow us to mitigate what likely would result from EPA regulation of stationary sources: unfair cost increases that will be borne by millions of Americans who have no choice but to rely on energy produced from coal. This is my biggest concern, as eighty-five percent of the energy produced in Missouri comes from coal. I have long stated that I cannot support an approach to greenhouse gases regulation that will unfairly impact Missourians or unduly harm Missouri's small businesses just because they happen to be in a state that is largely reliant on coal energy. Unfortunately, while the resolution offered by Senator Murkowski is an attempt to give Congress greater time to address these types of concerns in any climate regulation, it also negates a historic agreement between the EPA and the auto industry. This goes too far. Last year, in an unprecedented announcement, the auto industry agreed to allow the federal government to set new standards for vehicle emissions and worked in concert with the government to set these new standards. This was a model of effective, reasonable negotiated rulemaking and should be embraced, not negated. These new standards will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by a projected 1.8 billion barrels, while providing real benefits for consumers. Compared with today's vehicles, a family purchasing a vehicle under the new standards will save, on average, more than $3,000 on fuel costs over the life of that vehicle. If the Congress passes Senator Murkowski's resolution, it will effectively eliminate these new standards. I believe it would be a mistake to jeopardize the progress we have made with the auto industry, lose the consumer benefits of increased fuel economy and lose the benefit to our national security of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. This is why I am working with Senator Rockefeller to pass his alternative approach to delay EPA regulation of all other sources of greenhouse gases for 2 years. I believe this is a better option that will not unfairly penalize Missourians. I look forward to working with Senator Rockefeller, as well as Leaders Reid and McConnell to secure a vote on this very important legislation.