Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I congratulate a special group of students from my home state of Missouri. The Kirkwood High School Symphonic Orchestra has earned the honor of performing in New York City at the 2010 Instrumental Music Festival at Carnegie Hall, which is being held from March 26 through March 29. The Kirkwood High School Symphonic Orchestra is one of three instrumental groups throughout the Nation to be honored with this remarkable opportunity. These students have my admiration and my sincere congratulations. I know they will be great ambassadors for all students in Missouri. It is clear that this notable achievement is a direct result of the students' discipline and dedication to their musical talent. Under the direction of orchestral program director Patrick Jackson, these young musicians are locally renowned and have earned national acclaim for their work. Particularly noteworthy was their performance at the 2008 Heritage Music Festival in New York City. That performance, which received perfect marks from the judging panel, was so stirring that more than one judge was moved to tears. It is a fitting advance in the storied history the students of the Kirkwood High School Symphonic Orchestra are writing that they would be invited to play in the world- famous Carnegie Hall. As you can imagine, becoming a member of this elite ensemble is not easy. Members of the Kirkwood High School Symphonic Orchestral Program make a 9-year commitment that begins in 4th grade and continues through the students' senior year in high school. Mr. Jackson has directed the symphonic orchestra for two decades. During that time, participation has grown from 19 students to more than 300. As a testament to Mr. Jackson's commitment to his students, he has been honored by former students in Who's Who Among American High School High School Teachers 17 times. Moreover, the resounding support for the symphonic orchestra from the communities of Kirkwood and Saint Louis has been inspiring. In order to make the trip, the students reached their fundraising goal of $72,000 with the help of local radio, TV stations, and newspapers promoting their yearlong ``Road to Carnegie Hall.'' Inspired by these young musicians, members of our own Saint Louis Orchestra were moved to volunteer their time and expertise with the students in advance of their performance. Mr. President, I understand how difficult being a kid in this day and age can be. All too often, we read and hear negative stories about America's children that seem to suggest a generation in crisis. These Kirkwood students make it clear that this is not so. I am proud to shine a light on this group of young people who strive for greatness and embrace the fact that the greatest heights can be achieved through hard work and discipline. On behalf of myself and the people of Missouri, I congratulate the Kirkwood High School Symphonic Orchestra and wish them the best of luck during their time at Carnegie Hall.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am confused about why the hearing we had scheduled this afternoon cannot go forward. The subject matter of this hearing is oversight of the contract that is engaged in police training in Afghanistan in the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight. This is a hearing that is getting to the heart of the matter; that we have a real problem with the mission part in Afghanistan on police training because of problems with these contracts--problems with oversight at the State Department. We have now canceled the hearing because we have been told we can't have it. The witness from the State Department has been canceled, the witness from the Defense Department has been canceled, and the inspectors general who were coming to testify about a GAO report that just came out last week that was damning in its criticism in the oversight of these contracts.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I don't get it.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, we have had a lot of that childhood story we all learned of ``Chicken Little.'' We have had a lot of Chicken Little around this building in the last few months: The sky is falling, the sky is falling. You know, I woke up this morning, I looked up and the sky was not falling. Every day that goes by in America people are going to realize the sky is not falling. In fact, as time goes on that sky is going to get bluer and brighter because people in America are going to realize this bill is not full of booby traps, it is full of good things that will reform health care. I rise this afternoon to take a couple of minutes to talk about a new low of obstructionism, taking game playing to a whole new level. In 10 minutes I was supposed to convene a hearing on the contracts for police training in Afghanistan. This is a very important part of our mission in Afghanistan, the training of local police departments. There was a witness who was going to be there from the State Department, a witness there from the Defense Department, the Inspectors General were going to be there. Just last week GAO wiped out a contract that had been let on police training because of problems in the way the contract was competed. So this hearing was timely and it is important. We cannot succeed in Afghanistan if we do not have effective police training. These contracts are problematic. The State Department is supposed to be overseeing them. We have hundreds of millions of dollars not accounted for. So what do I find out this morning? The Republican party is not going to let us have the hearing. What in the world? Why in the world are we not being allowed to work this afternoon? Why in the world are we not able to ask questions at a hearing in a few minutes as to why the police training is not going well in Afghanistan and how we can do better? Our men and women are over there and they are at risk if we do not get this right. I don't get it. I don't get what the purpose of saying no is. I don't get what we accomplish. We are sent here to work. We are paid by the people of this country to work. The idea that I had to call these witnesses and say go home because the Republicans will not let us have a hearing-- somebody has to explain this to me. Disagree with us, debate, vote no-- but let us work. I implore you: Let us work.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, there are those in this body who will say vote for the side-by-side because it does more. It does not. It is cover. It is very weak; 50 votes to waive. Everybody would love to go after mandatory spending. We do not have the will to go after discretionary spending. It is a joke if anybody thinks this body is ready to take on mandatory spending. This is a very baby step to control growth by 1 percent beginning next year for 3 years. When you look at what State governments are doing and local governments are doing and what America's households are doing, and we cannot control growth of 1 percent for 3 years? We are cutting nothing. We are cutting nothing. Everyone in the country is cutting but here, where we print money. This is a reasonable approach. If we cannot take this baby step, then we have got to admit to the American people we do not get what they are going through; we are completely out of touch.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Pryor amendment and in favor of the Sessions-McCaskill amendment on us trying to get our fiscal house in order. Right now in America, most families are figuring out where they can cut the budget. Most families are figuring out what the extras are that even though we don't want to give them up, we have to give them up. That is what America is doing right now. Most local governments are doing the same thing. They are sitting around rooms trying to figure out where they can cut budgets because their revenue is down. In Missouri, the Governor has had to cut the budget significantly. Even with the stimulus money we sent to Missouri to help them balance their budget, they are cutting programs. They are cutting employees. They are doing what they have to do to balance the budget. Then we get to Washington. Everybody in America is cutting back except Washington. We came very close a few weeks ago--59 votes--to a very modest baby step. We are not talking about something that is earth shattering here. We are talking about limiting the size of growth. We are not cutting anything. The Sessions-McCaskill amendment cuts nothing. All it does is limit the size of growth, of discretionary spending in both the defense budget and the domestic budget. We had 59 votes to limit the growth of discretionary spending. Would it be great if we could do the same thing with mandatory right now? I think it would be. I think it would be terrific if we could limit the size of growth of mandatory spending right now. Could we, in fact, roll back some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest? I would be for that. The bottom line is we have 59 votes for a baby step. So what happens around here when we have 59 votes for a baby step? We come up with an amendment, frankly, that is more cover than substance. It is time to take a hard look in the mirror. If we can't do Sessions- McCaskill, what can we do around here? What can we do to show the American people we understand that government can't continue to grow when revenues aren't? We have done some big, bold things--and I have been supportive of all of them--to bring us back from the brink of a recession. They were very important. But I have been so discouraged by what has been going on around here the last few days: the circling of the wagons. This amendment, with all due respect--and he is my friend; we have worked together on many things--but 50 votes to waive, are you kidding? You have to have 60 votes now to waive, and they are lowering it to 50. The only changes we have made to the Sessions-McCaskill amendment since that 59-vote margin we got a few weeks ago is we moved down how many votes you have to have for emergency spending. It is no longer subject to a 67-vote point of order. This was done to address the concerns that some Members had about Congress's flexibility to respond to emergencies, though it is very hard to find any emergency in history that Congress hasn't addressed with more than 67 votes. We moved that number down. Now the caps only cover 3 years. A 1-percent growth over the next 3 years, when every other government in America is cutting? A 1-percent growth over 3 years. Is that so hard? There are no caps on this year in this amendment and no caps for 2014. The Pryor amendment only has 1 year of caps and it can be waived with 50 votes, and then it purports to try to mandate that the fiscal commission do some things. By the way, if the fiscal commission doesn't do it in time, then none of this counts. We are outsourcing our responsibilities here. I was for the fiscal commission. I was a cosponsor. I think we have to be honest about what this body is capable of doing and what it is not capable of doing. But did I think this body was not capable of 1 percent of growth for 3 years in discretionary spending? I had no idea this body wasn't capable of that. The pressure that is being put on Members as part of that 59 is depressing to me. This is one of those moments where I separate from leadership of my party. I am proud to separate from leadership of my party, because this is the right thing to do right now. America doesn't think we get it, and you know what. They are right. We don't. A 1-percent growth in government in discretionary spending for the next 3 years is a reasonable approach to what we are looking at in terms of both our deficit and our debt. I am sorry leadership does not agree with me on this. I am sorry leadership does not think this is good public policy. But I have to tell you, we worry around here about elections. I will tell you, the folks who are thinking this side by side is somehow going to cover them from the wrath of the American people when it sinks in that we are not even willing to limit growth in a meaningful way in this country--when I am in the grocery store when I go home on the weekends, that is what I am constantly told when I run into people: It just doesn't feel like you guys get it. If we end up with less than 59 votes today, if we go backward rather than forward, do you know what I am going to have to tell them when I see them in the grocery store this weekend? You are right, the majority of my party does not get it. By the way, I am willing to stand right now and cosponsor anything we want to limit the growth in mandatory. I am for that too. I am for doing whatever we need to do to make sure we look at the revenue side. I am for that also. But this is a baby step, and if we cannot take the baby step right now at this moment in history with this mess we are facing in terms of finances, then I think we are in a world of hurt, just a world of hurt. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. At the risk of predicting bipartisanship is going to break out at every corner of this place, I saw my friend was on the floor and I wanted to take a minute to come and talk about what this amendment represents on several levels. First, it is truly a bipartisan effort. My friend from Alabama, with whom I have worked closely on this amendment, is right. There is plenty of blame to go around and we spend a whole lot of time on the blame game on this floor. This is a moment we can get beyond that. This is a moment we can support our President, we can speak to fiscal accountability, which many of my friend who are in my party and many of my friends in the other party like to talk about. But there is the talk and then there is the walk. We have a lot of talk about fiscal accountability but so often we kind of do not want to walk the walk. This is a moment we can walk the walk. The President wants to do this. In fact, as my friend pointed out, the President's spending freeze goes further than this amendment. It goes further than what we are proposing to do. This is not an unreasonable amendment. In fact, it leaves out emergency spending, which we have talked a lot about this year. It leaves out this year because of the kind of critical economic situation in which we find ourselves. It leaves out wartime spending for those conflicts the Congress has authorized. But everybody else is in the pool. Everybody else is in. We have to look at, over the board, the kind of spending freezes where 1 to 2 percent is enough in light of the deficit we are facing. We are so close to passing this. We are so close. I am not sure if we succeed in passing it that confetti is going to drop from the sky or balloons are going to come down, but they should, because it will be a moment, maybe the first moment in a long time, that the American people, if they were paying close attention, would think to themselves: You know, maybe they get it, just maybe they get it. If we fail to pass this modest, appropriate path to fiscal responsibility--if we fail to pass this, then I don't blame the people for whom I work. I do not blame them if they shake their heads in wonderment. What is it going to take? How much money are we going to pretend we have, year after year, handcuffing the greatness of this Nation? Because if we are honest about it, this Nation has been great for many reasons: our values, the strength of our military, but at the end of the day, this Nation has been great because we were an economic power. We were the country everyone looked to about how we did our economy, how we promoted entrepreneurs, how the free market lifted all boats. We will not be able to survive in economic greatness if we do not figure this out. In fact, if we look over our shoulder right now, there are a couple of big guys coming up on us and they hold our debt. They hold our debt. I know I have some fence sitters particularly on my side. I say to all the fence sitters, this is not as aggressive as the President has laid out. Support your President. Freeze spending at a reasonable level, leaving out emergencies, leaving out wars that we have in fact signed off on in Congress, and let's get busy showing the American people once and for all that we get it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, this amendment is one of those opportunities where we get to walk the walk. There is an awful lot of talk about how we have to do something about spending. There is a lot of misinformation out there about this amendment. First of all, it exempts emergencies. It exempts mandatory spending, such as UI and COBRA. It exempts our wars. It exempts emergency spending. It is less aggressive than the President's spending freeze that he has laid out for next year. It does not apply until the next fiscal year. This is the moment we can walk the walk instead of just talking the talk and show the American people we get it. Two percent is not unreasonable in terms of increases every year when we look at the pile of debt we have to deal with in the coming decades. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(G)(3) of the statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I am assuming if they get to the point, then it is food stamps, right?

Mrs. McCASKILL. There is other governmental assistance that is available to them. Maybe they will have to lose their homes. They would have to go to homeless shelters. What I am trying to get at is there is a cost to this. It is not like all of a sudden the government is not going to get any cost if these people stop getting unemployment insurance. If they lose their health insurance, it is not as though they are going to not get treated in the emergency room if they get hit by a car on Monday. We are going to take care of them in the emergency room. We are all going to pay for it. This is wrong. I hope the Senator sticks around and renews this motion for a while. I hope some of us stick around and help. The American people need to realize how out of touch this place has gotten.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Tax cuts for working folks.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I think it was. Reconciliation only lasts for so long and then they sunset. I think that was one of those things where a massive amount of government liability was incurred through reconciliation at that time. Let me also ask a couple questions about the stimulus. I know the Senator from Kentucky was offered a chance to have an amendment paid for by the stimulus. I don't think that we have talked enough about what is left of the stimulus money and what it is for. It is my understanding--and correct me if I am wrong--that a big chunk of the stimulus that is left is in fact the tax cuts for working families. In fact, the tax cuts were a 2-year period. So, of course, that was about one-third of the money, and only half of that has been paid out because we have only been through a year of the stimulus. We still have money waiting to go out in the form of tax cuts to 95 percent of America--in fact, the exact opposite folks who got the tax cuts under George Bush. Is that my understanding about what is remaining in the Treasury as it relates to stimulus?

Mrs. McCASKILL. I have a couple more questions. I wasn't here when the major tax cuts went through in the Republican Congress with President Bush--the tax cuts that were supposed to bring about great prosperity and job creation in our country. Of course, they didn't. We have had record job losses. As President Bush left office, my recollection is that we were having between 600,000 and 700,000 job losses every month. Clearly, the plan that these tax cuts would be a time of wine and roses for all didn't work out. My recollection is that that tax cut was done by reconciliation, wasn't it?

Mrs. McCASKILL. In that bill, they even outlawed the ability of the government to negotiate for lower prices based on volume. Those are ``good business practices''--make sure we cannot get a good deal based on how many drugs we are going to buy. We cannot even lower the cost of this massive government entitlement program by negotiating for lower prices based on volume. They outlawed that.

Mrs. McCASKILL. They have made a fortune on the backs of taxpayers.

Mrs. McCASKILL. It was 24. Do you know who the Senators were who voted for this massive, government-run entitlement program that added hundreds and billions of dollars to our debt--not tax cuts? We can argue about whether tax cuts create jobs. Clearly, those didn't because we inherited a big mess in terms of job creation. But do you know who the Senators serving on that side are who now want to preach about fiscal responsibility and pay for programs--how many were willing to put that kind of program on the credit card? They were Senators Alexander, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Chambliss, Cochran, Collins, Cornyn, Crapo, Enzi, Grassley, Hatch, Hutchison, Inhofe, Kyl, Lugar, McConnell, Murkowski, Roberts, Sessions, Shelby, Snowe, and Voinovich. All of it was a massive government entitlement program run out of Washington--big government, big bill, not paid for, and there was not one word about it needing to be paid for. And we fast forward to now. That is a big part of our deficit. We now figured out on Medicare D that we transferred a bunch of taxpayer money straight to the bottom line profits of the pharmaceutical companies. I wasn't here then, but maybe the Senator can enlighten me. My recollection is that the biggest people in favor of Medicare D were pharma.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am not prepared with some of the questions I would like to ask because, frankly, I am surprised. I would like to be able to ask you and compare the numbers in Missouri, the number of families who are going to find out tomorrow morning that even though we have appropriately extended unemployment benefits, that now we are not going to. I think they are going to be as surprised as I am. It is easy to get out of touch in this place. People are deferential to you around here. They open doors for you and bow and scrape. It is easy to forget what people are going through, what families are feeling right now, how hard it is for them to look to the future and still see that American dream on the horizon. Really, 30 days of unemployment? Really? Have we gotten to that? Have we gotten to the point that that is going to be a political football? I think we have to take a hard look in the mirror, if it comes to this-- 30 days of unemployment insurance for families who want to work, who deserve to work, who are trying to work. By the way, let me ask the Senator from Illinois, if the unemployment runs out, where do those families go? What happens then? Where do they go?

Mrs. McCASKILL. Well, it is interesting. It was a big majority to waive the Budget Act. I have the vote here. There were 61 votes to waive the Budget Act, including our friend from Kentucky. I think the CBO score on that was around $450 billion, as I recall.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Not a dime of it paid for--not one dime. It is all on the credit card, one big blob of red ink. Is the Senator aware how many of our friends on the other side of the aisle have new religion--this is new religion about balancing the budget--and how many actually voted for Medicare D? It was a brandnew entitlement program, a massive government entitlement program, a government-run health care-related government program, and not one dime was paid for? Do you know how many on the other side, who are still serving today, voted for this new entitlement program?

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, we have been talking about whether tax cuts were paid for. Let's talk about other things that weren't paid for. That is what this is about. As the Senator knows--in fact, I know the Senator from Illinois gets irritated at me sometimes because I am constantly trying to figure out ways that we can be more fiscally responsible around here. Sometimes I swim upstream on some of those things. I was one of the cosponsors of pay- go. In fact, pay-go was in place in the 1990s, and it was allowed to expire in Congress. It was 2000, or 2001, or 2002, in the early years of the Bush administration, when the Republicans had the majority. They let it go. They said they didn't need pay-go anymore. This is probably the most glaring example, and it gets in my craw, because I now hear so much about fiscal responsibility, and as we struggle with this health care bill, making sure that we pay for it, I look back at Medicare Part D. Now that is a lallapalooza right there, Medicare D. I am wondering if the Senator from Illinois remembers what the vote was on the motion to waive the Budget Act on Medicare D.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Well, I guess what I am trying to ask the Senator is--I do not think most Americans think the Senate is working very well right now. I think most Americans think we are behaving sometimes like children. I think most Americans are not sure what the rules are and what the difference is between a cloture, a filibuster, a motion to proceed, and a motion to recommit; what is the difference between a reconciliation and a conciliation or all of the other terms we throw around here. But there is one thing I think we all need to come to grips with; that is, if we are going to try to stop the place, we need to be proud to own it. I think that goes on both sides of the aisle. If a Senator wants to hold a nomination, I do not think they should be allowed to keep it secret for 10 seconds. If somebody wants to try to hold a bill or wants to object to something, I think this nonsense that they have had in the Senate forever that it is a secret for a while is the stupidest thing that I can possibly imagine. If you are big enough to get elected to the Senate, you ought to be big enough to own what you do with your rights when you get here. Senator Bunning has stood up strong tonight, and he has explained his position. A few of us stuck around and talked about our positions. I think that is about the healthiest thing we can do. I think it is a heck of a lot healthier than running around behind closed doors placing holds that nobody knows are there or why. I make a pledge tonight that if I am ever going to hold anything, the minute I decide to do it, I am going to say what it is, why it is, and I am going to own it. I think it is time that all of us do that. If somebody is not willing to own it, then I hope someone comes to the floor and does to them what we are doing tonight. I think the sooner we own what we are doing with our rights in the Senate, the sooner we wear them like a proud coat of bright-colored feathers, the better off we are going to be in terms of getting things done around here. This is not about making the other side fail. That is not what this is supposed to be about. This is supposed to be about us working together like you are trying to do. My friend, the Senator from Tennessee, you are doing the right thing. You are trying to find common ground and work hard, and there are plenty of us who want to do that. I hope that whatever is motivating you to work as hard as you are working in a bipartisan way, I hope it is contagious because if you can spread it around a little, I think the American people would be so proud that we would quit this nonsense of political holds and political ``gotcha'' amendments. By the way, I am the first to admit this has gone on on both sides. This is an equal opportunity Senate. But it is time that we try to make this place work better. I have to tell you honestly, my dear friend, I think tonight helps. I do not think it hurts. I think it is a good thing, and I am proud to have participated in this tonight. I think the Senate would be a healthier place if we did it more often. I thank the Senator from Illinois for yielding for this time, and I thank him for sticking around as long as he has, so at least we now know what has happened and why.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Have we had this many? Have there been this many obstructions to the regular order of the Senate traditionally?

Mrs. McCASKILL. The Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Rhode Island all came here in the same class. The Senator from Oregon just arrived in January. So we have not been here for a long time to watch how the Senate works and how the Senate traditionally has worked. I know it appeared to my pal from Tennessee that this looked like some organized ambush of the Senator from Kentucky. I have to tell you the truth, we are not that well organized. If we were that well organized, we probably would have been doing more of this a long time ago. I honestly came down to the Senate floor understanding a deal had been made to give Senator Bunning a vote on his amendment. I expected that vote to occur. I had not talked to my office. I was surprised when I got to the floor and realized that Senator Bunning, which he can do under the rules, was going to hold it. I walked up as I was finishing voting on the third bill, and I said to Dick: Are you going to stick around and make him object again? He said: You know, I think I am going to stick around for a while. I just do not feel right going home. At that moment I thought: I do not feel right about going home either. I think it is time, if we are going to do an objection every 5 minutes, and if we are going to have holds--if this was a hold on a nominee, it could wait until Monday. But when Senator Bunning decided to do this, it came at a risk. And the risk it came with was that there were going to be Senators who were going to speak out about it. There were going to be Senators who were going to disagree with him, and they were going to publicly say that this is not the moment. This $10 billion, with all of this deficit spending that has gone on for the last decade, this is not the moment to have one Senator say: I can stop it. So I felt like I wanted to talk about it. But nobody organized this. Nobody said: Jeff Merkley, can you stay? This is just some of us decided we wanted to stay and talk about it. Here is what I ask. Have there been this many objections and holds traditionally in the Senate?

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