Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. These are working folks. They are not--frankly, my family is very blessed. The tax cuts that were passed helped my family. It didn't help some of the families out there now struggling with unemployment. The rest of the stimulus that is out there--I have been interested in Missouri. In fact, I wrote a letter to the budget chairs in Missouri because they were kind of puffing up about how they were going to be able to balance the budget this year. I looked into it and realized that the only way they were balancing the budget this year was because of the stimulus money. It is, in fact, the stimulus money that has gone to Kentucky, gone to Illinois, gone to Missouri, gone to Oregon, gone to Alaska, and gone to Rhode Island. That is what is allowing these State legislatures to keep from making massive layoffs of public school teachers. There would be massive cuts in education in Missouri this year, and, frankly, no cuts in public education would be popular in Missouri. I asked the Missouri legislators. I said: Some of you have been talking about doing away with the stimulus, pulling back the stimulus. In fact, some of our friends across the aisle said we should get rid of the rest of the stimulus. I asked the State legislators: What will you cut if we pull the stimulus? Tell me how Missourians will be hurt if we decide to pull the rest of the stimulus and maybe spend it on other things, such as perhaps this emergency bill dealing with unemployment insurance. They would not tell me. They want the people of Missouri to think they are balancing that budget with fairy dust. They don't want the people of Missouri to know that, in fact, the stimulus is what is out there helping these States balance these budgets because their revenue has dropped off the charts, just like our revenue has, which is causing some of the deficit and which is certainly contributing in a great way to the debt as it relates to a drop in revenue, an increase in unemployment expenses, and then the programs that have been passed in the previous administration not paid for. I have 20,000 Missourians--20,000--who are going to find out sometime in the next 48 hours that they are done with unemployment. I cannot help but believe that if we have this kind of crisis at the other end of the income scale, that all of a sudden we would not have this newfound religion that this is the moment, this is the hour, this is the day that we are going to find new religion about deficits. It is the wrong time. I am a cosponsor of pay-go. I am a cosponsor of the fiscal commission. I don't take earmarks. I voted against the omnibus. I voted against many budget bills because I think there was too much fat in them. I voted against a lot of fiscal measures in this body. But this is not the time to do this on the backs of these families. It is the wrong time.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I wish to take a minute to speak in favor of this amendment. This should not be as hard as it appears. All this amendment is doing is asking us to live up to our vote last year on the budget bill. What we all decided to do last year on the budget bill was set some limits on spending for the next few years. All we are doing with this amendment is saying we are going to have to live up to our vote. It has 2 percent increases every year. People have said there is going to be a problem because of the 67- vote threshold. Well, I have looked over the emergency votes we have had in this Chamber and there has not been a time when we haven't gotten them--on Katrina or other things. It exempts anytime Congress authorizes force. I wish to emphasize that for my colleagues. Anytime Congress has authorized force of our military, it exempts it. Somebody spoke about the veterans. Do my colleagues think we can't get 67 votes for the veterans in this Chamber? Seriously, it is time we begin to live up to what we say, and in the budget bill we all voted to do this. So let's put it in the law as we had in the 1990s. Don't ask me why we let it expire in 2002. I wasn't here. But we had both pay-go and this kind of freeze in the 1990s and we balanced the budget and we created a surplus. Let's go back to that time for the sake of our grandchildren. Madam President, I yield the remainder of the time.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I acknowledge my colleague, Senator Sessions from Alabama, and welcome the opportunity to join him in an attempt to restore some sanity in Congress about spending. I come from a State where there is a requirement of a balanced budget, although, over the last couple years, I am not sure how they would have done that without incredible pain if it hadn't been for the help the Federal Government sent them. There is no question that the fact that we don't have to balance the budget in Washington has led to some very bad habits. I was thinking about spending over the weekend, as this week there are a number of provisions we will debate that I have sponsored or am a big supporter of, including the fiscal task force amendment which went down this morning by a narrow vote, and obviously pay-go, which I have been the lead Senate sponsor on over the last several months. These are all things with which we are trying to fight something that you encounter all the time as a parent. How much easier it is to say yes than no. My kids hate when I give them that lecture because they are always wanting me to say yes. I always say the easiest thing to do is to say yes--yes, you can have that outfit; yes, you can take my car; yes, you can go see your friends, even though I am not sure you finished whatever chores you had around the house. It is always easier to say I will go along with it, it is a good cause. That is what happens around here. It is not like we are spending on evil stuff. We are spending on stuff we believe in--education, highways, our parks, our military--and we are spending on things that make it even harder to say no. The time has come that we all have to feel the pain of saying no. We all have to be willing to suffer the political consequences of saying no. That is why this amendment is such an important step in the right direction. I want to be honest about this because we have a tendency to make things bigger than they are. This isn't going to make a dramatic change in the deficit or the debt. I am not sure how many Americans have focused on the difference between the two, but they are two different things, and it will not make a huge difference. People need to remember that if we took out all discretionary spending and decided we were not going to spend another dime on education, highways or any of the things we decide on spending every year, we will still have a massive deficit problem. We don't fix the deficit by passing this amendment. We don't fix the deficit by saying we are not going to even do discretionary domestic spending anymore. So this is not a fix-all. Do you know what it does? It begins to get us well. It is a little like earmarking. Is earmarking the huge problem? No. But it is similar to a fever; it is a symptom of a disease. This will help us get well. It will be a step toward recovery if we can pass this amendment to freeze our discretionary spending. I am so pleased the White House has called for a freeze. I think this is a wonderful bipartisan moment. I think we are all hankering for a good bipartisan moment right now. I hope we are all hankering for a good bipartisan moment. I got worried this morning on the vote on the fiscal task force because it seemed like there might have been some political games being played. I don't know about anybody else, but I am hankering for a good bipartisan moment. This ought to be one, where Republicans and Democrats set aside who looks good and who looks bad, who gets credit and who gets the blame, and do something we need to do. We used to have a freeze and we used to have pay-go. They were both allowed to expire in 2002. I wasn't here. I am not sure why they were allowed to expire. Did Congress all of a sudden think we don't need pay-go anymore or we don't need limits on discretionary spending anymore because we are out of the woods when it comes to the deficit or debt? I am not sure why that happened. I know most of the folks who let those things expire wish they could take it back. I bet most of the folks who did voting for major entitlement programs without paying for them during that time--I bet they wish they could take it back because now we are in a real mess. The first and most important step to get out of this mess is to vote to control our spending. I am hopeful this will be passed by a wide margin. Some of my friends on the left have said the last thing in the world we should do now is limit spending, that government is the answer in this difficult recession. I voted for the stimulus, and I think the tax cuts in the stimulus, which don't get talked about enough, and the help to the States, which doesn't get talked about enough, and the jobs that will be created this year are very important to the progress we have made in terms of climbing out of the economic hole we found ourselves in a year ago. But we will not get out of this recession on the back of government spending. If we decide it is just about government spending during this recession, we are dealing a very bad hand to our grandchildren. I hope this amendment passes. I hope it is not even controversial. I am so pleased the President is on board, and I am pleased that so many members of the Republican party are on board. Let's take this important step, and then let's live up to it during the appropriations process. Let's realize that pet project at home that we know we can get because we can get an earmark--maybe this is the year to say no and push back from the table and say all those pet projects, those earmarks, are not the right signal we need to send to the American people this year. I thank my colleague from Alabama and Senator Kyl, who were cosponsors on this. I look forward to wide bipartisan support. I look forward to enthusiastic applause tomorrow night in the President's State of the Union Address, when he lays out his freeze on spending. We are all on board now. Let's make it happen. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in honoring the 20th anniversary of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, MO. This Friday's Legacy Awards, honoring Major League Baseball's brightest stars, kicks off what promises to be a season's worth of events marking the 90th year of the establishment of the Negro Leagues, and the 20th anniversary of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. As a Missourian, I am proud that Kansas City is home to what is not only a local jewel but a National treasure which honors the Negro Leagues, its legendary players, and its place in the American civil rights movement. In 1920, Andrew ``Rube'' Foster established the Negro Leagues at the Paseo YMCA in Kansas City. The Leagues flourished from 1920 through well into the 1950s. Once forward-thinking baseball executives signed such standout African-American players as Jackie Robinson and Roy Campanella, interest in the Negro Leagues began to wane. By 1960, as the civil rights movement gained momentum and the best players found their rightful place in the Major Leagues, the Negro Leagues finally folded. In its heyday, the Negro Leagues was a firmly entrenched and beloved part of African-American culture in Kansas City and throughout the upper Midwest, Northeast, and Southern regions of the United States. The museum's Bob Kendrick tells us that many ministers would start church services early on Sundays when the Kansas City Monarchs had a home game on the calendar. Men, women, and children would leave right after church just in time to get to the ballpark, dressed in their Sunday finest, to watch the game. It was the highest level of competition, and players like ``Cool Papa'' Bell, ``Satchel'' Paige, and Josh Gibson always made the game exciting. Kansas City's beloved Buck O'Neil, a former Negro Leagues player, Monarchs' manager and Major League Baseball's first African-American coach, helped establish the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in 1990. Back then it was a tiny one-room office in the historic 18th & Vine District in Kansas City. Its mission--the same as it is today--was to preserve and celebrate the history of African-American baseball. As chairman of the board, Buck O'Neil and his crew took the job seriously, working hard to raise money, acquire what curator Dr. Raymond Doswell has turned into an amazing collection of original memorabilia, and bring worldwide attention to the museum. By 1997, the museum was robust enough to move into its current 10,000 square foot home at 18th & Vine, where today the story of the Negro Leagues comes to life through its exhibits. Over time, the museum has had the privilege of welcoming visitors from around the world, and such dignitaries as U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The museum's National Advisory Board is flush with prominent individuals from the worlds of sports, politics, and the media, all of whom have come to recognize the important role the Museum plays in telling the story of civil rights, sports, and culture in 20th century America. George Will, Ernie Banks, Colin Powell, Lou Brock, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson, and noted documentary producer Ken Burns are all members of this amazing group of supporters. In many ways this museum is Buck O'Neil's legacy. Buck, 94 years young at the time of his death in 2006, left a permanent inspirational mark on the game of baseball and all who were fortunate enough to have crossed his trailblazing path. Kansas City--and America--are fortunate to call him our own. On this the 20th anniversary of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, I ask that we pause for a moment to pay tribute not only to Buck O'Neil, but to the many unsung African-American baseball heroes who helped the Negro Leagues flourish until the better instincts of baseball executives ultimately made the need for such a league obsolete. This remarkable chapter of American history will be preserved forever thanks to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in recognizing the 20th anniversary of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, a truly American treasure.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I had no intention of speaking today, but this place has been a little strange over the last few months in terms of our ability to come together. When I heard my friend from Tennessee talking about the Conrad-Gregg amendment, I realized we had a moment of bipartisan agreement. I wanted to stop and recognize that it is not completely gone. There are Republicans and Democrats who agree on issues. I could not agree more with my friend from Tennessee. I think this statutory commission is our best hope at restoring fiscal sanity in this country. It is important that we adopt it. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment. There are a number of us on this side of the aisle who are cosponsors of the amendment. There are a number of Republicans who are cosponsors. But I am beginning to sense that there may be some political game-playing that is going to occur here, and it worries me. The leader, with all due respect--in a bipartisan moment, I am going to backtrack a little bit. I remember the Republican Party announcing that this was one of their priorities. Now all of a sudden we are hearing that the leader of the Republican Party is opposed to it. Think about that for a minute. Before the shores got rocky for Democrats politically, this was a great idea. Everybody here knows we are not going to fix this problem in the regular order. Everybody knows it. It is not going to happen. So we are going to talk deficits, we are going to continue to say deficits matter, and we are not going to do the things we have to do to fix it. Until people begin to put aside politics and think about the policy that is really involved here and what it means for the future of this country, we are in deep trouble. I implore my friend from Tennessee to restore this as one of the priorities of the Republican caucus, to prevail upon his leader to not--I hope this is not the case, but the rumors are floating around that they have backed off this as a priority because if the Democrats do this, it is going to make them look good. We have to quit making the failure of the other guys our success. This place cannot be about that. By the way, it happens on both sides. I am not saying this is just a problem on the Republican side of the aisle. But we really do have a place where the way politics are played today makes it very difficult for us to come together in a bipartisan fashion. This is a moment in time that this could happen. I implore my friend from Tennessee--and he is my friend. We have been here the same amount of time. We have watched all of this sometimes with our eyes bugging out and our jaws slack as to what goes on around here and how things work. This is a time we can come together and do something that is responsible for this country. I am going to work very hard on my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I hope my friend from Tennessee does the same thing on his side of the aisle. I think we will have a vote on this amendment sometime in the next week or so. It is very important that we stand up and be counted as people who are more worried about our grandchildren than the next election.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to state my support for the extension of unemployment benefits that was included in H.R. 3548. Recent reports on gross domestic product by the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicate that we are out of the recession. However, unemployment is a lagging indicator, and we will need to see more GDP growth before employers start hiring again. In the meantime, families in Missouri and across the country are hurting. The unemployment rate in Missouri is 9.5 percent. American Airlines announced just last week that it would close its maintenance facility in Kansas City, and 490 workers are losing their jobs. I believe we have a responsibility and an obligation to help good, hard working Americans who are struggling in these difficult times. To that end, the extension of unemployment benefits will provide a vital lifeline to people struggling to find work through one of the most severe recessions in our lifetime, and I fully support it. I also strongly support inclusion in this bill of the provisions from the Service Members Homeownership Tax Act, which I introduced. These provisions will ensure that our troops deployed overseas this year and next will not be penalized for their service when they seek to buy their first homes. You cannot shop for a house while you are hunting al-Qaida in Afghanistan or supporting a diplomatic mission to NATO Allies, so it is only fair that service members have additional time to take advantage of the first-time homebuyer tax credit. This bill will give members of the armed, intelligence, and foreign services who were stationed abroad in 2009 or 2010 an additional year to qualify. It will also eliminate the ``recapture'' requirement for servicemembers. Unlike other recipients, they will not have to pay the credit back if they move within 3 years, as long as the relocation is service-related. Finally, Housing Assistance Program benefits that were expanded in the Recovery Act will be exempt from taxation. These temporary benefits are helping cushion the financial blow to military families who are forced to sell their homes in the current, depressed market. Families who are reassigned or are relocating to seek treatment for service-related injuries are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the program. I would note that the cost of extending the first-time homebuyer tax credit for servicemembers will be less than one percent of a full extension of the credit, and that the cost was fully offset in the bill I introduced. Unfortunately, H.R. 3548 went further than only taking care of our men and women in uniform. It also contains a fiscally irresponsible extension and expansion of the first-time homebuyer tax credit for many other Americans. I do not support this extension. Congress created the first-time homebuyer credit last year as a timely, targeted, and temporary response to the housing crisis, designed to reduce excess housing inventories by encouraging home purchases. Judging from home sales over the past few months, the credit has helped stabilize the housing market. However, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has found serious instances of fraud within the program, and economists have suggested that extending the credit is not the most effective way of addressing the remaining problems in the housing market. Now that we are out of crisis, it is time to let the first-time homebuyer credit expire. We simply cannot continue to expand one-time programs from the stimulus and ever expect to return to a state of fiscal responsibility. If we say it is a one- time program, it should be a one-time program. In conclusion, I applaud the important, commonsense steps we have taken for Americans looking for work and for military families. I am disappointed that a broad extension of the first-time homebuyer credit was included in this legislation. I would not have supported an extension of the credit independently. However, the positive elements of this bill outweigh the negative, and I support the overall bill.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a great leader, inspiring public servant and American icon, Senator Edward Moore Kennedy. I do not need to stand here and talk about what the Kennedy legacy has meant and continues to mean to this country. It is, at this point, simply a part of the fabric of our country. I do not need to recite the resume of Edward Kennedy or extol his many accomplishments. His life's work speaks for itself. It will stand the test of time and, no doubt, become even more remarkable when viewed in hindsight. I do not need to reiterate each of the noble causes Senator Kennedy fought for with passion and vigor. We know that his pursuit of dignity, opportunity and respect for every man and woman will benefit generations to come, and inspire so many more to carry on in the cause. Yes, there is no doubt that Senator Edward Kennedy will be remembered far into the future and that history will treat him well, but I want to take some time today to talk about the people here and now that he leaves behind that may be the most telling about Ted Kennedy. In those moments and for those people, we got a chance to see something very special. For some people it was very personal moments shared between family and friends--the opportunity to know him in a way others could only hope to glimpse. And some were his arch enemies at the podium while also his dearest, most respected partners on causes behind closed doors. Some became believers based on passion-filled political speeches delivered from his earliest of days in the spotlight to some of his last, spectacular moments right here on the Senate floor. While others had their lives changed because he was brave enough to stand up for them when the cameras were not rolling and the majority was not on his side. Ted Kennedy, the lion of the Senate, would roar about the need for better health care, improved public schools, and providing help to working families. He knew how to channel the emotion, the urgency and the helplessness he saw in the eyes and heard in the voices of those he was fighting for. And he didn't just beam it from the mountain tops--he worked on the solutions to these needs day in and day out with astute skill. There is a Ted Kennedy that will be remembered in the history books and he will be great and strong and smart and good, but there is also a unique part of Ted Kennedy that will stay with many of us in our own special ways. A politician. A public servant. A patriot. A prince of Camelot. A fighter. A negotiator. A liberal. A brother, husband, father, and friend. The Lion sleeps. . . .

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, the amendment I will be offering speaks to what I see as a very fundamentally flawed process in our appropriations in Congress. I am not in the majority in this body as it relates to the subject of earmarks. I realize I am one of very few in my party and a few more but not a whole lot on the other side of the aisle who do not participate in the earmarking process. I hope my amendment is calling attention to how this process is flawed and why we need to change the process. There are many problems with the process, but two of them I am going to speak briefly about today. One, the process is fundamentally unfair. It is rather mysterious how much money gets set aside for earmarks and who does it and where it happens. It is even more mysterious as to how the decision is made as to how the earmarks are distributed among the Members. I point out that in looking at the appropriations bills that we have handled so far, it is very clear that the process is heavily weighted toward the Members who serve as appropriators. I get that. That is part of the culture that has grown up around earmarking; that is, if you are an appropriator, you are entitled to get more. I am not sure that is a good way to spend public money, but I think it is important to point out that is the process. Fifty percent of all the earmarks in this bill are going to the members of the committee. Last week, it was even more egregious. I don't think most Members realized when we voted on the T-HUD bill, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill last week, that in the Transportation part of the bill, there was $1.6 billion in earmarks. Over 50 percent of that money went to four Members, four States. So out of 50 States, four States got more than half of all the money. Well, when I tell that to people in Missouri, they say: Huh? How does that happen? How can that happen? And I frankly don't have a very good answer for them. The other problem I wish to call to the attention of my colleagues today is not just the process as it relates to how earmarks are distributed but where these earmarks come from. This money is not growing on a secret tree somewhere that we are harvesting. It is coming out of programs. It is coming out of budgets. One of the things I found most troubling is that many of these earmarks are coming out of competitive grant programs or formula grant programs. Formula is a formula because there is a way that is predictable about how the money is distributed--based on the size of the State, based on population; depending on the program, based on geography. It is a formula everybody understands. Taking money out of a formula to fund earmarks takes it from a predictable process based on merit to a very unpredictable process based on who you are. The same thing with competitive grant programs. Competitive grant programs are ones where merit is supposed to rule the day based on criteria set forth. The amendment I will offer basically wipes out the earmarks in one of these competitive grant programs. The program I am referring to is a great program--it is called Save America's Treasures. It was created by executive order in 1998. It is a public-private partnership, and there are specific criteria as to what a project has to have in order to qualify for this money--$20 million. This is a small example. I admit this is not going to change anything, as we keep talking about bending the cost curve, but it is a great example of what I am talking about. It began as a competitive program and it has begun to morph into something more than a competitive program because now half of the money this year will be earmarked, leaving only $10 million for a competitive program. So if your State doesn't get an earmark, either in the House or the Senate, in the bill, then the chances of your State getting any money out of this program have been cut in half. It is only $10 million for the entire country for these grants which are to restore America's historic treasures across the country. That is a problem. Is this an isolated problem? No. No. In fairness to this subcommittee, this is a little problem compared to some of the other competitive grant programs that have been raided for earmarking. The hijacking of public money for earmarking from the competitive grant bus is going on everywhere, and let me give another couple of examples. Last week, when we did the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill, there were two good examples. They are programs that began to provide competition to valued programs across the country. The first one is the Neighborhood Initiatives at HUD, the Housing and Urban Development Department. In 1998, Congress created this program. The interesting thing is it was created to help people who were doing welfare-to-work projects. Great intentions; great program. Ironically, HUD began granting these awards to people based on the competitive criterion that Congress had given them. Congress passes the program, funds the program, and tells HUD these are the competitive bases on which you should make these grants. There were no earmarks in the program at all in 1999--none--after Congress created the program. Beginning in 2001, however, every dime in this program under the Neighborhood Initiatives Program has gone to earmarks. Once again, a competitive merit process morphs over into a completely earmarked process. How about another example of a program--the Economic Development Initiative, also in HUD. Congress introduced the program in 1994; once again, a congressional program. Funds were to be awarded competitively, and for the first couple of years they were. EDI funds were awarded competitively. Congress started earmarking the account beginning in 1998. By 2001, the entire account was earmarked. So Congress began it as a good idea, and said do it competitively. By 2001, competition was gone. Ironically, the statute that sets out the criteria for competitive EDI is still on the books. It is still in the law, but we no longer follow it because there has been a decision to morph that competitive program into an earmark program. I think that competition is a good thing, and this isn't about a bureaucrat somewhere sprinkling fairy dust and supplementing their judgment for the judgment of Congress. In fact, the examples I have given are programs that were designed to be competitive, and in two or three instances they were designed to be competitive by Congress itself and then somehow they have morphed over into a pecking order of priorities based on someone's seniority or the committee they serve on, or even if they are in some political trouble. It seems to me a goofy way to spend money, especially the public's money. I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment. All it does is restore the program to a competitive basis and allow every State to compete on the same basis for the money in that competitive program. When the time is right, I will call up the amendment, once the rules allow me to do so. I yield the floor.

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I understand I cannot call up an amendment right now because of the rules that are currently in place, but I wish to speak about an amendment I will be offering at a later time when the rules permit.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, this amendment is a very small step. It restores a competitive grant program--a small competitive grant program. Over the last decade, competitive and formula grant programs have been decimated by earmarking. Earmarks have become more transparent under reforms that have been made, and that is great. Is the process still fair? No, probably not. The lion's share of the earmarks in this bill, in this program, and in all of the appropriations bills go to the very few Members who serve on one committee. This will allow us to put this money back into a competitive process so all the States in the Nation have an equal opportunity to participate. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to my friend and former colleague, as well as an outstanding woman of service, Carole Roper Park Vaughan. From 1977 through 1994, Carole represented the 51st District of Missouri, which includes the home of President Harry S. Truman, in the Missouri House of Representatives. On September 18, Carole will celebrate her 70th birthday, and I just want to take a few minutes today to honor her and the contribution she made to so many lives in Missouri. Carole was born to Rudy and Rose Roper of Sugar Creek, MO, both children of Croatian emigrants. Carole's father served as the mayor of Sugar Creek for 40 years, from 1940 until 1980, so she came by her political acumen naturally. In fact, while other little girls were playing with dolls, stuffed animals, or having teas, Carole was with her father learning the art of making a deal, a skill she would later take with her to the State legislature. Though politics was in her blood, her dedication to public service did not begin with elected office. After graduating from the University of Missouri-Kansas City with a bachelor of arts degree in education, Carole pursued a teaching career in the Kansas City school district. For 12 years, she taught elementary education in some of the poorest school districts in the Kansas City area. It was here that she fully realized the importance of community involvement. Her students were faced with everyday challenges she had never experienced before, and there was a real need for change. As a teacher, however, Carole felt she was limited in how she could effect the meaningful change that was desperately needed in her community. Despite her pedigree and desire to make a difference, Carole's ascension into public office happened almost by accident. When the current legislator in her district suddenly became ill and died, those in the community who were impressed by her interest in changing the status quo encouraged her run. She filed for office on the day of the filing deadline, and in 1976, she was elected to represent the 51st District of Missouri. Thankfully, for the people of Missouri, there was nothing accidental about her approach to legislating. Hailing from the home of Harry Truman, Carole had a real no-nonsense style about her, and she could get things done. During her 18 years as a member of the Missouri House of Representatives, Carole sponsored 93 bills, many of which became law, including the largest insurance reform bill in Missouri history. But what Carole was most known for was her vigorous pursuit to improve the way the State of Missouri delivered health and mental health care. In 1981, she became the first woman in Missouri history to chair a standing appropriations committee, and for 13 years Carole reigned over the Committee on Appropriations for Health and Mental Health. At the time she was appointed to this position, Missouri was headed into a recession, and there was a desperate need to cut health services. Yet Carole was able to make the necessary changes without sacrificing services. In fact, throughout her tenure as chair of the committee, Missouri reduced overall costs of mental health care programs while improving the services it provided. Carole's dedication to those suffering from mental illness, developmental disabilities, head injuries, and substance abuse was truly unparalleled. While her work with community mental health centers or substance abuse programs seldom made the front page, she worked tirelessly in the pursuit of better treatment for these special citizens. The result of her dedication was the transformation of a badly broken mental health system into a community-based approach that provided real options for some of our most vulnerable. In 1995, Carole retired from the Missouri House of Representatives, but her commitment to her community and the democratic process has continued. She has remained dedicated to improving services for the mentally ill, substance abusers, and victims of domestic violence. She has worked with Thank You Walt Disney Inc. to help restore Walt Disney's downtown Kansas City Studio. She has worked tirelessly to elect democratic candidates who embody the same steadfast dedication to effect change that she had during her time in public service, including devoting countless hours on the phones and going door-to-door for then Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Once again, her hard work paid off. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in wishing Carole Roper Park Vaughan a very happy 70th birthday. She has been a remarkable servant to the citizens of the State of Missouri and I am grateful to call her my friend.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, in observance of the upcoming Women's Equality Day on August 26, 2009, I wish to pay tribute to the women soldiers and civilians of the U.S. Army who serve and defend our great country each day--whether in garrison communities here in the United States, like at Ft. Leonard Wood in my native Missouri, or on the front lines of battle in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world. Although women did not receive equal treatment or recognition while serving in the military during the Civil War or the wars of the 20th century, they now serve in many roles and capacities in the Active, Guard and Reserve components and perform equally as well as their male counterparts. Today's Army fighting women are critical to the success of the Army's mission, and their sacrifice on the battlefield demonstrates a clear call to duty that transcends any supposed gender limitations. One such example of this bravery is Silver Star recipient SPC Monica Brown, who, when her convoy was attacked while on patrol in Afghanistan, disregarded a hail of enemy fire that threatened her own life and jumped into action in her role as a medic to pull wounded soldiers to safety and render lifesaving aid to them. I also think about the heroic actions of SGT Leigh Ann Hester, another Silver Star recipient and military police platoon leader. When Sergeant Hester and her fellow soldiers were ambushed south of Baghdad, she bravely led her unit through an insurgent ``kill zone'' and into a flanking position to assault the enemy with fire, killing three insurgents herself. These acts of selflessness are also mirrored in the spirit of volunteerism and commitment that Army civilian women exhibit as they deploy to combat zones wherever the Army needs them. Like their male counterparts, these women are serving honorably and selflessly as architects, doctors, nurses, lawyers, structural engineers, logisticians, and in scores of other occupational specialties. And like our military women, they do justice to the millions of women who preceded them in history to fight for equal rights for women in America. As we celebrate the great accomplishments of women in the military on Women's Equality Day, it is imperative that our Nation and leaders continue to evaluate additional opportunities for military service by women. While women have achieved and contributed so much to the Army and the overall military mission, some barriers still exist. I look forward to a day when more combat aviation and ground occupational specialties will be open to women, for instance. I look forward to a day when there will be more women in the general officer ranks to accompany my good friend GEN Ann Dunwoody, the Army's first and only female four-star general in its entire 234-year history. Our military and government must never slow its commitment to giving women the access to the full range of opportunities that the military has to offer. In doing so, I am confident that these few remaining barriers will fall. I strongly encourage my fellow members to honor Women's Equality Day on August 26 by thanking the military and civilian women of the U.S. Army and their families of their States for their commitment, bravery and unflinching support to our great Nation.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I rise for a minute to concur with the comments of my colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders. I have spent some time on the phone over the last few weeks with dairy producers in Missouri. What is happening is heartbreaking. And in this economic downturn, it is hard to look everywhere we can be looking. One day, the car sector is grabbing our attention; another day, we are talking about what is going on in terms of utility costs for our constituents; another day, we are back talking about whether people can even afford health care. There are so many places we are trying to look and do what is necessary to get us through this rough patch. Unfortunately, the independent producers do not have a whole lot of lobbyists out there. A lot of the big, multinational agricultural corporations have plenty of help. But the families I know, the families I have talked to, who are trying to continue to produce dairy products for this Nation in the family way and in the independent way, are really on the ropes. I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to Senator Sanders' amendment and that we remember it is not just our car manufactures that are in trouble right now. In almost every sector of our economy, we have trouble, and we cannot neglect one area of our economy in an effort to help another area of our economy. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. My discussion is about the noncompetitive earmarks. I think whatever amendment gets us to more competition, I am for it. I think there are way too many. I could not be a bigger fan of the Senator from North Dakota and what he has done on contracting relating to the war in Iraq. I followed those hearings before I came to the Senate, and I continue to follow them. He has been a groundbreaker in the area of wanting competition. If you look at the billions of dollars that were wasted in the Iraq war over noncompete contracts, and if you look at the atrocities committed in the name of noncompetition which the Senator from North Dakota has exposed, he has been terrific on that. Some of us just disagree about whether earmarks should be competed. Although I try to agree on every bill that removes all earmarks, I generally don't go into and pick out an earmark to complain about. I generally don't vote for amendments that do, because in many ways I think the process of picking on one amendment here or there, or one earmark here and one earmark there can be as arbitrary as the process of earmarking sometimes appears to be. So I generally don't do that. But in this instance, there is an earmark in the bill that I know a lot about. The Senator from North Dakota has done this because he believes very much in having another study on the Missouri River. We have been fighting over water in this country for as long as this country has been around. Water is very important in Missouri. Navigation of the Missouri River is incredibly important to our farmers and to our utility companies. There was, in fact, a large study undertaken on the Missouri River that was completed in 2004. It cost the taxpayers $35 million. It took 15 years to complete, and there were all kinds of lawsuits over it between the various States up and down the river. There were a couple of things that came out of the study. One of them was there was an agreement that began the Missouri Recovery and Implementation Committee. It is a committee that includes stakeholders from all along the river who meet several times a year to help develop a long-term management plan for the river. This process has recently begun. It hasn't even had time to work. I feel strongly that repeating another study is unnecessary, when there is nothing that has dramatically changed since we spent the $35 million on the study done in 2004. And now we are going to begin another $25 million study by the same group, looking at the same issues. That, to me, is wasteful. I think considering the fact that the Senator from North Dakota did participate aggressively in the long-term management proposal on the MRIC, Missouri Recovery and Implementation Committee, I hope we can give it time to work before we embark on another policy. I know there was a GAO study that talked about navigation, and I know that study showed there are less goods being shipped on the Missouri River. But that GAO study didn't take into account a couple of things. One was that the navigation season has been severely limited by the Corps. That drives away the shippers. The GAO study also didn't include the value of the goods shipped, the jobs associated with the shipments, or the impact on utilities. We have, in fact, four powerplants located along the river that need the water in the Missouri River to cool their plants. I think this study is not going to end the fight over the river. I cannot fathom what a $35 million study failed to accomplish that a new $25 million study is now going to accomplish. This is a great example of studies to try to impact policy, so that you keep having continuous studies. The amendment I have offered would remove the money for this study, because I think it is wasteful duplication, and I believe very strongly that, in fact, we should not be embarking on another one of these studies. It is wasteful and it is duplicative, and I want to continue to work with the Senator from North Dakota. Obviously, we don't see eye to eye on who should get all the water on the Missouri River. I look forward to working with him and, hopefully, as we move forward with the MRIC, we can have all the stakeholders at the table and continue to negotiate in a cost-effective way for the taxpayers that doesn't harm the State of North Dakota or any of the other States along the Missouri River. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Yes.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I wish to agree with my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, on his amendment on contracting competition. Maybe it is fitting that in the Energy bill, I am probably doing a Don Quixote here, tilting at a windmill. I have learned during my time in the Senate that there are certain things that are very protected, and one of them is the earmarking process. I think most people would acknowledge that we have billions in noncompete contracts through earmarks, and they are not all for exotic research. Yes, we have noncompete contracts a lot of places and we should try to get rid of all of them, every last one of them. If it is exotic to research, then there are probably not going to be very many people who have bid on it. So I don't agree with my friend from North Dakota on this issue of carving out earmarks as an area of noncompete. I think----

Mrs. McCASKILL. I just listened to the debate.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Let me restate what I heard. I heard the Senator from Oklahoma wants to pass an amendment that would require competition for all of the earmarks in the bill. I think that is a good idea. I think competing for all earmarks is a good idea. I think it is not correct that the noncompetitive earmarks are all exotic research or any other kind of earmark that could lend itself to competition. I think there are many that could easily lend themselves to competition. I believe that once we get to competition, it is going to provide transparency the American people are aching for in this area of earmarking. (Mr. BURRIS assumed the Chair.)

Mrs. McCASKILL. Yes.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I am here to talk about a simple bill that would correct a serious injustice. Each year U.S. consumers spend $2.57 billion more than they should for gasoline and diesel fuel. This is because they are buying hot fuel. The physics behind hot fuel are fairly simple. Retailers currently measure our gasoline as it if is stored at 60 degrees Fahrenheit. However, if the temperature increases, as it often does during the summer or in warm climates, the gasoline expands so that consumers are getting less energy per gallon of fuel. Yet, when consumers buy hot fuel, they are paying the same amount even though they are getting less energy. This problem can be easily solved by installing temperature compensating equipment that will regulate the distribution of fuel based on its temperature at the time of purchase. A similar policy was implemented in Canada 15 years ago because retailers were losing money due to the cold temperature of the fuel they were selling; and earlier this year, the U.S. retailer Costco Warehouse, LLC agreed to install this temperature compensating equipment as a result of a legal settlement. Today, I am introducing legislation that would require all retailers of gasoline to install temperature compensating equipment on their retail fuel pumps. The Future Accountability in Retail Fuel Act of 2009, or the FAIR Fuel Act, is not intended to be onerous. It would simply require that within 6 years after enactment of this legislation all retail gasoline pumps would include automatic temperature compensating equipment. Prior to that 6 year timeline, if a retailer replaces their pumps, they must replace it with a pump that will be able to compensate for temperature fluctuations. Rural retail gasoline owners are exempt from this replacement requirement and the bill provides grant assistance for small retail owners to retrofit or purchase pumps with temperature compensating equipment. American families deserve to be treated fairly. They deserve to get what they pay for. With the current economic crisis and the high prices of gasoline, every penny we can save the consumer will go along way to helping them survive these tough times. This legislation will help to achieve this goal. It will finally give consumers the fairness they deserve. I am pleased that this bill has been endorsed by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, OOIDA, USPIRG and Consumer Watchdog. I look forward to working with the members of the Commerce Committee and the full Senate in getting this legislation passed. I think we owe it to the American consumers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I am here to talk about a simple bill that would correct a serious injustice. Each year U.S. consumers spend $2.57 billion more than they should for gasoline and diesel fuel. This is because they are buying hot fuel. The physics behind hot fuel are fairly simple. Retailers currently measure our gasoline as it if is stored at 60 degrees Fahrenheit. However, if the temperature increases, as it often does during the summer or in warm climates, the gasoline expands so that consumers are getting less energy per gallon of fuel. Yet, when consumers buy hot fuel, they are paying the same amount even though they are getting less energy. This problem can be easily solved by installing temperature compensating equipment that will regulate the distribution of fuel based on its temperature at the time of purchase. A similar policy was implemented in Canada 15 years ago because retailers were losing money due to the cold temperature of the fuel they were selling; and earlier this year, the U.S. retailer Costco Warehouse, LLC agreed to install this temperature compensating equipment as a result of a legal settlement. Today, I am introducing legislation that would require all retailers of gasoline to install temperature compensating equipment on their retail fuel pumps. The Future Accountability in Retail Fuel Act of 2009, or the FAIR Fuel Act, is not intended to be onerous. It would simply require that within 6 years after enactment of this legislation all retail gasoline pumps would include automatic temperature compensating equipment. Prior to that 6 year timeline, if a retailer replaces their pumps, they must replace it with a pump that will be able to compensate for temperature fluctuations. Rural retail gasoline owners are exempt from this replacement requirement and the bill provides grant assistance for small retail owners to retrofit or purchase pumps with temperature compensating equipment. American families deserve to be treated fairly. They deserve to get what they pay for. With the current economic crisis and the high prices of gasoline, every penny we can save the consumer will go along way to helping them survive these tough times. This legislation will help to achieve this goal. It will finally give consumers the fairness they deserve. I am pleased that this bill has been endorsed by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, OOIDA, USPIRG and Consumer Watchdog. I look forward to working with the members of the Commerce Committee and the full Senate in getting this legislation passed. I think we owe it to the American consumers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.