Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, there are certain things that just reflect common sense. One is the reality of the workplace, who has power and who does not. Generally, the people who are being subjected to unfair treatment--doesn't it make sense they are not the powerful ones? Doesn't it make sense they have the least information about what is going on in terms of policies and procedures? The thing about the Ledbetter case that just defies common sense is that we are asking the least powerful people in the workplace to be all seeing and all knowing. We are asking them to know what clearly they cannot know because they are being discriminated against. How unfair is it that we are saying to a woman: You must know when they start denying you a promotion. It is not just about equal pay. With all due respect to my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, it is not just about pay. It is about promotions. It is about whether you are considered for the big job not just whether you are making the same amount when you get the big job. We cannot ask those people who have been kept in the dark because they are not considered as worthy as others to be the ones to know what the policies and procedures have been in the workplace. I think it is important we defeat these amendments. I think it is important that we restore common sense to allow someone to take action when they have, in fact, been kicked to the curb in the workplace--not because of their job but because of who they are, because of whether they are a man or a woman, whether they are old or young, whether they are Black or White. The secrecy in the workplace sometimes invades other places. There are so many rules around here that I respect, but I tell you, I do not get anonymous holds. I do not get anonymous holds. I do not understand why any Member of the Senate would not be proud to explain why they were willing to hold up someone's nomination. Imagine my frustration when I look at the nominations that are being held now in secret. Do you know what is amazing about it? They are women, the same women who have suffered in the workplace because they do not get enough information. There are now four women who are secretly being held from doing their jobs: Lisa Jackson at EPA, Nancy Sutley at White House Environmental Council, Hilda Solis for the Department of Labor, and Susan Rice for the Ambassador to the U.N. Just like Lilly Ledbetter, they are being kept in the dark as to why they are not being allowed to step up to service. I implore the Senators who are secretly holding these women--by the way, those are almost all the women who have been nominated. Proportionally, almost every woman who is being nominated is being secretly held, compared to the men who are nominated. I urge everyone to defeat the amendments on Lilly Ledbetter. I urge its passage. unanimous consent request--executive session I ask unanimous consent the nominations of Lisa Jackson, Nancy Sutley, Hilda Solis, and Susan Rice be moved forward.

Mrs. McCASKILL. On behalf of those women, I am disappointed at the objection. I look forward to the passage of Ledbetter and the confirmation of those women so they can serve. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, on Tuesday our Nation witnessed the historic swearing in of President Barack Obama. President Obama has nominated Mr. William Lynn to the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense. In this time of war and economic crisis, the U.S. Senate has endeavored to rapidly take up the nomination of Mr. Lynn, as well as many other senior nominees to the Obama administration, to provide our new President the ability to begin his work with key members of his team from the outset. Last week, Mr. Lynn faced the members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services in a hearing conducted to vet Mr. Lynn. I attended that hearing and posed questions to Mr. Lynn. The day prior I also visited privately with him to discuss his nomination. I have significant concerns about the message the nomination and confirmation of Mr. Lynn will send within the Department of Defense and across the Federal Government. While I will not object to Mr. Lynn's confirmation by the U.S. Senate today, I feel it important for me to express my concerns as a matter of record. Following service in various defense ``think tanks'' and as a Senate aide, in 1993 Mr. Lynn joined the Department of Defense as an executive, first as Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation. In 1997 he was promoted to be the Department's Comptroller, where he served until 2001 when the Clinton presidency concluded. After a short stint as a consultant, Mr. Lynn made a decision that many DOD executives before him have made. He decided to accept a senior position in defense industry, where his expertise, experience and contacts within DOD were greatly sought after and valued. Specifically, Mr. Lynn joined the defense giant Raytheon as a senior executive handling management and government relations. Mr. Lynn has served with Raytheon since that time and continues there pending his confirmation today. Importantly, it appears that Raytheon substantially improved the integrity of its government contracting operations during Mr. Lynn's tenure, a time when Raytheon also built itself into the fourth largest defense contractor in the U.S. and the fifth largest in the world. On repeated occasions in this body, I have expressed my deep concerns with the revolving door between industry and government. Those concerns are amplified when I speak of DOD, which is well known for its wealth of ``insiders'' and its closeness to the military-industrial complex. It is not uncommon to hear people speak of the fact that DOD is an insider's game. Some try to explain away this insider's notion by claiming that the complexity of DOD and its weapons and services buying operations require these types of relationships. Even as I acknowledge the complexity of the DOD operation, I tend to believe this ``special knowledge'' concept is a double-edged sword which at a minimum can lead to an appearance of impropriety. Returning to Mr. Lynn, it is clear that his case presents a strong example of this industry-government executive revolving door phenomenon. Frankly, we live in a time when many Americans, not just those who watch DOD closely, know of concerns about the relationship of DOD with contractors. More specifically, many believe that defense contractors have the ability to influence DOD decisions for the profit of the contractor but not necessarily for the best interest of DOD or, for that fact, the taxpayer. With this backdrop, setting aside Mr. Lynn's merits, the narrative of his story alone is problematic. Further, it comes at a time when we are vigorously endeavoring to restore public confidence in government. My concern perhaps might be mitigated were it not for the fact that Mr. Lynn is nominated to what is fairly characterized as the most critical management position within DOD and perhaps the most important position in the making of significant decisions on major defense acquisition programs. In other words, Mr. Lynn will have possibly the most powerful position in the Department to influence how the Department does business with private industry and, in some cases, to influence with whom the Department does business. To be frank, the way DOD does business with defense contractors must change because the status quo is unacceptable. In part because of Mr. Lynn's recent past, I am concerned that he will not bring the sense of urgency to or, worse yet, see the need for substantial reform in DOD's weapons and services procurement practices. Further, in my limited interaction with Mr. Lynn to date, I have not sensed a strong commitment to this type of change, although I understand he has communicated such a commitment to others with greater vigor. To be clear, I am not questioning Mr. Lynn's integrity. His integrity has been testified to by many of his present and former colleagues. He is clearly highly regarded by our incoming President and his administration. And I am encouraged by the historic ethics guidelines that President Obama has put in place just today for officials in his administration. I am confident that Mr. Lynn will fully meet the letter of these new rules and act much more broadly in living up to their spirit both in his individual actions and in his oversight of other DOD officials. Let me close by making mention of the exchange I had with Mr. Lynn at the Committee on Armed Services. I put much of what I have discussed here in regards to my concerns with the revolving door at DOD before Mr. Lynn. I further discussed concerns that he may face a conflict of interest because his former employer Raytheon is a major defense contractor. Mr. Lynn offered a limited response to my question, committing to meet every ethical requirement of the Department of Defense. I have no doubt that he will meet these requirements and frankly exceed them. But Mr. Lynn did not discuss his views on the revolving door at DOD, of the adequacy of the ethical controls at DOD or of any willingness to further study these issues if confirmed. I hope nonetheless that he will take these issues up during his tenure at DOD. I firmly believe that business as usual must come to an end at DOD, both as to these matters and in regards to many more. The chief management Officer at DOD, of which Mr. Lynn will serve, must be a reformer, a disciplinarian, a person committed to change and a person willing to challenge the system in order to drive change. As stated earlier, I will not oppose the nomination of Mr. Lynn. Even as I have expressed my concerns today, I respect Mr. Lynn and the views of so many of my colleagues and of his former colleagues about his abilities and his commitment to improving the state of affairs in business operations at DOD. I am excited by the opportunity he has before him. And I am optimistic about what he will accomplish alongside many others on the team that will form at DOD. But I will be watching closely because this is my duty to the people of Missouri, to the people of America and to the command of our constitution.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I recognize Mr. Norris O'Neil Chandler and his lifetime of service to his country and his community. Mr. Chandler was born in Chaffee, MO, on August 11, 1923, and enlisted in the Regular Army at Jefferson Barracks. Following basic training he was assigned to a special amphibious engineering unit activated for World War II--the 149th Engineer Combat Battalion. Mr. Chandler bravely participated in the monumentally important invasion of France on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, as a demolition specialist for the 149th. He would fight alongside his brethren, all of whom have rightfully become known as the Greatest Generation, from those Normandy beaches all the way to Germany, enduring hardship, tragedy, and triumph along the way. His efforts were one small part of changing the world as the forces of evil that sought to exterminate an entire religion and to deny freedom to so many were defeated. Mr. Chandler returned home, and like so many of his fellow veterans never stopped doing his small part to serve his country nor ever asked for anything in return for his humble service. This type of character cannot be taught, but it certainly can be appreciated. It is the finest exemplar of American values, and I honor Mr. Chandler and his American values today. More specifically, following his service in WWII, Mr. Chandler became part of the newly activated Organized Reserve Corps, which developed into what is known today as the U.S. Army Reserve. Mr. Chandler continued his service in the Reserve Corps from December 1945 until October 1951, at which point he entered civilian service with the Missouri Military District, 11th Army Corps, St. Louis, MO, where he held various positions. Over 40 years later, Mr. Chandler remains employed by this organization, now known as the Directorate of Logistics-Washington's Media Distribution Division. This sort of longevity, commitment and humble service is hard to even comprehend in today's world, but it is easy to understand when you think of the values of the Greatest Generation that Mr. Chandler exudes. It is because of people like Mr. Norris O'Neil Chandler that I am so proud to be a Senator representing the State of Missouri. I have even been told that he has more than 3,300 hours of unused sick leave, and has donated much of his annual leave to other employees through the leave donation program. It is because of the generosity and dedication of people like Mr. Chandler that the United States of America is the great Nation that it is. For 60 years, Mr. Chandler has given so much to his country, his community, and his family, yet demanded so little back. I wish today to give my simple, humble thanks to this American hero. I have the utmost respect and gratitude for those who live their lives like Mr. Chandler. As we honor him today, he is a reminder to all of us of the true value of selfless service, and the impact of that service in our communities, our States, and our country.

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. Mr. President, this week, the Senate passed an important piece of legislation sponsored by Senator Grassley and myself, that was needed to assure the new Special Inspector General for the $700 billion financial rescue program could staff up quickly and have the ability to do his job. S. 3731's other cosponsors--Senators Collins, Lieberman, Snowe, Dodd, Bunning, Schumer, Levin, Carper, Coleman and Cantwell--were also key to securing unanimous support for this bill in the Senate. Finally, I want to give special thanks to Senators Baucus and Shelby for working closely with us to craft a strong bipartisan bill. This legislation, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, SIGTARP, would specifically grant the Special IG created under TARP earlier this fall to have full oversight over all activities under the TARP program. The bill would have also granted the IG the temporary hiring authority needed to quickly hire the dozens of auditors required to conduct this critical oversight. As the original Inspector General language is written under current law, Mr. Barofsky, who was confirmed as the Special Inspector General this week, must hire his entire staff using normal civil service channels. I am a big proponent of using the normal hiring process whenever possible. But that process is time consuming and can take weeks, sometimes months, to hire one person. Meanwhile, this money is flying out the door. TARP has given out nearly all of the first $350 billion, and they have already told us they want the second half soon. Yet, Mr. Barofsky has no staff, and he won't have staff for some time. We need to fix this--right now. Our bill would also make clear that the Special Inspector General has oversight authority over the entire relief program. As written right now, SIGTARP has oversight authority over only two sections of the relief program. Why would we want to limit the Inspector General to only certain sections of this program? Our legislation would make clear that SIGTARP has oversight duties over all of TARP. This would include sections related specifically to assistance to homeowners and promulgation of conflict of interest rules by the Secretary of the Treasury. Senator Snowe added some provisions to assure that the IG would provide Congress and the public a thorough analysis of TARP's spending, as well as a requirement for Treasury officials to report to Congress an explanation if they did not implement the IG's recommendations. As a former auditor, nothing is more frustrating than seeing your recommendations completely ignored. I would never claim that all audit recommendations can, or should, be immediately implemented. But we need to be able to assure ourselves that these recommendations are taken seriously and are being considered. We should know the reason if these recommendations are not implemented. Finally, Senator Snowe suggested that we should make sure that the Special Inspector General has the resources he needs by imposing a time limit on providing him with the money allocated to his office in the original bill. The relationship between an agency and an office charged with overseeing them is a delicate one. Tensions sometimes arise due to the fact that IGs must rely on the agency they audit and investigate for their resources. While I have no reason to think that the Treasury Department would deny Mr. Barofsky the funds needed to perform his duties, this provision would eliminate that tension. Unfortunately, we were not able to secure passage of this legislation in the House before we adjourned this week. I will do everything I can to bring it back first thing in the 111th Congress to secure its quick passage in both chambers and signed into law to assure we have strong oversight on the $700 billion financial rescue program.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I know we have an important piece of legislation that we are going to vote on today. I desperately want to support that legislation. I wish to ask first and most importantly if anyone has the information as to whether the CEOs of Wells Fargo or Bank of America or Citigroup have taken private jets in the last month. Has anyone asked the CEOs of Citigroup, Wells Fargo--all of these financial companies--to take a cut in compensation? Has anyone asked about their workers and how much money they make and whether they are overpaid and whether they are competitive with the salaries of community bankers across the country? Every one of the institutions I named has gotten $15 billion or more of taxpayer money. Think about that for a minute. Citigroup has gotten $50 billion. Have we checked on their private jets? Have we checked on their CEO compensation? Have we checked on their work rules and whether their workers are given enough flexibility? It is unbelievable to me that we are setting this double standard. The thousands of jobs and families who build great American cars do not deserve this incredible hypocrisy in terms of the different treatment they are getting. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I say let's call in those CEOs of those big companies that have gotten more than $15 billion of our money and ask them when they are going to take a dollar in pay, ask them if they got here on a corporate jet, ask them if their workers have cut their pay to $14 an hour, ask them if they have talked about cutting their pension costs and their health care costs. Until we do that, we ought to be quiet about the American autoworkers, and we ought to be quiet about these companies that have reduced fixed costs, that have agreed to sell corporate jets, that have agreed to cut executive compensation. I want to support this bill on behalf of manufacturing in the United States of America, on behalf of wonderful, hard-working families in Missouri. However, there is one problem that has arisen, and that is, unfortunately, in this bill right now, as written, is a provision to increase the pay of Federal judges. Wrong time, wrong place. We have unemployment numbers today that show we have the highest unemployment in this country we have had in decades. We have families all over this Nation who are scared today, who are not buying Christmas presents. Federal judges get lifetime appointments and they never take a dime's cut in pay. They die with the same salary they have today. My phone is ringing off the hook from people who want to be Federal judges. I am having to have staff work overtime to handle all the phone calls I am getting from people who think there may be a Federal judgeship opening in the eastern district of Missouri and how badly accomplished, wonderful, smart lawyers want that Federal appointment. We are not hurting for qualified applicants for the Federal judiciary. Is it fair that they have not gotten a cost-of-living increase like every other Federal employee? Probably not. But you know what is a lot more unfair is to give somebody with a lifetime appointment, great health care, no cut in pay when they actually retire, what is unfair is to give them a pay raise on this day in this bill at this time. It is not the right time. And if it is in the bill, I regrettably will have to vote against this legislation because I feel so strongly that it sends the wrong message to the United States of America at this scary moment in our economic history. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the life of a truly outstanding Missourian. On October 7, 2008, this nation lost a son, a soldier, and a community servant when Dr. Charles E. Lea of Lexington, MO, passed away. While we mourn his passing, we are extraordinarily grateful for all that he gave to his community, his State, and his country during his lifetime. I believe that Dr. Lea is a wonderful example and reminder of the brave men and women who have served our country in the past and continue to serve it today in this time of great need. In 1957, Dr. Lea graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point, and after putting himself through medical school at the University of Missouri, volunteered for service in Vietnam. Widely regarded and recognized as a humble servant, Dr. Lea was awarded the Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Soldier's Medal, four Air Medals, the Army Commendation Medal, the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry, the Combat Medical Badge, and the Parachutist Badge for his service. While awards and commendations obviously show a great deal about a person, I am a believer that the strength of a person's character is revealed in his or her daily actions. Those who knew Dr. Lea best shared an anecdote with me regarding his time in Vietnam. Dr. Lea was featured in newspapers and on television here at home for his efforts during the war to save a village elephant that had been shot. Seemingly insignificant at the time, those efforts placed the United States, and our servicemen and women, in high regard in the eyes of the Vietnamese village. This small effort, not part of his duty or orders, but undertaken by a man trying to make a difference, had an extensive impact. Following his military service, Dr. Lea became a general practice family physician and served countless families in Oklahoma and Missouri throughout his medical career. As I reflect on Dr. Lea's life today, I am reminded not only of the value of his personal service and sacrifice, but of the committed service and selfless sacrifice of all the men and women who have served this country in uniform. America owes a large debt to all of the remarkable men and women who have served this great nation. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Lea and his family, and in remembrance of his life and his service, my utmost gratitude goes to all those who have served.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and sacrifice of CPT Benedict Smith, who will forever be a hometown hero of Monroe City, MO. On Saturday, October 4, 2008, the citizens of Monroe City will gather at its local community airfield and name it in memory of Ben, who lost his life on November 7, 2003, when, while piloting a U.S. Army Blackhawk helicopter near Tikrit, Iraq, he was shot down. In a famous speech given by General Douglas MacArthur before the West Point Corps of Cadets on May 12, 1962, MacArthur exclaimed: Duty, Honor, Country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn. Ben Smith, a 1999 graduate of the United States Military Academy, was what MacArthur envisioned--he did not just live ``Duty, Honor, Country,'' he was ``Duty, Honor, Country.'' He lived a life marked by a duty to serve a higher cause; he did so with impeccable honor; and, finally, he committed and ultimately sacrificed his life for his beloved country. Today, I humbly honor Ben and his family. But saying that Ben served and sacrificed would only be telling part of his story, because Ben was more than a great man, he was also a lot of fun. I recently heard a story from one of Ben's West Point classmates that demonstrates Ben's wise guy attitude. In the spring of 1999 the senior cadets were brought together for a lecture. Officers from an Army unit that had recently returned from overseas deployment were to talk to the cadets about the challenges they would soon face as new second lieutenants in the U.S. Army. During a question and answer period Ben rose and boldly asked: Sir, I was wondering, in the Army, will we be able to take the afternoon naps we have grown accustomed to here at West Point? A roar of laughter followed. Ben Smith was brave well before his time and exhibited more than a healthy dose of a Missourians swagger. Ben went on to become a helicopter pilot and soon joined the esteemed ``Screaming Eagles'' of the 101st Airborne Division. He would marry a fellow helicopter pilot, Maggie, in December 2002, and both would soon find themselves deployed to Iraq. Ben, tragically, made the ultimate sacrifice for his country on this tour of duty. He would be received home by his family in Monroe City where an entire town rallied to honor its fallen hero and to support Ben's loved ones. One military service member who attended Ben's funeral later wrote: The people of Monroe City, MO are truly what a community should be modeled after. You, your family and the people of Monroe City are and will always be true heroes. I am proud of Ben Smith, of his family and of his many friends. I am also proud of Monroe City, which has so humbly supported Ben and the Smith family. Monroe City reminds us all of the greatness of small town America. And Monroe City has displayed the special values of Missourians who have such a strong love of country and such a remarkable commitment to their communities. It is no surprise that a town like Monroe City produces American heroes such as Ben Smith. As Ben's friends and family once again come out to honor his memory and remember his life on the occasion of the naming of the Monroe City Regional Airport as the ``Captain Ben Smith Airfield,'' we are reminded of what it means to be an American. More importantly, we recognize how great it is to have the freedoms we enjoy as we also acknowledge that our freedom did not and does not come for free. Part of the West Point Alma-Mater reads And when our work is done, Our course on earth is run, May it be said, ``Well Done; Be Thou at Peace.'' Ben is no doubt at peace today. Ben's work was well done. His memory and sacrifice will always be with those of us still here on earth. Those who fly in and out of the Ben Smith Airfield may be said to take to the heavens in flight. Today I think we can safely say that Ben is flying in heaven.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I would like to talk about what is going on in our economy right now. I think it is important that we point out a couple of things at the outset. First, I had the opportunity yesterday afternoon to spend some time with some great community bankers from my State. They said something to me that really resonated, and that is: I don't think we have done enough to tell America the difference between deposit banks and investment banks. There are a whole lot of folks I represent right now who are nervous. My sister caught her mother-in-law with cash in her pillowcase this week. The reason they are nervous is, frankly, a lot of them don't understand that the problems caused here were not because of deposit banks. Deposit banks are highly regulated. Deposit banks have both State government and Federal Government looking over their shoulders every single day. Deposit banks are fine in the United States of America--partly because of appropriate regulation and oversight by State and Federal Governments. And they are insured. Every account in America that is in a deposit bank is insured by the Federal Government for up to $100,000. In fairness to all those great community banks and the banks in my State that have used sound business practices, that have not let greed be their watchword, that have served their communities well, let me reassure all the people who bank at those great banks that they can take a sigh of relief today because the problem we have in our economy is not with deposit banks. Let's step back and see what has happened. There are three things that have happened. No. 1 was massive deregulation of exotic financial instruments in investment banks and insurance companies. No. 2, there was a huge amount of greed. And, No. 3, no one was watching out for the taxpayers. I heard my colleague from Georgia talk about short selling and naked short selling and saying we need to tell them to enforce the law. Think about that for a minute. We need to tell somebody to enforce the law as it relates to trading? I heard just an hour ago that today the SEC is going to enforce naked short selling rules. Naked short selling--it would take longer to explain than I have this morning, but suffice it to say, it is wrong and bad because when you are hedging, when you are long selling and short selling, you need to take delivery. That is how this works. There are rules against naked short selling, but they were not enforced. They are enforcing it today. Why wasn't it enforced last week? Why weren't the rules enforced the week before? Why weren't the rules enforced last year? They didn't want to. It is pretty simple. Nobody wanted to enforce the rules. Why not? Because the titans of Wall Street were in charge. The titans of Wall Street have had their way with this White House. Facts are stubborn. If the law is on the books and this administration is not enforcing it, they need to explain to the American public why the taxpayers are now on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars because these guys didn't think it was important to enforce the rules against their friends. Credit default swaps is another exotic financial instrument that came in vogue after the massive deregulation of this administration. It was made possible by the deregulators. Here is the thing that is killing me--it is just killing me. All of the folks who have been screaming: Deregulation, get government off our backs, evil government off our backs, big bad government off our backs, deregulate, deregulate, deregulate--in the last 24 hours there has been--do you remember the transformer toys that went from an animal to a massive machine? We have transformers around here. These massive deregulation advocates all of a sudden say: We have to enforce rules on Wall Street. We have to regulate. Come on. Do you think we are dumb? You can't transform overnight from a big bad deregulator to I am now the cop on the beat; I'll take care of Wall Street. It is not honest. Be principled. If you are a deregulator and you want to live with these consequences, you want to say to the American people: Hey, when we deregulate, this is the risk. This is the risk we are taking with your money. They are going after the status quo. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, they are fighting the status quo. Guess what. They created it. This was their plan. It didn't work. It didn't grow our economy. It didn't create our jobs. American families, for the first time in our history, have gone down in terms of their average income. For the first time in our history America is not growing. Our prosperity is not growing. Senator Phil Gramm marshaled through the bill that allowed investment banks and insurance companies to run wild. I have Missouri families who have lost jobs. I have a lot of autoworkers who are losing their jobs in Missouri. One of the things that is hard--one of Senator McCain's economic advisers, Senator Gramm, did this massive deregulation. We have another one who was a CEO of a major corporation who walked away from a company with $42 million in her pocket. Because she did well? Because she got that company to the stratosphere? No. She was fired. The board of directors fired her and then gave her a $42 million payday. I have to tell you, in Missouri that doesn't compute. It just doesn't compute. When you lose your job because you haven't done a good job, you should not get paid for it. I know I am offended at the notion that any of this taxpayer money is going to go to multimillion-dollar payouts to anybody who ran any of these companies. It is one of the things we have to pay very close attention to because now that taxpayer money is on the line, we have to make sure it is spent appropriately. CEO salaries are out of control in this country, and it is not a matter of being competitive. It is not that we have to pay our CEOs so much more because everybody else is. Right now in America a CEO is making 40 times the average worker's salary. Do you know what it is in Japan, one of our competitors? Ten times. It is only ten times. I want to mention Social Security because my colleague from Georgia mentioned Social Security. I want everyone to dwell just a minute on this notion. At the same time Senator McCain, Senator Gramm, and many others were saying deregulate, deregulate, what else were they saying? The future of Social Security depends on privatization. Privatization of Social Security was our ticket to the promised land for stability in the Social Security Program. Think about that today. Think about what that means today, yesterday, Monday. Think about the consequences. We need to realize we have to learn from our mistakes. We have to fix what is broken and, for gosh sakes, we cannot talk about privatizing Social Security on Wall Street right now. I am hopeful this will be a wake-up call to all those people who advocate the privatization of Social Security. They say: Deregulate, get government off our backs, free market, lax enforcement, big government, bad government, deregulate, deregulate, get government off our backs, big government, bad government--until their friends get in trouble. Do we have a free market with oil? No, we don't have a free market for oil. We subsidize oil companies. Do we have a free market for the pharmaceutical companies? No, Medicare D was a huge profit subsidy for drug companies in this country. Do we have a free market for Wall Street? No, we are rushing in to save them. When their friends get in trouble, who comes to the rescue? Who comes to the rescue when trouble arrives at the doorstep? The taxpayers of the United States of America, and that, in fact, is the rub. What we have to have is reasonable regulation. We have to enforce our laws--both our competitive laws and our regulatory laws--and we have to make sure now that we watch the taxpayer money and make sure not a dime of it goes to a payout to anybody who doesn't deserve it. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I would like to honor the important and national contributions of the Missouri School of Journalism in Columbia, MO, on its 100th anniversary. When the school opened its doors on September 14, 1908, it became the world's first school of journalism. The University Missourian published its first issue that day, exemplifying the school's ``Missouri Method'' of hands-on training at multiple professional media outlets affiliated with the school. In fact, the school still operates the only network- affiliated television newsroom in the country designed as a teaching facility. The school's pioneering endeavors continued in 1921 and 1934 with the awarding of the first master's and doctoral degrees in journalism. And now more than 20,000 alumni from all over the world have become leaders in journalism, mass communication, and academe. The free press plays an integral role in our society, as a champion of freedom and watchdog of liberty. The achievements of this school are a mark of pride for its students and faculty, for Missouri, and the Nation. I congratulate the school on the celebration of its 100th anniversary and look forward to future groundbreaking endeavors from the school's leadership, faculty, alumni, and students.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I have been presiding in the chair listening to some of our friends across the aisle talk about oil and gas prices and lamenting that we may go home without taking action. I was blessed to be home yesterday and had the chance to be in rural Missouri. I talked to a lot of people who represent the heart of our country. I will tell my colleagues what they have figured out. They have learned to look beyond everybody talking about this stuff and to figure out who wants what. This is simple for the American people. All they need to do is ask about the solutions and who wants them. The Republican Party says there is only one solution. Even with the 68 million acres they are not touching, they only need to have another 10 or 20 million acres and our problems are over. Who wants that? Big oil. What this town has done for decades is give big oil everything it wants. This administration has given big oil everything it wants. For 25 years, big oil has had its way with the Congress. The solution they are proposing is, once again, giving big oil its way. I don't know how one can look at today's financial news and not shake their head. ExxonMobil with $12 billion in profits, announced today, in the last 3 months; $11 billion the quarter before. They want to give ExxonMobil another tax break, and they want to give ExxonMobil what they want moving forward. It is very simple. We got in this mess because the Republican Party continues to do the bidding of big oil. We will only get out of this mess if we turn our back on big oil and start doing what makes sense for the future. If only we had been willing to say no to big oil in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, when the Vice President had 40 meetings with big oil executives and one meeting with alternative fuels people. It is time we say no to big oil. America is sick and tired of being handcuffed by the demands of big oil. Democrats say no to big oil. We say yes to getting out from underneath big oil. We do that by extending tax credits for solar and wind, to which Republicans keep saying no. Of course, they keep saying no to that; big oil doesn't want that. They called big oil. Big oil said no; they say no. We say: Let's do more alternatives and invest in technologies that will rid us of our dependence on foreign oil. America has 2 or 3 percent of the world's oil and she consumes 25 percent. We will never drill our way out of this. The only way we will find relief for the American public is to say no to big oil. It is time. They to have muster the courage. The sky will not fall if they will only stand and say, for the first time on that side of the aisle, no to big oil. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Thank you for engaging in this colloquy with me to reaffirm the rights conveyed in the whistleblower provision. This provision is one of many in this legislation that reflects on the skill you have demonstrated in guiding this bill through the Congress. preemption

Mrs. McCASKILL. Companies should also not look to override the whistleblower protections through nondisclosure policies or agreements such as company manuals, prerequisites for employment or exit agreements.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Furthermore, it is not Congress's intent to substitute these whistleblower protections for other preexisting rights and remedies against unfair employment practices.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Arkansas. The whistleblower protection provision is an enforcement cornerstone of this legislation because it creates a legal right for private employees to help enforce consumer protection laws. It is important to underscore the Senate's intent that this provision builds upon ``best practices'' in whistleblower laws.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I would like to ask, if I could, the minority whip one brief question before he leaves the Chamber. I notice you all were trying to clarify the position of our colleague from Arizona on drilling, and this is simply a yes or no question. Does Senator McCain support drilling in ANWR?

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico. I know his service in this body is one that every American should admire. He is a good Senator for his State. He has been a warm and friendly senior Senator to this very junior Senator from Missouri. I appreciate his friendship very much.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, yesterday there was an incredibly dark cloud that passed over Washington. I think the saddest thing about this very dark cloud is the fact that there wasn't an immediate outcry from every corner of this building and every office in the Pentagon. One of the most frustrating things about Washington is the attention span of so many in Washington and the search for the headline that is the most sensational. So it is no wonder that news about auditing doesn't bust out. I come to the floor to try to emphasize the crisis we are facing right now in terms of the Pentagon and auditing of taxpayer dollars. Let me briefly explain the two agencies involved. One is the Defense Contract Audit Agency. What is DCAA? That is part of the problem. Nobody knows what it is. Nobody knows what it does. DCAA is the auditing agency in the Department of Defense that is responsible for auditing the contractors. Think about that for a minute: 3,500 people are employed by this Agency, and they are our eyes and ears into contractor practices at the Department of Defense. We are talking serious money here. We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of billions--with a ``b''--of dollars. One would think that if we have 3,500 people working full time to audit the contractors, we should all feel good about that and, frankly, before yesterday, I kind of felt good about it. As I learned about all of the auditors of the Department of Defense, I thought: I am glad we have an agency with the responsibility to get to the bottom of the prices that were charged by contractors, to get to the bottom of the money that comes out of our Treasury for contractors--until yesterday. The other agency involved is the GAO. I know the initials ``GAO'' are thrown around all the time. Let me explain what GAO is. GAO is the Government Accountability Office. They are what I would call the papa bear of auditors in Government. They are the auditors who look at all parts of Government, many times in response to a request by Congress but many times in response to a hotline call they have gotten from people within Government. They start getting hotline calls about the practices at DCAA. This is enough to worry an auditing agency, that they are getting hotline calls on an auditing agency. This is enough to get their attention. So GAO started this audit of the Defense Contract Audit Agency based on complaints to their fraud hotline. Here is the allegation. Are you ready for this? Here is the allegation: that these audits were being changed with no factual basis at the direction of supervisors, without evidence to support the changes, to help the contractors. This is a wildly sensational claim within the world of auditing. This is the kind of claim that, frankly, most auditors would probably not take seriously because it is so outrageous. But because there had been so many calls to the hotline, GAO went to work, over 100 interviews, months and months of work, and yesterday they issued their report. They looked at 13 different audits named in the complaints and found that in every single audit, favorable findings for the contractors had no backup in the workpapers. What does that mean? If you are an auditor, your job is to find the facts. Everything you put in an audit has to be backed up by what are called workpapers. That means that anybody at any time could go in and find the factual evidence to support every line in the audit. That is part of Government auditing standards. What else did GAO find? You are not going to believe this. You are not going to believe how bad this is. They found that supervisors dropped findings and changed opinions without the evidence to support it. They found several instances where auditors were threatened if they did not change their findings to support what the supervisors wanted and if they did not change their findings to favor the contractors. GAO found this practice to be so pervasive at two of the three locations, they called it ``a pattern of frequent management actions that served to intimidate auditors and create an abusive environment.'' These auditors were intimidated by supervisors and made to tell them what they were telling GAO. So not only were the supervisors on the auditors to do findings favorable to the contractors, they got on them when they started talking to GAO. They intimidated them into telling them what they were telling the investigators, the auditors from GAO. Their supervisors made them feel their jobs were threatened. At one location, auditors were sometimes given 20 days to finish an audit, and if it wasn't enough time to do the audit work, they said: Just do it; just do it with what you have. Supervisors admitted to not reviewing the workpapers. That doesn't sound like a big deal, right? Who reviews workpapers? Let me tell you, in the world of auditing, it is a very big deal. This is how an audit works. The field auditors gather the papers, the factual information, and then it goes through a series of reviews and checks. It is ultimate quality control in an audit. It is unheard of for an audit to be issued without review up the line. That review is how you cull the information that is incorrect and make sure everything in that audit is factual and objective. Here is a very good example of how serious and systemic the problem is. DCAA actually agreed with a contractor, one of the five largest contractors in the country, ahead of time what items would be reviewed for the audit. It is like giving a kid the answers to the test. There is no point in doing an audit if you tell the auditee ahead of time: OK, we are going to test you on this. Here is the amazing thing. Even with the inside information, the DCAA auditors found the process to be inadequate with the contractor. Did they issue an unfavorable opinion? Oh, no, they didn't issue an unfavorable opinion. Instead, the auditor was removed by a supervisor. The new auditor was threatened with personnel action if the audit was not changed to favor the contractor. In every single one, all 13 audits that were reviewed, the GAO found that Government auditing standards were not followed. There is a book in auditing called the Yellow Book. It is the bible of auditing. It is the generally accepted Government auditing standards, and every Government auditor is required to follow these standards. Once again, auditors have a lot of professional pride about the objectivity of their work and about the standards they follow. It would not be effective if you had auditors who were auditing the government in Michigan and auditors who were auditing the government in San Francisco and auditors who were auditing the Pentagon all using different methodology to do audits. So this standard is, in fact, revered within the Government auditing world. Here is what is amazing. Thirteen audits were looked at. Did one of them not meet standards? No. Did two of them not meet standards? No. Every single audit failed Government auditing standards--13 of 13, 100 percent. This is mind-boggling, that we would have 3,500 people watching Defense Department contractors in this country and every audit that was looked at was failed by Government auditing standards. Nine of the thirteen had audit opinions changed without documentation and without workpapers to support the charges. Three had evidence that showed the DCAA auditor trying to perform his or her job and his independence impaired by his supervisors. Nine of the thirteen audits had conclusions that were not supported by the work performed by the auditors. They got caught. They have gotten caught in what could be the biggest auditing scandal in the history of this town. And I am not exaggerating. I will guarantee you, as auditors around the country learn about this, they are going to have disbelief and raw anger that this agency has impugned the integrity of Government auditors everywhere by these kinds of irresponsible actions. By the way, auditors are very conservative with other auditors. Every auditing agency has peer review. By the way, GAO has always passed all of its peer review without any problem. But I know when we were getting peer reviewed when I was the State auditor in Missouri, it was a very nervous time because auditors come into your office from all over the country and they pore through your work. They go through your workpapers. They check all of your reviews. They, in fact, as an objective third party, look and make sure you are doing objective professional government auditing work. They are very conservative because it is peer to peer, right? It is hard to criticize your peers. It is hard to call out another auditor. That is why this is such a big deal. It is damning. This audit is damning of DCAA and the job it should be doing to protect Government taxpayers from the incredible waste and inefficiency in the contracting of the Department of Defense. So when you get an audit, another part of the audit is you respond to the audit. The auditee gets an opportunity to speak in the audit. It is a very good thing because the auditee, if they firmly believe the audit is not justified, has an ability to give their side of the story. It also allows the opportunity to make sure you are exchanging information. So that response in the audit is also a part of Government auditing standards. Let me tell you, when they got this audit, it was a dark day for them, and they had a choice. DCAA had a choice. They could have come forward and said: We have a big problem here and we have to clean house, and announced they were firing people in all of these offices and that supervisors were being fired and that they were going to clean up their act. That was one choice they had, to admit they had been caught in this scandal and to admit they would make it better. But what did they do? What did DCAA do as a result of this incredible audit report? They ``disagreed'' with the totality of the audit. Here is what is so insulting about them disagreeing with the totality of the audit. They have no evidence to back it up. They have nothing to refute. The voluminous--this is not a small audit, this is page after page of documentation. They dispute the facts about the contractor being given prior notice that he would be audited in the above case even though there is clear evidence to support this conclusion in the DCAA workpapers. They said, believe it or not--wait until you hear this: They are currently operating at a satisfactory level of compliance with Government auditing standards. Satisfactory? Thirteen out of thirteen failing Government standards, and that is satisfactory? How dare they. How dare they say that is satisfactory. They flatly stated they don't believe any supervisors harassed or intimidated staff or willfully removed findings. The evidence is there. The fact they are denying the evidence is there shows the level of dysfunction in this auditing agency. They don't seem to be too concerned about zero percent of these audits meeting Government standards. The Department of Defense has been on the high-risk list of this Government for more than a decade. Scandal after scandal has rolled out of the Department of Defense on contracting. I took a trip to Iraq on contract oversight, and with an auditor's eye, meeting with the people who oversee the contracts in Iraq. And I will tell you conservatively--and auditors are very conservative-- conservatively, I think we have burned up more than $150 billion in pure contracting abuse. We have had hearings where weapon system after weapon system comes in 100 percent more expensive, 3 or 4 years off time. And all this time we have been wasting hundreds and billions of dollars, the fox was in the chicken coop. The Defense Contracting Auditing Agency has been indicted in the strongest terms by their peers at GAO. This situation demands hearings. And if somebody doesn't lose their job at DCAA before nightfall, the problem is more serious than anybody in this Chamber can possibly imagine. Because they think they can sweat it out. They think we are not going to pay attention. They think we are going to move on to the next headline, the next campaign stop. They think we are so worried about all the other problems that no one is going to notice this auditing agency has been disclosed and exposed as being fundamentally corrupt in the way they issue audits. It calls into question every single audit done by this agency. And if we don't take it seriously, if we don't give it our attention, if we don't demand that the fox get out of the chicken coop, and we start taking care of taxpayer dollars, ultimately it is our national security. All of the needs we have for our men and women who fight for us, all the needs of our active military, all the technology we need to stay secure and safe, all of it is so important to our Nation. Yet what we have found out in the last 24 hours is no one is paying attention to the way we are spending that money. It makes me sick to my stomach. I am angry. And I will tell you, this Senator is not going away on this issue. If I have to stand on this floor every day for the next 6 months, I will do it, to get someone fired at that agency and to get them to clean up their act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I will speak as in morning business, so I am happy to yield now to the Senator from New Mexico. I am happy to do that.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, pursuant to previous order, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I offer these remarks in recognition of 35 years of excellence by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, in combating organizations responsible for the flow of illicit narcotics into the United States. The DEA was created by Executive order on July 1, 1973, in order to establish a single unified command to conduct ``an all-out global war on the drug menace.'' DEA is presently mounting this global attack in 21 divisions throughout the United States and in 87 offices in 63 countries--the largest international presence of any Federal law enforcement agency. The mission and purpose of the DEA remain as vital today as they were in 1973. After months of hearings and testimony in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, the Senate Committee on Government Operations issued a report in October 1973 noting among other benefits that the creation of DEA as a superagency would provide the momentum needed to coordinate all Federal efforts related to drug enforcement outside the Justice Department, especially the gathering of intelligence on international narcotics smuggling. The DEA has steadfastly served this Nation to that end, mounting an intelligence- driven attack against the most notorious and ruthless international drug cartels and kingpins. DEA's global reach also has been a key component of combating terrorism, as these ideologically-motivated groups have been shown by DEA to fund some of their activities and weapons purchases through drug trafficking proceeds. The agency's re- entry into the intelligence community in 2006 is tacit acknowledgement of the value of DEA to the Nation's security. For the past 35 years, DEA has identified, targeted, and methodically disrupted and dismantled the operations of those responsible for the illicit drug traffic. Whether it is crack and powder cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates, marijuana, or prescription drugs, DEA agents have courageously infiltrated drug trafficking organizations and brought to justice the most significant and despicable criminals this Nation has faced. The cost of this fight has been tremendous in terms of treasure, but no cost has been greater or more pointed than the price of life and suffering paid by the men and women of DEA and their families. Since establishment, a combination of 57 special agents, task force officers, and support staff have valiantly given their lives for the Nation in support of DEA's noble mission. On behalf of the citizens of Missouri, I want to remind the DEA that the agency is not alone in this fight. Missourians and their communities have stood strong against the scourge of drug trafficking and abuse, and our law enforcement agencies have stood shoulder to shoulder with the DEA. Our commitment to protecting young people from the inherent danger of addiction and keeping the ideal of hope strong is unwavering. I am proud to offer my congratulations to the DEA not only for its marked achievements, but also for its commitment to excellence. The agency has served as a model for interagency collaboration and information sharing across the Federal law enforcement community. Its workforce is both talented and diverse, with the most recent Administrator and Administrator-nominee being women. Additionally, the agency was ranked in the Top 20 best places to work in the Federal Government, placing 18 out of 222 agencies in the Partnership for Public Service's 2007 rankings of ``The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government.''