Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I first want to comment on what a pleasure it was listening to several hours of tribute to Senator Lott. I have not served with Senator Lott for very long, but at the point in time that I, hopefully, would be allowed to decide to retire from the Senate, I could only hope I have such kind things said about me in so many different ways. I was glad I got an opportunity to listen to 3 hours of Senators talking nicely about each other. It is an important thing to do this time of year, and I think, frankly, it is an important thing to do more often, and we do not do enough of it around here, particularly across the line. I rise today to speak as in morning business for a few minutes about something that is on everybody's mind this time of year; that is, credit cards. Now, I know why it is on my mind, because my fingers are having to do the shopping because I cannot get home to Missouri, and so I am having to click, click, click on the Internet. I now know my credit card number by heart because I have entered it so many times in the computer trying to get gifts for my family and my children. So I am very aware of my credit card this time of year. I have spent some time this year in the Senate looking at the issue of credit cards, and as we all are wringing our hands and gnashing our teeth over the subprime mortgage mess, I think we all need to begin to wring our hands and gnash our teeth about some of the credit card practices in this country. We have allowed the credit card industry to play a little fast and loose with fairness. I certainly fundamentally understand that people's obligations in terms of their credit, their unsecured credit on a credit card, are primarily their responsibility and it is important that people be responsible when they enter into debt, and it does not matter what kind of debt it is, whether it is credit card debt or any other kind of debt. On the other hand, I have spent some time trying to read through the fine print on some of these credit card agreements. Frankly, I have been trained as a lawyer, I have worked as a lawyer for most of my adult life, I have been a State legislator, I have now worked at the Federal level legislating, and I can't understand a lot of the fine print on some of these credit card statements. If I can't understand the fine print on a lot of these credit card statements, what shot does someone who has not spent as much time around the law as I have? If you look at what is going on with the unsecured credit card industry in terms of some of the fast-and-loose play with the rules, the kinds of tricks that are being played--I will give you a great example. We now know your interest rate can go up if you get near your credit limit. We now know you can call and get an authorization to charge money on your credit card, and they will let you do it even if you go over your credit limit, and then they are going to charge you every month an extra fee because you went over your credit limit, which they said was okay for you to do. You never know this. Imagine my interest when I learned in a hearing this year that they can raise your interest rate on your credit card just by getting more credit cards. So if you are going into a department store and they say: Hey, you can get 15 percent off today if you open a credit card, you can get 10 percent off today if you open a credit card, the act of opening those credit card accounts can increase your interest on another credit card. Now, who would have thunk that? No one ever explains that to the American consumer. No one ever explains that getting at or near your credit limit on a number of credit cards could require your interest rates to go up even if you are paying your bills on time, even if you have always paid exactly what you are supposed to pay on time every month. It is very important that we get a handle on this. This is a great example. A member of my staff who knows I have been very interested in this brought this in to me this week. We just had a hearing where we learned that if you get to your credit limit, it is possible they will raise your interest rate even if you paid everything on time. Well, what is this? This staff member of mine had several thousand dollars left in available credit on one of his credit cards. So what happens? He gets checks in the mail from his credit card company, and the first one is made out. Guess how much it is made out for. It is made out for an amount that will get him very close to his credit limit. So the idea here is if you fill them all out, guess what. Bingo. You are over your credit limit, and then all the fees and the extra interest rates start. Well, I have to tell you--by the way, there is nothing on this that says: If you go over your credit limit, not only will we charge you fees, but we are probably going to raise your interest rate. That is never explained to the American consumer. That is not fair play. Make it very clear to your credit card customer exactly what they are going to pay for and when. Fifty percent of the people who have credit cards in this country right now are paying minimum balances only, and they don't understand they are in a hole they can't dig out of. The credit card companies say: We have not had that much increase in defaults. Well, I will tell you, here is what is different: A lot of the credit card debt in this country--hundreds of billions of dollars of the credit card debt in this country--has been rolled into home equity lines of credit because of this housing boom we were on, and everyone was combining their credit cards, and a lot of that debt has been transferred to mortgage debt. This is stuff that needs to get fixed, it needs to be fair, and the rules need to be clear to anyone because I will tell you, if we don't get it fixed, we are going to be wringing our hands and worrying about the next big problem in our economy, and that is all this unsecured credit that goes unpaid. I think the credit card is a wonderful tool for Americans. It has allowed our country to consume at great levels, has kept our economy pumping. But at the end of the day, if we don't require the credit card companies to make full disclosure in a way that everyone can understand exactly what they are charging for this very expensive form of credit, we are going to regret it. There are two pieces of legislation. First, Senator Levin and I have introduced a Stop Unfair Credit Card Practices Act which prohibits some of the most egregious examples I have talked about that unfairly deepen or prolong credit card debt held by consumers. The other piece of legislation is one I am cosponsoring with Senator Kohl that deals with college students. Nothing strikes more fear in the heart of a parent who has two children in college than the idea that someone wants to send them credit cards right now. I love my two children in college very much. I think they are smart and wonderful people. But, believe me, neither one of them has the resources to handle a credit card right now. The only resources they have to handle a credit card right now are mine. If they want to send me the credit card, that is fine, and if I want to help my kids, that is fine, but the idea that we are now selling lists of college students to credit card companies so they can send them--by the way, one of these credit card officials actually had the nerve to say in a hearing that he found college students to be a very good risk. Well, yes, because their parents pay it off because they do want not want them to have bad credit when they get out of college. But college students do not have the wherewithal to take on unsecured debt. They are having a hard enough time just getting to class and getting everything done, much less taking on unsecured debt. We need to stop some of these practices that are victimizing the American consumer. We can do it. We can do it in the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the new year to see if we can't make it a better year for middle-class America that is buried under credit card debt without the playbook to show them how to get out.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am very interested in this legislation. I do support the bill. I think the reverse mortgage is an important tool for many elderly in order to live out their days with basic needs. However, this week, with the assistance and support of Senator Kohl, the chairman of the Aging Committee, I was given the opportunity to chair a hearing on reverse mortgages, where, frankly, I was shocked to learn some of the predatory practices that are going on. Senator Crapo is exactly right; there are, in fact, mostly elderly widows who are accessing these reverse mortgages. That is why it is so important that we protect them with counseling and with aggressive oversight and that the predatory marketing that is now beginning to go on is brought to a close. I will give some examples. Some very bad companies are now advertising: Come sell reverse mortgages and, by the way, you can double your commission if you sell an annuity at the right time. We heard testimony from a family where, in fact, an elderly widow who had a home equity line of credit had money in the bank, was brought into the confidence of a salesman, who then ended up selling her a reverse mortgage she didn't need and a deferred annuity she didn't need, and she was over 80 years old. It was a tragedy. We have to make sure the counseling being given--by the way, the counseling being given now is being paid for by the lending industry, because HUD only gave $3 million for counseling--$3 million. We are talking about a program that will generate about $1.7 billion under this bill for the Federal Government, and more than $3 million is needed to help the elderly widows understand what is going on. $3 million is outrageous. There is a piece of legislation I will introduce, along with Senator Kohl, that I will, I hope, have an opportunity to add to this bill before it gets to the President. It is going to do some important things. It is going to raise the amount of money for counseling to cover the need, only about $24 million a year. It is going to make sure that counseling is independent and that, in fact, these people getting the counseling are assessed as to whether they are suitable for a reverse mortgage. Many of the elderly are not suitable for it, and they are going to get themselves into a trap they cannot get out of. The other thing is making sure that we build a wall between the deferred annuity salesman and the people who are selling reverse mortgages. It is unconscionable that these salesmen might prey on these elderly people and sell them complicated financial products they don't need. I support the bill. I think the amendment Senator Coburn offered--I get what he is trying to do and I appreciate it. I think we need to pass this bill with these important safeguards in place, it is my hope they are added before the President signs.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I have to express how lucky I have been this year to learn from two titans of bipartisan leadership in this body. If the rest of the Senators would emulate Senator Warner and Senator Levin, America would be better off. I thank you for the incredible lesson I have had at your knee this year. I also thank Congressman Ike Skelton, a giant from Missouri, who, with his gentle smile and steely resolve, helped shepherd this bill through. I want to point out a few of the many provisions that are in here-- the ones put in with my auditor's hat on: First, stronger provisions about the definitization of contracts. We cannot hold contractors accountable unless we tell them what we want, we are clear about what we want, and then we demand that we get it. That is important. Second, the training of military personnel about contracting. My dad peeled potatoes in the Army in World War II. We are never going to have soldiers doing that again; we are going to hire people to do that. We have to make sure we are getting value for that. That means the military needs to know how to oversee these contracts. As Senator Levin mentioned, whistleblower protection for the employees of the contractors. Many of them are Americans first, and they want to tell us the bad things that are going on within these contracts. We need to give them the same protection Government employees have for whistleblowing. This legislation accomplishes that, and it will do great good for the American taxpayer in terms of protecting our military. Finally, the provision that, as freshmen, we are most proud of-- Senator Webb and I worked very hard on the Contracting Commission. I think over the next 2 years this country will have an opportunity, in a bipartisan way, to provide a high-profile look at contracting and how we can do it better. It is important that we get this right. As Harry Truman said, nobody should be allowed to profit off the blood, tears, and the deaths of the men and women who serve us so bravely. It is very important that we get this done. I thank the Senators for the opportunity to speak for a few moments, and I appreciate so much their willingness to work with myself and Senator Webb, the two freshmen on my side on the committee this year. I am pleased to be supporting the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, a critical bill in setting policy for the Department of Defense. However, I unfortunately must note my deep disappointment with some of the content of the legislation. I have and will continue to oppose the practice of adding extensive numbers of ``earmarks'' to Federal spending measures. I believe this practice is fiscally irresponsible. And it is earmarks in this legislation that once again proves disconcerting to me. I am aware that a series of unfortunate decisions by House leadership resulted in the House passing several appropriations measures, including the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs funding measure, before consideration of earmarks sought by House Members was completed. This subsequently resulted in the exclusion of Military Construction earmarks for House Members when the National Defense Authorization Act was taken up and passed by the House. The decision of House leaders to later add House earmarks to the Military Construction accounts in the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations conference produced a dilemma for authorizers, who had not yet reached a conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act. Ultimately, in order to maintain proper order in the legislative process, authorizers chose to add the House Military Construction earmarks to their conference agreement. I find this terribly unfortunate and, frankly, unacceptable. But, in light of the special circumstances under which it took place, I have decided not to oppose the Defense Authorization Act. I am pleased that the conference report states the disapproval by authorizers of the process that led to adding these earmarks. I am also pleased that a strong commitment has been made to not engage in such a practice again. I also note, as does the conference report, that the authorized projects have previously been considered and voted on in the House so there has been a degree of public vetting of these projects. Finally, I am pleased that the National Defense Authorization Act contains no other earmarks added in this offensive manner. In closing, I fully recognize that this legislation contains many provisions critical to today's fighting men and women and to our national security, ranging from a well deserved pay raise to the funding of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. I am proud to have been a part of developing this legislation and applaud Chairman Levin and Chairman Skelton for their efforts. I am also particularly pleased with the inclusion of vital measures that I worked especially closely on, from extensive acquisition reform and contracting accountability measures to a host of new protections and programs for America's wounded warriors. Our troops deserve this legislation, but it is my hope that the Congress will utilize a better process in achieving it in the future.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Georgia has yielded to the Senator from Kansas. I am supposed to be presiding now. The kind Senator from Ohio assumed the chair to allow me to speak on our amendment. I hate to hold up the Senator from Ohio who has to leave. If I may, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a couple of minutes on this amendment.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I appreciate the courtesy shown by the Senator from Georgia and, importantly, by my friend from Kansas who, although we disagree about football, I know we agree about protecting taxpayers. Mr. President, we spend a lot of time here talking about whether we can afford things and trying to save money. My father was in the insurance business. In fact, he was commissioner of insurance in the State of Missouri when I was in high school and college. I have no problem with insurance companies making a profit. They are businesses; they should make profit. But we have to take a close look when it is taxpayer-subsidized profit. We are not talking about the normal profit of a private business. We are talking about taxpayer-subsidized profit. I don't care how you look at this insurance industry in this particular niche, this is a wildly profitable insurance industry right now, billions and billions of dollars in profit over the last several years. You have to ask yourself: Isn't there a way we can continue to make sure that crop insurance is readily available? Keep in mind this amendment does nothing whatsoever to cause costs to go up for the farmers. The premium subsidies remain the same. What this does is say: We can't continue with the deficits we have. We can't afford to do children's health insurance. The President vetoes that. We can't afford another $11 billion for domestic spending. The President threatens a veto on that. We can't afford to do anything except make sure we subsidize a very profitable insurance industry. We have to stop some of the ability of this particular niche industry. They don't even have to worry about antitrust laws because we have written that into the law for them. This is a modest attempt. If our amendment had been in place in 2006, the companies still would have received $797 million in underwriting gains alone in comparison to the $885 million they actually received. We are not talking about putting anybody out of business. We are talking about doing what is right in terms of watching taxpayer dollars. This is about priorities. I want the billions in subsidized profits to go where the needs are. There are many in this farm bill. That is where they are directed. There is also a great attempt to do something about these mind-numbing, jaw-dropping deficits. It seems a lot of our friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to pay for anything. They don't want to pay for AMT. They don't want to pay for anything in the Energy bill. If we keep going down this road, we should do away with an attempt to pay for anything and just print money, see how that works. It is time we do the right thing on this particular taxpayer- subsidized profit and find a middle ground where we can continue to make sure crop insurance is available and affordable, which this amendment will do, but allow some of the taxpayer money to go to more urgent needs than major profits in this industry. I thank my colleagues for their courtesy.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues Senators Collins, Lieberman and Coburn in introducing the Inspector General Reform Act of 2007. This bill represents a strong bipartisan effort to strengthen the independence and integrity of our nation's Inspectors General, who represent one of our strongest tools in combating waste, fraud and abuse throughout our government. When I first came to the Senate this January, I made it one of my top priorities to become actively involved in oversight and accountability in Congress and in the Federal Government. I was thrilled to have been given an appointment to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which is ably run by Chairman Lieberman. I was proud to have been able to cosponsor S. 680, the bill authored by Senator Collins which included not only extensive reforms of Government contracting practices, but also included many provisions geared towards improving the Inspector General system. I must thank Senator Collins especially for working with me on the Inspector General legislation, which incorporates not only many of her reform ideas, but also those introduced in the House by Representatives Jim Cooper of Tennessee in H.R. 928, which has passed that chamber by an overwhelming vote of 404 to 11. My 8 years as State Auditor in Missouri has given me tremendous respect for auditors and investigators working to make sure Government is spending our taxpayer dollars wisely. While many people are aware of the great work done by the legislative branch's Government Accountability Office, very few people realize that there are Inspectors General in many of our most important agencies. These IGs report both to the Executive and Legislative branch, and work in the trenches in the agency, constantly ferreting out cases of fraud, waste, abuse, and other mismanagement. Their unique role, resting inside the very agency they are charged with auditing and investigating, often creates unavoidable tensions. The goal of the first Inspector General Act, passed 30 years ago next year, was to create a system that would allow the IG to rest harmoniously in the agency but allow them to provide oversight of an agency's actions and duties free from interference. For the most part, this system has worked. But we can do better to assure that Inspectors General are free of intimidation or inappropriate influence by the agencies they oversee. Recent news reports have noted that the CIA Inspector General, John Helgerson, is being investigated by his own agency, even though there is no apparent legal authority for such an investigation to take place. The Administrator for the General Services Administration has been openly critical of the GSA IG, and has tried to cut the responsibilities and the budget of that office. The State Department IG has answered charges that he has failed to investigate allegations of contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan with the claim that he has not been provided enough money by his agency to do such an investigation. Obviously, some changes are needed and our IG reform bill attempts to make them. For example, IGs currently request their budgets through their agencies and then the agency heads determine if that request is appropriate before sending their budgets to the White House and then on to Congress. No one in Congress has the ability to see how much an IG office truly needs to adequately fulfill its oversight duties. Our bill requires that IGs can attach comments to the agency's official budget request if he or she believes the funding the agency requested for its IG is not enough to do the job. As more Executive agencies move to a pay for performance compensation system, bonuses given by the agency have become a bigger part of the total compensation for employees. Having the agency that you audit decide how much of a bonus you will receive is an obvious, unacceptable conflict of interest for Inspectors General. Many IGs refuse to take a bonus, and those who do accept them have myriad reasons for doing so. However, this practice will be forbidden under the new law. Given the negative impact on the compensation for Inspector General and the need to attract and retain the best and the brightest, the pay of presidentially appointed Inspectors General will be raised one level. For the other Executive IGs, their agencies will be directed to pay them the same or more than the total compensation received by other senior level employees. This system will end the possibility of an agency head trying to entice an IG to go easy on them, or to punish an IG who refuses to do so. This bill also gives the IGs more security from the fear of losing one's job for the simple reason they are too good. Before any IG can be removed, the congressional committees of jurisdiction must be notified, in writing, of the intent to remove the IG, and the reasons for doing so. This notice must be received at least 30 days before the scheduled removal. Bringing transparency to this process should guarantee that no IG will be removed for the wrong reason. I want to make sure that the good work of the IGs is readily accessible to the people who pay for it, the taxpayer. I was shocked to realize that many IGs did not post their reports on the web. At least one IG shop didn't even have a website. In this day and age the public, and Congress, should have timely and easy access to all the public reports produced by Inspectors General. This bill requires all reports which are open to the public to be posted on the web within three working days of their release. It also requires all IG shops to provide, on their websites, a method for anonymously reporting waste, fraud or abuse. Finally, this bill codifies a council for the IGs to have as a resource. This council, which exists now only pursuant to Executive order, would provide a structure for IGs to pool their resources when it would effectively help them perform their mission, such as providing Government-wide training for investigators and auditors. It will also include an Integrity Committee that will investigate allegations made against Inspectors General and certain staff members. Congress would receive periodic reports from this committee on the number of investigations they have undertaken, the results of those investigations, and any action by the agency taken in response to the findings of the committee. I want to make clear that I am one of the biggest fans of the current cadre of Inspectors General, with very few exceptions. I want to make sure these dedicated public servants are able to perform their duties free from interference. I am very proud to be part of the effort to make sure this happens, and again thank my colleagues Senators Collins, Lieberman and Coburn for their hard work and dedication to this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, with great reluctance, I will vote today in opposition to passage of the 2008 Department of Defense appropriations conference bill. This legislation contains $459 billion in funding to provide the resources needed to run daily military operations. I supported this legislation when it first came to the Senate floor in October. However, I can not vote in support for the final House- Senate conference report because it contained $59 million in earmarks that were added during the closed-door conference negotiations. One of those earmarks was for $3 million to fund a golf center that is in the name of the congressman who requested it. What is a golf center doing on a DOD appropriations bill? This was a difficult decision because I strongly support most of the provisions in this bill, and I have deep respect for Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Stevens and their efforts to craft a good funding bill. However, I made a commitment during my campaign and when I took my oath of office in January to reform the secretive earmarking process. I thought we had made real progress with the passage and enactment of S.1, the ethics reform bill, that requires far more transparency and disclosure on earmarks than there has ever been. Unfortunately, I have since discovered there are still some gaps in the ethics bill that need to be filled. One of which has to do with the difficulty of raising a 60-vote point of order on earmarks added during appropriations conference negotiations. S.1 says that we can do that. But in reality, we really can't. Most of these added funding earmarks are contained in the Joint Explanatory Statement of Managers, which, technically, isn't part of the conference report bill text. What that means is we can't raise a point of order against those earmarks to strike them out of the bill. Let me give me you some perspective on what we are talking about. The Defense appropriations conference text was 133 pages long. The Joint Explanation of Managers--470 pages long. The JES as they call it, contains all of the earmarks, all kinds of substantive direction and is three times as long as the official conference report, and it is not subject to a point of order? This is wrong. It's not what I believe most of us thought would escape the oversight rules of S. 1 when we voted for it. At the very least, it seems disingenuous in how we sold this bill to the American public as a way to clean up our taxpayer- funded shop and how we do business around here. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleagues Senators Collins, Lieberman and Coburn in introducing the Inspector General Reform Act of 2007. This bill represents a strong bipartisan effort to strengthen the independence and integrity of our nation's Inspectors General, who represent one of our strongest tools in combating waste, fraud and abuse throughout our government. When I first came to the Senate this January, I made it one of my top priorities to become actively involved in oversight and accountability in Congress and in the Federal Government. I was thrilled to have been given an appointment to the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which is ably run by Chairman Lieberman. I was proud to have been able to cosponsor S. 680, the bill authored by Senator Collins which included not only extensive reforms of Government contracting practices, but also included many provisions geared towards improving the Inspector General system. I must thank Senator Collins especially for working with me on the Inspector General legislation, which incorporates not only many of her reform ideas, but also those introduced in the House by Representatives Jim Cooper of Tennessee in H.R. 928, which has passed that chamber by an overwhelming vote of 404 to 11. My 8 years as State Auditor in Missouri has given me tremendous respect for auditors and investigators working to make sure Government is spending our taxpayer dollars wisely. While many people are aware of the great work done by the legislative branch's Government Accountability Office, very few people realize that there are Inspectors General in many of our most important agencies. These IGs report both to the Executive and Legislative branch, and work in the trenches in the agency, constantly ferreting out cases of fraud, waste, abuse, and other mismanagement. Their unique role, resting inside the very agency they are charged with auditing and investigating, often creates unavoidable tensions. The goal of the first Inspector General Act, passed 30 years ago next year, was to create a system that would allow the IG to rest harmoniously in the agency but allow them to provide oversight of an agency's actions and duties free from interference. For the most part, this system has worked. But we can do better to assure that Inspectors General are free of intimidation or inappropriate influence by the agencies they oversee. Recent news reports have noted that the CIA Inspector General, John Helgerson, is being investigated by his own agency, even though there is no apparent legal authority for such an investigation to take place. The Administrator for the General Services Administration has been openly critical of the GSA IG, and has tried to cut the responsibilities and the budget of that office. The State Department IG has answered charges that he has failed to investigate allegations of contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan with the claim that he has not been provided enough money by his agency to do such an investigation. Obviously, some changes are needed and our IG reform bill attempts to make them. For example, IGs currently request their budgets through their agencies and then the agency heads determine if that request is appropriate before sending their budgets to the White House and then on to Congress. No one in Congress has the ability to see how much an IG office truly needs to adequately fulfill its oversight duties. Our bill requires that IGs can attach comments to the agency's official budget request if he or she believes the funding the agency requested for its IG is not enough to do the job. As more Executive agencies move to a pay for performance compensation system, bonuses given by the agency have become a bigger part of the total compensation for employees. Having the agency that you audit decide how much of a bonus you will receive is an obvious, unacceptable conflict of interest for Inspectors General. Many IGs refuse to take a bonus, and those who do accept them have myriad reasons for doing so. However, this practice will be forbidden under the new law. Given the negative impact on the compensation for Inspector General and the need to attract and retain the best and the brightest, the pay of presidentially appointed Inspectors General will be raised one level. For the other Executive IGs, their agencies will be directed to pay them the same or more than the total compensation received by other senior level employees. This system will end the possibility of an agency head trying to entice an IG to go easy on them, or to punish an IG who refuses to do so. This bill also gives the IGs more security from the fear of losing one's job for the simple reason they are too good. Before any IG can be removed, the congressional committees of jurisdiction must be notified, in writing, of the intent to remove the IG, and the reasons for doing so. This notice must be received at least 30 days before the scheduled removal. Bringing transparency to this process should guarantee that no IG will be removed for the wrong reason. I want to make sure that the good work of the IGs is readily accessible to the people who pay for it, the taxpayer. I was shocked to realize that many IGs did not post their reports on the web. At least one IG shop didn't even have a website. In this day and age the public, and Congress, should have timely and easy access to all the public reports produced by Inspectors General. This bill requires all reports which are open to the public to be posted on the web within three working days of their release. It also requires all IG shops to provide, on their websites, a method for anonymously reporting waste, fraud or abuse. Finally, this bill codifies a council for the IGs to have as a resource. This council, which exists now only pursuant to Executive order, would provide a structure for IGs to pool their resources when it would effectively help them perform their mission, such as providing Government-wide training for investigators and auditors. It will also include an Integrity Committee that will investigate allegations made against Inspectors General and certain staff members. Congress would receive periodic reports from this committee on the number of investigations they have undertaken, the results of those investigations, and any action by the agency taken in response to the findings of the committee. I want to make clear that I am one of the biggest fans of the current cadre of Inspectors General, with very few exceptions. I want to make sure these dedicated public servants are able to perform their duties free from interference. I am very proud to be part of the effort to make sure this happens, and again thank my colleagues Senators Collins, Lieberman and Coburn for their hard work and dedication to this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Will the Senator yield for a couple of questions?

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield for a second, as he well knows, I voted with him. I voted with the Senator from Oklahoma to try to pull some of the earmarks out of the bill, to pull all of that money out of children's health insurance. I think he and I both agree on the goal. The problem is, the question I wanted to ask--and he is not in a position to answer it because, unfortunately, he is not someone who was here who voted for Medicare Part D, but the inconsistency as to what I hear from the White House and what I think people in this Chamber are hearing from the Senators who voted for Medicare Part D is, every argument they are using for SCHIP is true but exponentially higher in Medicare Part D. By the way, the only difference is in Medicare Part D the people who are making the money are the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies, and it is not funded and multimillionaires and billionaires get it. So it is so unfair to say that the President is taking a principled stand because if it were a principle, it would have been consistent for both SCHIP and Medicare Part D. That is the question that you are unable to answer, and I have yet to hear anybody answer that question.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I forget the Senator is a newcomer. I would be curious. This is where I don't understand the Senator's concerns about political gamesmanship and trying to make this about the children, and so forth. On the other hand, I am trying to figure out the President's position, and maybe the Senator can explain to me why no means testing. You know, $170 billion and basically no way to pay for it was not a problem for the President of the United States with Medicare Part D. They were jumping up and taking credit for it then. There was absolutely no means testing, and it was much more expensive than this program. The question is, what is the difference? Why is it that the President has a problem with this program, when Medicare Part D, with no means testing, no way to pay for it, was just fine?

Mrs. McCASKILL. You know, the Senator from Oklahoma and I agree about an awful lot when it comes to fiscal discipline, but I am having a little trouble. I am hoping he can help me with this problem I am having. I am willing to bet the Senator from Oklahoma may have been one of the Senators who said no to Medicare Part D. I am guessing. I would have to check the vote.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for a few minutes.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, there are memories you have of childhood, and some of them are good memories and some of them are interesting memories and some of them are sad memories. I remember as a child being kind of forced to watch a TV program that, frankly, probably was not my favorite, but now, as I look back on it, I understand why my great-aunt and some of the other friends and neighbors I lived with and near in southwest Missouri loved Porter Wagoner. Porter Wagoner has died of cancer at the age of 80. He lived in Nashville, but he is one of Missouri's. He is a Missourian who went on to distinguish himself in country music. I know his funeral will be Thursday at Nashville's Grand Ole Opry House. When his life is celebrated at his funeral, I know hundreds and thousands of Missourians will feel the loss of Porter Wagoner. Porter Wagoner's life was a country music song. He was born on a farm near West Plains, MO. My mother's family has their roots in West Plains, MO. This is the heart of the Ozarks in the center of the south of Missouri. He was from a family that was very poor, who literally lived off the land. In fact, Porter Wagoner bought his first guitar for $8. The way he paid for that guitar was he trapped rabbits and sold the rabbit skins and saved up $8. His family fell on hard times, and they had to auction the farm. So they had to move into the city, the city of West Plains, MO, where Porter Wagoner got a job at the butcher shop. The butcher heard Porter Wagoner playing that $8 guitar he had gotten from Montgomery Ward and asked him to sing in the commercials for his butcher shop on the radio--and a star was born. After he began singing in the commercials for the butcher shop, they eventually then put him on the radio to sing the advertisements in an area where people in Springfield, MO--the big city of Springfield-- heard Porter Wagoner singing in those butcher shop advertisements, and he moved to a station in Springfield, MO. In 1952, he signed a record contract with Steve Sholes, the very same RCA producer who signed Elvis Presley 3 years later. In 1953, Porter Wagoner spent $350 to buy his first extravagant rhinestone-studded creation that he became known for. He always had these incredible outfits that were very sparkly and always involved a wagon wheel and maybe had one of his signature items, which was the fact he had put, in rhinestones, on the inside lining of the coat, in great big letters: ``Hi!'' So when you would meet Porter Wagoner, he would flash his jacket, and this friendly ``Hi!'' would beam out at you. He ended up buying over 50 of these outfits, and they epitomized the style we affectionately call ``hillbilly deluxe.'' They cost anywhere from $8,000 to $12,000 apiece. He had many successes. He had many ups and downs in his life. In fact, recently a record was made that talked about the time he was receiving help for his mental issues in a hospital and how he went long periods of time without recording. But through the years, he had 29 top 10 hits, including ``Green, Green Grass of Home,'' ``Skid Row Joe,'' and ``The Cold Hard Facts of Life.'' There was this young blonde who he made famous. He asked her to come and sing with him on his show. It is now well known who that young blonde was because that, in fact, was Dolly Parton. If it were not for Porter Wagoner, Dolly Parton maybe never would have gotten the chance she needed to catapult her into the culture of country music in this country. He never had the kind of fancy success that many of our stars have today, but he was like country music. His life went up and down, with very hard beginnings in terms of what he came from. He achieved great success and had low moments. But through it all, his style was very simple--a very simple country music style. In fact, it was very common for him to use the talking style where he would stop singing and actually talk through a song, telling the story, weaving the tale, tying the threads together, so the listeners, before the song was over, not only found themselves tapping their toe or smiling, but they would find that the heartstrings were being pulled. They would have an emotional connection to Porter Wagoner's music and the lyrics he considered so important to the essence of country music. I know everyone in Missouri will miss Porter Wagoner. We have tributes to a lot of people on this floor. I know the people in West Plains, MO, are so proud of him. In fact, I say to the Presiding Officer, right now, if you traveled with me to West Plains, MO, and we turned onto the main drag, you would look at the street sign, and it would be named nothing other than ``Porter Wagoner Boulevard.'' He had a band called the Wagonmasters. Tonight in Missouri--all across rural Missouri and in the urban areas of Kansas City and St. Louis--all the country music fans are proud of the fact he was one of Missouri's own. Not only will country music miss him, we will miss him in Missouri and what he has meant to our State. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring Rev. Dr. Wallace S. Hartsfield, a much-loved member of the Kansas City community. Reverend Hartsfield will soon retire after 40 years as the senior pastor of Metropolitan Missionary Baptist Church. He has served as Metropolitan's pastor since 1972 with the support of his wife Matilda and their four children. Prior to that, he held pastoral positions in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Kansas. Reverend Hartsfield's distinguished career in the ministry has touched thousands in Missouri. As the ambassador for his church, he has graced pulpits across the country bringing words of hope to the masses. He is a respected servant-leader of many organizations including the National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.; National Baptist Convention, USA; Congress of National Black Churches and the General Baptist State Convention of Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. He has expanded his ministry as a community advocate. Reverend Hartsfield has spent much of his life speaking up for those whose voices are ignored on the subjects of civil rights, health care, education, crime and safety, and economic development. One of his bravest acts occurred in 1964 when five department stores in downtown Kansas City refused to allow African Americans to try on clothes, use the restrooms, drink at the water fountains, or eat at the lunch counters. Reverend Hartsfield organized a boycott and marched on the stores. Eventually African Americans were allowed to patronize these stores but it was not without the personal intervention of this inspirational leader. His service has afforded him a seat at many tables where he has proven to be a skillful diplomat and a cunning negotiator. Reverend Hartsfield has worked on countless boards including those of the Jazz District Redevelopment Corporation, Greater Kansas City Community Foundation, Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, and Kansas City Interfaith Council. Reverend Hartsfield has a bachelor's degree in elementary education and minor degrees in religion and psychology from Clark College in Atlanta, GA. He also holds a bachelor and master of divinity from Gammon Theological Seminary in Atlanta. Dr. Hartsfield has served as an adjunct professor and guest lecturer at numerous colleges and universities across the Nation. Reverend Hartsfield has been a mentor to many, from pastors to politicians. He continues to provide wise counsel to those who want to make a difference in the world. He also has the ability to identify hidden treasures in those who have not been afforded an opportunity to thrive. This precious gift has been the catalyst for many to realize their dreams. For 40 years, the members of Metropolitan have been blessed to have this powerful leader at the helm. Reverend Hartsfield has worked hard and he has earned the opportunity to step back. However, we know his work is not yet done. He will continue shaping lives, communities and destinies for years to come. During one of the many times he was honored for his good works it was said: Wallace Hartsfield does battle with all the dark forces that would keep us from knowing and loving one another. With his Bible and his passion for justice and his rock-ribbed integrity, Reverend Wallace Hartsfield leads us to the high moral ground where all God's children sit down together as family at the table of peace and delight. No truer words could be spoken.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, we have a saying in some parts of Missouri, and I think it is a common saying in some rural parts of America: That dog won't hunt. I rise today to speak a few minutes about the Presidential veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program. Mr. President, that dog won't hunt. All America has to do is look at the rationale for the veto and look at the tale of two programs--and that would be T-A-L-E. The President says he is vetoing children's health care because it is too expensive. It is a $35 billion expansion over 5 years--an average of $7 billion a year. The President says he is vetoing the Children's Health Insurance Program because it is providing health insurance for wealthy families or families who can afford health insurance on their own. This is a President who is out of touch. When a family of four making around $50,000 is facing over $1,200 a month in health insurance costs, that is a crisis in our country, and one that the majority in Congress has recognized. That is why we have prioritized the children. This is a program for low-income children, for modest-income children, and it is important we give them this health insurance. The President says it is too expensive. We pay for it. It is a novel concept around here that we are paying for it. Now, let's dial back the calendar a few years and look at Medicare Part D. Was it expensive? Yee howdy, was it expensive. Try $710 billion over 10 years--an average of $70 billion a year. Was there a way to pay for it? Absolutely not. No way to pay for it. We just wrote a bad check for it. We had no way of paying for it. Was it for modest-income Americans or low-income Americans? Oh, no. Oh, no. It was for anybody in America. You could be a billionaire and participate in Medicare Part D. So let me see if I get this straight. We have one program that is not paid for that is 10 times more expensive than the Children's Health Insurance Program that is for wealthy people in America--and it is OK the year before the President stood for reelection, it is OK with my Republican colleagues who voted against the Children's Health Insurance Program, it is OK with some of my colleagues from Missouri in Congress on the other side of this building who are voting to uphold the President's veto today. They voted for Medicare Part D. So what is the difference? Why is one program not fiscally irresponsible and inappropriate? But the program for low-income children, why is it so bad? Well, the devil is in the details. And the details in this instance are that the people who wanted Medicare Part D were the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies. It is estimated they are going to make close to $150 billion off Medicare Part D. That is why this dog won't hunt. Because what this is about is the private insurance companies and private drug companies making money. Then it is OK to give the benefit to wealthy people and to not have a way to pay for it. But if it is going to the children and nobody is going to make any money off of it, then all of a sudden it is evil. No wonder the people of America are outraged. No wonder our phones are ringing off the hook. No wonder the Members of Congress who are willing to uphold this veto are feeling the heat. They ought to feel the heat. This is the right thing to do. We should be taking care of these children. It is the least we can do as Americans to face the health care crisis that we face right now. So I urge my colleagues from Missouri--especially those who are voting to sustain the President's veto--to reconsider because if you voted for Medicare D and you are saying this is a problem, you know what: America will figure that out. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment to be set aside.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator DeMint as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3332.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, we have successfully added this amendment to all appropriations bills to date. It is a very simple amendment. It requires the Departments under this bill to maintain a direct link to the agency's inspector general Web site, on the home page of his or her department's Web site. It requires this direct link because the information the inspector general provides to the public needs to be easily available. They are the eyes and ears of the taxpayers in many ways. They are on the front lines in terms of waste, fraud, and abuse. They provide a valuable service. In many departments, one can't find the information. This amendment will require that on the home page of the Web sites of the Departments of Education, Labor Health and Human Services, there be a direct link to the inspector general of that Department's Web site so taxpayers, Members of Congress, and members of the executive branch can easily find the important information that is provided by the inspector general's office. I urge passage of the amendment.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to support the Kennedy amendment because, frankly, it makes fiscal sense. There has been in this administration a rush to contract. They never saw any function of government that somehow they didn't believe would be better off in the private sector. I am not opposed to privatization just for the sake of being opposed to privatization. I have no problem with contracting, if it is going to save taxpayers' money and we are still going to get quality work on behalf of taxpayers from those contractors working in government. But if we have learned anything over the last 6 years, we have learned that you don't always get a good deal when you contract. I know we have spent a lot of time talking over the last few weeks about the contracting that went on in Iraq, and I will not dwell on that here, but it is exhibit A of how badly government sometimes does in the name of saving money when it enters into private contracts. So what this amendment says is pretty simple, and it is kind of what auditors say over and over again until people want us to be quiet; that is, compete, compete, compete. Not only should these contracts be competitive among potential contractors, they must be competitive with the government workers who are currently doing the work. There have been many examples of where, in the name of saving money, someone was hired to do the job, and it ended up costing us more than had the government employees remained on the job. That is just the basics of this amendment. This is nothing new. This has been in a number of Defense appropriations bills, and it is in effect for the Department of Defense. The A-76 rule, which this is called, is now currently the law within the Department of Defense. This will extend it, codify it, make it uniform across the Federal Government. If you are going to contract out, then the employees have a right to participate in that competition. And if the employees of government can show they can do the job, as they have been doing, and they can do it for less money than the private contractor, then they should get the award in that particular competition. This is a way to not only make sure we are not getting rid of the expertise we have in government, it is also a way to reinforce how important competition is. We have had competitions that have masqueraded as real competitions in this administration a number of times. This will make sure we are getting the best value for that very precious taxpayer dollar. They are going to have to demonstrate that the contract is going to save money in order for the contract to be put out to a private entity as opposed to government employees. I think it is a very solid amendment in terms of watching out for taxpayer money. I know it is characterized that this is to protect government employees. It is not. It is called protecting taxpayers' money. That is why I think this amendment is so important. That is why I hope my colleagues will join together to strike another blow on behalf of fiscal accountability and making sure we treat taxpayers' money with respect and deference and making sure we are spending it very wisely. I yield the floor.