Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today, I honor John Bass, a much loved member of the St. Louis community, who died last month at the age of 80. John Bass was soft-spoken and low-key but he was also a fighter. As a young man, he served his country in the U.S. Navy. When he returned from service, he found himself living in a racially divided, socially and economically troubled city. Determined to bring change to his community, John literally fought his way through a college education. As a champion boxer, he won a boxing scholarship to Lincoln University. But John's true fight for St. Louis came long after he hung up his gloves. As an educator in Beaumont High School, John was a calming presence in a school bitterly divided by racial tension. There, at Beaumont, and probably for the first time in his life, John was sent to the principal's office the hard way. After he began his new job as principal of Beaumont High, he provided the calm, wise leadership that was necessary to soothe wounds that years of inequality inflicted on our Nation's educational system. John was already a distinguished member of the St. Louis community when he rolled up his sleeves and delved into politics to bring positive change to the city of St. Louis by shaping its policies. He did not come from a family of politicians, and he did not inherit a political power base. He came to politics as a thoughtful, practical, and hard-working man who wanted to make his community a better place to live. With these attributes, John Bass won the trust and respect of St. Louis. John served as an alderman, State senator, and cabinet official, but is best known for becoming the first African American to win the office of comptroller in St. Louis history. When he ran for that office in 1973, the mayor told him that the prevailing racial tensions in St. Louis would prevent his election. Undeterred, John ignored that prediction, won his seat, crashed his way into the city's most important financial post, and left his mark on the city of St. Louis. Regarded highly by his contemporaries as well as older and younger politicians, John helped pilot the city of St. Louis through some of its most turbulent years. With John's passing, we have lost a prolific public servant, a trusted friend, and a quiet but powerful leader.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I am proud to submit as my first piece of legislation as a United States Senator, a resolution to honor the memory of a great woman and a great leader--Harriett Woods. It is also a privilege to submit this resolution with Senators Bond, Mikulski, Clinton, Cantwell, Murray, Stabenow, Lincoln, Boxer, Feinstein, Klobuchar, Bingaman, Levin, Obama, Harkin, and Dodd. Harriett, who died last month at the age of 79 from leukemia, had many firsts in her rich life: she was the first female editor of her college newspaper at the University of Michigan. She was the first woman on the Missouri Transportation Commission and she was the first woman to win statewide office in the State of Missouri when she was elected Lieutenant Governor. But Harriett's career in public service only tells part of the story. Harriett was a born leader and she used it to inspire hundreds of women across the country to get involved at all levels of government. For 5 years, she served as president of the National Women's Political Caucus, a bipartisan grassroots organization whose mission is to increase women's participation in the political process. Her struggle to win a U.S. Senate seat in 1982 against Senator John Danforth was the inspiration to the founders of Emily's List, which is dedicated to recruiting and funding viable women candidates. Many thought that Harriett could have won that race, which she lost by a scant 27,247 votes, had she not run out of money. Harriett was also integral to what became known as the Year of the Woman, when in 1992, female candidates won nineteen seats in the United States House of Representatives and three seats in the United States Senate. Harriett realized 25 years ago, before most women even considered the notion, that there was only one way women were going to take their seat at the table of political power in our great Nation: by daring to fail, by embracing breathtaking risk, and by standing up to the bouncer at the door of the back room filled with the good old boys who ran for office. When that bouncer told Harriett that she could not come in, she said, just watch me. And when that same bouncer tried to kick her out of the room, she said just try it. And after she was comfortable in that room, she didn't sit down. She went out and found other women and led them to that room by pure unadulterated leadership. Harriett wrote a wonderful book about her life as a national political leader. She closed the book with the following: Somewhere, at this very moment, in some neighborhood in America, a woman very like my younger self is confronting a problem that affects her life, and family. Perhaps it's the need for a playground for her children; maybe it's a threat to clean water from rural animal waste. She has spoken up, but no one is willing to take action. She's never been a public person, and famous woman senators seem a world away. Still, she cares deeply about finding a solution. After agonizing thought, she makes a crucial decision. She will step up to power, and another woman leader will be born. Many of the women who hold or have held public office, including myself, have Harriett Woods to thank for leading the way. So thank you, Harriett. Thank you on behalf of all the women who will follow you, all the women who will stand on your shoulders.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, yesterday I had the privilege of spending 3 hours at Walter Reed Army Hospital, specifically looking at outpatient care. As a result of that visit, I have come to several inescapable conclusions about the leadership of the armed services over this important area. First, we have to start with a foundational premise, and that premise is our wounded deserve the best. The men and women who have crossed that line and say ``I will go'' and go and get hurt and come home deserve the best our military can give them--not Building 18. There are so many problems at Walter Reed, and legislation has been introduced that I am honored to cosponsor that will address a lot of these problems--systemic bureaucratic problems: not sufficient counselors, not sufficient training, not taking care of the families of the wounded. A lot of necessary issues are covered in that legislation. But today I thought it important to spend a few minutes talking about the leadership. We have to make up our mind around here whether we are going to say ``support the troops'' and provide oversight and accountability or whether we are going to mean it. If you are going to have accountability under these circumstances you have to look at the culture of leadership. You have to look at the very top of the leadership tree over Walter Reed. In this instance the leader, General Kiley, was at Walter Reed at or near the time Building 18 opened. It is clear that General Kiley, the Surgeon General of the Army, knew about the conditions at Building 18. More importantly, he knew about the other problems. The irony of this situation is General Weightman, who has only been there a year, stepped up and said, I take responsibility. I am the commander here now. Just minutes ago he was relieved of his command, while General Kiley is quoted repeatedly as if there is not a problem-- he is spinning: ``I want to reset the thinking that while we have some issues here, this is not a horrific, catastrophic failure at Walter Reed. I mean these are not good, but you saw rooms that were perfectly acceptable.'' They are not perfectly acceptable. You have people who are stationed at Walter Reed who have better barracks than the wounded. That is unacceptable. Our wounded should get the best. The people in better barracks can be placed in apartments in town. When the decision was made to let these men move into Building 18, they could have moved into the better barracks and the people who are stationed there permanently could have been stationed elsewhere. On Building 18 he said the problems--by the way, he lives within a block of Building 18, General Kiley--``weren't serious and there weren't a lot of them.'' They are serious and there are a lot of them. He said they were not ``emblematic of a process of Walter Reed that has abandoned soldiers and their families.'''' Back in December, when the vets organizations met with General Kiley and enumerated these problems about the wounded and their families and the problems they were facing in outpatient, General Kiley said, ``very important testimony.'' That was it. I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Colonel Callahan, who is in charge of the hospital at Walter Reed, was open and honest and clearly cared, as did most of the leaders I talked to around the table. But I went away with an uneasy sense that all the legislation we pass and all the paint we can put on the walls is not going to solve this problem if we don't begin to speak out for accountability within the leadership of the military. When we had the scandal at Abu Ghraib, noncommissioned officers were disciplined. Up until the relieving of General Weightman today, no one above a captain had been disciplined in this matter. It is time the leadership at the top takes responsibility and that is why I have called today for the Surgeon General of the Army, LTG Kevin Kiley, to be relieved of his command over the medical command of the United States Army so the message can go out loudly and clearly: We will not tolerate treatment of our wounded in any way that does not reflect the respect we have for them.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I have listened to the arguments of my colleague on the other side of the aisle, and I believe the amendment I have offered answers many of his concerns but also provides basic rights for our 40,000-some TSA officers across this country. Let us first talk about what this amendment does that I have offered. It does three things, three simple things. First, it gives them whistleblower protection. As somebody who has spent 8 years as an auditor, as someone who has spent a great deal of time figuring out where Government is doing its job well and not so well, I understand the importance of whistleblower protection. The best information you get as an auditor comes from the employees of the Government, and they all must be reassured, especially those working on the front line of security, that they will be protected if they tell things they see that need to be fixed. That is important. Secondly, this bill gives them the right to appeal suspensions of 14 days or more to an independent board, as other Federal workers. It also gives them the right to collectively bargain, like the Border Patrol, like the Capitol Police, like FEMA employees, and like Immigration and Customs Enforcement. What does this amendment not do? It is important to understand the limitations in this amendment. First, it makes sure they do not have the right to strike. Secondly, it prohibits them from bargaining for higher pay. They cannot bargain for higher pay. This is important, because my colleagues spent a great deal of time talking about safety. It explicitly states that no classified or sensitive intelligence can be divulged or released during any grievance process. It goes further than the original legislation and the original amendment by saying the TSA Administrator or the Secretary of Homeland Security can take whatever actions necessary to carry out an agency mission during emergencies and whenever needed to address newly imminent threats. No questions asked. These employees have to follow orders. In any emergency, the director has the complete and immediate control over these workers. Let me emphasize that again. In any emergency the director, the administrator have complete control over anything these workers should do. By the way, as an aside, having talked with and been around these screening officers many times as I move through the airports, I think it is a little insulting to them to act as if they would not respond when directed to an emergency. Americans across the board want to do what is right in times of crisis for our country. To indicate these Americans would not do what was asked of them in time of an emergency, and that they would try to rely on some kind of right under the law to not do what is necessary in an emergency, frankly, I think, is unfair to them. What does collective bargaining get these workers? It provides a structure for quick and fair resolution of grievances and workplace disputes. It provides a forum to discuss health and safety issues, which will reduce the number of on-the-job injuries suffered by TSOs. It reduces the high TSO turnover rate. Let's talk about that turnover rate. Talk about saving money. Think of the money we are investing in these officers that is wasted right now. We have a 23-percent annual turnover among these screening officers. Among the part-time officers, it is 50 percent. As somebody who has worried about the bottom line in a private business, that kind of turnover is completely unacceptable in terms of the costs. Let's look at the safety issue. The experience we are losing by that kind of turnover--and I am not talking about people being dismissed for bad conduct or getting rid of bad screeners; I am talking about people who are leaving. That turnover rate, if you don't consider anything else, should tell my colleagues something is wrong. I believe what is wrong is they do not have the basic rights and protections other Federal workers have. It increases public safety by allowing the TSOs to go through their union to expose threats to aviation security without fear of retaliation. It addresses procedures for emergency and security situations so workers are fully aware of their duties in the event of an emergency. This is a good amendment for everyone. It puts these workers on equal footing with other Federal workers. It does not give them the right to strike. It does not give them the right to refuse to be deployed in case of an emergency. It does not allow them to negotiate for higher pay. I was not a Senator at the time, but I understand that the Department of Homeland Security needed the flexibility to get up and running when the agency was first created years ago--5 years ago; more than 5 years ago. But they are no longer processing 5,000 more screener applications per month in order to transition from a private force to a Federal force. We are no longer scrambling to create a Department of Homeland Security. We are now in a position to professionalize. We are now in a position to professionalize airport officers and give them basic worker protections and, as a result, we will have a seasoned staff and much better security. My colleague mentioned the threatened veto. That is kind of hard to figure out. It is hard to imagine that the President would use a veto to veto legislation that is all about making our country safer, all of the provisions that this bill will contain, that will go directly to the heart of the matter of the safety of our Nation, that will do what the 9/11 Commission wanted. It is hard to imagine, because the President does not like unions, that he would threaten to veto this bill just because we want to give the same basic worker protections to the screeners at airports that the Border Patrol, the Capitol Police, and immigration officials currently have. I cannot imagine that the President would veto under those circumstances. I can't imagine that the American public would think that is a good use of a veto pen. I can't imagine that some of our colleagues who think that unions are the enemy would use the collective bargaining rights--that are so limited in scope in this amendment--as an excuse to stop this concerted effort that we are all making to do what we must do to improve homeland security. If we continue to treat our TSA officers different from their colleagues in the Border Patrol and their colleagues in homeland security, we will never have the seasoned and professional and experienced staff in place as part of our important effort to protect the Nation's transportation system and the people who live and work and care about the United States of America.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Sure.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I do not believe declaring that we have a problem with terrorism worldwide, that is a status quo day in and day out, would be considered a day-to-day emergency. The examples you used, however, of Hurricane Katrina or the necessity to respond in Lebanon--I think those issues certainly would be issues that the professionals at TSA, the officers, would want to respond to quickly.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I understand the point my colleague is trying to make. I would say there are a whole lot of things that some are trying to put under the rubric of a continuing threat against America. There have been proposals to take away some basic constitutional rights. There have been proposals to change the way we view some of the rights and privileges that Americans have. I think to say that these workers don't get the same benefits as the Border Patrol or Customs agents just because they are screening in airports, under this rubric that we have to be concerned about worldwide terror, is specious reasoning.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, it is my honor to join my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, today in introducing the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, a bill that serves to better the experience so many recovering military servicemembers and their families have in dealing with the military healthcare system and its bureaucracy. It is not often that you read something in the paper that makes you sick, but this is precisely the feeling I had just over a week ago as I read a Washington Post article that spoke of awful living conditions and an interminable bureaucracy being experienced by our war wounded who are receiving outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I will not stand aside as those who have fought for our country come home to fight new battles against a crippling bureaucracy just to get the compensation they have more than earned. They shouldn't have to live in substandard conditions while they are recovering from their injuries. Our legislation directly tackles these problems. The principle is simple: our wounded and recovering servicemembers must receive the best treatment. They can't live in substandard housing as they recover. And they must have a user-friendly system to help them apply for the appropriate disability and benefits compensation. It's the least we can do for all they have done for us. For example, each military department has a standard for their dormitories and barracks. I know that not every dormitory or barracks meets the highest standard that the service sets, but that each service is steadily working to reach this standard across their facilities. It is my belief, and this bill serves to establish, that the lowest standard acceptable for a returning wounded servicemember should be the highest existing standard in each military service. Facing the daunting challenge of recovering from war wounds--both psychological and physical--our returning servicemembers should not be living among vermin and mold. They should not be placed in temporary, cramped, makeshift, ancient or transient quarters. We're not demanding the Taj Mahal. We are demanding decent living conditions to help these injured men and women. Further, when problems exist in the living quarters of our recovering servicemembers, they should be identified and repaired quickly. This bill establishes strict measures to facilitate reporting of unsatisfactory living conditions and to mandate timely repair. It also establishes measures to ensure that independent parties are inspecting living quarters in order to prevent any syndrome whereby those closely engaged in dealing with these facilities are overly focused on completing the mission with what they have as opposed to what they should have. I was also appalled to learn of the extensive, confusing bureaucracy that greeted our recovering servicemembers in the outpatient care process. With numerous commands, organizations, advocates, doctors, commanders and any number of others involved in the process, recovering servicemembers found themselves navigating a complicated process and often without a map. They also have to fill out numerous forms, request records, check off bureaucratic blocks, get the right language in their doctor's evaluations, document their illnesses, capture the symptoms they are experiencing and more. It is safe to say that the process poses a daunting challenge to even a fully healthy individual--but imagine the challenge for someone far from home and facing the realities of the wounds of war. Complicating the challenges, those tasked to provide these servicemembers and their families with assistance have been faced with large caseloads and insufficient resources. This legislation requires responsible caseloads for military leaders and caseworkers--and it requires that those providing this assistance not just have a caseload that guarantees a recovering servicemember the attention they need and deserve, but that these caseworkers are well trained. I also learned that those who come to military treatment facilities like Walter Reed to help their loved ones often face uphill battles. I am proud that this legislation reaches out to protect those loved ones who risk their livelihood to care for our recovering servicemembers by providing them medical care as well as protections to secure the jobs they leave behind. Today, I visited Walter Reed, talked with our recovering servicemembers, toured the facilities and discussed these issues with Walter Reed's leaders. I can confidently say that those treating our servicemembers are with me--they want the very best for our recovering servicemembers and for their families. I know that the quality of care being provided at Walter Reed and at many other military hospitals is exceptional and I applaud the caregivers. But I also know that we have all failed to provide the best service and support to many during the outpatient care process. Their living quarters were not the best. The Physical Disability Evaluation System they experience is too bureaucratic. It is time to deliver the best. This legislation seeks to provide it. This is fair legislation. It balances requiring immediate changes with letting the Department of Defense study what is necessary and to subsequently implement incremental change. It empowers our physicians by not requiring random timelines for medical processing or medical care, but it requires that care and processing happen with manageable, understandable and streamlined procedures that equally empowers the servicemember. And this bill requires that trained, professional and caring providers be available to recovering servicemembers and their families in sufficient numbers and in the appropriate places throughout the care process. In closing, I want to thank Senator Obama for his efforts in teaming with me to produce this important legislation. But mostly I want to thank all those serving our nation in uniform today. Their sense of duty is remarkable. Their sacrifice is great. Their heroism unmatched. They have given their best to our country and our country is committed to giving them the best in return.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, it is my honor to join my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, today in introducing the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act, a bill that serves to better the experience so many recovering military servicemembers and their families have in dealing with the military healthcare system and its bureaucracy. It is not often that you read something in the paper that makes you sick, but this is precisely the feeling I had just over a week ago as I read a Washington Post article that spoke of awful living conditions and an interminable bureaucracy being experienced by our war wounded who are receiving outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I will not stand aside as those who have fought for our country come home to fight new battles against a crippling bureaucracy just to get the compensation they have more than earned. They shouldn't have to live in substandard conditions while they are recovering from their injuries. Our legislation directly tackles these problems. The principle is simple: our wounded and recovering servicemembers must receive the best treatment. They can't live in substandard housing as they recover. And they must have a user-friendly system to help them apply for the appropriate disability and benefits compensation. It's the least we can do for all they have done for us. For example, each military department has a standard for their dormitories and barracks. I know that not every dormitory or barracks meets the highest standard that the service sets, but that each service is steadily working to reach this standard across their facilities. It is my belief, and this bill serves to establish, that the lowest standard acceptable for a returning wounded servicemember should be the highest existing standard in each military service. Facing the daunting challenge of recovering from war wounds--both psychological and physical--our returning servicemembers should not be living among vermin and mold. They should not be placed in temporary, cramped, makeshift, ancient or transient quarters. We're not demanding the Taj Mahal. We are demanding decent living conditions to help these injured men and women. Further, when problems exist in the living quarters of our recovering servicemembers, they should be identified and repaired quickly. This bill establishes strict measures to facilitate reporting of unsatisfactory living conditions and to mandate timely repair. It also establishes measures to ensure that independent parties are inspecting living quarters in order to prevent any syndrome whereby those closely engaged in dealing with these facilities are overly focused on completing the mission with what they have as opposed to what they should have. I was also appalled to learn of the extensive, confusing bureaucracy that greeted our recovering servicemembers in the outpatient care process. With numerous commands, organizations, advocates, doctors, commanders and any number of others involved in the process, recovering servicemembers found themselves navigating a complicated process and often without a map. They also have to fill out numerous forms, request records, check off bureaucratic blocks, get the right language in their doctor's evaluations, document their illnesses, capture the symptoms they are experiencing and more. It is safe to say that the process poses a daunting challenge to even a fully healthy individual--but imagine the challenge for someone far from home and facing the realities of the wounds of war. Complicating the challenges, those tasked to provide these servicemembers and their families with assistance have been faced with large caseloads and insufficient resources. This legislation requires responsible caseloads for military leaders and caseworkers--and it requires that those providing this assistance not just have a caseload that guarantees a recovering servicemember the attention they need and deserve, but that these caseworkers are well trained. I also learned that those who come to military treatment facilities like Walter Reed to help their loved ones often face uphill battles. I am proud that this legislation reaches out to protect those loved ones who risk their livelihood to care for our recovering servicemembers by providing them medical care as well as protections to secure the jobs they leave behind. Today, I visited Walter Reed, talked with our recovering servicemembers, toured the facilities and discussed these issues with Walter Reed's leaders. I can confidently say that those treating our servicemembers are with me--they want the very best for our recovering servicemembers and for their families. I know that the quality of care being provided at Walter Reed and at many other military hospitals is exceptional and I applaud the caregivers. But I also know that we have all failed to provide the best service and support to many during the outpatient care process. Their living quarters were not the best. The Physical Disability Evaluation System they experience is too bureaucratic. It is time to deliver the best. This legislation seeks to provide it. This is fair legislation. It balances requiring immediate changes with letting the Department of Defense study what is necessary and to subsequently implement incremental change. It empowers our physicians by not requiring random timelines for medical processing or medical care, but it requires that care and processing happen with manageable, understandable and streamlined procedures that equally empowers the servicemember. And this bill requires that trained, professional and caring providers be available to recovering servicemembers and their families in sufficient numbers and in the appropriate places throughout the care process. In closing, I want to thank Senator Obama for his efforts in teaming with me to produce this important legislation. But mostly I want to thank all those serving our nation in uniform today. Their sense of duty is remarkable. Their sacrifice is great. Their heroism unmatched. They have given their best to our country and our country is committed to giving them the best in return.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Go ahead.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, over the past week, I have taken a good look at the President's budget submission. I am new around here, and I will admit that the Federal budget is very complex. But as somebody who has spent the last years of my life as an auditor, I have come to one inescapable conclusion about the budget that has been presented to this Congress for consideration. First, it is not honest; second, it has the wrong priorities. This budget reflects part of the problem we have; that is, our country is facing incredible problems that are very difficult, and we want the American people to support us and believe in us. We cannot expect them to join us in a fight against these complex problems if we aren't going to begin the process by being honest with them. We cannot expect them to support what we do if we are not willing to tell them the complete and unvarnished truth about the situation we face in America today in terms of our budget. The President claims with a straight face that this budget will eliminate the deficit by 2012. In fact, the President claims it will create a surplus in 2012. That sounds great. The problem is, it is not true. The numbers do not add up. First, he fails to include the full cost of the war in Iraq. In this budget, it says the war will only cost $50 billion in 2009. Keep in mind that in this budget cycle, we will spend over $240 billion on the war in Iraq. The confusing part to me about the $50 billion is that it is a mystery. Why is this $50 billion a mystery? It is a mystery because no one seems to know where the figure came from. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I had the opportunity to listen, as the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and even the Comptroller for the Department of Defense were asked the question: Where did the $50 billion figure come from? They did not know. If the leadership of our military and the highest ranking financial official in the Department of Defense do not know where a figure in the budget came from for our war effort, what does that tell you about the integrity of the document? If that figure came from somewhere other than the leaders of the military, we have a problem. The President also conveniently left out the long-term cost of alternative minimum tax relief for the middle class, which the administration knows we all support. The AMT was never designed to reach down into the middle class, as it does and will continue to do in an ever-increasing way, to cause even more stress and pressure on a middle class that believes it is under attack from all sides. Furthermore, this budget assumes deep cuts in education and health care, cuts that the administration knows are not realistic. Finally, it hides the long-term cost of the President's ill-advised program to privatize Social Security. This budget is a gimmick. It is the kind of gimmick that the American people have grown very tired of. If proper budgeting procedures were followed, the Federal Government would still be hundreds of billions of dollars in the red by 2012. If it is not bad enough that this budget is not honest with the American people as to what its implications are, it is even worse when you look at the priorities. First, let's talk about the tax cuts in the President's budget. It preserves billions of dollars in oil subsidies, despite the fact that, once again, we just heard that one of the big oil companies had a record profitmaking quarter. Second, there is $73 billion in this budget to extend tax cuts for millionaires through 2012. I am not talking about tax cuts for people who make $200,000 a year or $300,000 a year. I am talking about for millionaires, $73 billion. Maybe you think that is not so bad, $73 billion for millionaires, until you realize the rest of the story that is contained in this budget. In this budget, the President wants our veterans to spend as much as $15 billion more for the health care they have been promised. According to McClatchy newspapers, this figure could be as high as $15 billion. It is at least $5 billion for additional enrollment fees in health care and additional pharmaceutical costs. Our veterans are being given a tax increase. They say it is not a tax increase; it is a revenue enhancement. This budget is filled with revenue enhancements, also known as user fees, also known as tax increases. So we have a tax cut in this budget for the millionaires, and we have taxes being raised on our veterans. We also have $37.8 billion over 10 years for seniors to increase their Medicare premiums. Tax cuts for the millionaires; tax increases for our veterans and seniors. Besides the seniors and veterans, who else will pay? Our children will pay through cuts in the health insurance program for children. There may be a little more money in this budget, but there is not enough money to cover the children who currently are covered under this program in the United States. Missouri is one of those States that has a shortfall in funding. If we do not fix the President's budget, we will be taking care of the millionaires, and tens of thousands of children will be removed from health care rolls in the State of Missouri. The COPS Program is cut, law enforcement. College loan programs are cut. I have heard in the last couple of years in my life the phrase ``support our troops'' as often as I have heard almost the words ``good morning.'' I have heard it in this room dozens of times in the last few days, as people have argued about the war in Iraq and said, ``You are not supporting our troops. You have to show that you support our troops.'' This budget is the way we show whether we support our troops. Supporting our troops is not a phrase for a political campaign. It is not something to be bandied about to get political advantage, over which resolution we are voting on, or who looks better, the Republicans or the Democrats. It should be embodied in what we do as we decide the priorities for the money we spend on behalf of the American people. In this budget, we have said to veterans coming home--and that we are talking about veterans under the age of 65--that they will have to pay more. That is being proposed at the same time we are walking around here righteously indignant that we are not doing enough to support our troops. In reality, the veterans of this Nation have been losing benefits throughout the Iraq war conflict. They have been fighting for their health care, fighting to see a doctor, and waiting in long lines. This budget is an opportunity to quit talking the talk and begin to walk the walk when it comes to the men and women who have put their lives on the line for our flag and for the country we love. There are not very many veterans coming home from Iraq who are having sleepless nights, worrying about the estate tax on their $10 million estates. There are not very many veterans coming home from Iraq who are worried about their capital gains tax on a multimillion dollar piece of property or their stock portfolio. But there are veterans coming home from Iraq who are having sleepless nights about their health care, about their children's health care, about their children's education, and about their retirement security. This budget does not reflect that we care about those veterans and their sleepless nights. Let's make the phrase ``support the troops'' mean something other than trying to jockey for position in a political game of hardball. Let's get our priorities straight. Let's fix this deeply flawed budget for the American people, and let's begin by being honest about the budget.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I have been asked to speak on the President's health care plan today.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Less than 10 minutes.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to address a national crisis--health care. Over the past 6 years, the number of uninsured in this country has increased by 6 million people. Premiums have increased by 87 percent, compared to a 20-percent increase in wages. Our most vulnerable are being cut from the health care rolls. More and more are in fear that their existing coverage is inadequate and it would probably leave them bankrupt if, God forbid, someone in their family fell seriously ill or was injured. In other words, we are in pretty bad shape when it comes to health care in this country. Needless to say, I was pleased President Bush finally acknowledged our worsening health care crisis during his State of the Union Address on Tuesday. While I was pleased with the acknowledgment, I was sorely disappointed with the plan he laid out. In a nutshell, the President's plan would essentially further the tax burden on the middle class, hurt employees and the businesses of those who offer benefits, siphon funding from community-based health centers, and still leave 44 million Americans out in the cold when it comes to health care coverage. On Tuesday, he presented this plan to the country. Today he is visiting my State, the great State of Missouri, to peddle his program, attempting to sell it to the heartland. Although we will be a polite audience, the show-me State got its name for a reason. In Missouri, our Medicaid rolls were slashed as a result of budget decisions made on the State level, leaving nearly 100,000 additional Missourians without any health care coverage. Also in Missouri, over 25,000 children have lost their health care because of cuts to our children's insurance program. In Missouri, we now have over 600,000 citizens who have no health care coverage at all. Initially I had high hopes that the President might offer a plan that would help the millions of Americans just like these Missourians who do not have any health care. I was certainly looking for the President to show me something a little different on Tuesday. I had hoped he might look to the successful reforms occurring in other States, such as those in Massachusetts and Vermont that expand access to care through risk pooling or the optimistic proposals that have been presented in California and Pennsylvania, to enhance State programs by creating similar pooling mechanisms. These plans focus on ways to make health care more affordable for every participant and increase accessibility for those who are uninsured or underinsured, which is often just as risky. These plans utilize options such as insurance risk pooling so that large groups of people can use their numbers as leverage to bring down the rates for everyone and protect those with existing conditions. As many of us who have family members suffering from high blood pressure, asthma, or even migraines know, these individuals may make their health care plan more susceptible to higher premiums or denials for coverage altogether. Under the President's plan, folks can't work together for better rates or protect higher risk patients from denial. They are left to fend for themselves. Providers will take the low-risk participants, like skimming the cream off the top, and the rest are on their own as individuals in a very difficult insurance market. To make matters worse, if an individual currently has a high premium because of a family member's health condition, because they are older or because they have simply just opted for the most comprehensive coverage, the President's plan would only allow for a certain deduction, leaving them to foot the bill for a new tax increase. Let me say that again--a new tax increase that is not covered. Let me make this very simple and very clear. The President's plan for health care embraces a tax increase for 30 million Americans. He will raise taxes on 30 million Americans while only adding 3 million Americans to the health care rolls. This is not a good bargain for the American people. It does nothing for the working poor. This plan is based on the idea of income tax deductibility. Obviously, if you are working poor, your income tax deductions are not meaningful to you. You don't have mortgage deductions. You don't have other deductions. You don't have the kind of income for which those deductions are even helpful. So this plan will increase taxes on 30 million Americans and will do nothing for the working poor who are uninsured in such large numbers. We may know that the President wants to tax our health care for the first time, but he is masking that by telling the American people, like those in Missouri today, that he is offering a tax deduction. This tax deduction, of course, will end up favoring the most wealthy, while those at the bottom or the middle will not benefit as much. For example, a tax deduction of $15,000 as proposed in the President's plan would be worth over $5,000 for a family taxed at the higher bracket of 35 percent, the high-income earners of America, but for those in the 10-percent tax bracket, the poorer Americans, that deduction would only be worth $1,500. Furthermore, employers who offer comprehensive health care would be encouraged to shift the responsibility to their employees. Even for employers who offer an increase in wages to compensate for the change, the individual market plans are more likely to cost more, be less comprehensive, and provide a greater risk of high premiums or denial of coverage for those who have existing conditions. What may seem like a bargain today would not be a bargain in 10 years. In fact, all you have to do is look at the numbers in the President's plan. It will cost our Treasury money in the beginning, but it is estimated that 10 years from now there will be no cost. All you have to do is look at that to realize that this is not a plan which over the long run will bring stability to our health care system, accessibility to our health care system, or bring down health care costs. As you can tell, I do not agree with forcing the middle class to shoulder another tax hike. With a minimum wage that has not increased in over a decade, these are the same people who are trying to afford to send their kids to college with ever-spiraling tuition costs, to fill their cars with gas and put food on the table. Wall Street might be seeing a boost in the economy, but these folks on Main Street have not seen it, and they need a break. That is where I come down on this plan. Instead of asking the middle class to bear another cost to their pocketbooks, we ought to look at those big tax breaks to America's most wealthy. Let's look at these different options. Let's use the President's plan as an opportunity to have a discussion about the severity of the problems in the system and what we need to do to make it better. Let's ask the tough questions and examine what is out there. Let's look at why is it that the United States spends 16 percent of our income on health care but other wealthy countries do not spend more than 11 percent; why is it that we spend 34 percent of our health care dollars on administrative costs while other countries are only spending 19 percent; and why is it that American health insurance companies are insuring 4 percent fewer people in America between 2001 and 2005, yet they have added 32 percent more people to their payroll. Think about that for a minute. The health insurance companies are insuring 4 percent fewer people in their health insurance plans between 2001 and 2005, but in that same time they added 32 percent more people to their payroll. What are these additional people doing if they are insuring fewer people? Could it be that they are hiring more people to help them figure out ways to avoid paying health insurance claims? Let's find out why an American automotive giant passes on $1,500 in health care costs per car, while the Japanese automaker Toyota only passes on $110. Bottom line: Families are hurt by health care costs. The vulnerable are at risk due to high health care costs, and businesses are struggling. Health care in this country has turned into a giant game of pass the buck. I, for one, can say that I thank President Bush for bringing our worst domestic nightmare out of the dark. But as my predecessor liked to say, the buck needs to stop right here. I look forward to the many hours of debate we will need to have take place in order to get this right, and we cannot stop until we get there. The American people deserve this. In the meantime, I say to President Bush in Missouri, you need to show us more than this. I yield the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar.) The Senator from Arizona.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I am.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, this afternoon I will have the glorious opportunity to travel to the White House to celebrate the 2006 World Champion St. Louis Cardinals, and the echoes of the cheers of St. Louis I will hear. But today there are even stronger cheers coming from the angels in Heaven because today the angels in Heaven are cheering for a lifetime of kindness and compassion that belonged to the Missouri legend, Larry Stewart. Larry was known by many names--dad, son, husband, friend--but his favorite name was Secret Santa. This was a title that was given him by hundreds and thousands of anonymous people he had helped over the 26 years that he had a very special way of celebrating our Christmas holiday. Larry Stewart knew something of the life of those he had helped, but like any legendary, larger-than-life superhero, he remained mysteriously anonymous until the closing days of his life. He grew up poor in Mississippi, later telling stories about how he resorted to sleeping in his car early on just to get by. He, in fact, was homeless. He told a story of how in 1971 he was eating in a diner, and when the time came to pay for his meal, he realized he didn't have the money. He saw a $20 bill had been dropped next to him on the counter, and he got the attention of the man he had seen drop the $20 bill. The man turned out to be the owner, and the $20 bill had been dropped on purpose. It was a subtle gift trying to not make Larry Stewart feel uncomfortable about not having the money to pay for his meal. Larry Stewart would never forget that moment. Years later in 1979, well into his career as a businessman, he faced his second Christmas season unemployed. Worried about how he was going to take care of his young family and receiving the news that he had just lost another job, he saw a carhop working outside in the cold with very little to keep her warm. Faced with the situation that his problems were not as serious as hers, he gave the woman a $20 tip, and the joy that $20 tip gave him began a tradition that lasted the next 26 years of his life. I was lucky enough to be in his very wide circle of friends in Kansas City. I was even more fortunate because there was a time when he turned to me and said: Claire, would you like to go on a sleigh ride? I said of course, welcoming the opportunity to see Larry Stewart do what really no one else realized he was doing. The sleigh ride went something like this: We met at Larry's home early in the morning near Christmas. He wore always white overalls--he was a big man--white overalls with a bright red flannel shirt. We would sit in his kitchen drinking coffee. He would be exuberant with excitement as to what was going to happen that day. He would stuff his pockets with mountains of cash. His dear friend, Tom Phillips--then a sheriff's deputy, now the sheriff of Jackson County--would accompany us to make sure that our journey was safe, and off we would go in a large Suburban with another few fortunate friends to watch Santa do his work. He had a method. I asked him one time: Larry, how do you decide where you go to spread this money? He said: I try to go places where people are doing their best to get by. So we would travel to autopart stores where people at the Christmas season were trying to buy that battery to make that car work. We would travel to bus stops where he would love to find people dressed in fast- food uniforms trying to catch a bus to work. The Suburban would slow down, and Larry would hop out. We would all get out. Quickly he would approach the people and stuff $100 bills in their hands and say: Merry Christmas. Astonished, these people would look up suspiciously, thinking that maybe something was wrong. Then they realized: It was just a wonderful, kind man spreading Christmas cheer. We would go into laundromats. We would go into 7-Elevens. We would go anywhere that Larry thought he would find people who were doing their best and having a difficult time making ends meet during the holiday season. I watched Larry Stewart hand out thousands and thousands of dollars to people who were astonished at his generosity, strangers he had never seen before and would never see again. Every Christmas, year after year, this was his tradition. Those sleigh rides I took with Larry Stewart are some of the most memorable days of my life. I will never forget the feelings that washed over me as I watched the true spirit of Christmas in operation. On every sleigh ride he would always find some special recipients. This was research he did ahead of time, trying to find families who were really in need. The stories that I have to tell of those special moments I can literally cry thinking of what I witnessed. I remember one instance where we drove to the suburbs of Kansas City and pulled up in front of a very modest home. I asked Larry what he was doing. He explained to me that there was a woman who lived in this house who had to get dialysis three times a week. She lived with her daughter. Her daughter was a single mom with three kids. They had a broken down van, and her daughter would have to arrange her three jobs she worked to try to take her mother into Kansas City for dialysis, and invariably the van would break down. Larry heard about this situation, and this was going to be one of his special Christmas gifts. He had a van outfitted with a handicap ramp for her wheelchair, a brandnew van, and he had it fixed up with a giant red bow. He had someone driving it who had a remote-controlled walkie- talkie. Up we go to the front door of this house. Larry pounds on the door in his white overalls and red flannel shirt, and peeking through the door is the very suspicious daughter. I am standing over to the side watching all this. Larry says to this woman: Merry Christmas. I hear that you are having a hard time getting your mom to dialysis. You can hear her mother in the background saying: Who is it? Who is it? Who is it? Her mother, with difficulty, comes to the door and is standing just behind her daughter. This daughter says: Yes. You can see the broken down van in the driveway. Larry says: I want to try to help to see if we can't get your mom to dialysis with a little more reliability, and with that he talks into the walkie-talkie and says: Bring it around. And around the corner comes the new van with a big red ribbon on it. It pulls into the driveway, and with that, Larry hands the daughter an envelope with $10,000 in cash in it and says: Merry Christmas. He walks away and says: The title is in the van. Of course, you can imagine the reaction of these women--shocked, surprised, joy. And, of course, I am balling like a baby standing there, as all of us were. There were about four of us who watched this event. That is just one story I can tell, but imagine having the privilege of seeing that kind of scene played over and over several years in a row when I was fortunate enough to be on the sleigh ride. This was an extraordinary man. During the time he was playing Secret Santa in Kansas City and across our country, he gave out $1.3 million in cash. Kansas City was lucky enough to receive most of his gifts, but he also landed his sleigh frequently in his home State of Mississippi, Florida after the hurricanes, New Orleans after Katrina, New York after 9/11, and this past Christmas, his last, knowing that it was probably his last, he traveled to Chicago to spread cheer around his dear friend Buck O'Neil's neighborhood where Buck O'Neil grew up poor. Buck O'Neil was one of his best friends and, of course, another Kansas City legend we lost last year. He told the public about his role as Secret Santa last Christmas, so the world knew who Secret Santa finally was. Thousands of people who received his generous spirit contacted him in the closing days of his life. He called me on Christmas Eve to say this was the most special Christmas of all because of the outpouring of love he had felt from all of the people he had helped over the years. What Mr. Stewart, who had built a fortune from nothing, may have seen as a small holiday gift was actually a gesture of compassion so few experience or ever understand due to the frenetic pace of our lives. Known by his family and friends and colleagues for a soul born of kindness and warmth and a personality as unassuming as his generosity was great, Larry kept his identity under wraps until this year. He was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and in his last months his identity was revealed. When word spread, he was flooded with national media attention about which he could care less. Frankly, he didn't even want to handle it. But he was excited because he realized he had an opportunity to spread what he had done to others and hopefully have it catch on. He loved hearing the stories, but he continually said to all of us this was not about him. It was God's work. He was merely a servant of his Lord. I ask the Senate to join me in honoring and celebrating the life of Larry Stewart, Missouri's own Secret Santa. I ask that this distinguished body join me in extending our greatest sympathies to his family: Paulette, Joe, John, Kim, and Mark, and the thousands who, like me, were fortunate enough to call him a dear friend. Mr. Stewart's gifts of hope touched many recipients. However, the compassion that drove his generosity was contagious to all who knew him and that was even a greater gift. As we honor Larry today, let us rejoice in his life, remember his kindness, his sense of humor, and revel in his generosity. He was Santa. He was real, right down to the twinkle in his eye. He loved others as the good Lord intended. May his legacy of kindness always be a reminder to us all to spread hope and compassion to one another. Mr. President, I yield the floor.