Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I yield back time.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, it is not often the Senate has a chance to go back and fix a grievous error that occurred in our history, and that error occurred in 1999 when a good and qualified man was defeated in the Senate for a position on the eastern district court of the Federal bench in Missouri. At that time there was an attack on Ronnie White for being soft on crime. The record, as it stands today, flies in the face of that assertion. At the time of his defeat, he had voted to uphold the death penalty almost 70 percent of the time. In fact, in his career on the Missouri Supreme Court, being the first African American appointed to the Supreme Court, he voted with the majority on death penalty cases 90 percent of the time. This is a mainstream jurist. This is not someone who is outside of the mainstream. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police has endorsed his nomination. That is why he is considered in the State of Missouri as an iconic leader in the legal community. He went back to Missouri, was the chief justice in the Supreme Court after he was defeated on the floor of the Senate, retired from the Supreme Court, and has gone on to be an established and respected lawyer in the St. Louis community-- frankly, part of many big cases, especially the appellate work, because he served on both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. I think Ronnie White handled what happened to him with as much character as could possibly be required of any individual. I look forward to finally righting the wrong and allowing Ronnie White his well-deserved place on the Federal bench. I ask all my colleagues to support the confirmation of Ronnie White. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I wish to congratulate Hugh McVey on his retirement and to thank him for his many years of leadership and service to the field of labor. For over 40 years, Hugh has been a champion of workers' rights and has fought tirelessly to improve the lives of Missouri's workers and their families. It is my pleasure to honor him today. A native of St. Louis, MO, Hugh comes from a working family of 11 children. His family's strong labor background encouraged him to get involved. His uncle Duke was president of the Missouri AFL-CIO for many years until Hugh succeeded him in 1999. Hugh considered his father and uncle his closest friends and respected their advice and support. Hugh attended Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. While there, he became involved with the operating engineers and was the group steward and later chief steward for Local 148 out of Collinsville, IL. He then became the business agent and assistant business manager for the same local. After his time with the operating engineers, McVey worked for Union Electric, now Ameren, for 23 years and joined Operating Engineers Local 1148 in 1974. In 1997, Hugh relocated to Jefferson City, when he was elected executive vice president of the Missouri AFL-CIO. In 1999, he was elected President, and served for 17 years before his retirement this July. During Hugh's tenure as president of the Missouri AFL-CIO, the organization was instrumental in advocating for the union rights Executive order, the Affordable Care Act, and the ``Made in Missouri'' jobs package. Hugh's effective leadership shaped the Missouri AFL-CIO into the outstanding organization it is today. As president, Hugh continued to attend local meetings and listened to workers' concerns. He effectively recruited candidates for local offices and worked with legislators on pending legislation that would impact the worker. Hugh considers the labor movement his life's work, never a job. Hugh is completely dedicated to ensuring that workers get a fair day's pay and reasonable benefits. His passion to help working families is unparalleled. Hugh and his wife Peggy have three daughters: Megan, Maureen, and Colleen. I know they will enjoy the opportunity to spend more time with him. It is my pleasure to honor my friend Hugh McVey today. His dedicated leadership has improved the quality of the workplace for Missourians. He has touched the lives of many, and improved the quality of our community at large. I ask that the Senate join me in congratulating and honoring Hugh McVey.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring the life of Sheila Lumpe, who passed away on June 4, 2014. Sheila was a much-loved member of the St. Louis community. Sheila has left a legacy of public service that will always be cherished, and St. Louis will not be the same without her. Sheila was born in Strinestown, PA and graduated from high school in Indiana where she had moved as a young girl. She attended Indiana University to study political science and met a fellow student, Gus Lumpe. They married and moved to St. Louis in 1965. Sheila served 17 years in the Missouri House representing University City, a suburb of St. Louis. After she retired from the house, the Governor named her the State's chief utilities regulator and she served 6 years on the Public Service Commission. She was a member of the Missouri Humanities Council board of directors and received numerous awards and honors. With four children enrolled in University City schools, Sheila became involved in the Parent Teacher Association. In 1973, the school board was divided over integration and Sheila's husband Gus encouraged her to run for a seat on the board. Sheila won and spent 8 years on the school board. When her neighbor gave up his house seat to run for Lieutenant Governor, Sheila ran for his seat and won. I had the distinct honor of serving with Sheila in the Missouri General Assembly, where her tenure was marked by excellence and community involvement and where I learned important lessons about public leadership from her. Sheila became the first woman to lead the powerful House Budget Committee and nearly became the first woman speaker of the House. Sheila fought tirelessly for women's rights, equal pay and universal health care. She helped Planned Parenthood retain funding while in the legislature. Her legislation to expand health care for children passed the year after she left the legislature. Shelia was a role model to not only female legislators, but all legislators. She was regarded highly by everyone she interacted with, including those with very different views. Sheila retired from the Public Service Commission and public life in 2003. She devoted herself to taking care of her husband, who passed away in 2009 from Alzheimer's disease. Sheila also passed away from Alzheimer's disease. She is survived by her three sons Abraham, Nathan and Andrew; daughter, Karen, and six grandchildren. Sheila left an indelible and permanent mark on St. Louis and will be fondly remembered and dearly missed. Sheila's life and commitment to others serves as an inspiration to me and to all Missourians. I have lost a friend and mentor and our State has truly lost a leader and a hero. I ask that the Senate join me in honoring the life and legacy of Sheila Lumpe.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of S. 2450, a bill I have proudly cosponsored that would make critically needed reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs. As we all know, revelations from whistleblowers, reports from the Government Accountability Office, an internal review by the VA, and an interim report from the VA's inspector general, an independent watchdog, have all revealed problems within the VA that have caused the system to fail many of our veterans. This is simply unacceptable. As the daughter of a World War II veteran, I understand the extraordinary debt we owe to the men and women who have served this Nation in defense of our freedoms. I thank my colleagues, Senator Sanders and Senator McCain, for working to forge a bipartisan bill to address some of the most serious shortcomings in the VA health care system that have been identified in recent weeks. The bill would provide for greater transparency at the VA by requiring an independent assessment of the scheduling system used at every VA medical center, along with the staffing levels and workloads at each facility. It would also task the VA inspector general to identify on an annual basis the health provider occupations with the largest staffing shortages, which will give both the VA and Congress a better understanding of the Department's needs. In order to address what has been identified as a shortage in health care providers within the VA, the bill would expand opportunities for veterans to seek care outside of the VA system, including allowing veterans who qualify to seek care at Department of Defense health facilities. The bill would also empower the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to immediately hold senior VA officials accountable if they have failed to do their jobs. The credibility of the VA has taken a serious blow, and it will take years for the Department to regain the trust it has lost among veterans and among the American people. My strong support for this legislation is based on my belief that it will make critical and fundamental changes to the VA that will result in significant improvements to the quality of care our veterans receive and their ability to access that care. The VA is facing significant challenges, but with the passage of this legislation the Senate is taking an important step in helping to restore trust in a system that has provided tremendous care for generations of veterans. Our Nation's veterans deserve no less.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Without objection, all time is yielded back. The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Rosemary Marquez, of Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona?

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and honor the outstanding work of Concerns for Police Survivors C.O.P.S. for 30 years of dedicated service to the families of America's fallen law enforcement officers. Suzie Sawyer founded the organization 30 years ago as a small grief support organization. In 1993, the organization relocated to Camdenton, MO, where it has grown to serve over 30,000 surviving law enforcement families from all over the United States. The organization now has 50 national chapters and a multimillion dollar yearly budget that is used to host annual seminars, retreats, and provide resources for the surviving families and coworkers of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. I thank Suzie Sawyer for her dedication to this important cause, and I thank C.O.P.S. for 30 years of providing invaluable support to grieving law enforcement families and coworkers.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I very rarely am motivated to come to the floor simultaneously with current events, thinking that it is important to reflect and learn as much as possible about a subject before one begins to orate about it on the Senate floor. I am making an exception, however, because of the extraordinarily heinous acts that have occurred in the country of Nigeria. I think it takes everyone's breath away in the United States of America that a terrorist organization--Boko Haram--would attack a secondary school in northeastern Nigeria and kidnap 200 girls. Most of these girls are not that much younger than my daughters. These were young women who wanted nothing more than to get an education. We are now told these terrorists have proudly proclaimed they will enslave these young women, they will sell them as slaves. They are proudly taking credit for this despicable and inhumane act. I thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Collins for organizing a letter to the President to urge him to include Boko Haram in the United Nations Al Qaeda sanctions list. I thank the other Senators who introduced the resolution we passed this afternoon condemning this attack. But we have to do more. It concerns me, honestly, that this is occurring in a country where the leader not too long ago signed into law a measure that anyone entering into a homosexual relationship can be imprisoned for up to 14 years. In this same country we have a terrorist organization capturing young women and enslaving them for dollars to be child brides, proudly proclaiming that it is a sin for these young women to want to get an education, that this action was necessary to purge them of their sins and marry them off. I understand it takes all kinds of people to make up this great world. I understand there are all kinds of beliefs. But it is very hard for me to get my arms around the notion that there could be any faith that would believe kidnapping young women by the hundreds and selling them as indentured slaves to men could ever be part of any kind of faith that we should recognize. These are not people of faith; these are heinous criminals. I believe our country should look at them as archenemies of who we are as a nation and what we stand for as a government. The name of this organization means ``Western education is a sin.'' Respect for young women is not a sin. Wanting an education is not a sin. The opportunity to better oneself is not a sin. These incredible crimes that have been committed should not go unanswered, and I think it is incumbent on our Nation, with the great resources we have, to make sure we send the appropriate message to the world that this is Al Qaeda and this is our enemy--not just to our values and our way of life but, importantly, an enemy to innocent young women. I wanted to come to the floor to make this statement because I cannot imagine how the parents of these young girls must be feeling and how helpless the feeling must be. I can only hope and pray that the Government of Nigeria realizes this is a moment of truth for them. Will they stand up to this kind of extremism that is not faith? They do a disservice to their professed faith by these actions. Can this country stand up to them, can we help them stand up to them and, most importantly, can we do anything to save these young women? When I go to bed tonight I will, in my faith, thank God for my family and my children, and I will also ask for prayers for these young women in hopes they can be rescued, that they can be reunited with their desire to get educated, and that their families will not have to spend days wondering if they will ever see their children again or if their children will even survive. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, every once in a while it is probably healthy for all of us to sit back for a moment and reflect on why we are here. What is the Senate supposed to be about? Why do we come to the Senate? Why did our Founding Fathers lay out a Constitution that had these branches of government? In the branch of government in which we reside, we are called the legislative branch. So what is that about? I think what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do is to make our laws reflect the values and priorities of the American people. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a simple step toward making our laws reflect two of the most important values we have in the United States of America. I guarantee you that if you walked up to any of my colleagues who intend to vote against this and said, do you believe in equality and justice, they would say, of course we believe in equality and justice. Then why would you not support this legislation, because it is just that simple. We are just trying to make the laws of this country reflect the American ideals of equality and justice. Well, they say, there are laws on the books. Well, here is the deal. You cannot get justice if you do not have the facts. If the facts are a secret, a protected secret, then justice is always going to be elusive and equality is going to be something to which we give lipservice, not something we will truly enjoy in this country. So this is just a step to say to American business: Let's understand why two people doing the same job have two different levels of pay. Explain it to us. What is so evil about that? What is so evil about expecting a business to be able to explain why a man and a woman with the same experience, the same credentials, and the same work output are paid differently. If there is a good reason, then there is no litigation, there is no rush to the courthouse. But if there is not a good reason, that is where that justice comes in. That is where a woman has an opportunity to go into the hallowed halls of our courts--the envy of the world, I might add--to have a fair shot at justice. The notion that someone can be fired for trying to get the facts about their own compensation, the notion that retaliation would somehow be embraced by my colleagues who do not intend to vote for this legislation I do not understand. I know they are trying to explain to the American people that this has something to do with us having a love affair with America's trial lawyers. I have never heard more rubbish in my life. It is not the trial lawyers whom we care about. It is the women. It is the single moms. It is the women who have this sinking feeling in the pit of their stomach that they are getting paid less, that they are helpless because they can't get at the information. When they do, they have the entire burden of proof of showing that somehow they weren't inferior to their male colleagues. There is absolutely no possible reason that any of us would be trying to help lawyers with this. It is their clients, guys; it is the women of America. It is the women of America who want the laws to reflect our values, equality, and justice. This is a simple step. It is nothing to be afraid of. Frankly, the only thing anyone who opposes this bill should be afraid of is the wrath of American women across this country who are sick and tired of being told it is none of their business what their colleague is getting paid and: By the way, I don't have to explain to you why you make less even though your work output has been superior to your male colleagues. It is time and it is about our values. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. I wish to speak as in morning business.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote this afternoon--hopefully this afternoon or, if not this afternoon, tomorrow--for a terrific man to be a judge in the Western District of the Federal District Court in Missouri. As an old lawyer--too old--I find myself amazed that I have the opportunity to speak to the Senate about someone I have known a long time, about a lawyer I know very well. This is a man whose name is Doug Harpool. He is from Springfield, MO. Back in the early 1980s he and I arrived as very young lawyers in the Missouri House of Representatives. I had the opportunity to get to know him well--his character, his integrity, his work ethic. I watched him, against tremendous odds and, frankly, some inappropriate pressure, fight for a first major attempt at ethics reform in the Missouri Legislature. His journey was sometimes a very lonely journey, but he had a pit bull kind of mentality about going after this important topic, believing that if a person is in public service, a person's standards must be high; believing that if one chooses--many times at less compensation--a path in the public arena, one has a certain duty to conduct oneself with integrity and the kind of character that could make others proud of their representation. After his time in the Missouri Legislature, he went on to be a lawyer's lawyer. I don't mean the kind who says ``I am a litigator'' and never goes near a courtroom, and I don't mean the kind who says ``I handle serious cases'' and does nothing but shuffle paper, but, rather, a real litigant--somebody who is in the courtroom, by the way, on both sides of the table. This is somebody who helped clients who were suing people and helped people who were being sued. He has worked with great regard as a practicing attorney now for many years. There is nothing better than being respected by one's peers, especially those whom one has battled because when we battle with someone, we see it all. We see what kind of a person we are up against and what tactics the other person is willing to use. We see a person's raw intellect and their ability to think on their feet. So when I started hearing from so many lawyers who were Doug Harpool's colleagues what a terrific choice he would be, I knew that what I believed about him was shared by so many others. He will never be a judge who gets ``robitis.'' That is a serious disease which sometimes strikes Federal judges more often than other kinds because they are appointed for life. Practicing lawyers talk about judges who have robitis, which is a malaise that comes upon a judge who all of a sudden removes himself from the common people and that somehow makes him or her above the struggles lawyers are having, makes them above the problems clients are presenting in their courtroom. This is a grounded man. This is a man who will understand what it is like to litigate a case, why his judgments must be fair and also speedy, why he owes it to the litigants to actually read their briefs--not assign it to someone else, to thumb through and then make a decision based on a predetermined notion he might have. This is someone who will take this work with the degree of seriousness it deserves and with the amount of compassion we all should demand. I am so proud to be here urging his confirmation. I am confident he will be confirmed by a wide margin. But I am even more confident he will be the kind of Federal judge who will make me proud and all of Missouri proud for as long as he chooses to sit on the bench. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Levin.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I rise, together with my colleagues Senator Graham and Senator Ayotte, and ask that the Chair advise when we have used 20 minutes of time. We are going to engage in a colloquy about this important decision that is in front of the Senate. It is, in fact, with great humility that I come to this policy debate. I don't think anyone in the Senate has spent more time in a courtroom putting perpetrators in prison who have committed sexual crimes. I don't think anybody has spent more time with victims of sexual assault. There is an incredible amount of pressure that you feel when you walk into a courtroom knowing that victim has placed trust in you to bring the evidence forward, and I am forever marked by that experience. It is with that experience that I have become convinced that the policy changes that are being advocated will not work for victims. In fact, it is clear that when these changes have been enacted other places, reporting has not increased. It is clear that right now we have more cases going to court-martial over the objections of prosecutors than the objections of commanders. Today there is a court-martial ongoing where a prosecutor walked away from the serious charges and the commander said go forward. There have been almost 100 cases over the last 2 years where prosecutors said this case is too tough and the commanders have said, no, we have to get to the bottom of it. We can't let the commanders walk away. We cannot let the commanders walk away. There is nothing in the Gillibrand proposal that provides additional protection from retaliation. I ask Senator Graham: If someone walks back into their unit after being victimized and the unit knows the commander has said this case is going forward, how would that contrast to walking back into his or her unit when the unit knows some lawyer in Fort Belvoir--hundreds of miles away--has said whether this case should go forward? I am trying to figure out how removing the commander provides any additional protection from retaliation to that victim.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I would say to Senator Ayotte, I am also struggling with some of the practical problems in this policy, and one of the things I can't figure out is why the amendment limits the ability to add any additional resources. It strictly prohibits the military from bringing additional resources to bear on this problem, which is counterintuitive to me. If the goal here is to do our very best job to protect victims, and the practical problem is we do not have enough of the level of JAG officers right now to set up these offices on a global basis, which means things are going to slow down because we don't have enough--I know the Senator from New Hampshire has been a prosecutor. Certainly there is nothing harder for a victim than justice delayed. So in addition to it not increasing reporting, in addition to it not protecting from retaliation, in addition to removing commanders from their accountability, we also have some real practical implications.

Mrs. McCASKILL. We have hard data on that. In fact, I think that is one of the reasons, if we look at this quote: I went into this thinking Senator Gillibrand's legislation made sense, but when you hear the facts, it doesn't hold up. That is an important quote, but even more important when we realize who said it. This is the woman who runs the National Center for Victims of Crime for our entire Nation. She heard 150 witnesses, representing many of the groups that have been referenced in this debate. She realized that when they looked at the data, our allies have done this, and not in one nation, after years of experience with changing the system, has the reporting increased. The way we increase reporting is to give the victim a safe harbor, which we have done, to report outside the chain of command, and to have their own lawyer, and to make sure they have power and deference in the process, which we have done, along with the reforms, on which I am very proud to have worked with Senator Gillibrand.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I have great respect for the Senator's time and for working in the trenches as a military prosecutor in the JAG corps. I will tell my colleagues honestly, I am less concerned about the commanders than I am the victims. The Senator and I maybe don't see it exactly the same way in that regard. I believe there are commanders who deserve to be held accountable for their failure to act, for their want to sweep this crime under the rug throughout history, but I think we are handing the broom to the prosecutors at this point based on the data we have. One of the things I wanted to go over and mention to Senator Ayotte is the systems response panel. I think it is important to understand-- the DACOWITS panel was mentioned. I want everybody to understand the difference between the DACOWITS panel and the systems response panel. The DACOWITS panel has been in place for years, and they took up this matter and heard no witnesses from the JAG corps. In fact, I think they heard two witnesses or three witnesses and two of them were me and Kirsten Gillibrand. They took no time to really go deeply into this very complex subject. The systems response panel was created by Congress, and it was for the purpose of giving us their clear eye of advice on the best way to deal with this problem in the military. This is a majority of civilians and a majority of women who made up this panel. They heard 150 witnesses over months. They heard from all of the people who are advocating for the Gillibrand proposal. They heard from the JAGs. They heard from victim organizations. They came out overwhelmingly rejecting this proposal. One of the most interesting members--and I will be honest; when I went to testify in front of this response panel, I was very worried that Elizabeth Holtzman maybe would not agree with me. She has a long history in Congress. She wrote the Federal rape shield statute. I assumed she would begin this process assuming that in the simple equation of victims versus commanders, I take victims. If only it were that simple. What the response panel figured out is that it is not that simple. Judge Holtzman, the judge who wrote the decision overturning DOMA, said: Just turning it over to prosecutors doesn't mean you are going to get the results you are looking for. And Elizabeth--this is what Elizabeth Holtzman said: ``Just turning it over to prosecutors doesn't mean you are going to get the results you are looking for.'' That is what Holtzman said. Judge Jones: ``There is no evidence that removing the convening authority is going to improve any of the parts of the system.'' That is startling, this response, from a panel that looked at it over months, 150 witnesses, majority civilians, majority women. This is not a bumper sticker. It is not as simple as it sounds. I would never oppose anything that I thought was going to help victims or put more perpetrators in prison--ever. This will have the opposite impact that many of the advocates are indicating that it will.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Isn't it true that, in fact, our reporting is up?

Mrs. McCASKILL. One minute.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Thank you, Madam President.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain.