Claire McCaskill

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, 35 years ago I was a very young assistant prosecutor. There weren't any other women who were assistant prosecutors in Kansas City, and I got assigned a lot of cases that the men in the office used to jokingly call women's work, which meant that I got a lot of cases on welfare fraud and food stamp fraud. And then, as I spent more time in the office, I got sexual assaults and I got domestic violence. I remember as if it were yesterday the feeling of helplessness as I sat across the desk from a woman who had been beaten to within an inch of her life, and I remember calling the police department and asking for help and them saying: You know, hon, let it go. Tell her to go home. I remember her asking me: What do I do about my children? I have no money. I don't really want to prosecute him--I don't think he will leave me alone. I remember not being able to sleep at night because I was so worried about the women who had really no place to go, no one to guide them through the terrifying journey the criminal justice system can be, much less the terrifying journey their lives were. That was 35 years ago. When I ran for prosecutor in 1992, I said: I am going to start a domestic violence unit, because since then I had spent time working on the laws in Jefferson City, and I had also spent time on the board of a domestic violence shelter--one of the first in Kansas City--and then I became prosecutor, and we started a domestic violence unit. The police department still pushed back and said: These aren't real crimes. If the victim doesn't want to testify, we have no evidence to go forward. And I said to them: Wait a minute. We go forward on homicides when the victims can't testify. We should build these cases around the facts and circumstances regardless of the mental state of the victim. I remember feeling so helpless that we had no resources. And then I remember, as the Jackson County prosecutor in Kansas City, when the Violence Against Women Act passed. I remember reviewing our grant application for the victim advocate in our office, and I remember all of a sudden thinking, you know, we are going to turn the corner. Is it still a huge problem? Yes. But if you were there 35 years ago on the front lines and you knew the progress we have made to date, you wouldn't be voting no in the Judiciary Committee on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. You wouldn't be doing that. So let's move forward. Let's make sure the victim advocates who arrive on the scene as a result of this important piece of legislation--let's make sure they stay on the job. Let's make sure there are not any young prosecutors today who are going home sleepless, much less victims who look at someone who claims they love them, claims they are their protector, but at the same time knowing that person is capable of taking their life. Let's make sure those women have someplace to turn to, their children have someplace to turn to. Let's reauthorize this act today and make sure all the women out there have that help and assistance they need in their time of need. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I have obviously been very fortunate to have the opportunity to give remarks from my desk on the floor of the Senate several times since the people of Missouri sent me in 2006. I do not think I have ever had a speech that I was going to give that was easier and harder than this speech--easy in that I am talking about someone I love; hard because this person I love is going on to a different place and a brighter future and I am going to miss her terribly. This person's name is Angela Elsbury, and she has a job that people outside Congress do not fully appreciate. She is called the scheduler. But for anybody who does this work, they appreciate that somehow that title just does not do it justice. I do not know what the right title would be. I can think of several: In charge of my life, hand holder, the nicest person who has to say no, multitasker, mother to the entire office, disciplinarian, jokester. There are so many things a good scheduler does that make our lives work. Angela came to this work having worked for the Governor in Missouri in a similar capacity. She actually joined my campaign and was one of the first ones through the door. She came from a place that, frankly, had not had a lot of people who were elbow to elbow with Governors and Senators. She came from a small town called Madison, MO. I think there are maybe just north of 500 people who live in Madison. So not only did she begin the campaign and do a lot at the beginning of the campaign keeping us organized and allowing the schedule to work, she came to Washington and has done remarkable work. Her work is so remarkable that everybody kind of thought it was easy. That is the mark of a very good scheduler because it is the hardest job--the hardest job--in the office. Not only does she have to put up with the frustration of me when the hours are long and the meetings are back to back and there is not time to get a breath, she has to put up with everyone in Missouri who cannot understand why I cannot be in five places at one time and why it is not possible for me to vote one hour and be in Rolla, MO, the next hour. She does all that with incredible grace and intellect and a smile on her face. She is just a very special person. The thing about these jobs is there are days I get worried about our democracy, and then I look at the resumes of the young people, whether it is the great pages who serve us morning, noon, and night in the Chamber or whether it is the amazing people whom I work with in my office. These are people who could go other places in the private sector and make a lot of money. They choose to come here. They are drawn here. They are drawn to their government. They are drawn to public service. So, as a result, I mean, what do I love about my job? Let me count the ways. But one of the things I love most is being surrounded by patriotic, intellectual Americans who want to do the right thing and do not care that they have to still live like they are in college, who do not care that the idea of buying a car is a fantasy because it is just too expensive, who do not care that they have to have an hour commute in order to get housing they can afford. They want to be a part of it. I am surrounded by a team like that, but in the driver's seat, kind of making the car go where it needs to go, and making sure it does not get broken down on the side of the road has been Angela. I am not sure exactly how this car is going to navigate without her. I have a feeling we are going to have a few bumps. There may be an out and out collision. There may be some scrapes and some wailing and some hollering about people who are upset or it does not work. I do know this, that we always say somebody's shoes are hard to fill. These shoes will be very hard to fill. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2030.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, S. 89 makes significant changes to the Federal Employees Compensation Act, FECA, which I support. The changes seek to reduce overspending in the program. But this is an amendment that will allow a couple of considerations that I think are important to include. The amendment, along with other things, would improve upon the current program by providing those injured while deployed in armed conflict additional time to file a claim for FECA benefits and to ensure that deployed employees injured in a terrorist attack overseas while off-duty would receive the FECA benefits. It also creates an exemption for hardship if someone would be eligible for food stamps if their benefits are decreased even further. These provisions are similar to the FECA reform legislation, H. Res. 2465, that has already passed the House of Representatives, and I ask for the consideration of the body of this amendment.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2031. I ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes at the desk.

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. This amendment reflects the efforts of a lot of people to deal with rural post office closings in a way that will be straightforward and fair to rural communities across this country. It is going to prevent any closings for 1 year while the reforms which are embedded in this bill have a chance to begin to work. It then sets some clear standards for potential closures. I want to thank Senator Moran who did some great work on this subject in committee. He deserves credit for beginning the process of taking a hard look at rural post offices and how we were dealing with them. I obviously want to thank Senator Merkley who has worked on this, Senator Tester who has worked on it, and Senator Sanders. But I really want to thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for continuing to model to this body what true bipartisanship looks like, and who continually strive for that very elusive and rare but valuable commodity in a democracy, that thing known as compromise. This amendment now represents one of those compromises. I am proud to be a part of it. I think it strikes the right note of protecting rural post offices but also with a realistic eye toward the future and how we are fair to rural communities in a way that is predictable and one that, frankly, shows some accountability for the Postal Service. I ask that this be taken up by voice vote.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I spent a lot of my childhood in a very small town in Missouri. From the time I was about 3 years old until the fourth grade, I lived in a town called Lebanon, MO. My dad was a life insurance salesman and sold life insurance, in fact to many of the soldiers at Fort Leonard Wood, and my mother's family had the corner drugstore about a block off Main Street in Lebanon, MO. I have fond and vivid memories of my childhood in Lebanon, and one of them was the trip I would take whenever I was hanging out down at my family's drugstore. This was my great-uncle and great-aunt who had raised my mother, so they were like my grandparents. He was the pharmacist and she ran the lunch counter at the drugstore, and I would go with my great-uncle on his run to the post office. We would walk up 2 blocks and go into the post office. I even remember how it smelled. I remember how it looked. I remember what happened there. My memory is that it was a gathering place, that I would have to tug on my great- uncle's coat and say, ``Let's go, Uncle Tom. Let's go'' because he would invariably find people at the post office with whom he needed to visit. It wasn't a big place, but it was a very important place in Lebanon, MO. I rise today to talk about an amendment that will save that sense of community for dozens of rural towns in Missouri. I am very aware, as a former auditor and someone who spends a lot of time looking at our budgets and trying to figure out the numbers, of the crisis we have in terms of the fiscal sustainability of our Postal Service. I commend the work of the committee on which I am lucky to serve with Senator Lieberman as the chair and Senator Collins as the ranking member. It is one of the places where we have maintained strong bipartisanship in the Senate. In fact, I believe Senator Lieberman's committee could serve as a role model for other committees on how to work in a bipartisan way. And I commend Senator Carper and many others--Senator Brown of Massachusetts and also Senator Merkley--who have worked on this amendment, also, trying to find a way to save these rural post offices. I know we have a problem here, but when we look at the numbers, closing rural post offices doesn't help. It is 1 percent--less than 1 percent--of the budget. It is less than 1 percent of the amount of savings we need to save out of the postal budget. So in 167 different communities in my State, something that is essential far beyond the bricks and mortar to those communities would close all in the name of less than 1 percent. That doesn't make sense to me. The strength of our Postal Service has been that it is reliable, that it is affordable, and that it goes to the very last mile. What will we lose in these communities if we shut down these post offices? Senior citizens would lose a place where they can depend on getting their prescription medicines. Many of these communities have no pharmacies--in fact, most of them don't--and they rely on the mail for their drugs. Small business owners would lose a shipping location. The small business owners in these rural communities depend on that post office to take packages to and to receive packages from. I think this is a sacrifice we should not make. These post offices are worth fighting to save. When I go home and meet with Missourians and when I get outside of St. Louis and Kansas City and Springfield and Columbia, almost every single time, someone walks up to me and talks about their post office. They feel strongly that it is the one symbol they have in their community that makes them viable as a community, and I would hate to see them lose it. I believe we should look at the closure of these post offices as a very last resort. Frankly, to me, it looks knee-jerked because it doesn't appear to me to be very thoughtful. I have not been able to get the post office to even give me the rhyme or reason as to why some of these post offices are closing. Very few of them save a significant amount of dollars. This amendment would impose a 2-year moratorium on rural post office closures to allow the Postal Service to enjoy some of the reforms that have been put in this bill in a very thoughtful and thorough process by Chairman Lieberman and many of his colleagues. It would also say after 2 years that there is a specific list of transparent criterion that must be considered before a post office could be closed. First, it would have to ensure that seniors could retain the same access to their prescriptions they receive in the mail, that seniors and those with disabilities would have the same access to postal services they currently do, and make sure small businesses are not financially harmed by a rural post office closure. This is not kicking the can down the road. This is being more thoughtful about preserving the part of the Postal Service that defines it. I am hopeful this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. I am hopeful this is a rural issue. We all know the last mile is the most expensive. Throughout the history of our country, government has stepped in and done a little more to give services the last mile. No business model in the world works when you have to take services that last mile down that one road, all the way down to a house at the end of the road sometimes several miles. It didn't work for electricity, so we did things to help with rural electric co-ops. It didn't work for phones, so we did the USX fund to help with phones. It didn't work for broadband, so we stepped in and have done things to assist with broadband. Now we are going to say to these rural communities: The last mile is not as important. These post offices are not as important. We can make due without it. I think that is a big mistake, and I hope we can save these rural post offices. This is very important in my State, and I want young girls who are growing up in these small communities to have the same warm and fond memories of the local post office that I carry with me every day. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

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

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, we just had a vote. Imagine for a minute we had a government that was spending too much money, and imagine for a minute that we needed to spend less money; that we needed to change our Tax Code to a Tax Code that was fair, simpler, and didn't pick winners and losers. Imagine for a minute this was a crisis, and imagine for a minute this crisis was being wielded like a political 2 by 4 by the majority of the Republicans who serve in the Senate--the debt crisis. Then imagine for a minute that we had the most profitable corporations in the history of the planet and they were booking $30 billion in profit every quarter; over $130 billion in profits year after year, didn't matter whether the economy was bad, good or indifferent--amazing profits. Then imagine for a minute this government--that doesn't have enough money, where the debt is the political talking point of my friends across the aisle--tries to do something simple by saying maybe we shouldn't be spending money on the most profitable corporations in the world. That is what this vote just was. How seriously can we take anybody who talks about debt reduction if they are not willing to pluck the low-hanging fruit of subsidies to a group of folks who, frankly, in Missouri, I guarantee you most people I represent would say are the least deserving of extra help from the Federal Government right now. If we think about it, what we are doing is we are borrowing money to prop up, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, already wildly profitable corporations that don't have to pay us royalties because they get to deduct the royalties they pay other countries. Seriously, if this was a fairytale I was reading to my grandsons--if I was reading this fairytale to Ian or Levy or Isaac--they would say: Well, this obviously is fiction because this couldn't be true. But it is, and that is what I call the definition of a special interest--that oil is so special around here, wields so much power and so much money that it turns all the talk about debt reduction into empty rhetoric. Last year, the five companies spent $38 billion boosting their share prices just through stock buybacks--$38 billion in stock buybacks last year. In other words, the five largest oil companies spent in a single year on stock buybacks alone what they are claiming they need in taxpayer-funded subsidies over the next 10 years. According to ExxonMobil's quarterly filings, every time the price of oil goes up by $1, they bring in $350 million in annual profit. These companies don't need these subsidies. I hear people say, Well, if you don't give them the subsidies--which, by the way, is chickenfeed to them. What, $6 billion, $8 billion a year is nothing if you are banking $30 billion in profits a quarter. I have heard people say, If we don't give them this extra help, then they are going to quit exploring for oil and the price of gas will go up. That is so dumb. They have had these subsidies for 30, 40, 50 years. I think most of Americans realize the price of oil has gone up just fine during that time. We are paying plenty at the gas pump right now, and they have got those subsidies. How is that working out for us? Those subsidies are really keeping down the price of gasoline, aren't they? The former Shell CEO, John Hofmeister, is on record as saying: In the face of sustained high oil prices it is not an issue--for large companies--of needing the subsidies to entice us into looking for and producing more oil . . . my point of view is that with high oil prices such subsidies are unnecessary. This is the CEO of Shell. He is admitting on the record that these subsidies are unnecessary. At the time the Shell CEO said that, the price of oil was trading between $95 and $98 a barrel. Currently, it is at $105 a barrel. Contrary to the claims that some are making, eliminating these subsidies will not raise gas prices. Last year, the companies spent $70 million to lobby to keep their subsidies. They get about $30 in tax breaks for every $1 they spend in lobbying. No wonder they spent that much on lobbying. I want to take people at their word, and I want to take people seriously about debt reduction. I have cosponsored spending caps with my Republican colleagues. I have worked hard on reforming the way we spend money around here, whether it is contracting or earmarks. But with all due respect, I don't know how the American people can take anyone seriously about debt reduction if they are not willing to cut off from the spigot the most wealthy, profitable corporations in the history of the world. How will we ever be able to look our grandchildren in the eye and say, You know, we took care of your future by making sure that our government was fiscally balanced. How can we ever do that if we can't do this as an easy first step? Can you imagine how paralyzed this place will be when we start talking about the kinds of cuts that hurt people who need them? And by the way, they are willing to make those. Talk about fairness. Think about this for a minute, economic fairness. The Ryan budget would want to hold onto more tax breaks for multimillionaires--in fact, do more tax breaks for multimillionaires-- while they say to seniors, You know, we think it is time for you to wrestle with insurance companies for your health care. I know what it is like to wrestle with insurance companies for health care. Every American does. My mom doesn't have to. She is on Medicare. It gives her peace of mind. If you look at what our friends are proposing in terms of fairness and you look at the vote we just had, in Missouri we would say that dog don't hunt. It doesn't work. I hope in good faith that my Republican colleagues will quit thinking we need to continue to write checks to the wealthiest corporations in the history of the planet. I think Missourians--when I fill up my gas tank over the next 2 weeks as I travel around Missouri, I am going to stop people at the gas station and say, Do you think the royalties ExxonMobil pays to another country should be deducted from what they owe us? Think about that. It is ludicrous in this financial environment that we are in, in the U.S. Government. There are real people hurting out there, and we need to treat them fairly. We can start by pushing Big Oil away from the taxpayer trough, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider and that we will get a chance to vote on this again and that they can show the American people we all get it. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my colleague and mentor, Senator Barbara Mikulski, and to celebrate her legacy as the longest serving woman in Congress. For over 35 years, Senator Mikulski has proudly served the people of Maryland as a tireless advocate and a selfless public servant. It is my privilege to honor her today. The great-granddaughter of Polish immigrants, Senator Mikulski grew up appreciating the value of hard work and service. On the weekends she worked in her parents' East Baltimore grocery store delivering groceries to homebound elderly. It was then that Barbara developed her deep passion for helping others. After earning her master's degree in social work from the University of Maryland, Barbara started a career as a social worker with Catholic Charities and Baltimore's Department of Social Services. An outspoken advocate for at-risk youth and the elderly, she quickly earned a reputation as a fighter and was elected to the Baltimore City Council in 1971. After 5 years on the city council, Barbara ran for Congress. In 1976, Barbara began her first term representing Maryland's Third Congressional District. As one of only 18 women in the House of Representatives, Barbara was a member of a small but mighty group. During her 10 years in the House, she gained a reputation as a fighter, and in 1986 the people of Maryland again chose her to represent them but this time in the Senate. As one of only two female Senators, and the first woman elected to the Senate in her own right, Senator Mikulski was met with much skepticism. While outnumbered, Barbara's determination and dedication to her constituents shined through. Barbara is a steadfast proponent of greater access to higher education, a leader on the front of women's health, and an unwavering supporter of America's veterans. She is determined to stand up for those who are often forgotten. A few weeks ago, Barbara shared a touching story that I think exemplifies her character. When Barbara first ran for Senate in 1986, she had the opportunity to get to know Harriet Woods, who was campaigning as a Democrat for the Missouri Senate seat. Barbara saw the significance of having two female candidates for Senate, and she was certain both of them would win. Unfortunately, it wasn't meant to be for Harriet Woods, who lost to Republican John Danforth. On Barbara's first day she was shown her desk on the Senate floor-- she opened it and saw Harry Truman's autograph. She had Harry Truman's desk. While she was delighted to have that desk, she knew that it really belonged to the Senator from Missouri and relinquished it. She said that for years she thought about that desk and hoped that it would someday be returned to a Democrat from Missouri. Twenty years later, on election night in 2006, Barbara watched the election results come in from around the country--and in Missouri, in particular. She said she stayed up late in the night waiting for the final result. Once she learned of the results from Missouri, she knew that the desk that had been accidentally given to her all of those years ago would finally be returned, where it belonged. I am so pleased to know that the Truman desk was shared, if only briefly, with my friend Barbara Mikulski. Barbara Mikulski is a trailblazer, a role model, and an advisor to the other women in the Senate. Today there are 17 women in the Senate, and much of that progress can be attributed to Senator Mikulski's leadership. Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join me in congratulating Senator Mikulski on this milestone and thank her for her 35 years of leadership, friendship, and service.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a new and successful program for at-risk youth in St. Louis--the Innovative Concept Academy--and about its founder, my friend, Judge Jimmie Edwards. Before I talk about the school and the incredible work Judge Edwards has done in the St. Louis community, I wish to spend a moment talking about his childhood roots. Judge Edwards grew up on the north side of St. Louis in the shadows of the city's Pruitt-Igoe housing project. The residents of this housing project faced many challenges, including drug and gang activity, violence, and sometimes acute poverty. But through discipline, hard work, and determination, Judge Edwards rose above these circumstances. He earned his bachelor's and law degrees from St. Louis University before being appointed to the State bench in 1992, and for 4 years he has served as the chief judge of the St. Louis Family Court's Juvenile Division. During his service on the bench, Judge Edwards became increasingly concerned about the number of young repeat offenders coming into his courtroom time and time again, only to be sent back to the same troubled environment that negatively influenced their behavior in the first place. From his own experience, he knew that offering these kids the opportunity for a proper education and for mentoring was absolutely critical to breaking the cycle. In 2009 Judge Edwards, together with the St. Louis public school district, the Family Court Juvenile Division, and the nonprofit organization MERS/Goodwill Industries, founded Innovative Concept Academy, a unique educational opportunity for juveniles who had already been expelled from the city's public schools and who were on parole. These young people, whom many would have given up on, found a formidable advocate in Judge Edwards and the academy. From the beginning, Innovative Concept Academy has been devoted to helping at- risk youth achieve success through education, rehabilitation, and mentorship. Its mission--to enrich the learning environment for some of our most troubled kids--has resulted in second chances for these young men and women to dramatically improve their lives. At the start, Judge Edwards planned on providing educational and mentoring services to 30 students who had been suspended or expelled due to Missouri's Safe Schools Act. When he asked the St. Louis public schools for a building to use for the program for 30 students, they asked him if he wouldn't mind taking on the responsibility of 200 more. This was a challenge he accepted with his usual enthusiasm and can-do attitude. During the first year of its existence, the academy saw 246 students move through its doors. Today the academy teaches at-risk youth between ages 10 and 18 and has an enrollment of over 375. Some of these students are visiting our Nation's Capital this week with Judge Edwards, his wife Stacy, his daughter Ashley, and his son John, along with chaperones. Here today along with Judge Edwards and his family and chaperones are students Angel Tharpe, Deyon Smith, Tyrell Williams, and Nadia Jones. These are young men and women who have turned their lives around with the help of Judge Edwards and the academy and who serve as an inspiration to others in the community and, frankly, an inspiration to me. I am so proud of what they have been able to accomplish. The Innovative Concept Academy provides these students and many like them with so many important services--a quality education in a safe environment; one-on-one mentoring with school staff, counselors, deputy junior officers, and police; an array of extracurricular and afterschool activities, many of which are often new experiences for these students, including golf, chess, dance, classical music, and creative writing; uniforms, meals, and so many other necessities are also provided; and with tough love and important lessons about discipline, respect, anger management, goal setting, and follow- through. All of this allows the students to meet their full potential, and St. Louis has seen positive results already. The academy has an attendance rate of over 90 percent. Let me repeat that. The academy has an amazing attendance rate of over 90 percent, and we are seeing significant improvement in these young people's grades. And the students are responding positively. For example, at the end of the first semester at the academy, the suspensions of 40 of the students ended and the students were supposed to return to their home school. Almost every student asked if they could stay at the academy because they know the academy is a special place where they can improve their lives. The innovative program has garnered national attention. Judge Edwards has appeared as a guest on a number of major network shows and most recently was honored by People Magazine as one of its 2011 Heroes of the Year. But, for him, it is not about the magazines or the interviews; for him, it is still about the kids. I am proud that Judge Edwards hails from my home State of Missouri and from my hometown of St. Louis. His compassion for those whom society may have given up on and his commonsense and innovative approach to solving the problems facing some of our young men and women are inspirational. He is compelled by his duty to serve and uplift the next generation no matter what the circumstances. He said it best when he observed that ``if the community, and that includes judges, does not take it upon itself to educate the children, then our community and what we stand for will be no more.'' This notion that we all succeed when we work together with a common cause and unified purpose is central to our American identity. I ask my distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating the Innovative Concept Academy and Judge Jimmie Edwards. The success of the academy and Judge Edwards' dedication and service to the St. Louis community should be an inspiration for everybody serving in this Chamber. If we could have a little bit of Judge Jimmie Edwards' attitude about working together, not worrying about taking the credit, and a can-do attitude, it is amazing what we could accomplish on behalf of the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor for my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt.

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

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Toomey for joining me. He has been a great leader on this since he arrived in the Senate, in terms of the fight against earmarks. I thank him for that. I also welcome him to our band of warriors in terms of fighting the earmark culture in Washington. It has been a fairly small number of Senators since I arrived here in January of 2007. I will be honest, the Senator spent some time in the House, so he was more familiar with the process of earmarking than I was. When I came to the Senate, I did not really understand how it worked. I did not really get it. I do not think, until you have gotten here and watched it from the inside, you truly appreciate how flawed it is in terms of a way of distributing public money. It really is going in the back room and sprinkling fairy dust. It is really a process that has more to do with who you are and whom you know than merit. Have there been lots of projects that have been funded that I have supported? Of course. Did I make a decision--a difficult one--to not cherry-pick certain earmarks to go after on the floor? Instead, I have tried, when I got here and realized the problems, to reform the process, not just to say, let's find this one earmark in this bill and gin up an amendment on it; rather, let's try to stop the process in its entirety because it makes no sense. And that is what this amendment does. It actually will stop the process in its entirety. Why do we need it if we have a moratorium? Why now? Frankly, when I first started saying I wanted to do away with all earmarking, I was laughed at by Members of this body, directly and indirectly. Sometimes I felt as if people were patting me on the head and saying: Go away. You have no chance to do this. I am proud of the fact that we have gotten a moratorium now. The truth is, there are a lot of Members of this body who want to go back to the old ways, and I think it is very important that we do a permanent ban. I certainly thank the Senator for helping, and I think the amendment we are working on together will make sure we will not have what happened in the House this year.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I will tell my colleagues that I think for too long too many Senators believed the measure of their worth as a Senator had everything to do with how much money they were bringing home. I have a new idea. Instead of the measure of our worth being how much we can spend, I think the measure of our worth ought to be how much we can save. This place turned on the notion that if one stayed here long enough, if they got to be an appropriator, they got more earmarks. If they became a ranking member on a subcommittee on appropriations, they got even more. Then I found out about honey pots. I didn't know about honey pots until I got here. I don't know if Senator Toomey is familiar with that term, but let me educate him about what that term means. A honey pot is what the ranking minority member and chairman set aside as their special pot of money that they get to spend on earmarks that is greater than everyone else's. Some of the appropriations subcommittees have honey pots and some don't. The very notion that we are deciding how to divide the money based on how long we have been here, what our party affiliation is, what committees we serve on is not the way we should spend public money. We spend public money based on merit or on a formula based on how many people are in our State. One of the other things that drives me crazy is this talking point against doing away with earmarks: We can't let the bureaucrats decide. We can't let the executive branch decide. It is the power of the purse. We have had the power of the purse in Congress for hundreds of years. Earmarking is a modern invention. We have the right to oversee the executive budget, change the executive budget, cut the executive budget, and add money to the executive budget. We can do that as a Congress and that has nothing to do with earmarking. Let me also say this about this talking point: This notion that earmarked money just grows on trees somehow--where does the money for earmarking come from? It comes from other programs. Guess what programs it is taken from. It is taken from programs--I will just say from programs such as surface transportation. Let's talk about that. We have a local process in Missouri. We have stakeholders all across the State who go to meetings and the public is invited and these agencies work very hard at trying to prioritize their transportation projects based on the economic needs of their community, based on safety considerations. These local folks work very hard to prioritize their projects, and what does earmarking do? It cuts in line. One individual's judgment supplants all the local planning. This is not about Washington bureaucrats. In a lot of these instances it is about saying: I know better than the people back home know. Look at the Byrne grants, another perfect example. Money for the Byrne grants--which is a State-administered program done on a competitive basis at the State level--they have been stealing money out of the Byrne grants for earmarks so one individual Senator can decide this sheriff needs new equipment as opposed to the State authorities deciding that there may be a crime problem in one area of the State, such as a methamphetamine problem that needs special attention.

Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, it is easy to see why earmarking is held so dear to so many Members. I remember when I first was elected and people began showing up in my office that, frankly, had not been big supporters of mine. All of us who are here--and if we are brutally honest for the folks back home--we want to be loved. We put ourselves out there for public acceptance or rejection every 2, 4, 6 years. So people started showing up and being very nice to me who had not particularly been supporters of mine, and they were being nice to me and I thought, What is up here? Then all of a sudden I figured it out. They were all showing up to get their earmarks. The people in Missouri--I don't know about Pennsylvania--but in Missouri they are very worried about not having earmarks because they have been fed this line all these years: If we don't have earmarks, we are not going to get anything. We are not going to get our share. We are not going to get as much as we deserve. Let's take water. Pennsylvania--this is a good example because Pennsylvania didn't get very much in water projects either. I don't know how many rivers there are in Pennsylvania. I should be more familiar with the geography there. But to say that Missouri is a river State is an understatement. I mean, we have the confluence of the two greatest rivers of our country, the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, in our State. We have major impact in terms of water projects that need to be done in our State because of how prominent water is in the State of Missouri. But yet we have been way down the line in terms of water projects because we don't have an appropriator on that committee. We have appropriators on other committees but not on that committee. I keep telling the folks at home, if we compete with other States for water projects, we are going to do just fine, and that is the way it is supposed to work. States are supposed to get what they need and not get the benevolence of Washington because they happen to have somebody who has been here long enough to be on the right committee to have the right chairmanship or the right ranking committee so they can get even more. That is not the way this place should be run. It is not the right way to spend public money.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I will.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I hope we get a vote on this amendment. I am not optimistic about that because, typically--let's be honest--the vast majority of the leadership in this body has typically been appropriators and many of them want to go back to earmarking, and this is on both sides of the aisle. As I started to point out before, it was the Republican Armed Services Committee in the House that set aside a slush fund and began doing earmarking on the Defense authorization bill. We were able to expose it and stop it, but clearly people are having a hard time breaking this habit. So I think this amendment is very important. I am happy to go toe-to-toe with anyone over the merits of this amendment. I am happy to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with anyone in this Congress, Republican or Democrat, who is willing to stop this process once and for all. I think this amendment would do it. I hope we get a vote on it, and if we don't, it will not be the last time I think they will hear from both of us about our bill and how serious we are about getting it passed. There will come a time that this bill will pass because the American people are on to us. The American people are on to this bad habit. They want it to end and they will have their way. It may not be today, it may not be this week, but I remind the Members of the Senate that it wasn't that long ago people laughed out loud at me when I said there would be an end to earmarking. They thought that was the silliest joke they had ever heard, and we have made a lot of progress thanks to the American people. By the way, the credit should not go to me or Senator McCain or Senator Coburn--who have been working on this for much longer than I have--it should go to the American people who are figuring this out and rising in record numbers to say: We don't like earmarks. Stop it. We should give credit to them for paying attention. I hope they stay on it, and I hope we will eventually prevail.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I also yield and thank the Senator for his work. This should be the easiest for us to get done. We have some hard work we have to do around here that is going to mean sacrifice and changes that are not going to be easy for anyone. This ought to be simple, so let's try to get it done. I yield the floor.

Mrs. McCASKILL

Mrs. McCASKILL. Well, I would certainly urge every single Senator, be they Democrat or Republican, to come to the floor and ask the question: Why are we not voting today on the bill that was passed by the House? We are ready to vote. You know, the American people do not get this game. The bill was passed in the House. Why are we not voting? Why is the Republican Party blocking its own bill?

Mrs. McCASKILL. I am confused. The House passed a bill last night and has sent it to the Senate. Correct?

Mrs. McCASKILL. This is a Republican bill?

Mrs. McCASKILL. And we are ready to vote on it?