Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to my friend and former colleague, as well as an outstanding woman of service, Carole Roper Park Vaughan. From 1977 through 1994, Carole represented the 51st District of Missouri, which includes the home of President Harry S. Truman, in the Missouri House of Representatives. On September 18, Carole will celebrate her 70th birthday, and I just want to take a few minutes today to honor her and the contribution she made to so many lives in Missouri.

Carole was born to Rudy and Rose Roper of Sugar Creek, MO, both children of Croatian emigrants. Carole's father served as the mayor of Sugar Creek for 40 years, from 1940 until 1980, so she came by her political acumen naturally. In fact, while other little girls were playing with dolls, stuffed animals, or having teas, Carole was with her father learning the art of making a deal, a skill she would later take with her to the State legislature.

Though politics was in her blood, her dedication to public service did not begin with elected office. After graduating from the University of Missouri-Kansas City with a bachelor of arts degree in education, Carole pursued a teaching career in the Kansas City school district. For 12 years, she taught elementary education in some of the poorest school districts in the Kansas City area. It was here that she fully realized the importance of community involvement. Her students

were faced with everyday challenges she had never experienced before, and there was a real need for change. As a teacher, however, Carole felt she was limited in how she could effect the meaningful change that was desperately needed in her community.

Despite her pedigree and desire to make a difference, Carole's ascension into public office happened almost by accident. When the current legislator in her district suddenly became ill and died, those in the community who were impressed by her interest in changing the status quo encouraged her run. She filed for office on the day of the filing deadline, and in 1976, she was elected to represent the 51st District of Missouri. Thankfully, for the people of Missouri, there was nothing accidental about her approach to legislating. Hailing from the home of Harry Truman, Carole had a real no-nonsense style about her, and she could get things done.

During her 18 years as a member of the Missouri House of Representatives, Carole sponsored 93 bills, many of which became law, including the largest insurance reform bill in Missouri history. But what Carole was most known for was her vigorous pursuit to improve the way the State of Missouri delivered health and mental health care. In 1981, she became the first woman in Missouri history to chair a standing appropriations committee, and for 13 years Carole reigned over the Committee on Appropriations for Health and Mental Health. At the time she was appointed to this position, Missouri was headed into a recession, and there was a desperate need to cut health services. Yet Carole was able to make the necessary changes without sacrificing services. In fact, throughout her tenure as chair of the committee, Missouri reduced overall costs of mental health care programs while improving the services it provided.

Carole's dedication to those suffering from mental illness, developmental disabilities, head injuries, and substance abuse was truly unparalleled. While her work with community mental health centers or substance abuse programs seldom made the front page, she worked tirelessly in the pursuit of better treatment for these special citizens. The result of her dedication was the transformation of a badly broken mental health system into a community-based approach that provided real options for some of our most vulnerable.

In 1995, Carole retired from the Missouri House of Representatives, but her commitment to her community and the democratic process has continued. She has remained dedicated to improving services for the mentally ill, substance abusers, and victims of domestic violence. She has worked with Thank You Walt Disney Inc. to help restore Walt Disney's downtown Kansas City Studio. She has worked tirelessly to elect democratic candidates who embody the same steadfast dedication to effect change that she had during her time in public service, including devoting countless hours on the phones and going door-to-door for then Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Once again, her hard work paid off.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in wishing Carole Roper Park Vaughan a very happy 70th birthday. She has been a remarkable servant to the citizens of the State of Missouri and I am grateful to call her my friend.

Mr. President, in observance of the upcoming Women's Equality Day on August 26, 2009, I wish to pay tribute to the women soldiers and civilians of the U.S. Army who serve and defend our great country each day--whether in garrison communities here in the United States, like at Ft. Leonard Wood in my native Missouri, or on the front lines of battle in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world.

Although women did not receive equal treatment or recognition while serving in the military during the Civil War or the wars of the 20th century, they now serve in many roles and capacities in the Active, Guard and Reserve components and perform equally as well as their male counterparts. Today's Army fighting women are critical to the success of the Army's mission, and their sacrifice on the battlefield demonstrates a clear call to duty that transcends any supposed gender limitations.

One such example of this bravery is Silver Star recipient SPC Monica Brown, who, when her convoy was attacked while on patrol in Afghanistan, disregarded a hail of enemy fire that threatened her own life and jumped into action in her role as a medic to pull wounded soldiers to safety and render lifesaving aid to them. I also think about the heroic actions of SGT Leigh Ann Hester, another Silver Star recipient and military police platoon leader. When Sergeant Hester and her fellow soldiers were ambushed south of Baghdad, she bravely led her unit through an insurgent ``kill zone'' and into a flanking position to assault the enemy with fire, killing three insurgents herself.

These acts of selflessness are also mirrored in the spirit of volunteerism and commitment that Army civilian women exhibit as they deploy to combat zones wherever the Army needs them. Like their male counterparts, these women are serving honorably and selflessly as architects, doctors, nurses, lawyers, structural engineers, logisticians, and in scores of other occupational specialties. And like our military women, they do justice to the millions of women who preceded them in history to fight for equal rights for women in America.

As we celebrate the great accomplishments of women in the military on Women's Equality Day, it is imperative that our Nation and leaders continue to evaluate additional opportunities for military service by women. While women have achieved and contributed so much to the Army and the overall military mission, some barriers still exist.

I look forward to a day when more combat aviation and ground occupational specialties will be open to women, for instance. I look forward to a day when there will be more women in the general officer ranks to accompany my good friend GEN Ann Dunwoody, the Army's first and only female four-star general in its entire 234-year history. Our military and government must never slow its commitment to giving women the access to the full range of opportunities that the military has to offer. In doing so, I am confident that these few remaining barriers will fall.

I strongly encourage my fellow members to honor Women's Equality Day on August 26 by thanking the military and civilian women of the U.S. Army and their families of their States for their commitment, bravery and unflinching support to our great Nation.

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

I rise for a minute to concur with the comments of my colleague from Vermont, Senator Sanders.

I have spent some time on the phone over the last few weeks with dairy producers in Missouri. What is happening is heartbreaking. And in this economic downturn, it is hard to look everywhere we can be looking. One day, the car sector is grabbing our attention; another day, we are talking about what is going on in terms of utility costs for our constituents; another day, we are back talking about whether people can even afford health care. There are so many places we are trying to look and do what is necessary to get us through this rough patch.

Unfortunately, the independent producers do not have a whole lot of lobbyists out there. A lot of the big, multinational agricultural corporations have plenty of help. But the families I know, the families I have talked to, who are trying to continue to produce dairy products for this Nation in the family way and in the independent way, are really on the ropes.

I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to Senator Sanders' amendment and that we remember

it is not just our car manufactures that are in trouble right now. In almost every sector of our economy, we have trouble, and we cannot neglect one area of our economy in an effort to help another area of our economy.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I wish to agree with my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, on his amendment on contracting competition. Maybe it is fitting that in the Energy bill, I am probably doing a Don Quixote here, tilting at a windmill.

I have learned during my time in the Senate that there are certain things that are very protected, and one of them is the earmarking process. I think most people would acknowledge that we have billions in noncompete contracts through earmarks, and they are not all for exotic research. Yes, we have noncompete contracts a lot of places and we should try to get rid of all of them, every last one of them. If it is exotic to research, then there are probably not going to be very many people who have bid on it.

So I don't agree with my friend from North Dakota on this issue of carving out earmarks as an area of noncompete. I think----

Yes.

I just listened to the debate.

Let me restate what I heard. I heard the Senator from Oklahoma wants to pass an amendment that would require competition for all of the earmarks in the bill. I think that is a good idea. I think competing for all earmarks is a good idea. I think it is not correct that the noncompetitive earmarks are all exotic research or any other kind of earmark that could lend itself to competition. I think there are many that could easily lend themselves to competition. I believe that once we get to competition, it is going to provide transparency the American people are aching for in this area of earmarking.

(Mr. BURRIS assumed the Chair.)

Yes.

My discussion is about the noncompetitive earmarks. I think whatever amendment gets us to more competition, I am for it. I think there are way too many. I could not be a bigger fan of the Senator from North Dakota and what he has done on contracting relating to the war in Iraq. I followed those hearings before I came to the Senate, and I continue to follow them. He has been a groundbreaker in the area of wanting competition.

If you look at the billions of dollars that were wasted in the Iraq war over noncompete contracts, and if you look at the atrocities committed in the name of noncompetition which the Senator from North Dakota has exposed, he has been terrific on that. Some of us just disagree about whether earmarks should be competed. Although I try to agree on every bill that removes all earmarks, I generally don't go into and pick out an earmark to complain about. I generally don't vote for amendments that do, because in many ways I think the process of picking on one amendment here or there, or one earmark here and one earmark there can be as arbitrary as the process of earmarking sometimes appears to be. So I generally don't do that.

But in this instance, there is an earmark in the bill that I know a lot about. The Senator from North Dakota has done this because he believes very much in having another study on the Missouri River. We have been fighting over water in this country for as long as this country has been around. Water is very important in Missouri. Navigation of the Missouri River is incredibly important to our farmers and to our utility companies.

There was, in fact, a large study undertaken on the Missouri River that

was completed in 2004. It cost the taxpayers $35 million. It took 15 years to complete, and there were all kinds of lawsuits over it between the various States up and down the river. There were a couple of things that came out of the study. One of them was there was an agreement that began the Missouri Recovery and Implementation Committee. It is a committee that includes stakeholders from all along the river who meet several times a year to help develop a long-term management plan for the river. This process has recently begun. It hasn't even had time to work.

I feel strongly that repeating another study is unnecessary, when there is nothing that has dramatically changed since we spent the $35 million on the study done in 2004. And now we are going to begin another $25 million study by the same group, looking at the same issues. That, to me, is wasteful.

I think considering the fact that the Senator from North Dakota did participate aggressively in the long-term management proposal on the MRIC, Missouri Recovery and Implementation Committee, I hope we can give it time to work before we embark on another policy. I know there was a GAO study that talked about navigation, and I know that study showed there are less goods being shipped on the Missouri River. But that GAO study didn't take into account a couple of things. One was that the navigation season has been severely limited by the Corps. That drives away the shippers. The GAO study also didn't include the value of the goods shipped, the jobs associated with the shipments, or the impact on utilities.

We have, in fact, four powerplants located along the river that need the water in the Missouri River to cool their plants. I think this study is not going to end the fight over the river. I cannot fathom what a $35 million study failed to accomplish that a new $25 million study is now going to accomplish. This is a great example of studies to try to impact policy, so that you keep having continuous studies.

The amendment I have offered would remove the money for this study, because I think it is wasteful duplication, and I believe very strongly that, in fact, we should not be embarking on another one of these studies. It is wasteful and it is duplicative, and I want to continue to work with the Senator from North Dakota. Obviously, we don't see eye to eye on who should get all the water on the Missouri River. I look forward to working with him and, hopefully, as we move forward with the MRIC, we can have all the stakeholders at the table and continue to negotiate in a cost-effective way for the taxpayers that doesn't harm the State of North Dakota or any of the other States along the Missouri River.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am here to talk about a simple bill that would correct a serious injustice.

Each year U.S. consumers spend $2.57 billion more than they should for gasoline and diesel fuel. This is because they are buying hot fuel. The physics behind hot fuel are fairly simple. Retailers currently measure our gasoline as it if is stored at 60 degrees Fahrenheit. However, if the temperature increases, as it often does during the summer or in warm climates, the gasoline expands so that consumers are getting less energy per gallon of fuel. Yet, when consumers buy hot fuel, they are paying the same amount even though they are getting less energy.

This problem can be easily solved by installing temperature compensating equipment that will regulate the distribution of fuel based on its temperature at the time of purchase. A similar policy was implemented in Canada 15 years ago because retailers were losing money due to the cold temperature of the fuel they were selling; and earlier this year, the U.S. retailer Costco Warehouse, LLC agreed to install this temperature compensating equipment as a result of a legal settlement.

Today, I am introducing legislation that would require all retailers of gasoline to install temperature compensating equipment on their retail fuel pumps. The Future Accountability in Retail Fuel Act of 2009, or the FAIR Fuel Act, is not intended to be onerous. It would simply require that within 6 years after enactment of this legislation all retail gasoline pumps would include automatic temperature compensating equipment. Prior to that 6 year timeline, if a retailer replaces their pumps, they must replace it with a pump that will be able to compensate for temperature fluctuations. Rural retail gasoline owners are exempt from this replacement requirement and the bill provides grant assistance for small retail owners to retrofit or purchase pumps with temperature compensating equipment.

American families deserve to be treated fairly. They deserve to get what they pay for. With the current economic crisis and the high prices of gasoline, every penny we can save the consumer will go along way to helping them survive these tough times. This legislation will help to achieve this goal. It will finally give consumers the fairness they deserve.

I am pleased that this bill has been endorsed by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, OOIDA, USPIRG and Consumer Watchdog. I look forward to working with the members of the Commerce Committee and the full Senate in getting this legislation passed. I think we owe it to the American consumers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am here to talk about a simple bill that would correct a serious injustice.

Each year U.S. consumers spend $2.57 billion more than they should for gasoline and diesel fuel. This is because they are buying hot fuel. The physics behind hot fuel are fairly simple. Retailers currently measure our gasoline as it if is stored at 60 degrees Fahrenheit. However, if the temperature increases, as it often does during the summer or in warm climates, the gasoline expands so that consumers are getting less energy per gallon of fuel. Yet, when consumers buy hot fuel, they are paying the same amount even though they are getting less energy.

This problem can be easily solved by installing temperature compensating equipment that will regulate the distribution of fuel based on its temperature at the time of purchase. A similar policy was implemented in Canada 15 years ago because retailers were losing money due to the cold temperature of the fuel they were selling; and earlier this year, the U.S. retailer Costco Warehouse, LLC agreed to install this temperature compensating equipment as a result of a legal settlement.

Today, I am introducing legislation that would require all retailers of gasoline to install temperature compensating equipment on their retail fuel pumps. The Future Accountability in Retail Fuel Act of 2009, or the FAIR Fuel Act, is not intended to be onerous. It would simply require that within 6 years after enactment of this legislation all retail gasoline pumps would include automatic temperature compensating equipment. Prior to that 6 year timeline, if a retailer replaces their pumps, they must replace it with a pump that will be able to compensate for temperature fluctuations. Rural retail gasoline owners are exempt from this replacement requirement and the bill provides grant assistance for small retail owners to retrofit or purchase pumps with temperature compensating equipment.

American families deserve to be treated fairly. They deserve to get what they pay for. With the current economic crisis and the high prices of gasoline, every penny we can save the consumer will go along way to helping them survive these tough times. This legislation will help to achieve this goal. It will finally give consumers the fairness they deserve.

I am pleased that this bill has been endorsed by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, OOIDA, USPIRG and Consumer Watchdog. I look forward to working with the members of the Commerce Committee and the full Senate in getting this legislation passed. I think we owe it to the American consumers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I listened with interest to the questions and the conversations concerning Senator Feingold's amendment. I rise to strongly support this amendment. You know, one of the fantasies around here--and I yield to the long experience of my two colleagues on fighting this battle on earmarks--is this fantasy that the money for earmarks is created out of nothing; that somehow the money for earmarks just lands on everyone's desk and no programs are hurt by the earmarking process; that no money is taken from worthy projects for earmarking.

Truth be known, I can give example after example in the budget that over the years good competitive programs have been cut while earmarking has skyrocketed. The Byrne grants are a good example. Byrne grants are a competitive process in every State where they can compete for law enforcement based on need, decided at the local basis.

What has happened to the funding for Byrne grants over the years? It has dwindled, while in that very same budget earmarks have steadily and continually grown over the last decade.

This is a perfect example of robbing Peter to pay Paul. This amendment will say: You must compete for these dollars based on need. Is that not how we should be spending the public money? Last year FEMA received a total of 675 individual emergency operations center project applications; 675 applications they received for this funding last year.

They were only able to select 22 of them for funding. You know why? Because 64 percent of the funding went to earmarks. So because of the earmarking, there was less money for worthy projects that, maybe on merit and need, were much more important to protect people than the earmarking process.

This is a textbook example of taking a pot of money and deciding through some waving of a magic wand that it goes individually to 10 States without any discussion as to whether those are the 10 most needy projects or 10 most needy States--no discussion whatsoever.

In my State there have been years where we have been under a constant emergency declaration: flooding, ice storms, tornados. We have floodplains. In fact, the National Association of Floodplain Managers supports Senator Feingold's amendment. Do you know why they support Senator Feingold's amendment? They say it is causing floodplain managers around the country to quit planning to mitigate because they can short-circuit the process and just go for an earmark.

Why do the work and plan and compete as 1 of 22 out of 675 if you know the easiest way and the best way to do it is to hope and pray your Member is on the right committee? Just say it like it is. Just hope and pray your Member is on the right committee.

So this is a great opportunity for everyone who believes we need to be careful with the way we spend our money to be counted. This is a great opportunity because this is very clear this money is being taken from projects and being earmarked for projects. As a result, 40 States are going to have less than a 50-percent chance to participate in this kind of emergency funding.

I strongly support Senator Feingold's amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am here to talk about a simple bill that would correct a serious injustice.

In 1992, land belonging to over 100 south St. Louis County homeowners was converted into a recreational trail under the National Trails System Act, which allows rights-of-way abandoned by railroads to be made into trails. I have nothing against the National Trails System Act. It is a good program; it improves communities and preserves rights-of-way. In 1990, the Supreme Court upheld the program as a rightful use of eminent domain, but made it absolutely clear that, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment, property owners must be justly compensated for their losses. Only this did not happen in the case of my constituents back in Missouri. These homeowners--modest, hardworking people--were never compensated for the loss of their land.

These Missouri homeowners did everything right. First, in December 1998, they filed their claim. Federal Judge Bruggink ruled the claim to be filed in timely manner, and the Department of Justice later agreed. Then, on two separate occasions, Judge Bruggink ruled that the federal government was liable for taking the Missouri homeowners' land. After 6 years of litigation, the Department of Justice finally agreed on the amount of just compensation owed to each homeowner. On December 17, 2004, Judge Bruggink found the settlement to be fair and prepared to enter a final order. However, just days before Judge Bruggink was to issue the final order, a separate court--considering an unrelated case--changed the rule on how to calculate the 6-year

statute of limitations in which property owners have to file a claim for compensation.

This new rule determined that the clock on the statute of limitations starts to run at the time negotiations for a possible trail begin, instead of when a trail is actually established. Frankly, this is a little ridiculous because the negotiations are between the railroad company and the trail operator, not the actual property owners who must file the claim. Frequently property owners are not even notified of the negotiations until a trail is established! In the Missouri homeowners' case, negotiations began in March 1992, 6 years and 9 months before they filed their claim. Under the new rule, they filed their claim 9 months too late. As a result, the Court of Claims no longer had jurisdiction to approve the settlement and Judge Bruggink was forced to dismiss the case. To this day the government is still using these citizens' land for a recreational trail, the Grant's Trail, but the citizens have never been extended their constitutional right to just compensation.

Today, along with my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, I am introducing legislation to correct this injustice. The Fair Compensation Act of 2009 would simply confer jurisdiction upon the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to hear the Missouri homeowners' claim. We are doing this for people like Gale and Sarah Illig, a retired couple who had a 50-foot wide strip of land taken from their yard. Then there is Betty Mea Steinhans, who lived in her home for 51 years. The recreational trail took out a sizable chunk of Betty's prized garden. A government appraiser and the DOJ determined that the Federal Government owed Betty $31,000. That is almost 25 percent of the value of her home! These Missourians, and dozens like them, have worked hard to purchase their homes, and they will likely rely on their home's value to provide for them into retirement. They deserve their day in court.

Let me make this clear: our legislation does not award a monetary amount to Missouri landowners. While I certainly think the homeowners are entitled to just compensation, that is not Congress' decision. It is the Court of Federal Claim's job to make that decision. This legislation would only allow the Court the opportunity to hear this case on its merits and would not require any additional appropriations from Congress.

Congress has the authority to enact special jurisdiction legislation; we have exercised it multiple times and the Supreme Court has upheld this right. In the late 1800s, Congress used it to give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear the case of a businessman who had several hundred bales of cotton captured by General Sherman during the Civil War. More recently, Congress used it to give the Court jurisdiction to hear the case of the Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe, who had a sizable portion of their land taken by the Federal Government.

I want to thank Senator Whitehouse and his staff for working with us to draft this legislation. I will continue to work with the Judiciary Committee on this issue, and I urge them to give this important legislation the consideration it deserves. I am confident that Congress will do what is right, and allow these hardworking Missouri homeowners their day in court.

Mr. President, today I am here to talk about a simple bill that would correct a serious injustice.

In 1992, land belonging to over 100 south St. Louis County homeowners was converted into a recreational trail under the National Trails System Act, which allows rights-of-way abandoned by railroads to be made into trails. I have nothing against the National Trails System Act. It is a good program; it improves communities and preserves rights-of-way. In 1990, the Supreme Court upheld the program as a rightful use of eminent domain, but made it absolutely clear that, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment, property owners must be justly compensated for their losses. Only this did not happen in the case of my constituents back in Missouri. These homeowners--modest, hardworking people--were never compensated for the loss of their land.

These Missouri homeowners did everything right. First, in December 1998, they filed their claim. Federal Judge Bruggink ruled the claim to be filed in timely manner, and the Department of Justice later agreed. Then, on two separate occasions, Judge Bruggink ruled that the federal government was liable for taking the Missouri homeowners' land. After 6 years of litigation, the Department of Justice finally agreed on the amount of just compensation owed to each homeowner. On December 17, 2004, Judge Bruggink found the settlement to be fair and prepared to enter a final order. However, just days before Judge Bruggink was to issue the final order, a separate court--considering an unrelated case--changed the rule on how to calculate the 6-year

statute of limitations in which property owners have to file a claim for compensation.

This new rule determined that the clock on the statute of limitations starts to run at the time negotiations for a possible trail begin, instead of when a trail is actually established. Frankly, this is a little ridiculous because the negotiations are between the railroad company and the trail operator, not the actual property owners who must file the claim. Frequently property owners are not even notified of the negotiations until a trail is established! In the Missouri homeowners' case, negotiations began in March 1992, 6 years and 9 months before they filed their claim. Under the new rule, they filed their claim 9 months too late. As a result, the Court of Claims no longer had jurisdiction to approve the settlement and Judge Bruggink was forced to dismiss the case. To this day the government is still using these citizens' land for a recreational trail, the Grant's Trail, but the citizens have never been extended their constitutional right to just compensation.

Today, along with my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, I am introducing legislation to correct this injustice. The Fair Compensation Act of 2009 would simply confer jurisdiction upon the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to hear the Missouri homeowners' claim. We are doing this for people like Gale and Sarah Illig, a retired couple who had a 50-foot wide strip of land taken from their yard. Then there is Betty Mea Steinhans, who lived in her home for 51 years. The recreational trail took out a sizable chunk of Betty's prized garden. A government appraiser and the DOJ determined that the Federal Government owed Betty $31,000. That is almost 25 percent of the value of her home! These Missourians, and dozens like them, have worked hard to purchase their homes, and they will likely rely on their home's value to provide for them into retirement. They deserve their day in court.

Let me make this clear: our legislation does not award a monetary amount to Missouri landowners. While I certainly think the homeowners are entitled to just compensation, that is not Congress' decision. It is the Court of Federal Claim's job to make that decision. This legislation would only allow the Court the opportunity to hear this case on its merits and would not require any additional appropriations from Congress.

Congress has the authority to enact special jurisdiction legislation; we have exercised it multiple times and the Supreme Court has upheld this right. In the late 1800s, Congress used it to give the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to hear the case of a businessman who had several hundred bales of cotton captured by General Sherman during the Civil War. More recently, Congress used it to give the Court jurisdiction to hear the case of the Pueblo of Isleta Indian Tribe, who had a sizable portion of their land taken by the Federal Government.

I want to thank Senator Whitehouse and his staff for working with us to draft this legislation. I will continue to work with the Judiciary Committee on this issue, and I urge them to give this important legislation the consideration it deserves. I am confident that Congress will do what is right, and allow these hardworking Missouri homeowners their day in court.

Mr. President, I thank my friend, the Senator from Minnesota, for helping to get us organized this afternoon to spend a little time talking about an outstanding Federal judge.

I also thank my colleague from Kansas for giving us a few minutes to make these remarks.

I will confess that I wasn't familiar with Judge Sotomayor before she was nominated. I started looking at her resume, and there are so many things in her resume that are, frankly, amazing that you can get distracted by--where she went to school, where she got her law degree, and the fact that she has been at several levels of the Federal bench; and also, of course, that she had a very big job with complex litigation in a law firm. But the part of her resume that spoke to me was her time as an assistant district attorney in New York.

I don't know that most Americans truly understand the difference between a State prosecuting attorney and a Federal prosecuting attorney. Those of us who have spent time in the State courtrooms like to explain that we are the ones who answer the 911 calls. When you are a State prosecutor, you don't get to pick which cases you try. You try all of the cases. When you are a State prosecutor, you don't have the luxury of a large investigative staff or maybe a very light caseload. It would be unheard of for a Federal prosecutor to have a caseload of 100 felonies at any given time, but that is the caseload Judge Sotomayor handled as an assistant district attorney during her time in the District Attorney's Office in New York.

When she came to the prosecutor's office, ironically it was almost exactly the same year I came to the prosecutor's office as a young woman out of law school. I was in Kansas City; she was in New York. I know what the environment is in these prosecutors' offices. There are a lot of aggressive type A personalities, and it is very difficult to begin to handle serious felony cases because everybody wants to handle the serious felony cases. In only 6 months, Judge Sotomayor was promoted to handle serious felony cases in the courtroom. She prosecuted every type of crime imaginable, including the most serious crimes that are committed in our country.

She had many famous cases. One was the Tarzan murderer, where she joined

law enforcement officers in scouring dangerous drug houses for evidence and witnesses. After a month of trial, she convicted Richard Maddicks on three different murders and he was sentenced to 67 years to life in prison.

A New York detective had a hard time finding a New York prosecutor willing to take his child pornography case. Judge Sotomayor stepped up, winning convictions against two men for distributing films depicting children engaged in pornographic activities. These were the first child pornography convictions after the Supreme Court had upheld New York's law that barred the sale of sexually explicit films using children.

After her time as a prosecutor, she eventually became a trial judge. A trial judge is an unusual kind of experience for a Supreme Court Justice. But keep in mind what the Supreme Court Justices do: They look at the record of the trial. They are trying to pass on matters of law that emanate from the courtroom. What a wonderful nominee we have, one who has not only stood at the bar as a prosecutor but also sat on the bench ruling on matters of evidence, ruling on matters of law. I am proud of the fact that she has this experience. If she is confirmed, or when she is confirmed, she will be the only Supreme Court Justice with that trial judge experience, because she is replacing the only Supreme Court Justice with that experience--Judge Souter.

This is a meat-and-potatoes moderate judge. This is a judge who has agreed with Republicans on her panels 95 percent of the time. This is a judge who has the kind of experience that will allow her to make knowing and wise decisions on the most important matters that come in front of our courts in this country.

We have a ``gotcha'' mentality around here. We all engage in it at one time or another. It is gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. It is an outgrowth of the political system of this grand and glorious democracy we all participate in. It is not my favorite part, but it is real. Justice Sotomayor will become a Supreme Court Justice, after having gone through a gotcha process. We are going to hear a lot of gotchas over the coming weeks. But at the end of the day, this is a smart, proud woman who has fought her way through a system against tremendous odds to show that she has integrity, grit, intellect, and the ability to pass judgment in the most difficult intellectual challenges that face a Supreme Court Justice.

I am proud to support her nomination, and I look forward to the day-- and I am confident that the day will come--she will take her place on the highest Court in the land.

Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Kansas for his indulgence, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Impeachment Trial Committee on the Articles Against Judge Samuel B. Kent will meet on Thursday, June 25, 2009, at 4:30 p.m., to conduct its organization meeting.

For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Peg Gustafson on 202-224-6154.

Madam President, I congratulate the chairman of the Banking Committee for daring to go where no one was willing to go for a long time; that is, regulating the credit card industry. I have learned about some of the tricks of the credit card industry the hard way. My father had a significant and serious and protracted illness, and mom was trying to get through it without burdening any of us. Without any of us realizing it, she got in a hole with credit card companies. Once I figured out that she had gotten into the hole, I set about the business of trying to help.

I have a law degree. I am not a shy person. I am someone who is willing to say what I think. I helped write law at the State level, and I think I understand contract law. As I began to get through all the fine print and deal with the credit card companies that she was indebted to, I became more and more frustrated. I began to realize what has happened with unsecured debt in America through credit card companies. There is a lot of bait and switch that goes on. There is a desire to get hold of the credit card customer who never pays the principal. My mom was a dream customer. She paid like clockwork, in terms of the minimum payment, but never quite had enough to get around to the principal. The saddest part of the story is how hard it was for me to pay off the cards. They didn't want me to pay them off. I remember being on a phone call for 3 hours, and I had been to several countries by the time the call was concluded. I was told that it was impossible for me to send a payment to pay off the card the same month. It had to be sent in a separate payment. We were trying to pay off the card. They didn't want it. One of my favorites is that she made a payment on a card, and I paid off the balance. Then a bill came, and it was a negative balance. They owed us money. But you are not going to believe it, but, again, they owed us money, and guess what they had done. They charged us interest. I called this person on the phone and said, ``I am trying to figure this out. You owe us money and there is a charge for interest on the bill.'' That is when I began to learn the reality of ``trailing'' interest. It was mind boggling to me, the tricks and the traps that were embedded in these credit card agreements.

We got an e-mail from a constituent. Actually, we have gotten thousands of them, especially in the last 6 months. This letter says the following:

The reason I am contacting you is because of a problem with

Bank Corp. I received several emails from Bank Corp [asking

me] to apply for a credit card. I eventually did. The credit

card interest rate was to be a fixed 7.99 percent. . . .

After the card was approved, the interest rate was 7.99

percent for several months. Then the rate was raised to 23

percent and, as of the July, 2008 statement, the interest

rate was raised to 35.49 percent. I called Bank Corp and

spoke with Erin, the representative that answered the phone.

After being put on hold for [a long period of time], I was

told that my account was in good standing. The payments had

been made on time. She said Bank Corp had changed their

lending practices and that was the reason for the interest

hike. I was told there was no lower rates available, even

though my account was in good standing. I was also told there

was nothing I could do to change this and there was no way to

protest the interest hike.

This man asked me, ``Is this legal?'' Sadly, we had to tell him that it was every bit legal.

I understand the risk of unsecured debt. I understand that these banks are trying to get credit to people. But one of my favorite parts of the hearing we had on this subject was in Senator Levin's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, when I asked one of the credit card executives about the fact that they want to give these cards to college students. I am not lying about this; this was actual testimony given in this hearing. I asked him about the fact that they were sending cards to college students. I was trying to get to the bottom of the practice where they were doing kickbacks to colleges in return for their lists so that they could solicit the students, give them credit cards. My favorite response was when I asked, with as much sincerity as I could muster, ``I guess you find these college students a good risk for all these insecure debt.'' He said, ``Yes, they are very good risks.'' I was thinking: what planet is he on? I have college students. They are no more a good risk than someone who has a horrible credit rating. They send these cards to kids because they know their parents, if they are in college, don't want them to get into trouble and they will bail them out if they get in too deep. They want to hook them into the pattern, charging big, paying interest only, and being on line to them for the principal for the rest of their lives.

We have work to do on this bill. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle join us quickly in getting to a point where we can bring it to a final vote. It will stop many of these abusive behaviors--the ability to raise the interest rate because maybe you missed a utility bill by accident 1 month, or the practice of the trailing interest, where you find the credit card company owes you money and they still charge you interest. There are 3 amendments that I worked on with Senators Levin and Collins. One is no over-the-limit fee. If they let you go over the limit, they should not charge you a fee. And no interest on fees. And a very important amendment that we can do on credit card data collection so we have more information about what the interest rates are we are paying in America.

The irony of these spikes in interest rates for good credit customers is that this has occurred at a time when interest rates in our country are at a historic low. Ben Bernanke used about all the leverage he could to help our economy by lowering the interest rate, and lower the interest rate, and lowering the interest rate, and these companies can borrow money at very low rates. Yet, to the consumer right now, those interest rates are getting hiked and hiked and hiked--even when the person with the credit card has no indication that they present any kind of financial risk to that credit card company.

We wring our hands here about what we can do to help the people we work for. We know people are hurting now. I am not sure there is any piece of legislation that is more important to the people at home than this credit card bill, bringing to heel these companies who are taking advantage of an unlevel playing field, which is strewn with all kinds of information that is too difficult to even understand. Let's keep it simple and straightforward and make sure the rules are available for all people to understand, and let's make sure they are not engaged in the kind of practices that caused my mother so many sleepless nights.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain on a good bill to address a serious and expensive problem in our military. We have costs that have ballooned. As Senator Levin explained earlier today, in 2008 alone the portfolio of DOD's 97 major defense acquisition programs was nearly $300 billion over cost and the average delay in terms of delivering these capabilities to the warfighter was 22 months. That is unacceptable to our warfighters and unacceptable to taxpayers.

There are obviously many examples of these systems that have been underestimated both on time of delivery and costs, but a good one is the Joint Strike Fighter. Right now, the JSF continues to rely on immature technologies and unrealistic cost schedules. We have a situation where DOD might actually procure these aircraft, these F-35s, costing $57 billion, before we have even completed the developmental flight testing. That is just one, but it is a very good example of a program that is underperforming for the warfighter and for the taxpayer.

There are three amendments that have been added to this bill at my request, and I thank the Armed Services staff and particularly Senator Levin and Senator McCain for accepting these three amendments. I would like to briefly explain the three amendments we have added.

The first is one that will provide some more teeth in a very critical area that is of huge importance in this process; that is, tightening up the process and procedures at JROC.

JROC is the military's Joint Requirements Oversight Council. Now, that sounds pretty good. JROC sounds like a place where you are going to get oversight. But unfortunately, invariably, JROC has become a place where one branch of the military gets what it wants, and in return the other branch of the military gets what it wants, and in return the other branch of the military gets what it wants. It has been kind of a murky process. Based on hearings we have had and testimony and questions I have asked, it is clear to me that JROC has not been providing a lot of oversight--maybe a little too much back-scratching and not enough oversight. So two of these amendments are to deal with the JROC situation and hopefully improve it.

One is going to bring more input from combatant commands to the JROC process. The warfighter's perspective is very important, as this council makes decisions about requirements on systems the U.S. taxpayer is going to purchase. It is very important that the warfighters have input because they are the end user. Maybe what they are saying in that room is what is needed or it turns out that maybe it is not what is needed. We have had examples of where we have failed our warfighters in not anticipating what the needs actually are on the ground. The Iraq war is full of examples where we underestimated what we needed in some regards and overestimated what we needed in others. The warfighter being in the process is very important.

The other amendment that deals with the JROC--the Joint Requirements Oversight Council--is bringing another voice to this process. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics will now be required to concur on the JROC requirements with an eye toward cost, utility, and policy considerations. So we have now added a referee of sorts--another voice. So it isn't just going to be about the Air Force or the Navy or the Army keeping each other happy but, rather, someone in a responsible position to look and concur that what they are doing is in the best interest of cost, utility, and overall policy considerations.

That critical layer of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics will also bring into the process the Secretary of Defense, if necessary, because if there is not an agreement, then the Secretary of Defense will have to come in and provide that ultimate decisionmaking with an eye toward cost, utility, and policy. This will allow the kind of leadership from the top to make sure these decisions are in the best interests of all of the military as opposed to everybody getting what they want.

The final amendment that has been accepted that I believe will help is a little bit of looking over the shoulder on cost waivers. We have put into this bill a number of situations where certain safeguards can be waived if they are going to be too expensive. The best example is the prototype. There is going to be no need for them to do a competitive prototype if they decide they need to waive that requirement based on the cost of producing that prototype. I don't disagree that there may be some circumstances where costs are going to be too high to do a prototype, but what I want to make sure is that we don't abuse the cost waiver. In order to avoid abusing the cost waiver, we need an auditor looking over their shoulders. So this amendment mandates the reporting of cost waivers to GAO--the Government Accountability Office, the overall auditor in the Federal Government-- and it requires the GAO to provide a written review to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee within 60 days of the receipt of that waiver. This will allow the GAO to look over the shoulder and make sure the cost waiver is one based on reliable, objective, and reasonable information. I don't think it is going to be necessary for GAO to do a lot of these analyses if the military knows that it can. Sometimes, just knowing somebody is looking over your shoulder brings about better behavior. That is the goal of this amendment, to make sure we don't abuse cost waivers because this bill is not going to do a lot of good if the military has the opportunity to drive in, around, and through it without appropriate oversight.

So I believe these amendments improve the bill. They are going to be helpful as we try to get a handle on the acquisition process.

I will continue to work with the chairman and the ranking member in any way I can, particularly on the Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, which I chair, which is now part of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. We on that subcommittee are going to continue to look at contracting in DOD, particularly keeping an eye not just on the weapons acquisition but the acquisition of services at DOD. That has also has been a huge growth industry as we have entered into contracting for support services such as never before in the American military, with, frankly, boxes and boxes of examples of waste, abuse, and fraud.

So I am pleased this bill is moving as quickly as it has, and I am particularly pleased there has been such a bipartisan effort in this body. It is refreshing when we can all come together and do the right thing, as we are doing on this bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.