Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I know we have an important piece of legislation that we are going to vote on today. I desperately want to support that legislation. I wish to ask first and most importantly if anyone has the information as to whether the CEOs of Wells Fargo or Bank of America or Citigroup have taken private jets in the last month. Has anyone asked the CEOs of Citigroup, Wells Fargo--all of these financial companies--to take a cut in compensation? Has anyone asked about their workers and how much money they make and whether they are overpaid and whether they are competitive with the salaries of community bankers across the country?

Every one of the institutions I named has gotten $15 billion or more of taxpayer money. Think about that for a minute. Citigroup has gotten $50 billion. Have we checked on their private jets? Have we checked on their CEO compensation? Have we checked on their work rules and whether their workers are given enough flexibility?

It is unbelievable to me that we are setting this double standard. The thousands of jobs and families who build great American cars do not deserve this incredible hypocrisy in terms of the different treatment they are getting. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I say let's call in those CEOs of those big companies that have gotten more than $15 billion of our money and ask them when they are going to take a dollar in pay, ask them if they got here on a corporate jet, ask them if their workers have cut their pay to $14 an hour, ask them if they have talked about cutting their pension costs and their health care costs. Until we do that, we ought to be quiet about the American autoworkers, and we ought to be quiet about these companies that have reduced fixed costs, that have agreed to sell corporate jets, that have agreed to cut executive compensation.

I want to support this bill on behalf of manufacturing in the United States of America, on behalf of wonderful, hard-working families in Missouri. However, there is one problem that has arisen, and that is, unfortunately, in this bill right now, as written, is a provision to increase the pay of Federal judges. Wrong time, wrong place.

We have unemployment numbers today that show we have the highest unemployment in this country we have had in decades. We have families all over this Nation who are scared today, who are not buying Christmas presents. Federal judges get lifetime appointments and they never take a dime's cut in pay. They die with the same salary they have today. My phone is ringing off the hook from people who want to be Federal judges. I am having to have staff work overtime to handle all the phone calls I am getting from people who think there may be a Federal judgeship opening in the eastern district of Missouri and how badly accomplished, wonderful, smart lawyers want that Federal appointment.

We are not hurting for qualified applicants for the Federal judiciary. Is it fair that they have not gotten a cost-of-living increase like every other Federal employee? Probably not. But you know what is a lot more unfair is to give somebody with a lifetime appointment, great health care, no cut in pay when they actually retire, what is unfair is to give them a pay raise on this day in this bill at this time. It is not the right time. And if it is in the bill, I regrettably will have to vote against this legislation because I feel so strongly that it sends the wrong message to the United States of America at this scary moment in our economic history.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about the life of a truly outstanding Missourian. On October 7, 2008, this nation lost a son, a soldier, and a community servant when Dr. Charles E. Lea of Lexington, MO, passed away. While we mourn his passing, we are extraordinarily grateful for all that he gave to his community, his State, and his country during his lifetime.

I believe that Dr. Lea is a wonderful example and reminder of the brave men and women who have served our country in the past and continue to serve it today in this time of great need.

In 1957, Dr. Lea graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point, and after putting himself through medical school at the University of Missouri, volunteered for service in Vietnam. Widely regarded and recognized as a humble servant, Dr. Lea was awarded the Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, the Soldier's Medal, four Air Medals, the Army Commendation Medal, the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry, the Combat Medical Badge, and the Parachutist Badge for his service.

While awards and commendations obviously show a great deal about a person, I am a believer that the strength of a person's character is revealed in his or her daily actions. Those who knew Dr. Lea best shared an anecdote with me regarding his time in Vietnam. Dr. Lea was featured in newspapers and on television here at home for his efforts during the war to save a village elephant that had been shot. Seemingly insignificant at the time, those efforts placed the United States, and our servicemen and women, in high regard in the eyes of the Vietnamese village. This small effort, not part of his duty or orders, but undertaken by a man trying to make a difference, had an extensive impact.

Following his military service, Dr. Lea became a general practice family physician and served countless families in Oklahoma and Missouri throughout his medical career.

As I reflect on Dr. Lea's life today, I am reminded not only of the value of his personal service and sacrifice, but of the committed service and selfless sacrifice of all the men and women who have served this country in uniform. America owes a large debt to all of the remarkable men and women who have served this great nation. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Lea and his family, and in remembrance of his life and his service, my utmost gratitude goes to all those who have served.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and sacrifice of CPT Benedict Smith, who will

forever be a hometown hero of Monroe City, MO.

On Saturday, October 4, 2008, the citizens of Monroe City will gather at its local community airfield and name it in memory of Ben, who lost his life on November 7, 2003, when, while piloting a U.S. Army Blackhawk helicopter near Tikrit, Iraq, he was shot down.

In a famous speech given by General Douglas MacArthur before the West Point Corps of Cadets on May 12, 1962, MacArthur exclaimed:

Duty, Honor, Country: Those three hallowed words

reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be,

what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build

courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when

there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when

hope becomes forlorn.

Ben Smith, a 1999 graduate of the United States Military Academy, was what MacArthur envisioned--he did not just live ``Duty, Honor, Country,'' he was ``Duty, Honor, Country.'' He lived a life marked by a duty to serve a higher cause; he did so with impeccable honor; and, finally, he committed and ultimately sacrificed his life for his beloved country. Today, I humbly honor Ben and his family.

But saying that Ben served and sacrificed would only be telling part of his story, because Ben was more than a great man, he was also a lot of fun. I recently heard a story from one of Ben's West Point classmates that demonstrates Ben's wise guy attitude. In the spring of 1999 the senior cadets were brought together for a lecture. Officers from an Army unit that had recently returned from overseas deployment were to talk to the cadets about the challenges they would soon face as new second lieutenants in the U.S. Army. During a question and answer period Ben rose and boldly asked:

Sir, I was wondering, in the Army, will we be able to take

the afternoon naps we have grown accustomed to here at West

Point?

A roar of laughter followed. Ben Smith was brave well before his time and exhibited more than a healthy dose of a Missourians swagger.

Ben went on to become a helicopter pilot and soon joined the esteemed ``Screaming Eagles'' of the 101st Airborne Division. He would marry a fellow helicopter pilot, Maggie, in December 2002, and both would soon find themselves deployed to Iraq.

Ben, tragically, made the ultimate sacrifice for his country on this tour of duty. He would be received home by his family in Monroe City where an entire town rallied to honor its fallen hero and to support Ben's loved ones. One military service member who attended Ben's funeral later wrote:

The people of Monroe City, MO are truly what a community

should be modeled after. You, your family and the people of

Monroe City are and will always be true heroes.

I am proud of Ben Smith, of his family and of his many friends. I am also proud of Monroe City, which has so humbly supported Ben and the Smith family. Monroe City reminds us all of the greatness of small town America. And Monroe City has displayed the special values of Missourians who have such a strong love of country and such a remarkable commitment to their communities. It is no surprise that a town like Monroe City produces American heroes such as Ben Smith.

As Ben's friends and family once again come out to honor his memory and remember his life on the occasion of the naming of the Monroe City Regional Airport as the ``Captain Ben Smith Airfield,'' we are reminded of what it means to be an American. More importantly, we recognize how great it is to have the freedoms we enjoy as we also acknowledge that our freedom did not and does not come for free.

Part of the West Point Alma-Mater reads

And when our work is done, Our course on earth is run, May

it be said, ``Well Done; Be Thou at Peace.''

Ben is no doubt at peace today. Ben's work was well done. His memory and sacrifice will always be with those of us still here on earth. Those who fly in and out of the Ben Smith Airfield may be said to take to the heavens in flight. Today I think we can safely say that Ben is flying in heaven.

Mr. President, I would like to talk about what is going on in our economy right now. I think it is important that we point out a couple of things at the outset.

First, I had the opportunity yesterday afternoon to spend some time with some great community bankers from my State. They said something to me that really resonated, and that is: I don't think we have done enough to tell America the difference between deposit banks and investment banks. There are a whole lot of folks I represent right now who are nervous. My sister caught her mother-in-law with cash in her pillowcase this week.

The reason they are nervous is, frankly, a lot of them don't understand that the problems caused here were not because of deposit banks. Deposit banks are highly regulated. Deposit banks have both State government and Federal Government looking over their shoulders every single day. Deposit banks are fine in the United States of America--partly because of appropriate regulation and oversight by State and Federal Governments. And they are insured. Every account in America that is in a deposit bank is insured by the Federal Government for up to $100,000.

In fairness to all those great community banks and the banks in my State that have used sound business practices, that have not let greed be their watchword, that have served their communities well, let me reassure all the people who bank at those great banks that they can take a sigh of relief today because the problem we have in our economy is not with deposit banks.

Let's step back and see what has happened. There are three things that have happened. No. 1 was massive deregulation of exotic financial instruments in investment banks and insurance companies. No. 2, there was a huge amount of greed. And, No. 3, no one was watching out for the taxpayers.

I heard my colleague from Georgia talk about short selling and naked short selling and saying we need to tell them to enforce the law.

Think about that for a minute. We need to tell somebody to enforce the law as it relates to trading? I heard just an hour ago that today the SEC is going to enforce naked short selling rules. Naked short selling--it would take longer to explain than I have this morning, but suffice it to say, it is wrong and bad because when you are hedging, when you are long selling and short selling, you need to take delivery. That is how this works. There are rules against naked short selling, but they were not enforced.

They are enforcing it today. Why wasn't it enforced last week? Why weren't the rules enforced the week before? Why weren't the rules enforced last year? They didn't want to. It is pretty simple. Nobody wanted to enforce the rules. Why not? Because the titans of Wall Street were in charge. The titans of Wall Street have had their way with this White House.

Facts are stubborn. If the law is on the books and this administration is not enforcing it, they need to explain to the American public why the taxpayers are now on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars because these guys didn't think it was important to enforce the rules against their friends.

Credit default swaps is another exotic financial instrument that came in vogue after the massive deregulation of this administration. It was made possible by the deregulators.

Here is the thing that is killing me--it is just killing me. All of the folks

who have been screaming: Deregulation, get government off our backs, evil government off our backs, big bad government off our backs, deregulate, deregulate, deregulate--in the last 24 hours there has been--do you remember the transformer toys that went from an animal to a massive machine? We have transformers around here. These massive deregulation advocates all of a sudden say: We have to enforce rules on Wall Street. We have to regulate.

Come on. Do you think we are dumb? You can't transform overnight from a big bad deregulator to I am now the cop on the beat; I'll take care of Wall Street. It is not honest. Be principled. If you are a deregulator and you want to live with these consequences, you want to say to the American people: Hey, when we deregulate, this is the risk. This is the risk we are taking with your money.

They are going after the status quo. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, they are fighting the status quo. Guess what. They created it. This was their plan. It didn't work. It didn't grow our economy. It didn't create our jobs. American families, for the first time in our history, have gone down in terms of their average income. For the first time in our history America is not growing. Our prosperity is not growing.

Senator Phil Gramm marshaled through the bill that allowed investment banks and insurance companies to run wild. I have Missouri families who have lost jobs. I have a lot of autoworkers who are losing their jobs in Missouri. One of the things that is hard--one of Senator McCain's economic advisers, Senator Gramm, did this massive deregulation. We have another one who was a CEO of a major corporation who walked away from a company with $42 million in her pocket. Because she did well? Because she got that company to the stratosphere? No. She was fired. The board of directors fired her and then gave her a $42 million payday.

I have to tell you, in Missouri that doesn't compute. It just doesn't compute. When you lose your job because you haven't done a good job, you should not get paid for it. I know I am offended at the notion that any of this taxpayer money is going to go to multimillion-dollar payouts to anybody who ran any of these companies. It is one of the things we have to pay very close attention to because now that taxpayer money is on the line, we have to make sure it is spent appropriately.

CEO salaries are out of control in this country, and it is not a matter of being competitive. It is not that we have to pay our CEOs so much more because everybody else is. Right now in America a CEO is making 40 times the average worker's salary. Do you know what it is in Japan, one of our competitors? Ten times. It is only ten times.

I want to mention Social Security because my colleague from Georgia mentioned Social Security. I want everyone to dwell just a minute on this notion. At the same time Senator McCain, Senator Gramm, and many others were saying deregulate, deregulate, what else were they saying? The future of Social Security depends on privatization. Privatization of Social Security was our ticket to the promised land for stability in the Social Security Program. Think about that today. Think about what that means today, yesterday, Monday. Think about the consequences. We need to realize we have to learn from our mistakes. We have to fix what is broken and, for gosh sakes, we cannot talk about privatizing Social Security on Wall Street right now. I am hopeful this will be a wake-up call to all those people who advocate the privatization of Social Security.

They say: Deregulate, get government off our backs, free market, lax enforcement, big government, bad government, deregulate, deregulate, get government off our backs, big government, bad government--until their friends get in trouble. Do we have a free market with oil? No, we don't have a free market for oil. We subsidize oil companies. Do we have a free market for the pharmaceutical companies? No, Medicare D was a huge profit subsidy for drug companies in this country. Do we have a free market for Wall Street? No, we are rushing in to save them.

When their friends get in trouble, who comes to the rescue? Who comes to the rescue when trouble arrives at the doorstep? The taxpayers of the United States of America, and that, in fact, is the rub.

What we have to have is reasonable regulation. We have to enforce our laws--both our competitive laws and our regulatory laws--and we have to make sure now that we watch the taxpayer money and make sure not a dime of it goes to a payout to anybody who doesn't deserve it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I would like to honor the important and national contributions of the Missouri School of Journalism in Columbia, MO, on its 100th anniversary.

When the school opened its doors on September 14, 1908, it became the world's first school of journalism. The University Missourian published its first issue that day, exemplifying the school's ``Missouri Method'' of hands-on training at multiple professional media outlets affiliated with the school. In fact, the school still operates the only network- affiliated television newsroom in the country designed as a teaching facility.

The school's pioneering endeavors continued in 1921 and 1934 with the awarding of the first master's and doctoral degrees in journalism. And now more than 20,000 alumni from all over the world have become leaders in journalism, mass communication, and academe.

The free press plays an integral role in our society, as a champion of freedom and watchdog of liberty. The achievements of this school are a mark of pride for its students and faculty, for Missouri, and the Nation. I congratulate the school on the celebration of its 100th anniversary and look forward to future groundbreaking endeavors from the school's leadership, faculty, alumni, and students.

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

Mr. President, I have been presiding in the chair listening to some of our friends across the aisle talk about oil and gas prices and lamenting that we may go home without taking action. I was blessed to be home yesterday and had the chance to be in rural Missouri. I talked to a lot of people who represent the heart of our country.

I will tell my colleagues what they have figured out. They have learned to look beyond everybody talking about this stuff and to figure out who wants what. This is simple for the American people. All they need to do is ask about the solutions and who wants them.

The Republican Party says there is only one solution. Even with the 68 million acres they are not touching, they only need to have another 10 or 20 million acres and our problems are over. Who wants that? Big oil.

What this town has done for decades is give big oil everything it wants. This administration has given big oil everything it wants. For 25 years, big oil has had its way with the Congress. The solution they are proposing is, once again, giving big oil its way.

I don't know how one can look at today's financial news and not shake their head. ExxonMobil with $12 billion in profits, announced today, in the last 3 months; $11 billion the quarter before. They want to give ExxonMobil another tax break, and they want to give ExxonMobil what they want moving forward.

It is very simple. We got in this mess because the Republican Party continues to do the bidding of big oil. We will only get out of this mess if we turn our back on big oil and start doing what makes sense for the future. If only we had been willing to say no to big oil in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, when the Vice President had 40 meetings with big oil executives and one meeting with alternative fuels people.

It is time we say no to big oil. America is sick and tired of being handcuffed by the demands of big oil.

Democrats say no to big oil. We say yes to getting out from underneath big oil. We do that by extending tax credits for solar and wind, to which Republicans keep saying no. Of course, they keep saying no to that; big oil doesn't want that. They called big oil. Big oil said no; they say no.

We say: Let's do more alternatives and invest in technologies that will rid us of our dependence on foreign oil. America has 2 or 3 percent of the world's oil and she consumes 25 percent. We will never drill our way out of this. The only way we will find relief for the American public is to say no to big oil.

It is time. They to have muster the courage. The sky will not fall if they will only stand and say, for the first time on that side of the aisle, no to big oil.

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

Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Arkansas. The whistleblower protection provision is an enforcement cornerstone of this legislation because it creates a legal right for private employees to help enforce consumer protection laws. It is important to underscore the Senate's intent that this provision builds upon ``best practices'' in whistleblower laws.

Furthermore, it is not Congress's intent to substitute these whistleblower protections for other preexisting rights and remedies against unfair employment practices.

Companies should also not look to override the whistleblower protections through nondisclosure policies or agreements such as company manuals, prerequisites for employment or exit agreements.

Thank you for engaging in this colloquy with me to reaffirm the rights conveyed in the whistleblower provision. This provision is one of many in this legislation that reflects on the skill you have demonstrated in guiding this bill through the Congress.

preemption

Mr. President, I would like to ask, if I could, the minority whip one brief question before he leaves the Chamber. I notice you all were trying to clarify the position of our colleague from Arizona on drilling, and this is simply a yes or no question. Does Senator McCain support drilling in ANWR?

Mr. President, I will speak as in morning business, so I am happy to yield now to the Senator from New Mexico. I am happy to do that.

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

Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Mexico. I know his service in this body is one that every American should admire. He is a good Senator for his State. He has been a warm and friendly senior Senator to this very junior Senator from Missouri. I appreciate his friendship very much.

Mr. President, yesterday there was an incredibly dark cloud that passed over Washington. I think the saddest thing about this very dark cloud is the fact that there wasn't an immediate outcry from every corner of this building and every office in the Pentagon. One of the most frustrating things about Washington is the attention span of so many in Washington and the search for the headline that is the most sensational. So it is no wonder that news about auditing doesn't bust out.

I come to the floor to try to emphasize the crisis we are facing right now in terms of the Pentagon and auditing of taxpayer dollars.

Let me briefly explain the two agencies involved. One is the Defense Contract Audit Agency. What is DCAA? That is part of the problem. Nobody knows what it is. Nobody knows what it does. DCAA is the auditing agency in the Department of Defense that is responsible for auditing the contractors. Think about that for a minute: 3,500 people are employed by this Agency, and they are our eyes and ears into contractor practices at the Department of Defense. We are talking serious money here. We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of billions--with a ``b''--of dollars.

One would think that if we have 3,500 people working full time to audit the contractors, we should all feel good about that and, frankly, before yesterday, I kind of felt good about it. As I learned about all of the auditors of the Department of Defense, I thought: I am glad we have an agency with the responsibility to get to the bottom of the prices that were charged by contractors, to get to the bottom of the money that comes out of our Treasury for contractors--until yesterday.

The other agency involved is the GAO. I know the initials ``GAO'' are thrown around all the time. Let me explain what GAO is. GAO is the Government Accountability Office. They are what I would call the papa bear of auditors in Government. They are the auditors who look at all parts of Government, many times in response to a request by Congress but many times in response to a hotline call they have gotten from people within Government.

They start getting hotline calls about the practices at DCAA. This is enough to worry an auditing agency, that they are getting hotline calls on an auditing agency. This is enough to get their attention. So GAO started this audit of the Defense Contract Audit Agency based on complaints to their fraud hotline.

Here is the allegation. Are you ready for this? Here is the allegation: that these audits were being changed with no factual basis at the direction of supervisors, without evidence to support the changes, to help the contractors. This is a wildly sensational claim within the world of auditing. This is the kind of claim that, frankly, most auditors would probably not take seriously because it is so outrageous. But because there had been so many calls to the hotline, GAO went to work, over 100 interviews, months and months of work, and yesterday they issued their report.

They looked at 13 different audits named in the complaints and found that in every single audit, favorable findings for the contractors had no backup in the workpapers. What does that mean? If you are an auditor, your job is to find the facts. Everything you put in an audit has to be backed up by what are called workpapers. That means that anybody at any time could go in and find the factual evidence to support every line in the audit. That is part of Government auditing standards.

What else did GAO find? You are not going to believe this. You are not going to believe how bad this is. They found that supervisors dropped findings and changed opinions without the evidence to support it. They found several instances where auditors were threatened if they did not change their findings to support what the supervisors wanted and if they did not change their findings to favor the contractors. GAO found this practice to be so pervasive at two of the three locations, they called it ``a pattern of frequent management actions that served to intimidate auditors and create an abusive environment.'' These auditors were intimidated by supervisors and made to tell them what they were telling GAO. So not only were the supervisors on the auditors to do findings favorable to the contractors, they got on them when they started talking to GAO. They intimidated them into telling them what they were telling the investigators, the auditors from GAO. Their supervisors made them feel their jobs were threatened.

At one location, auditors were sometimes given 20 days to finish an audit, and if it wasn't enough time to do the audit work, they said: Just do it; just do it with what you have.

Supervisors admitted to not reviewing the workpapers. That doesn't sound like a big deal, right? Who reviews workpapers? Let me tell you, in the world of auditing, it is a very big deal.

This is how an audit works. The field auditors gather the papers, the factual information, and then it goes through a series of reviews and checks. It is ultimate quality control in an audit. It is unheard of for an audit to be issued without review up the line. That review is how you cull the information that is incorrect and make sure everything in that audit is factual and objective.

Here is a very good example of how serious and systemic the problem is. DCAA actually agreed with a contractor, one of the five largest contractors in the country, ahead of time what items would be reviewed for the audit. It is like giving a kid the answers to the test. There is no point in doing an audit if you tell the auditee ahead of time: OK, we are going to test you on this.

Here is the amazing thing. Even with the inside information, the DCAA auditors found the process to be inadequate with the contractor. Did they issue an unfavorable opinion? Oh, no, they didn't issue an unfavorable opinion. Instead, the auditor was removed by a supervisor. The new auditor was threatened with personnel action if the audit was not changed to favor the contractor.

In every single one, all 13 audits that were reviewed, the GAO found that Government auditing standards were not followed.

There is a book in auditing called the Yellow Book. It is the bible of auditing. It is the generally accepted Government auditing standards, and every Government auditor is required to follow these standards. Once again, auditors have a lot of professional pride about the objectivity of their work and about the standards they follow. It would not be effective if you had auditors who were auditing the government in Michigan and auditors who were auditing the government in San Francisco and auditors who were auditing the Pentagon all using different methodology to do audits. So this standard is, in fact, revered within the Government auditing world.

Here is what is amazing. Thirteen audits were looked at. Did one of them not meet standards? No. Did two of them not meet standards? No. Every single audit failed Government auditing standards--13 of 13, 100 percent. This is mind-boggling, that we would have 3,500 people watching Defense Department contractors in this country and every audit that was looked at was failed by Government auditing standards. Nine of the thirteen had audit opinions changed without documentation and without workpapers to support the charges. Three had evidence that showed the DCAA auditor trying to perform his or her job and his independence impaired by his supervisors. Nine of the thirteen audits had conclusions that were not supported by the work performed by the auditors.

They got caught. They have gotten caught in what could be the biggest auditing scandal in the history of this town. And I am not exaggerating. I will guarantee you, as auditors around the country learn about this, they are going to have disbelief and raw anger that this agency has impugned the integrity of Government auditors everywhere by these kinds of irresponsible actions.

By the way, auditors are very conservative with other auditors. Every

auditing agency has peer review. By the way, GAO has always passed all of its peer review without any problem. But I know when we were getting peer reviewed when I was the State auditor in Missouri, it was a very nervous time because auditors come into your office from all over the country and they pore through your work. They go through your workpapers. They check all of your reviews. They, in fact, as an objective third party, look and make sure you are doing objective professional government auditing work. They are very conservative because it is peer to peer, right? It is hard to criticize your peers. It is hard to call out another auditor. That is why this is such a big deal. It is damning. This audit is damning of DCAA and the job it should be doing to protect Government taxpayers from the incredible waste and inefficiency in the contracting of the Department of Defense.

So when you get an audit, another part of the audit is you respond to the audit. The auditee gets an opportunity to speak in the audit. It is a very good thing because the auditee, if they firmly believe the audit is not justified, has an ability to give their side of the story. It also allows the opportunity to make sure you are exchanging information. So that response in the audit is also a part of Government auditing standards.

Let me tell you, when they got this audit, it was a dark day for them, and they had a choice. DCAA had a choice. They could have come forward and said: We have a big problem here and we have to clean house, and announced they were firing people in all of these offices and that supervisors were being fired and that they were going to clean up their act. That was one choice they had, to admit they had been caught in this scandal and to admit they would make it better. But what did they do? What did DCAA do as a result of this incredible audit report? They ``disagreed'' with the totality of the audit.

Here is what is so insulting about them disagreeing with the totality of the audit. They have no evidence to back it up. They have nothing to refute. The voluminous--this is not a small audit, this is page after page of documentation. They dispute the facts about the contractor being given prior notice that he would be audited in the above case even though there is clear evidence to support this conclusion in the DCAA workpapers.

They said, believe it or not--wait until you hear this:

They are currently operating at a satisfactory level of

compliance with Government auditing standards.

Satisfactory? Thirteen out of thirteen failing Government standards, and that is satisfactory? How dare they. How dare they say that is satisfactory. They flatly stated they don't believe any supervisors harassed or intimidated staff or willfully removed findings. The evidence is there. The fact they are denying the evidence is there shows the level of dysfunction in this auditing agency. They don't seem to be too concerned about zero percent of these audits meeting Government standards.

The Department of Defense has been on the high-risk list of this Government for more than a decade. Scandal after scandal has rolled out of the Department of Defense on contracting.

I took a trip to Iraq on contract oversight, and with an auditor's eye, meeting with the people who oversee the contracts in Iraq. And I will tell you conservatively--and auditors are very conservative-- conservatively, I think we have burned up more than $150 billion in pure contracting abuse.

We have had hearings where weapon system after weapon system comes in 100 percent more expensive, 3 or 4 years off time. And all this time we have been wasting hundreds and billions of dollars, the fox was in the chicken coop. The Defense Contracting Auditing Agency has been indicted in the strongest terms by their peers at GAO.

This situation demands hearings. And if somebody doesn't lose their job at DCAA before nightfall, the problem is more serious than anybody in this Chamber can possibly imagine. Because they think they can sweat it out. They think we are not going to pay attention. They think we are going to move on to the next headline, the next campaign stop. They think we are so worried about all the other problems that no one is going to notice this auditing agency has been disclosed and exposed as being fundamentally corrupt in the way they issue audits.

It calls into question every single audit done by this agency. And if we don't take it seriously, if we don't give it our attention, if we don't demand that the fox get out of the chicken coop, and we start taking care of taxpayer dollars, ultimately it is our national security. All of the needs we have for our men and women who fight for us, all the needs of our active military, all the technology we need to stay secure and safe, all of it is so important to our Nation. Yet what we have found out in the last 24 hours is no one is paying attention to the way we are spending that money. It makes me sick to my stomach.

I am angry. And I will tell you, this Senator is not going away on this issue. If I have to stand on this floor every day for the next 6 months, I will do it, to get someone fired at that agency and to get them to clean up their act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to previous order, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess.

Mr. President, I offer these remarks in recognition of 35 years of excellence by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, in combating organizations responsible for the flow of illicit narcotics into the United States. The DEA was created by Executive order on July 1, 1973, in order to establish a single unified command to conduct ``an all-out global war on the drug menace.'' DEA is presently mounting this global attack in 21 divisions throughout the United States and in 87 offices in 63 countries--the largest international presence of any Federal law enforcement agency.

The mission and purpose of the DEA remain as vital today as they were in 1973. After months of hearings and testimony in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, the Senate Committee on Government Operations issued a report in October 1973 noting among other benefits that the creation of DEA as a superagency would provide the momentum needed to coordinate all Federal efforts related to drug enforcement outside the Justice Department, especially the gathering of intelligence on international narcotics smuggling. The DEA has steadfastly served this Nation to that end, mounting an intelligence- driven attack against the most notorious and ruthless international drug cartels and kingpins. DEA's global reach also has been a key component of combating terrorism, as these ideologically-motivated groups have been shown by DEA to fund some of their activities and weapons purchases through drug trafficking proceeds. The agency's re- entry into the intelligence community in 2006 is tacit acknowledgement of the value of DEA to the Nation's security.

For the past 35 years, DEA has identified, targeted, and methodically disrupted and dismantled the operations of those responsible for the illicit drug traffic. Whether it is crack and powder cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates, marijuana, or prescription drugs, DEA agents have courageously infiltrated drug trafficking organizations and brought to justice the most significant and despicable criminals this Nation has faced. The cost of this fight has been tremendous in terms of treasure, but no cost has been greater or more pointed than the price of life and suffering paid by the men and women of

DEA and their families. Since establishment, a combination of 57 special agents, task force officers, and support staff have valiantly given their lives for the Nation in support of DEA's noble mission.

On behalf of the citizens of Missouri, I want to remind the DEA that the agency is not alone in this fight. Missourians and their communities have stood strong against the scourge of drug trafficking and abuse, and our law enforcement agencies have stood shoulder to shoulder with the DEA. Our commitment to protecting young people from the inherent danger of addiction and keeping the ideal of hope strong is unwavering.

I am proud to offer my congratulations to the DEA not only for its marked achievements, but also for its commitment to excellence. The agency has served as a model for interagency collaboration and information sharing across the Federal law enforcement community. Its workforce is both talented and diverse, with the most recent Administrator and Administrator-nominee being women. Additionally, the agency was ranked in the Top 20 best places to work in the Federal Government, placing 18 out of 222 agencies in the Partnership for Public Service's 2007 rankings of ``The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government.''

Mr. President, the United States is so lucky to have the senior Senator from Maryland in this august body. She is smart and feisty, and she is not willing to yield any

ground when she thinks the people she represents are not being treated as they should be.

For women in this country, she has been a tremendous beacon of light and hope to finally get over some of the barriers that have held women back historically. So to the dean of the Senate women, I thank her for her leadership as we work on this checklist for change.

One of the things we want to check off the list is fiscal accountability. It sounds kind of boring, fiscal accountability. It sounds like this is where the numbers drone on and one loses track.

This is a big deal. This administration has driven us into an economic ditch. The numbers, frankly, are so big it is hard to believe they are real. Federal spending since President Bush took office has increased by almost $1 trillion. Let me say that again. Federal spending under this President and under the leadership of the Republican Party has increased by $1 trillion. Our debt has gone up by $3.7 trillion. We now have a debt of $9.3 trillion.

This is change that is not just important, it is urgent. We must be fiscally accountable for taxpayer money. It sounds nice, right? It is a moral imperative for our kids. It is the right thing to do for the generation that comes behind us, for our children and grandchildren. We are presenting them with a train wreck of unprecedented proportion if we don't get our fiscal house in order.

So how do we do that? The Checklist for Change is all about being tough and accountable with taxpayer money. The way you do that is: First, how do you spend it? Do you give out contracts based on whom you know? This administration has. Is it about cronyism? Too often it has been. Is it about no competition? Unfortunately, yes. Is it about cost- plus contracts? As a former auditor, I will tell you, cost-plus contracts have no place in Government. Cost-plus means, hey, you can charge the Government whatever you want, and then you get to make money on top of that.

Believe it or not, that is the kind of contracting that ruled the day in Iraq. As we were faced with a war that we did not have enough men and women to fight, we had to contract out such as our country has never contracted out in a time of war. What happened? We lost--and I am being conservative now because auditors are conservative by nature-- literally, over $150 billion that went up in smoke to waste, fraud, and abuse.

War profiteering. There has been an orgy of war profiteering during this conflict in Iraq. If we focused on the Department of Defense and the way they contract, we could realize enough savings so every young person in America could have help going to college, so every young child in America could have preschool--if we paid attention to the way we do contracting in the Department of Defense.

I will tell you, today is a good day. I wish to say to my colleagues, today is a good day because today a decision was rendered that shows we can get it right if we force companies to compete and we enforce the provisions of those contracts.

A major, expensive contract was the tanker deal at the Department of Defense. There was a competition--good news. A company was awarded the contract--fine. There were problems. So what happened? The losing company went to GAO, under our process of procedures, and said: Auditors, take a look at this. You tell us whether this contract was done fairly.

The good news is, GAO, as it always does, did its work professionally, and they announced their decision today and said Boeing was, in fact, treated unfairly in the tanker deal, that Boeing did not get a fair shake under that competitive contract, and that, in fact, the Air Force must change its decision as it relates to Boeing and the tanker deal.

Do I think that is important? Yes. But why is it important? It is important because what we have said from the beginning is compete these contracts. Do it fairly. Respect taxpayer money. Get a bargain. That is what women in America relate to because we are all about getting a bargain for our families. We need to treat taxpayer money the same way.

I am proud to be part of the Checklist for Change. I am proud to be emphasizing fiscal accountability.

I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?

I will speak for 5 minutes. I would appreciate it if you would let me know when I have 1 minute.

Mr. President, you know this is not complicated. You would have to not be walking around in the United States of America to not feel incredible pressure at this moment. I feel so lucky to be in the Senate, and I feel such a responsibility to communicate the pressure we are all feeling from people who are hurting.

Let me run through a few facts.

Since 2002, profits for the five largest oil companies have quadrupled. Let me say that again. Since 2002, profits have quadrupled. Last year, ExxonMobil made $83,000 a minute in profit--$83,000 a minute.

Now, are they using all this profit to invest in alternative fuels? How about increasing refinery capacity? Oh, no, no. They have their hand out to us. This is the nerve. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and thinking you are going to get a different result.

We are paying oil companies right now. This is the largest package of corporate welfare this country has ever delivered. What nerve does it take for us to give oil companies $17 billion in taxpayer money with those kinds of profits?

This is like the ``twilight zone.'' This cannot be real. We cannot honestly be standing here and saying to the American people: It is a great idea for us to keep giving them your money when they are making $83,000 a minute.

I was reading the paper this morning, and nothing is more expensive than ads in the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent to show an ad in the New York Times this morning.

OK. This is it: a two-page spread. Do you know what this costs you? A half a million dollars. A half a million dollars Exxon spent this morning. And guess what. They spent it yesterday morning, and they are going to spend it tomorrow morning. It is a series--all about what a great job they are doing for the American people.

They are spending $2.5 million in the New York Times this week, while Missourians in rural Missouri are scared they cannot go to work anymore. They have no bus they can take. They have no metro they can take. They are trying to figure out how they can drive to and from work, how they can put food on the table, and these guys are spending $2.5 million on PR. It is unbelievable.

We have given big oil, in 2004 and 2005, tax breaks worth over $17 billion over the next decade. What does the other side say? We need to give them more. We have to pay them to increase refinery capacity. Excuse me? We have to pay them--the taxpayers of this country? I do not know how out of touch we could be. We are not asking for a lot. Just take away the taxpayer money. We do not begrudge people profit.

Now, here is what is unbelievable. I do not know how this bill would turn out if we debated it----

Thank you, Mr. President.

I do not know how this bill would turn out if we debated it honestly, but I do know one thing. We have a choice in about 5 minutes. We can do nothing or we can work as hard as we know how to do something. If the choice--if the choice--is to do nothing, then I hope the people of this country rise up and scream like they have never screamed before. How dare us do nothing.

That is what they are about getting ready to vote on. They are going to say: We are not going to even let you proceed to try to do something about this problem. It takes a lot of nerve. It takes a lot of nerve.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, when I was a local elected official in Kansas City, MO, I had the distinct honor of getting to know many of the dedicated community leaders whose sole purpose for being involved was to improve the lives of their fellow citizens. One of the best and most beloved of these leaders was the Reverend Earl Abel.

Reverend Abel was born on September 12, 1930. He attended University of Kansas and went on to receive his Doctor of Divinity Degree from Western Baptist Bible College. Reverend Abel worked as a U.S. Postal Service mail carrier until he organized the Palestine Missionary Baptist Church in 1959.

Under Reverend Abel's leadership, what started out as a modest church of 11 members grew into a thriving ministry, touching the lives of thousands of community members across Kansas City, Missouri. While he was pastor, Palestine Church built two senior citizens residences, a Senior Activity Center, and a church camp for both youth and adults. Even as he worked tirelessly to reach out through these programs, Reverend Abel's involvement in the community did not end with his efforts at Palestine Church. Reverend Abel served as Chaplain for the Kansas City Police Department, President of the Baptist Ministers Union, member of the Kansas City Council on Crime Prevention, and authored a book entitled If a Church is to Grow. In 1999, Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan appointed Reverend Abel to the Appellate Judicial Commission.

On May 17, 2005, Reverend Abel passed away after 46 years of service at Palestine Missionary Baptist Church of Jesus Christ and more than 48 years as a minister of God.

Today I rise to offer a bill to honor this man by naming a post office facility in Kansas City after him. Given his early career as a mail carrier, it is only fitting for the location at 1700 Cleveland Avenue, in the heart of Kansas City, to carry his name. It is my hope that this small gesture helps ensure that the legacy of Rev. Abel lives on. A companion bill in the House of Representatives will be filed today by Rep. Cleaver, a fellow minister and selfless public servant who represents Kansas City.

I hope my fellow colleagues will join me and my colleague Senator Bond in recognizing Reverend Earl Abel for his loving ministry and limitless dedication to serving the Kansas City, MO, community.

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

Mr. President, when I was a local elected official in Kansas City, MO, I had the distinct honor of getting to know many of the dedicated community leaders whose sole purpose for being involved was to improve the lives of their fellow citizens. One of the best and most beloved of these leaders was the Reverend Earl Abel.

Reverend Abel was born on September 12, 1930. He attended University of Kansas and went on to receive his Doctor of Divinity Degree from Western Baptist Bible College. Reverend Abel worked as a U.S. Postal Service mail carrier until he organized the Palestine Missionary Baptist Church in 1959.

Under Reverend Abel's leadership, what started out as a modest church of 11 members grew into a thriving ministry, touching the lives of thousands of community members across Kansas City, Missouri. While he was pastor, Palestine Church built two senior citizens residences, a Senior Activity Center, and a church camp for both youth and adults. Even as he worked tirelessly to reach out through these programs, Reverend Abel's involvement in the community did not end with his efforts at Palestine Church. Reverend Abel served as Chaplain for the Kansas City Police Department, President of the Baptist Ministers Union, member of the Kansas City Council on Crime Prevention, and authored a book entitled If a Church is to Grow. In 1999, Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan appointed Reverend Abel to the Appellate Judicial Commission.

On May 17, 2005, Reverend Abel passed away after 46 years of service at Palestine Missionary Baptist Church of Jesus Christ and more than 48 years as a minister of God.

Today I rise to offer a bill to honor this man by naming a post office facility in Kansas City after him. Given his early career as a mail carrier, it is only fitting for the location at 1700 Cleveland Avenue, in the heart of Kansas City, to carry his name. It is my hope that this small gesture helps ensure that the legacy of Rev. Abel lives on. A companion bill in the House of Representatives will be filed today by Rep. Cleaver, a fellow minister and selfless public servant who represents Kansas City.

I hope my fellow colleagues will join me and my colleague Senator Bond in recognizing Reverend Earl Abel for his loving ministry and limitless dedication to serving the Kansas City, MO, community.

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