Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, yesterday, I voted in opposition to cloture on fast-track trade promotion authority. This was a difficult vote for me. Maryland is pulled in two directions on this issue. On one side Maryland's agricultural industries, such as poultry on the Eastern Shore and the Port of Baltimore, where they believe this trade deal will bring economic benefits for the State. On the other side, I have constituents in Dundalk who don't have a steel industry anymore and wonder why Congress didn't do more to protect them from the effects of trade. Let me be very clear on one point. I support trade. I encourage trade. Trade is very important to my State. Maryland workers can compete successfully in a global marketplace if they are given a level playing field. That is why I support expansion of fair trade. In the past, I have supported bilateral trade agreements. We have leverage in those situations and can get strong, enforceable labor and environmental provisions into those agreements to improve living standards and stop child labor in sweatshops. But I have always been suspicious of multilateral agreements like NAFTA. I have seen too many of these big deals fail to deliver the promises of new jobs and businesses. Why is the role of Congress so important? To make sure the American people get a good deal. I am ready to support trade agreements that are good for America, agreements that are good for workers and good for the environment. Congress should consider trade legislation and amendments using the same procedures we use to consider other legislation. We should use the leverage of our trade agreements to ensure fair competition. That means workers in other countries should have the right to organize into unions. Without the strength of collective bargaining, their wages will always be below ours. They should also have worker safety protection and retirement and health care benefits. We should use the leverage of our trade agreements to encourage countries to respect the basic human rights of their citizens. Everyone deserves the right to live in a healthy, clean, unpolluted environment, and every worker should be guaranteed their fundamental rights at work. When considering trade deals, I also have to consider the impact on my State of Maryland. I am a blue-collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with blue-collar America. I spent most of my life in a blue-collar neighborhood. My mother and father owned a neighborhood grocery store. When Bethlehem Steel went on strike, my dad gave those workers credit. My career and public service is one of deep commitment to working-class people. In the last decade, working people have faced the loss of jobs, lower wages, a reduced standard of living, and a shrinking manufacturing base. I believe that a renewal of fast-track negotiating authority means more Americans will lose their jobs in the name of free trade. More people will get TAA benefits, but more people will need them. Proponents of fast-track say it is inevitable that there will be winners and losers. The problem is America's workers and their families always seem to be the losers. They lose their jobs. If they keep their jobs or find new jobs, they lose the wage rates they have earned. I have said before that I don't want to put American jobs on a fast-track to Mexico or a slow boat to China. I had to base my decision on the facts and what I know to be true in my State. I have to be with my constituents who have felt repeatedly betrayed by the trade deals. I voted to stand up for American workers and consumers. I voted to stand up for the right and responsibility of Congress to fully consider trade agreements. That is why I voted against cloture on fast-track.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am in support of Ms. Sally Quillian Yates, of Georgia, to be the next Deputy Attorney General of the United States. Ms. Yates has been acting as Deputy Attorney General since January of this year and has a long and successful career in public service. Graduating from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1986, with honors of magna cum laude, she went on to spend more than 20 years ensuring our streets were safe and our rights were protected in the U.S. attorney's office in Georgia. Ms. Yates served as the chief of the fraud and public corruption section and was the lead prosecutor in the case against Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park Bomber in Atlanta. She was the first woman to serve as U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Georgia, confirmed by this body on March 10, 2010. Ms. Yates also served as vice chair of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee. Ms. Yates has not been afraid to take on complex and challenging cases and has handled herself with professionalism and integrity. She is effective in problemsolving and provides reasonable and rational solutions. I am confident she will serve the American people with distinction and dedication. I look forward to working with her in my role as vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I support President Obama's nomination of Dr. Willie May as the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, at the Department of Commerce. NIST sets the standards for innovation in technology from mammograms to motorcycles. NIST scientists have won a MacArthur Genius Award and four Nobel prizes--more than any other Federal agency--including one in my State of Maryland. In the 44 years that Dr. May has spent at NIST, including serving as Acting Director since last June, he has set his own standard for service, dedication, and leadership in this great agency. Dr. May grew up in Birmingham, AL, graduated from Knoxville College in 1968, and upon graduating with a bachelor of science degree in chemistry, took a job with a Federal laboratory in Oak Ridge, TN. In 1971, Dr. May came to Maryland to work for NIST's predecessor, which was then called the National Standards Bureau. He completed his Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Maryland while working full-time at NIST and earned his doctorate in 1977. His research on trace organic analytical chemistry has been covered in more than 100 peer-reviewed journals around the world. His colleagues know him not only for his brilliance in the lab but for his commitment to NIST's mission and employees. He is respected by the scientists at NIST but also by the engineers, lab workers, IT experts, and building staff. His vision will help NIST's 3,000 dedicated employees continue to be the world's leading experts in innovation, from quantum cryptography to 5G communications. I join my colleagues in supporting Dr. Willie E. May as Director of NIST.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to take a moment to honor the American diplomats who serve our country. Specifically, I want to thank the American diplomats who have been on the front lines working for America throughout the Iran nuclear P5+1 negotiations. They address so many vital issues on a daily basis, some of which we hear about in the news but many of which never reach the headlines. The Corker-Cardin bill is now on the floor, addressing the role of Congress in a final deal with Iran. I hope there will be deliberative, thorough debate around this important issue. I want to put aside the partisan bellowing and grandstanding, some of which has regrettably stooped to impugn our diplomats, and rather take a moment to recognize our diplomats for their efforts to find peaceful solutions to the Iranian nuclear menace that threatens the world. For 2 years, America's diplomats have labored quietly, with no aspiration for personal accolade, to represent our Nation's best intersts and build the foundation for a possible P5+1 agreement with Iran. The United States has had little contact with Iran since 1979, but their shrewdness and duplicity at the negotiating table is well known. It has been a huge task with no certainty of outcome. There have been innumerable hurdles. There have been many setbacks, and there will be more. But our diplomats have stayed steady, focused on the task at hand. Diplomacy is about understanding strategic motivations, applying fact and science to argument, and maintaining an unwavering commitment to American values and interests throughout complex talks with an untrustworthy and difficult foe. America's diplomats have done so with focus and integrity. During the negotiations, American diplomats have also been supported and informed by a tremendous cadre of American experts: scientists, intelligence professionals, civilian experts, members of the military and academics. This process has been a collective effort that has drawn on the country's best and brightest. There was once a time when politics ended at the water's edge, but in recent years we have seen the erosion of that principle and, instead, a rise in the practice of subsuming the interests of the country to tactical political objectives. The leadership of our diplomats is critical and needed now more than ever, and I want them to know--we value and appreciate you. Regardless of what you might think of the talks in the first place, the dedication of America's diplomats has made us all proud. For that, I thank them.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to pay special tribute to the General Federation of Women's Clubs. This year is very special as they celebrate their 125th anniversary tomorrow, April 24. The General Federation of Women's Clubs is an international women's organization dedicated to community improvement by enhancing the lives of others through volunteer service. It was founded in 1890 when Jane Cunningham Croly, a professional journalist, attempted to attend a dinner in New York City honoring British novelist Charles Dickens. Croly was denied admittance based on her gender. In response, she formed a woman's club for the purpose of educating women. In 1889, Jane Croly invited women's clubs throughout the United States to pursue the cause of a federation by attending a national convention. On April 24, 1890, 63 clubs officially formed the General Federation of Women's Clubs. I am very proud to recognize a third-generation clubwoman, Babs J. Condon from Westminster, MD, as the 2014-2016 International President of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. And, I am very pleased that the 2016 international convention will be held in Baltimore next June. For the record, there are 34 clubs in Maryland and almost 1,500 club members statewide. By ``Living the Volunteer Spirit'', clubwomen transform lives each day, not simply with monetary donations, but with hands-on, tangible projects that provide immediate impact. With nearly 90,000 members in affiliated clubs in every State, the District of Columbia, and more than a dozen countries, GFWC members work in their own communities to support the arts, preserve natural resources, advance education, promote healthy lifestyles, encourage civic engagement, and support international efforts to feed the hungry, encourage immunizations and impact other lifesaving and economic development initiatives. GFWC history includes many powerful examples such as advocacy for child labor laws, promotion of nationwide outreach that led to passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act, and working to pass the Violence Against Women Act. GFWC has been instrumental in shaping our Nation. As it celebrates a history of 125 years, let's hope they continue to build upon their traditions and pave the way for a future filled with even greater success through volunteerism.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be set aside so that I may call up my motion, which is at the desk.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to offer a motion to instruct the conferees based on a bill that I have offered for the last three Congresses; that is, the Paycheck Fairness Act. What does the Paycheck Fairness Act do? It finishes the job that we started with Lilly Ledbetter. It would, in fact, instruct the conferees to make three reforms: No. 1, to advance the cause of making sure that women get equal pay for equal work. It would stop retaliation for sharing pay information. Often workers are harassed and humiliated just for asking about coworkers' salaries. No. 2, it would stop employers from using any reason to pay women less: Oh, the guys do harder jobs. Women aren't breadwinners. OK, it is time for equal pay for equal work. It would also allow for punitive damages for women who are being discriminated against when the only deterrent against pay discrimination is the threat of paying women backpay. Discrimination can be factored into the cost of doing business. Yesterday was Equal Pay Day, something we, unfortunately, commemorate each year. It symbolizes that it takes 104 days longer in a year for a woman to earn what a man earned the previous year. What does that mean? It means that for what a man earns in 365 days, it takes a woman 469 days to earn the same amount of money--104 days more. We don't commemorate this day with joy but with a call to action. We need to make a change in the Federal lawbooks to finally get equal pay in the Federal checkbooks. Now, we want this in the budget act because we know this will be an important way of dealing with a variety of issues. We worked on this legislation for a number of years and, quite frankly, we are frustrated. We are frustrated that time and again we are trying to advance this cause. It started over 50 years ago. In 1963, Lyndon Johnson, moving on the civil rights legislation, thought that equal pay for women would be an easy thing to pass. At that time, only 11 percent of mothers were in the workforce. Now, there are over 70 percent of mothers in the workforce. At that time, women were, again, paid 59 cents for every $1 a man earned. Well, we passed the Civil Rights Act. Now, 50 years later, we are up to 78 cents for every $1 a man earns. So it has taken us 50 years to advance 20 cents. Well, that just doesn't work. The women in America feel sidelined, redlined, and pink-slipped for the way they are discriminated against, and then they face the harassment and intimidation when they simply ask questions to get the pay they deserve. What we now know, again, is that the facts speak for themselves. Women earn 78 cents for every $1 a man makes. For women close to the retirement age, the wage gap increases to almost $14,000 a year. By the time she retires, the average woman has lost almost $400,000 in a lifetime of wages. The impact is you get less in Social Security benefits, you have less in savings, and you face the grim possibility of poverty. What we also know is that this has a tremendous impact in terms of single mothers. Over the weekend, there was a terrific article in the Washington Post saying if you wanted to eliminate poverty among children, you could take a major step in doing so if you closed the pay parity gap. In effect, by paying single women and single mothers equal pay for equal work, you could reduce the poverty rate among children by over 20 percent. What a startling fact. Well, the fact is that we have been fighting for this for a long time. I urge the adoption of this amendment. I think it makes important fiscal policy, and it is important for the family's checkbook and for our checkbook. I wish to close with these remarks. I think it was the day before, in the New York Times. They were talking about how we are essentially subsidizing those people who are paid the minimum wage. Now, my background is that I was a social worker. The Presiding Officer is familiar with that. But when you look at the four major components of government subsidies to the poor--Medicaid, TANF, the child care development subsidy, and there is one other thing that I just don't recall at this minute--for actually people who are working-- oh, food stamps. Working every single day, they are eligible for government subsidies because they are not paid enough for what they do. What we often find is that not only is the minimum wage a terrible place to begin, but as you move up the work ladder, often women are in jobs where they are paid less than the men who work beside them. As a result--and it often is the case--we end, then, by dealing with that by our paying for it in Medicaid, in food stamps, and earned income tax credit. Now, I support those programs. I think when people are poor they need our help, but our goal is to make sure that if you were poor and you want to have a way to get ahead, we should help you. If you want to be middle class, we should help you get there. One of the ways to do that is to make sure we pay equal pay for equal work. I hope that my amendment is adopted. I could debate this in more ways, but year after year we come to the floor and we show the disparity between what women make from men for the same job. This isn't just a woman's issue. Many men here support this. I can tell you who supports it: fathers. Fathers, fathers, fathers. Why do they support it? They work hard to make sure that in many instances their daughters get a break, try to get an education, try to get ahead only to find that although they shouldered the same responsibilities for car payments, paying off student loans, and all of that, they, in fact, are not paid equal pay for equal work. We can change that by voting for the Mikulski amendment in this budget bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I have an alternative and far more comprehensive approach than the Senator from Nebraska just offered. Although I respect her and her advocacy for women, the Mikulski amendment in the well would really finish the job we started with Lilly Ledbetter. Yes, it would deal with the issue of harassment on the job if one asks for information, which the Fischer amendment only dealt with. My amendment would go several steps further. No. 2, it would provide punitive damages for women who have been wrongly denied equal pay for several years. No. 3, it also eliminates the false reasons people give for not paying equal pay for equal work. The Mikulski amendment is more comprehensive, more robust, and will really finish the job and close the loopholes big corporations have had for years. So if my colleagues like the Fischer amendment, they will be crazy about the Mikulski amendment. Go all the way, not just part of the way. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, while waiting for the Senator from New Jersey to arrive in his seat, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cochran. I want to be sure we understand that this idea of biennial budgeting is really a bad idea--well intentioned but a bad idea. The Isakson amendment goes beyond a 2-year budget resolution and calls for establishing 2-year appropriations of bills. The power of the purse is one of Congress's most powerful holds. We shouldn't give it up. What would happen, if we go with the Isakson and Shaheen amendment and not follow Cochran-Mikulski, we need to know we would be putting too much power in the hands of the executive branch, unelected bureaucrats, and OMB. So proponents of biennial appropriating will not approve congressional oversight--just the opposite. Without annual appropriations bills, agencies will have little incentive to be candid in their testimony and responsive to congressional will and congressional directives. We sacrifice our most important tool. The other consideration is the practicality. Under biennial appropriations, the timeline between the initial forecast and the actual budget could be 30 months; then, we can't also respond to emergencies. Threats change every day--ISIS, security, the crisis that just happened to our allies in Germany. We have to be able to respond. Congress should not tie its own hands and limit its ability. Support Cochran-Mikulski, defeat Isakson-Shaheen. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to urge the Senate to agree to the Mikulski amendment on paycheck fairness. This finishes the job we started with Lilly Ledbetter. What it does is not wishful thinking, but the real deal, where employers would be prohibited from retaliation for sharing pay information. Punitive damages would be allowed. So it would be a real deterrent for discriminating on pay. It stops employers from using any reason to pay women less, where they fabricate: ``Oh, he is the head of the household,'' or whatever. I also then remind my colleagues that in addition to what it does, I will tell you what it does not do. This bill would not require an employer to cut the salaries of male employees. This bill would not have any criminal penalties in it for refusing to disclose wage information. This bill does not require the government to set salaries for Federal employees or anybody.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 362.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, my amendment is about paycheck fairness, a topic I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Nebraska, is absolutely familiar with. I come to the floor to finish the job we began with Lilly Ledbetter to end pay discrimination in the workplace once and for all. That is why I am offering this amendment, which is based on the bill I have offered in the past three Congresses. It is called the Paycheck Fairness Act. My Senate colleagues and I want to be sure women get a raise. The way we want to do that is to put more money in the family checkbook by putting change in the Federal law book. My amendment will do three things. No. 1, it will stop retaliation in the workplace for sharing pay information. For years, the famous Lilly Ledbetter was harassed and humiliated just for asking questions about her coworkers' salaries. In many workplaces around the country, you are forbidden to discuss shared pay information even if you are the same lab technician, computer operator or others. This would stop retaliation simply for asking not only what do you make but what do others make doing the same work. It also stops employers from using any reason to pay women less. ``Oh, they are breadwinners.'' ``Oh, he is a family man.'' ``Oh, gee, they do a harder job,'' when it is the same job. We have to make sure it is equal pay for equal work. This bill also allows punitive damages for women who have been discriminated against. When the only deterrent against pay discrimination is the threat of paying women backpay, discrimination can just be factored into the cost of doing business and treating it like loose change. Now, people say to me: Hey, Senator Barb. You led the fight on Lilly Ledbetter to make sure we had equal pay for equal work. Didn't we solve that problem? Well, we made a good first step. That bill kept the courthouse doors open for women who are discriminated against so there would not be a statute of limitations as defined by the original Supreme Court decision, but that was only a downpayment. What this amendment does is say we need to change the law so Lilly would not have had to sue in the first place. This amendment says: Put an end to the incentives that cause employers to think paying women less is just loose change. This amendment would close loopholes in the law which allow pay discrimination to occur in the first place. It would also put an end to paycheck secrecy--yes, paycheck secrecy--that makes it harder to uncover discrimination. It would also prohibit retaliation against women for even talking about pay differences. These are loopholes that often stop women who have endured discrimination from being fairly compensated. What are the facts? Women still earn 77 cents for every $1 a man makes. It is even worse for women of color. African-American women earn 64 cents for every $1 a man makes, Hispanic women earn 54 cents for every $1 a man makes. For women closer to the age of retirement, the wage gap increases to more than $14,000 a year. It not only affects their pay, but it affects their retirement, and it affects their Social Security. When you earn less, you get less in your Social Security benefits because you are making smaller contributions to your retirement. Women's Social Security benefits are about 71 percent of men's benefits, and that is not because of the mommy factor, where women have taken time out of the workplace and the marketplace to be in the home with their children. Women earn 23 cents less for every $1 a man earns, even when she does the same job and has the same education. Women do not get a 23-percent discount on their student loans. They do not get a 23-percent discount on their utility bill. They do not get a 23-percent discount on their mortgage. So we end up paying the bill just for our ability to work. Madam President, I could go on and tell you compelling stories about my constituents who have shared them with me. I have heard from Latoya Weaver. She lives in Great Mills, MD. She is a single parent to three children. She worked in guest services at a hotel. She found out that her pay of $8 an hour--$8 an hour--was $2 less than new males in the same position. So a new guy working in the same job, doing the same thing made $2 more. That makes a big difference when you are making $8 an hour rather than $10 an hour. She filed an EEOC lawsuit, and she prevailed. You cannot necessarily go to the EEOC in every case. I heard from Donna Smith, who lives on Maryland's Eastern Shore. She worked as a retail clerk. She was also told not to discuss her wages, but she found out she was being paid less than a male clerk--not ``mail'' as in post office mail but ``male'' as in a guy--a guy clerk whom she actually trained and was doing the same exact job she did when she started. Again, in all of the effort to go to the EEOC, it was found that two other female workers were also discriminated against. No one would have known had Donna not sought out that information. So we can see that paycheck fairness is absolutely needed. There is a lot of mythology out there about the Paycheck Fairness Act. Myth No. 1, that the bill would require employers to cut the salaries of their male employees. The Equal Pay Act currently on the books prohibits employers from lowering the wages of men to make up for discrimination against women. Another myth, that the bill is unnecessary. Well, the facts speak for themselves. When American women who work full time year round are paid only 77 cents for every $1 made by their male counterparts, it speaks for itself. The wage gap is not merely a matter of choice in their occupation; they are paid less in the same occupation with the same education. Here is another myth, that the bill would subject employers to criminal penalties for refusing to disclose wage information. No part of this bill provides for criminal penalties for employers for any conduct. There is no criminal penalty in this bill. Another myth is that the bill would require the government to set salaries for Federal employees. Again, nothing in the Paycheck Fairness Act allows the Federal Government to set salaries for a public or private employer. So I think that speaks for itself. Madam President, I have a factual document from the National Women's Law Center. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI. So here we are, in 2015. It has been almost 50 years since the first equal pay bill was passed. For 50 years we have tried to have financial catchup to get equal pay for equal work, and every time we make a reform, there are always other loopholes. We want to close the loopholes. We want to end discrimination. We want to end retaliation. And, most of all, we want to end the fact that women often end up for their whole lifetime earning less. It affects the way they raise their families. It affects the way they pay into their pensions, the way they pay into their Social Security. Now we need to pay our respects to them and pass the paycheck fairness bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I wish to recognize the 103rd anniversary of the Girl Scouts of America. What started out as a group of 18 girls in Georgia organized by Juliette Low has grown into an organization of more than 3.2 million girls and women and more than 59 million alumnae, including myself. As a former Girl Scout, I know firsthand how important the Girl Scouts are for learning about leadership, service, and personal development. When the Girl Scouts started, women couldn't vote, women couldn't have property in their name, and in some States women couldn't go to college. The founding of the Girl Scouts started a revolutionary movement to empower girls. Now, Girl Scouts is working to bring gender balance to leadership roles, whether it is creating jobs in the private sector or representing constituents in public office. I believe in that mission, and I know it can be achieved. What I love about the Girl Scouts is that it is always reinventing itself and looking to the future. Whether it is new uniforms or new badges, the Girl Scouts are engaging in a new generation of leadership. Their core programs focused on environmental stewardship, healthy living, financial literacy, and global citizenship help girls develop a solid and well-rounded foundation in leadership. Their award-winning Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics--STEM--Program helps girls build strong, hands-on foundations to become future leaders and meet the growing need for skilled science and technology professionals in the United States. And last year, the Girl Scouts joined the STEM mentoring initiative, Million Women Mentors, a national initiative to increase interest for girls and women to pursue STEM career paths. This program would help close the gender gap in the field and gives girls the confidence and the ability to believe that they too can be those female scientists, engineers, and doctors who are serving as mentors for the program. I have taken the lessons I learned from the Girl Scouts with me to the U.S. Senate every day and in every way. These lessons include: Let's help people at all times. Let's be honest and fair. Let's be friendly and helpful. Let's be considerate and caring, courageous and strong and responsible. Let's respect ourselves and others, respect authority, use resources wisely, make the world a better place, and be a sister to every Girl Scout whether she is here or around the world. For all of these reasons and more, I am honored to recognize the 103rd anniversary of the Girl Scouts of America.

Ms. MIKULSKI

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the pending order for the morning?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair. Human Trafficking

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this morning I rise, along with the women of the Senate, to speak about the issue of human trafficking. We are 4 days from International Women's Day, and all of the women of the Senate have taken up the issue of human trafficking. Many of us wish to speak about it today. We are all working on it. Many have been leaders on this issue. My colleagues will see Republican and Democratic women coming to the floor. As the senior woman and senior Democratic woman, I have convened over the years a dinner among the women of the Senate. The purpose of the dinner was to create a zone of civility, to create camaraderie, as well as to see where we could work across the aisle to focus on a particular issue. The women of the Senate do not have a caucus. There is no lockstep. We discuss our different views on budgets and bottom lines and other issues. We discuss questions such as, What is the best way to approach the deficit? What are all of the deficits in our country we are facing, not only the fiscal deficit, but the deficit in research and development, and other deficits? At one of our dinners we said, What is it that we want to work on together in this particular Congress? What is the issue that brings us all together across party lines that would have an impact on what we do at home, what would have an impact in our global community, and what would have an impact particularly on women and children, girls and boys, around the world? That is what we decided we wanted to work on-- the despicable, vile issue of human trafficking. Human trafficking. That means a whole organized network and networks to buy and sell human beings as if they are a commodity, to buy and sell girls and to buy and sell little boys for the whole purpose of sexual exploitation. This is an enormous issue. Many of our colleagues in the Senate have been working on authorizing legislation, and a great deal of it is pending in the Judiciary Committee. We have joined together and asked the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on the major trafficking bills, and we thank Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy for holding the hearing, as well as for joining with us in moving legislation. This is not just a woman's issue; this is a human rights issue. So we have a Klobuchar-Cornyn bill. We have a Collins-Leahy effort. We are all working on this together. But it is we, the women of the Senate, who continue to be a force to make sure we will focus on it within our own government and around the world. We will be looking at what are the most significant efforts we can take. The numbers are startling and discouraging. Twenty-one million people are trafficked globally every year--21 million people. It is the third largest global crime--right up there with the selling of weapons of mass destruction, and right up there with selling drugs, and drug cartels. In fact, in many instances, it is the same organized crime network. If someone is willing to sell a person and treat them as a commodity, they are willing to sell drugs, they are willing to sell guns, they are willing to sell nuclear fissionable material. They are willing to do anything. This isn't just about recruiting girls in Asia or girls and women in Central Europe; this is in our own country, where 800,000 people are trafficked each year. When I met with my FBI agents in Maryland and the U.S. Attorney's Office to discuss this issue, they told me that the I-95 corridor is a corridor for violence and trafficking and that we are a hotspot for trafficking activities, because we have a seaport, we have a major interstate highway, and we have big sporting events. Can my colleagues imagine such activity at sporting events such as the big games? The playoffs that we so enjoy in Baltimore are also part of trafficking. But we know our local law enforcement and our FBI are on the job. We have programs such as Operation Cross Country. Last year, the FBI helped recover close to 170 children who had been forced into prostitution, with simultaneous raids, and they put 281 pimps in jail. We are going to take the first step. There are many bills pending where the women of the Senate have really thought about this, worked on this, taken leadership on this, and they will talk about their various legislative initiatives. As the chair of the Appropriations Committee, I wanted to look at not only the great work my colleagues were doing in authorizing, but what we could do now for the money. Last year, in the 2015 omnibus, with the full concurrence of then-Vice Chairman Shelby--a really strong advocate on this issue--and then across the aisle with Hal Rogers in the House, we put $42 million in the Justice Department to make sure we were fighting trafficking. We included a $28 million increase for programs that provide grants that are lifesaving, as well as life-rescuing services to victims. These funds were to ensure that law enforcement could enforce the law and make sure victims had emergency shelters and counseling, supporting a true rescue mission. We also made sure the FBI had additional resources to find those criminals and bring them to justice, and to focus on efforts such as a program called ``Innocence Lost'' that focuses on the trafficking of children. We funded human trafficking prosecution by adding more money for civil rights attorneys to identify the large trafficking rings to do it. I don't want to sound like an accountant; I want to sound like one of the women of the Senate who thinks about these women who have been recruited around the world and the children who are being nabbed and grabbed, and the exploitation of lost children, sometimes runaway youths. We want to say to them that our Federal dollars are working hard, and we are going to look at how authorizers and appropriators really work together. We want to pass some of this new, fresh thinking on how to attack and deal with this problem. We are going to look at the Appropriations Committee across all subcommittees to see what we can do. The women of the Senate are going to be a voice and a vote on this, and we know we have good men of the Senate who also work with us and support us. So working shoulder to shoulder, we can do something to make it safer for our communities and have a big impact around the world. We will do it because we took the time to listen to each other and figure out ways we can work together. Let's get it done, and let's get it done now. I would now like to yield time for someone who has been a real leader on this issue, and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has brought some new, fresh thinking and fresh approaches but also has been wise and prudent for her taxpayers and, I might also add, a former attorney general in the State of Minnesota. She is a great warrior, and she has made sure that she has some new ideas. Senator Klobuchar.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator from New Hampshire yield for 1 minute?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to say this is not a Democratic women's issue. We are in this on a bipartisan basis. I want to note that the Democratic women are here because the Republican women are chairing committees and subcommittees. I know the Senator from New Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte, will be on the floor shortly. The distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, is at a very important Navy appropriations committee hearing. So when my colleagues see us, don't assume it is just Democratic women. It is all of us together. But their responsibility has them at another duty station right this minute. I wanted to explain where we are. I yield the floor back to Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I wish to talk about protecting the middle class. I am on the side of an economy that works for everyone and building a stronger middle class to bring opportunities to families across the Nation. What is an economy that works for everyone? It means that if you work hard and play by the rules, you deserve a fair shot at the American dream. An economy that works for everyone also means giving workers the right to organize, negotiate, and exercise their rights under the law in a timely way. I believe this can be done in a way that also enables businesses to prosper and to create jobs. Unions raise wages, improve working conditions, and ensure fair treatment on the job. In many jobs they make the difference between living in poverty and making ends meet or the difference between just getting by and making enough to make a better life for a family. The right to unionize and collectively bargain helped grow the middle class. When workers are choosing whether to unionize or not, they need a process that is fair, predictable, and efficient. But unfair rules, lax enforcement, and insincere negotiating has crippled union organizing and threatened the middle-class lifestyle that was once the economic pride of our country. The main role of the National Labor Relations Board is to manage the relations between unions, employees, and employers in the private sector. The primary functions of the Board are to prevent or resolve unfair labor practices and to supervise union elections so that they are done accurately and fairly. Now, the NLRB has put out rules that make modest updates to the election process that make sense in the 21st century. The rules would eliminate needless delays that slow the election process to a halt and modernize the process for sharing contact information to allow the use of email to communicate about the election. But this and other commonsense updates are under attack in Congress. Under this Congressional Review Act resolution, the whole rule would get tossed out. There is limited debate and there is no chance for offering amendments. Middle-class workers deserve better than this. Currently, workers organize themselves by signing a document saying they want to join a union. Once a majority of workers sign up, they can ask their employers to be recognized as a union and collectively bargain for a contract. However, some employers delay, delay, delay--refusing to recognize the union and requiring workers to go through an intimidating antiunion campaign that ends in an unfair election. Workers should be protected from these kinds of stall tactics and intimidation. It is common sense that communication should be allowed to take place over email. These rules would allow for that. Documents should be allowed to be submitted electronically. These rules would allow for that, too. This creates a more efficient process that benefits workers. I want workers to make more money. When families have more money in their paychecks, it is good news for the middle class and it is good news for our Nation's economy. When workers have a seat at the table, it means they have a better chance at getting the wages and the protections at the workplace they deserve. I want to grow our middle class by giving more workers this critical seat at the table. But they won't get it if Congress pulls the chair out from underneath them by throwing out this rule.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today the House adopted the Department of Homeland Security funding bill without poison pill riders. The bill passed the Senate on Friday, and will fund the Department of Homeland Security through September 30, 2015--the end of fiscal year 2015. I am glad Congress finally put partisanship aside and funded the security of the American people. And, I want to thank all those who protect our country, from the Coast Guard to the Secret Service, to cyber security professionals and intelligence analysts. Your funds are secure. The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect America from terrorism and help communities respond to all threats, including those from terrorists and natural disasters. This is a good bill and there was no disagreement on the funding. In December, working with Senator Coats and Senator Landrieu, and our House colleagues, we agreed that vital funding for the Department of Homeland Security would total $46 billion--over $1 billion more than a continuing funding resolution. I am glad this responsible bill to fund the mission of the Department of Homeland Security and its employees is heading to the President's desk. DHS employees are on the job every day. The Coast Guard is literally breaking ice to keep the economy flowing. The Secret Service is protecting the President and fighting credit card fraud. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is preparing for and responding to disasters, including hurricanes and blizzards. There are cyber warriors securing our networks. And through grant programs the funding supports State and local law enforcement, fire fighters, and EMS. Now, after 5 months, we have done our job to put the resources into the hands of the workers who defend America. It is my hope that with passage of the homeland security funding bill, Congress can end the era of divisive shutdown politics. The millions of men and women serving in our military and the civil service, who work every day to make this a better Nation, deserve respect and the resources to do their jobs. Looking ahead, I look forward to working across the aisle and across the dome to debate and complete all 12 fiscal year 2016 appropriations bills in an orderly way, without poison pill riders.