Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to thank the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for his leadership on this issue and for the way his staff worked with the women in the Senate to overcome what we thought was a flagrant abuse of power. In May of last year, the Supreme Court issued a decision called the Ledbetter case that was basically sexist and biased. It didn't reflect the spirit of the civil rights law on discrimination. It didn't reflect the reality of the workplace or the reality of women's lives. The Supreme Court overturned the opinions that had been given by the appellate court, by precedent, by history, and so on. What did the Supreme Court say? That it was OK to discriminate, unless you knew 180 days from the time you were discriminated against and brought an action or brought this to the attention of your employer. Well, it just doesn't work that way. Anyone who knows the reality of the workplace knows that you don't know if you are being discriminated against. What is the reality of the workplace? You can talk about sex at the water cooler, you can talk about religion by your computer, you can talk politics in the lunchroom, but if you open your mouth about your pay and whether you have gotten a raise, you are in trouble. If a woman begins to go and ask: Hey, George, what do you get paid, mum's the word. If, then, Bill gets a raise, the guys are sitting around at the ball game downing a few beers and they say: Hey, George, you have done a great job, we are going to give you a promotion, how do you know about this? The only way you know about it is over time. What we are doing in this legislation, led by Senator Kennedy--we have a bipartisan bill--is to right the Supreme Court decision. We are doing this at the urging of Justice Ginsburg. The Supreme Court decision was so bad that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the Supreme Court, took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench, and she said: In our view the Court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination. She said this needed to be fixed by Congress, and Congress has a remedy we are voting on today. I was appalled to read that not only was the Supreme Court decision bad, but now the President has issued a veto threat. He said this bill is going to ``impede justice.'' That is baloney. This bill doesn't impede justice, it restores justice. It reinstates a fair rule for both workers and employers. He said it is going to mess up the process. This bill does not slow down the process, it gives people a way of getting into the process if you can't bring a claim in more than 6 months after you have been hired. President Bush also says he wants to veto this because this bill would eliminate the statute of limitation in wage discrimination cases. That is not true. This bill does not change the 180-day time limit. It only changes when the clock starts to run. The bill restarts the clock with each time you get a paycheck that discriminates, so each time you get a paycheck that discriminates, the 180-day clock starts to run again. This is critical. How many people, as I said, know the salary of their coworkers? If you are hired at an equal rate with your male counterpart but he gets a raise in a few months and you don't, what should you do? This is what Lilly Ledbetter found. She was a faithful employee at the Goodyear Company, Over time and with great risk she had to fight in her workplace, she had to fight in her courtroom.

Ms. MIKULSKI. First, I believe in this matter the Senate would be out of touch with the American people. The American people want fairness, they want justice, and they believe women should be paid equal pay for equal or comparable work. I also believe, though, there is opposition to the bill because people make profits off of discrimination. If you pay women less, you make more. Also I believe when they talk about when the law was passed--the workplace has changed. There are now more women in the workplace than there were when the original laws were passed. But as the Senator from Washington State said, my gosh, this adds up to real money. You know, 20 cents an hour that we make less than the guy next to us--unless we are in the Senate; we do have equal pay here--this, over a lifetime, adds up to over a quarter of a million or a million dollars. When we look at its impact on Social Security, it is tremendous. Then if we look at its impact on a 401(k), if you have one, it adds up. I believe discrimination is profitable, but I think it is time that justice is done.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I am deeply disappointed about the fact that we did not get the necessary votes to move the Fair Pay Restoration Act forward. We fell three votes short of what we needed to do to get the job done. This fight for equal pay for equal comparable work, however, will go on. As the senior woman in the Senate, I take the floor tonight to say we will fight on. This was the first step forward. It will not be the only step we will take. But what we will not tolerate is another step backward. We are going to continue to bring this fight. We will look for opportunities to bring this legislation back to the Senate floor. What is it we want to do? It is to end discrimination against women in their personal paychecks. In order to end that, we need to change the lawbooks so they can experience fairness in their personal checkbook. This is the year 2008. You would think that in the year 2008, on the 40th anniversary of the passage of so many historic civil rights bills, we would finally have legislation that would guarantee fairness in terms of pay. So we regret we didn't get the votes, but we will move on. Many people have been mesmerized by the John Adams miniseries. I like John Adams, but I really liked Abigail. While John Adams was down in Philadelphia with Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and a bunch of the other guys writing the Declaration of Independence and laying the groundwork for the Constitution and inventing America, Abigail Adams wrote her husband from the farm--while raising the four children and keeping the family going. She said: As you write those documents, do not forget the ladies, for we will foment a revolution of our own. I stand here today to say: Do not forget the ladies because we will foment a revolution of our own. I was here in 1992 when we didn't get it on Anita Hill. I am here in 2008 when we didn't get it in pay equity. In 1992, we had a revolution that went on. We got six new women in the Senate. There are now 16 of us. The majority of us voted for this bill. I am telling you we are ready for an ``Abigail Adams'' effort here. If they don't want to put us in the lawbooks so we can have fairness in the checkbooks, we will do a revolution. What do I mean by that? We will take it out to the voting booths. We will go on the Internet. We are going to go on TV, on the blogs. And we are going to tell everybody about this ignominious vote that occurred. When we tell it, we are going to say: Call to arms, women of America, put your lipstick on, square your shoulders, suit up, we have a hell of a fight coming, but, boy, are we ready. The revolution starts tonight. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill expands much needed and long overdue benefits for the men and women in uniform who have served overseas in difficult and dangerous circumstances to keep America safe. We must honor our U.S. soldiers who have died in the name of their country. These service men and women are America's true heroes and on this day we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice by bringing this bill to the Senate floor. Some have given their lives for our country. All have given their time and dedication to ensure our country remains the land of the free and the home of the brave. We owe a special debt of gratitude to each and every one of them. Our Nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises made to soldiers when they signed up to serve our country. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I fight hard each year to make sure promises made to our service men and women are promises kept. These promises include access to quality, affordable health care and a proper burial for our veterans. That is why I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill provides an increase in burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans, which I have been fighting for since 2001. This means that service-connected burial benefits will increase by $2,100 for a total of $4,100; non service-connected burial benefits will increase by $900 for a total of $1,200; and, plot allowances will increase by $445 for a total of $745. These benefits will increase annually to keep up with inflation. I am also proud to support this bill because it takes an important step in recognizing the sacrifices made by our men and women of the National Guard and Reserve by expanding the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, outreach program. This program provides important information about benefits and services that veterans and their spouses, children and parents may be eligible for through the VA. By expanding this program we are ensuring that our citizen soldiers and their families have the resources and help they need to make a successful transition back to civilian life after answering our Nation's call. This bill also recognizes the sacrifices of veterans who are suffering from the physical, permanent wounds of war. It expands eligibility for traumatic injury insurance and specially adapted housing benefits to veterans with severe burns. It also restores veteran status to Filipino veterans who served under United States command in World War II. Whether fighting to defend democracy overseas or standing sentry on the home front, America's veterans have been there for us. We have a sacred commitment to honor all of the promises made to them when they signed up to fight for us. That's why I am fighting hard today and everyday in the U.S. Senate to ensure that the federal government maintains its commitment to veterans. Promises made must be promises kept. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, thank you very much. I too wish to speak as in morning business. All over America today, people are celebrating Earth Day. But we, the women of the Senate, have another day we are commemorating, it is called Pay Equity Day. That means women should get paid equal pay for equal or comparable work. You are going see the women of the Senate dressed in red today. We are going to be on the Senate floor, we are going to be in our committees, and we are going to be doing our job. But we wear the color red with solidarity for women all over who say: We are red in the face because of the way women have been treated in terms of our pay. Right now, in the year 2008, women still make less money per hour than men for the same or comparable job. If that was not hard enough about the business practices, we actually have a Supreme Court that agreed with discrimination. So today we come to the floor with legislation that has been developed, on a bipartisan basis, to reverse a Supreme Court decision called the Ledbetter decision. You have to hear this. Last May, the Supreme Court made an outrageous decision that said women cannot get equal pay for equal work if they do not do it within the first 180 days that a discrimination occurs. The decision was sexist, it was biased, and it did not understand the reality of women's lives or the reality of the workplace. Their decision was a step backward for women, and it hit women right in the pocketbook. It violates the American concept of fairness and justice and equal treatment under the law. Let me tell you about Lilly Ledbetter, who brought the case to the Supreme Court. I met her in the HELP Committee--the Health, Education, Labor Committee--when we were listening to the testimony about it. I listened to her story. This is a woman now who is beyond middle-age, who has worked 19 years for the Goodyear Corporation. Systematically, she was underpaid from the day she walked in that door. Not only did she get less pay for the work that she did, but she did not get comparable raises when the men got theirs. What does that mean? Not only did she have less earnings in her work, though she worked as hard, received excellent ratings, and was promoted, but it also now will show up in her pension; she will get less Social Security and she will get less pension. So remember, when discrimination begins, it is compounded over a lifetime. Now, Lilly Ledbetter is a real American. She fought the system on her own time and with great risk. She fought the discrimination and took it to the Equal Opportunity Commission, took it to the courts, and then took it all the way up to the Supreme Court. Along the way, she had to raise her own money to do this, while the big corporate interests at Goodyear had fat-cat, billable-hours lawyers against her. She faced sexual harassment in the workplace because she dared to speak up and speak out. Well, Lilly Ledbetter would not give up. If she was the only case in America, it would be wrong, but this is a persistent pattern in the workplace. And also it has now been approved by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said: Someone cannot sue their employer over unequal pay if that person does not file suit within 180 days after the pay was established. Once again, the Supreme Court does not get it. How many women know the salary of their coworkers, especially in the first 6 months on the job? The reality of the workplace is that often people are forbidden to talk about their salaries. What if you were hired at an equal rate with your male counterpart, but he gets a raise every few months and you do not? The Supreme Court decision was outrageous. It was so bad that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, God bless her, God bless Justice Ruth, she stood up and actually spoke from the bench to read her dissenting opinion. That is unprecedented. Usually, they file it and let it go into the history books. But Justice Ginsburg wanted to put the world and this Congress on notice that we better act. Justice Ginsburg said in her dissenting opinion: In our view, the court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination. She encouraged the Congress to fix it, and we will fix it. We will. Unfortunately, wage discrimination exists. Woman now earn 77 percent for every dollar our male counterpart makes. Women of color even get paid less. African-American women get paid 68 cents for every dollar a White man makes. That is almost a 40-percent difference. The Supreme Court decision will make it almost impossible for women workers to close this wage gap and to get the remedy they deserve, and what they should get, under our doctrine of fairness, is equal pay for equal or comparable work. From the bench, Justice Ginsburg did call on the Congress for action. She said, ``Correct the mistake.'' Well, when Justice Ruth speaks, and by the way, do we not miss our Justice Sandra Day O'Connor? Justice Alito wrote the primary assenting opinion. They told us the Court made a mistake and the Congress could fix it. Well, fix it we will. We will be soon voting on the legislative process in the bill itself to right this wrong. We will be voting on legislation that will correct this mistake. This legislation was authored by our great Galahad in the Senate, Senator Kennedy. He did it in consultation with we, the women in the Senate: Senator Clinton, myself, Senator Snowe, women on both sides of the aisle. He reached out to us. We reached out to the best legal thinking. This bill will amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This bill will amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so the statute of limitations for an employee to file a wage discrimination suit runs from the date of the actual payment of the discriminatory wage, not from the hiring. So every time you get a paycheck, it will be an act of discrimination, which will reset the clock so you can file your case. That means employees can sue employers based on each discriminating paycheck, and it does not limit the time a worker can get the remedy she deserves. This bill is about fairness, justice, and respect. Is it not time, is it not time? When we think about Lilly Ledbetter and all those wonderful women similar to her, a woman who worked for 19 years, she was not exactly sure when the disparity developed, she could not quite get to all that. A jury found they had discriminated against her. They awarded her $400,000 in backpay. The Supreme Court took it away from her. Well, today, we are going to give it back to her. We are going to make sure she and her guts and her grit, in standing up for herself, has stood up for all women. We who are the women of the Senate stand up as well, I believe also with the very good men who work with us. Men of quality never fear women who seek equality. We are doing that today. We believe in this country all people are created equal. We need to make sure it is in the Federal law books and in your personal checkbook. All people are created equal in the Federal lawbook and in your personal checkbook. People should be judged by their skills, their competence, and by the job they do. Once you get that job because of your skills and talent, you should get equal pay for equal or comparable work. Lilly Ledbetter was an honest and hard-working person for 19 years. She is entitled to every cent she worked for. Because Lilly Ledbetter stood up, we rise with her. We are going to correct the Supreme Court decision. We are going to pass this reform legislation that is called the Fair Pay Restoration Act. We ask the Presiding Officer to join with us today. For all of us who wear red, this is going to be a great victory. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in honor of World Social Work Day, I rise today to introduce the Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation that will improve the shortage of social workers as we move into an era of unprecedented healthcare and social service needs. Social workers play a critical role combating the social problems facing our Nation. We must have the workforce in place to make sure that our returning soldiers have access to mental health services, our elderly maintain their independence in the communities they live in, and abused children are placed in safe homes. This bill reinvests in social workers by providing grants to social workers, reviewing the current social workforce challenges, and determining how this shortage will affect the communities social workers serve. I am honored to introduce this bill named after two social visionaries, Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young. Dorothy Height, a pioneer of the civil rights movement, like me began her career as a case worker and continued to fight for social justice. Whitney Young, another trailblazer of the civil rights movement, also began his career transforming our social landscape as a social worker. He helped create President Johnson's War on Poverty and has served as President of the National Association of Social Workers. Congressman Towns introduced the companion bill in the House of Representatives last month. As a social worker, I understand the critical role social workers place in the overall care of our populations. Social workers can be found in every facet of community life--in hospitals, mental health clinics, senior centers, and private agencies that serve individuals and families in need. Social workers are there to help struggling students, returning soldiers, and chronically ill. Oftentimes, social workers are the only available option for mental health care in rural and underserved urban areas. The number of adults over the age of 65 will double by the year 2030 and social workers will be at the forefront of providing compassionate care to this burgeoning community. Yet there will not be enough social workers to meet these needs. Today 30,000 social workers specialize in gerontology, but we will need 70,000 of these social workers by 2010. I want to make sure that when the aging tsunami hits us, we have the workforce in place to care for our aging family members, the Alzheimer patients, the disabled. This bill is about reinvesting in social work. It provides grants that invest in social work education, research, and training. These grants will fund community based programs of excellence and provide scholarships to train the next generation of social workers. The bill also addresses how to recruit and retain new social workers, research the impact of social services, and foster ways to improve social workplace safety. This bill establishes a national coordination center that will allow social education, advocacy and research institutions to collaborate and work together. It will facilitate gathering and distributing social work research to make the most effective use of the information we have on how social work service can improve our social fabric. This bill also gives social work the attention is deserves. It creates a media campaign that will promote social work, and recognizes March as Social Work Awareness Month. As a social worker, I have been on the frontlines of helping people cope with issues in their everyday lives. I started off fighting for abused children, making sure they were placed in safe homes. Today I am a social worker with power. I am proud to continue to fight every day for the long range needs of the Nation, on the floor of the United States Senate and as the Chairwoman of the Aging Subcommittee of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I believe that social work is full of great opportunities, both to serve and to lead. Social work is about putting our values into action. Social workers are our best and brightest, our most committed and compassionate. They are at the frontlines of providing care, often putting themselves in dangerous and violent situations. Social workers have the ability to provide psychological, emotional, and social support--quite simply, the ability to change lives. That is why we must reinvest in social work--we must recruit, retain and research. I think we can do better by our Nation's troops, seniors, and children, by making sure we have the social workforce in place to meet their needs. I'm fighting to make sure we do. The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act is strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers and the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research. I want to thank Senators Stabenow, Smith, and Inouye for their cosponsorship of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, in honor of World Social Work Day, I rise today to introduce the Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation that will improve the shortage of social workers as we move into an era of unprecedented healthcare and social service needs. Social workers play a critical role combating the social problems facing our Nation. We must have the workforce in place to make sure that our returning soldiers have access to mental health services, our elderly maintain their independence in the communities they live in, and abused children are placed in safe homes. This bill reinvests in social workers by providing grants to social workers, reviewing the current social workforce challenges, and determining how this shortage will affect the communities social workers serve. I am honored to introduce this bill named after two social visionaries, Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young. Dorothy Height, a pioneer of the civil rights movement, like me began her career as a case worker and continued to fight for social justice. Whitney Young, another trailblazer of the civil rights movement, also began his career transforming our social landscape as a social worker. He helped create President Johnson's War on Poverty and has served as President of the National Association of Social Workers. Congressman Towns introduced the companion bill in the House of Representatives last month. As a social worker, I understand the critical role social workers place in the overall care of our populations. Social workers can be found in every facet of community life--in hospitals, mental health clinics, senior centers, and private agencies that serve individuals and families in need. Social workers are there to help struggling students, returning soldiers, and chronically ill. Oftentimes, social workers are the only available option for mental health care in rural and underserved urban areas. The number of adults over the age of 65 will double by the year 2030 and social workers will be at the forefront of providing compassionate care to this burgeoning community. Yet there will not be enough social workers to meet these needs. Today 30,000 social workers specialize in gerontology, but we will need 70,000 of these social workers by 2010. I want to make sure that when the aging tsunami hits us, we have the workforce in place to care for our aging family members, the Alzheimer patients, the disabled. This bill is about reinvesting in social work. It provides grants that invest in social work education, research, and training. These grants will fund community based programs of excellence and provide scholarships to train the next generation of social workers. The bill also addresses how to recruit and retain new social workers, research the impact of social services, and foster ways to improve social workplace safety. This bill establishes a national coordination center that will allow social education, advocacy and research institutions to collaborate and work together. It will facilitate gathering and distributing social work research to make the most effective use of the information we have on how social work service can improve our social fabric. This bill also gives social work the attention is deserves. It creates a media campaign that will promote social work, and recognizes March as Social Work Awareness Month. As a social worker, I have been on the frontlines of helping people cope with issues in their everyday lives. I started off fighting for abused children, making sure they were placed in safe homes. Today I am a social worker with power. I am proud to continue to fight every day for the long range needs of the Nation, on the floor of the United States Senate and as the Chairwoman of the Aging Subcommittee of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I believe that social work is full of great opportunities, both to serve and to lead. Social work is about putting our values into action. Social workers are our best and brightest, our most committed and compassionate. They are at the frontlines of providing care, often putting themselves in dangerous and violent situations. Social workers have the ability to provide psychological, emotional, and social support--quite simply, the ability to change lives. That is why we must reinvest in social work--we must recruit, retain and research. I think we can do better by our Nation's troops, seniors, and children, by making sure we have the social workforce in place to meet their needs. I'm fighting to make sure we do. The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act is strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers and the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research. I want to thank Senators Stabenow, Smith, and Inouye for their cosponsorship of this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 10 additional minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, first of all, I thank the Senator for explaining this. You can understand the origin of these questions. It is not only what I feel, but those working in our communities, those trying to sell homes, they all feel pretty much the same way. But I thank the Senator for answering that question, and we thank him for the expertise he brings to this debate. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Here is the question: There are two houses for sale. One is a foreclosed property and one is a regular homeowner ready to sell. The question I get from non-profits and people is: Is the tax credit going to depress by $7,000 the house that is not in foreclosure? In other words, that it acts as a damper on price, and if you are in good standing, you have a good mortgage but you are ready to sell for whatever reasons, you are putting your house on the market, and next to you is a foreclosed house and that is going to get a $7,000 tax break, they are saying: I am going to have to eat $7,000 to sell my house. Can the Senator answer that question for me and for all who I think are puzzled about the possible unintended consequences of this tax break?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Stick with me.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Real-world situation. This house is foreclosed, which means it already is going on the market at a depressed value, OK? The consequence of a foreclosure is a melancholy event, not only for the person who is losing their home, but the community feels it could lose a neighborhood. I believe that is the gentleman's point, and it is also a great concern to me. But because the foreclosed house is already depressed, then a $7,000 tax credit comes in. The question is, for the non-foreclosed, I do not understand how the price of the non-foreclosed home is not dampened, and we, ourselves, are helping create a new bottom.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I have a question exactly about not only those headlines but what people have asked me over the weekend. I want the Senator to know, first of all, we value his extensive experience in the real estate field--he was a well-known realtor in his own community-- and, of course, his ongoing method of civility in this body. Here is my question: This is a $7,000 tax credit if you buy a foreclosed home in a neighborhood; is that correct?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I spoke earlier about the compelling need for this amendment. It would add money to NeighborWorks to be able to help them add more legal staff to help people workout a plan to stay in their homes. This amendment adds $37.5 million to the bill for the NeighborWorks Program to do three things: Help counseling groups hire more attorneys and paralegals to help with the foreclosure crisis, it would also provide money to legal organizations to train more attorneys and paralegals in foreclosure law, and also hire the people to train counselors and nonprofit groups in basic foreclosure law to help people do their workouts. Many of my constituents and also constituents nationwide were victims of predatory lending practices, schemes, and scams. It is because of the complexity of dealing with these foreclosure increases that nonprofit counseling organizations need more legal help. That is why I am offering this amendment. It is to help those trying to have workouts to their foreclosure problems, while we are giving considerable bailouts to the people who caused the problem. This is a second-degree amendment to the Murray amendment. I know it will be considered at the appropriate time. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4494.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I opposed going to war in Iraq. I opposed the escalation of American troop levels. And I still do. When the Bush administration proposed the escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq, the President said it would enable the Iraqi government to achieve political reconciliation. Our troops have done their part. Yet as we ask our troops to do more, the Iraqi government does less. While we were fighting the surge, the Iraqi parliament was on vacation. While our troops were wounded, dying, and away from their families, Prime Minister al-Maliki was running up a budget surplus. The Iraqi government has failed to make their country safer or more stable; they have failed to hold provisional elections, reform their oil laws or disarm the militias. This is a failure in leadership. The battle of Basra was a disaster. We know that many members of the Iraqi military fought bravely and steadfastly. But we also know that more than 1,000 deserted or refused to fight. Once again, American troops had to step forward to salvage the operation. Our troops have performed bravely and effectively. Yet a great American military cannot be a substitute for a weak Iraqi government. It is time to come home. We must bring our troops home, swiftly and safely.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, let me state that we are waiting for Senator Dodd to come from the Foreign Relations Committee so that we can report the bill and continue moving on the housing bill. I have an amendment I wish to offer. I know the Senator from Vermont has a modification. I know the Senator from California also has some things she wants to do on this bill. But while we are waiting for Senator Dodd I wanted to say a few things about housing. I want to say a few things about this bill. I have an amendment I wish to offer, but I have a lot on my mind about this housing bill. First of all, I have very serious questions about the bill itself. The original bill that has been brought to the floor takes care of the sharks and the whales, but it does not take care of the little people, the minnows. The Maryland General Assembly did more in their 90 day session that just adjourned than this body has been able to accomplish all year. When you look at that which will actually help ordinary people work their way out of the foreclosure mess, the legislation is quite Spartan. We lost the bankruptcy provision that would have allowed families to put the pieces back together. The original housing bill had $200 million going to the nonprofit agencies that are working every day with people in those communities to be able to work out their problems. Now, this bill is being held hostage by the other party for more tax cuts we do not need, bigger bailouts for those who do not need them, and it does not help the 8,000 people a day who face foreclosure. We need to improve this bill. Now, I am so disappointed that Senator Durbin's amendment to amend the Bankruptcy Code to allow workouts did not occur. I know Senator Murray has an amendment to add more money to the front-line groups working with families. I want to thank Senator Murray for offering this amendment and I will have a second-degree adding legal help for the already overburdened nonprofit counselors. I have seen what this housing crisis means, not by reading the Wall Street Journal but by getting out there and talking to my own constituents, holding roundtables on this subject. What we see is that the subprime housing crisis is a code red emergency. Thousands in my State got caught up in schemes and scams. They were not Wall Street speculators we give a bailout to, they are Main Street Americans who need a workout plan. My State was hit hard, so at these roundtables we talk to the people who were most affected, the people who actually are facing bankruptcy, to get their stories, get a picture book of what is going on, talk to the nonprofits. But we also talked to the brokers and the Realtors and others in their community. I listened and I learned. So while everybody here wants to talk about the big macropicture, I want to talk about the macaroni-and-cheese issues. I am on the side of the little people. I talked to a police officer who works every day, putting himself in the line of fire. Because he got into a home equity scam and scheme, he is about to lose his home. I talked to a mother, a single mother who thought she was part of the American dream, and now she is part of the American nightmare. If you listen to the nonprofits, housing people, like St. Ambrose Housing in my own State, they are trying every day to help people work this problem out. What is it that they need? They need a plan to be able to do a workout. That is why the bankruptcy amendment was a big help. It would have enabled people to responsibly work out their problems. But at the same time, those nonprofits are being overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the caseload. When you look in my own State, there are thousands and thousands of bankruptcies. In 2006, there were 3,000 foreclosures in Maryland. But guess what. In 2007, there were 23,000--23,000 Marylanders are in the foreclosure line. The sheer magnitude of the problem these nonprofit organizations--many of whom are faith-based--have to come to grips with to help these families with advice and counseling shows that we are in great difficulty. This is why I so support Senator Murray's amendment to add more financial resources to these nonprofits to bring on the staff. I salute Senator Murray because she brings expertise in housing. But where she is a real expert is on people and the suffering people have. We believe in working with nonprofit organizations that are out there closest to the people to do this. Now, in listening to them, so many of my constituents were steamed and scammed. They faced predatory-- predatory--lending procedures. Some people get mugged when they walk down a back alley. Here, they got mugged when they sat down to sign up for their mortgage or their home equity loan. They were mugged big time. If you are mugged, you get a lawyer. But if you are in foreclosure, you cannot get one. Legal Services barely can help anybody because the means testing means that that for a family of four, if you have an income over $26,500, you cannot get a legal aid lawyer. Well, if you have that kind of income, you were unlikely to be own housing at least in many areas of the country. But NeighborWorks can offer help. I will offer an amendment later on this morning that will add $37.5 million as a second-degree amendment-- $37.5 million to the NeighborWorks effort. This NeighborWorks will do three things. First of all, they are going to hire more lawyers and more paralegals to help the counseling groups help people work out of these predatory schemes. Why paralegals? They will maximize the lawyers we already have. They will hire more lawyers, particularly those who are semiretired or those young lawyers eager to build their skills, and so on. NeighborWorks and the experienced lawyers will train them. It will provide money to legal organizations to train more attorneys in foreclosure law. We have lawyers who want to come forth, but they need their training expenses taken care of. There are paralegals who are looking to not only work for a law firm but to also work for these nonprofits. Then for the lawyers in foreclosure law, this would allow them to train counselors in some of the basic foreclosure law. My amendment, I will offer at a later time, is very simple and very straightforward, but wow is it needed. We need to give help to those who are trying to practice self-help to the people who are in foreclosure, to the nonprofits that are trying to help them, and to the lawyers who are trying to advise them. Remember, if you were mugged in a back alley, you could have access to a lawyer. But if you were mugged when you sat down for a settlement on buying a home, you are going to be on your own. You know what. We cannot have that. I want to have people feel that we are on their side. Again, we do not seek bailouts. We seek workouts. We want to be able to help those families be able to restore their financial credit, to be able to work out and stay in their home. When you have foreclosure on a home, it is a terrible tragedy for the family. But it is also a terrible tragedy for the community. So let's all work together. Let's pass a housing bill that helps those who are in need, those who are losing their home. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I withdraw my suggestion.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Everybody is trying to extend morning business while we are waiting.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Conrad on this budget. He has done a brilliant job, and this bill will give us a safer country and a stronger economy. It will meet compelling human needs and take care of the long-range needs of America. This budget reflects America's priorities and my priorities: finding cures for devastating diseases, helping families with special needs, protecting our homeland and protecting our communities, supporting our troops with what they need overseas--and what they need when they come back home. Unlike President Bush's proposal, this budget makes a difference for families. It looks out for our returning military and rejects the President's Draconian cuts that would hurt the most vulnerable people. I am for this budget because it takes care of NIH. NIH is a jewel in the Nation's crown. It is saving lives and improving our Nation's health by bringing discoveries to patients from the lab to the bedside. NIH needs adequate resources to meet its mission. That is why I strongly supported doubling the NIH budget from $13.6 billion in 1998 to $27 billion in 2003, but this year the President shortchanged NIH. His budget flat funds NIH at $29.5 billion which doesn't even keep up with inflation. Shortchanging NIH means we slow down research and slow down our transition from research to treatment. We need this research to improve the treatments for autism, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. I am on the side of science, which is why I joined my colleagues Senator Harkin and Senator Specter to cosponsor an amendment to increase the NIH budget by $2.1 billion. This additional funding will improve the health of the Nation by supporting research on causes, diagnosis, prevention, and cures. So this funding will save lives today and tomorrow. Our budget should save lives, and it should also improve lives-- especially for the most vulnerable. In December, Bush announced a new rule which said CMS won't pay for most Medicaid case management services. This cuts our most vulnerable citizens off from their social workers and nurses. This rule is just wrong. Without case management, Medicaid falls apart. If you don't provide the right services in homes and in schools, you can't coordinate health care plans to keep kids and the elderly healthy. In Maryland, this rule would mean 200,000 poor adults and children with disabilities or chronic health problems may not receive case management services. And in these tough fiscal times, my State will lose over $66 million and 1,400 jobs: mostly nursing and social work jobs Our budget rejects the President's reckless rule until we have a new President and a new attitude. I am going to make sure that we keep the commitments in this budget and keep our promises to those sick adults and children who need our help. Our budget also recognizes that families need a government that is on their side. However, the Bush budget shortchanges children with special needs and their families by not providing enough for IDEA. When Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, passed in 1975 Congress promised to pay 40 percent of costs. Thirty three years later, we don't even come close. This year, IDEA should be funded at $21.5 billion, but it only got $11 billion. Bush talks about leaving no child behind, but his budget abandons a generation of children by making IDEA an unfunded mandate. Senator Sanders' amendment, which I cosponsor, would increase IDEA funding by $10 billion over the next 3 years and would dramatically improve services for 7 million children. These are children who can't make it on their own and who may need individual services like special attention from teacher's aides, speech therapy, and smaller classes. These aren't ``extras.'' They are essentials that may mean the difference between self-sufficiency and a life of dependence. America needs to get behind our kids--by getting behind those kids that need us most. The Bush budget also falls short, once again, when it comes to social services block grants. These are services that give people the tools they need to practice self-help such as child care assistance and treatment for substance abuse. The Bush budget cuts SSBG from $1.7 billion to $1.2 billion. That is half a billion dollars that States won't have to help their most vulnerable residents. And the President wants to eliminate the program entirely in 2010. I am outraged that the President would be so coldhearted but I am proud that the Senate budget rejects these cuts and restores funding to $1.7 billion. My home State of Maryland will receive $32 million this year. I know our communities need it--especially during these tough times. These services help families who are scrimping and saving to stay afloat. I know about social services block grants. Before I was ``Senator Barb,'' I was ``Social Worker Barb.'' The services provided are about more than checking boxes and pushing paper; they are about helping people with their problems and meeting them where they are. The Democratic budget also helps families by helping them keep what they earn for things that they need with smart tax breaks for the middle class. We do it responsibly and realistically by using the budget surplus to extend the tax breaks that matter to working families like the $1000 refundable credit per child, so families can make ends meet; like marriage tax penalty relief so that we don't put a tax on getting married; and like the 10 percent tax bracket so lower income working Americans keep more of their hard-earned pay check. Finally, we also make sure that AMT doesn't hit more middle-class families. These are the tax breaks that help Main Street, not Wall Street, and they are tax breaks we can afford. I am always going to fight for our first responders because we need to protect the Americans who protect us. But President Bush wants to eliminate Community Oriented Policing Program, COPS, funding. That is a $587 million cut from last year. The COPS Program pays for cops on the beat because the way that you reduce crime is to increase cops. That is why Democrats added $599 million to our budget for COPS. Firefighters also protect our communities. They need tools to protect themselves--and to protect us. Yet the Bush budget slashes funding for our first responders--eliminating one grant program for firefighters and cutting another grant program by $260 million. They put their lives on the line every day; they should never be shortchanged by their government. That is why our budget rejects the administration's reckless cuts and adds $2.2 billion more for law enforcement and first responders. The Democratic budget also supports our troops with what they need on the battlefield--and what they need when they come back home. We fully fund the President's request for the military, and we take care of them here at home. I am so proud that Senator Baucus's amendment includes the Defenders of Freedom Act. These are tax breaks to reward soldiers for their service--a tax credit for businesses who keep National Guard and Reserve on their payrolls when reservists and guards are called to help their country and a tax break on money earned because of service to the Nation. I want everyone to look at what the Bush budget does for our veterans. It is unacceptable that the President underfunded programs for vets. Promises made must be promises kept. Vets fight our enemies on foreign battlefields; they shouldn't have to fight their own Government for the services and benefits they deserve. Democrats understand, and we keep our word to America's vets by providing an additional $3.2 billion to come up to the funding suggested by Independent Budget. Finally, as the chairman of the subcommittee that funds science and our space program, I am pleased that the Democrats have an innovation budget. This is a strong budget for NASA: $18.7 billion for NASA. That is $1 billion more than the President's request. NASA is our premier innovation agency. It creates new technologies that create new jobs and excites our next generation of scientists and engineers. These extra funds will allow us to reimburse NASA for the costs of returning the space shuttle to flight safely after the Columbia disaster. I have fought for this extra funding for several years, and I hope we can make it a reality this year in the CJS bill. The budget also says that we must have a balanced space program of science, aeronautics, and space exploration and that we should work to close the 5-year gap in our human space flight program. I support these goals and thank Chairman Conrad for his leadership. Yet I am disappointed that the budget does not recommend full funding for the American Competitiveness Initiative at the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Standards and Technology. That is why I am supporting the Bingaman-Alexander amendment, to provide the fully authorized levels for these science agencies as recommended by the America COMPETES Act. This funding will provide critical investments in education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM. This is the research that creates new technologies and new jobs. It is an important time for America. Our economy is in trouble, and we need to spend wisely. Democrats are making the hard choices to make America stronger, invest in our future, and balance the Nation's checkbook. The budget reflects the best of our country. It keeps commitments to vets and our first responders, invests in our kids and our future, and meets our economic challenges head on. Let's get the job done and pass this budget. Americans deserve it, and the Senate needs to deliver.