Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Does that help?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I can answer that, Senator, because we see it every day in the State of Maryland, which has a profile not unlike the State of Massachusetts. We have schools in the Baltimore-Washington corridor that are desperately, as of now, in getting ready for the school year, recruiting people in math and science, both at elementary and high school. We also have a robust science program in the private sector. First of all, we have defense jobs, we have biotech jobs. If you are working as that science teacher at $38,000, with this big debt, you can go to work in pretty interesting private sector jobs, some under Government contract. As we like to say, Government work is often getting contracts with the private sector. They are going to walk out and they are going to take the $70,000, the $80,000 or the $100,000, not because of the money, they want to pay down their debt and they want what everyone else wants, the ability to have a family, buy a home. You know, a starter home now in our community is $400,000. That is starter-- starter. Can you imagine that? So, of course, they are going to make those choices, or, if they do come, they stay a very short time, a very short time. So we think that this is a good way to get them into teaching and get them to stay in teaching. We believe that once they come, and once they stay a few years, they will stay for a while, particularly if we help them follow their dream, while they are helping these other young people to get ready to follow theirs.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator has pinpointed exactly the point I wished to make. These are in fields that are making important contributions to the public good, be it public safety to health or public health, the education of our children at all ages, pre through 12. I do not know how it is in Boston, but we are experiencing a spike in violent crime in Baltimore. We have a considerable number of vacancies in the Baltimore City Police Department. At the same time, they have tried to cut the COPS Program, local law enforcement--the subject of another debate on appropriations. But I will tell you, Mayor Dixon is out there, we are trying to recruit. If we are going to fight crime, fight crime with police officers in the way of enforcement, you fight crime with education and other professions. So you have pinpointed it exactly. That is why I can understand some of the flashing yellow lights raised by the Senator from Alabama. I wish to say one thing. I spoke out about my mother and father. Sure, I helped them at the local grocery store. But I was working as a child abuse worker. When your brother was elected President, I was working as a foster care worker at Catholic Charities. I wanted to prevent family breakups. I went to work at the Department of Social Services. I was a child abuse worker for a couple of years. That is pretty tough, what those social workers do. But I wanted to go to graduate school so I would know how to do better, so I would be more effective, so I could intervene. Well, I was an emancipated adult. Graduate school at the University of Maryland was getting underway. But thanks to the war on poverty, and thanks to a grant at the National Institutes of Health--again, which your brother started, and you have so steadfastly continued, community mental health--there were community mental health grants for Barb Mikulski to go to the University of Maryland and get her master's in social work. Well, given my style of debate, people might not say I have a ``therapeutic'' personality, but I will tell you what I learned on the streets of Baltimore as a child abuse worker and what I learned with my program at the University of Maryland, I think that Baltimore is better because of what I learned. But I could not have done that, nor could I have taken out those loans--I was already an adult--to be able to do that, had not the U.S. Government said: We are willing to invest in you if you are going to put your heart and soul back into America. I say hats off to those programs that give all those other programs that chance.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, today I honor and congratulate Cal Ripken, Jr., on his induction to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Throughout his storied 21-year career, Cal has been the epitome of an ``Iron Man,'' both on and off the field. I watched Cal go from being unknown to being the best known baseball player from Baltimore since Babe Ruth. I was there on the last day at Memorial Stadium and the first day at Camden Yards, and I will watch him when he is inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame on July 29. For we Orioles fans, it was never if we would be celebrating such an amazing feat but when we would be celebrating it. All baseball fans know about ``The Streak.'' We fans remember the victory lap he took around Camden Yards. And the countdown--where the numbers were displayed not just at the Camden Warehouse or in the Baltimore Sun but also at my office in Hart Senate Office building: 2,632 consecutive games, 431 home runs, 19 All-Star game starts, two American League Golden Glove awards, eight Silver Slugger Awards, two American League MVPs, and on and on. But the most important thing we remember, which the numbers cannot fully reflect, is the strong, dependable presence of Cal--night after night, day after day--through broken bones, through the wide range of emotions and pressures he experienced as a major leaguer, as a father, and as an active citizen in our community. Every game there he was--at third base and shortstop, smiling, and doing his job. And doing it well. I remember that fateful night when Cal broke Lou Gehrig's long- standing consecutive game record. To see that banner drop from 2130 to 2131, and to hear the admiration and jubilation from the crowd in Baltimore, was something I will always remember. The sustained cheers were neverending as Cal, urged by Rafael Palmeiro, took a lap around the field. It was a proud night for the Ripken family, for the Orioles, and for Maryland. It was such a magical night. Families from all over came with their kids to celebrate the ``Iron Man'' and his achievement. The evening had as much dignity as the player himself. Cal's accomplishments transcend well beyond the baseball field. His character and demeanor is reflected in the success he experiences every day off the field. He shows up and gives maximum effort in every aspect of life. He puts his family above all, he is a consummate community activist and is committed to living and teaching the ``Ripken Way.'' The ``Ripken Way'' is simple, really, but its wisdom is enough to build great players and bind generations together. It states: ``Keep it Simple, Explain the Why, Celebrate the Individual, and Make it Fun.'' This style emphasizes clarity and simplicity, while also stressing empathy and interest. I have certainly used the ``Ripken Way'' in my life and I believe many Marylanders and Americans also use it. In Maryland, I can tell you the ``Ripken Way'' is not just on our ballfields. It is in our factories. It is in our homes. It is in the bread we serve our families. It is in our hospitals in Baltimore, where Cal has contributed so much to children in need of hope and a smile. And it is in our hearts today as we salute Cal Ripken, Jr., and this wonderful honor he is receiving. Cal applies the ``Ripken Way'' both on and off the ballfield, particularly in his philanthropic work at the Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation. The Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation was established in 2001 in memory of Cal's father. To this day, Cal carries the torch and legacy of his father. It is a legacy that has shaped Cal's life and a legacy that has shaped the entire Orioles' organization. By emphasizing work ethic, playing by the rules, putting the team first, and showing up every day, the Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation serves disadvantaged youth across the country. The foundation has even built a beautiful state-of-the-art stadium in Aberdeen, MD, where kids can play. Cal has put much of his own money into the foundation and the stadium's construction, while also working to secure private donations. Cal may be a local boy, but he is no ordinary man. There is no question that Cal has earned his way into the Hall of Fame, the respect of the world, and the admiration of generations to come. Baltimore may have lost the powerhouse company Bethlehem Steel, but it will always be home to ``Iron Man'' Cal Ripken, Jr. I congratulate Cal on his stellar career, his strong work ethic, his commitment to family and community, and for the well-deserved, wonderful honor of being inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. While he has already achieved so much, I can't help but think that the best is yet to come.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Yes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I am glad we got one of them. Maybe we can start a momentum here. Mr. President, I never thought I would see the day in the Senate when there would be essentially a gag rule on the subject of war, essentially a gag rule preventing us from voting on the deployment of our troops and a framework for them to be able to come home. We are supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, but the other party has chosen to throw sand in the gears to give us a vote where we would present a framework. The previous speaker talked about that we Democrats present a strategy du jour on the war. I challenge that statement and say it is the White House that gives us a strategy du jour, a strategy of the week, always changing goals. When the war was originally voted for, it was to get rid of Saddam Hussein and get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam is gone and there were no weapons of mass destruction. If that was the goal of the war, come back home. Then it was to create democracy in Iraq. Now it is to secure Baghdad. It is a goal and a strategy du jour. We have to come up with the right kind of framework, but we also need to be able to offer our votes. Mr. President, 47 times this year the Republican minority has threatened a filibuster on a variety of bills that we want to bring up on both domestic and foreign policy; 47 times they have threatened a filibuster, and now they have gone too far. Now the other party refuses to give us a vote on the most important issue we face: the war in Iraq and the deployment of our troops. Our President talks about building a democratic Iraq. We should start with building democracy right here in the Senate. Democracy is built on fundamental principles. One of the fundamental principles is freedom of speech, but not in the Senate. We are in a gag rule. We face strong-arm tactics to prevent our vote on a troop deadline. Another fundamental principle of democracy is majority rule, but not in the Senate. It now takes 60 votes to win a vote. The reason we objected to the cloture is to end the filibuster. But we want to end the war, and that is why our unanimous consent request is a direct vote on that point. They want to hide behind parliamentary procedure. We want to go directly to the point. Our Constitution calls for a system of checks and balances, but that is not what the White House wants. They want us to write the checks, but tonight we are trying to provide the balance. That is why we stand here the way we do. Some people say Democrats are micromanaging the war. Well, hey, someone has to manage it, and it is about time. For the last 5 years, Congress has been under the rule of the other party. It has been a rubberstamp for the Bush administration. The results have been devastating to our military, to America's standing in the world, to the Iraqi people. We had troops sent to battle with inadequate protection and no plan for victory. We had modest international support, and now that is dwindling. Our former Secretary of Defense was imperious and turned a blind eye to cronyism and corruption at every level of the reconstruction. You know what, it is time for someone to manage the war, and we are ready to do it. We are ready to lead. We just need to have a vote. It is time to stop talking, it is time for action, and it is time for the Senate to have its say and its day on an actual vote. This isn't about theater, it is not about polls, and it is not about politics. It is about the will of the American people. It is about honoring democratic principles. It is about doing the job we were elected to do. I support the bipartisan amendment of Levin, Reed, and Hagel and other Republicans because it begins the process of bringing our troops home. But it not only brings them home, it brings them home safely and swiftly. The Iraqis must understand the future of their nation is now in their hands, and our troops have to understand that the Congress is with them and we want to be with them when they are on the battlefield and when they come home. We believe the best way to support our troops is to create a framework to bring them home swiftly and safely. There are those who want to talk about alternatives. There are those who are blocking the vote on this amendment saying it is too soon to withdraw. They have suddenly discovered the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, something I supported 7 months ago, 210 days ago. Mr. President, 210 days ago, the Iraq Study Group gave us a framework. They called it a way forward. They had 79 recommendations. I stood on this floor and said out of the 79, certainly there were 60 on which we could agree. Let's have a meeting, let's pick our favorite 60, and let's start moving forward on a military solution, a political solution, a diplomatic solution, but a solution it would be. It was dismissed. It was dismissed by the other party, the other side of the wall, the other side of the aisle--it seems like a wall sometimes--and it was dismissed by the President of the United States. So now all of a sudden they found the Iraq Study Group. Seven months ago that Iraq Study Group did call for diplomatic and political efforts. I think we make those efforts, and I also think that is included in the spirit and substance of Levin-Reed-Hagel-Snowe and others amendment. Now is the day that we should refocus our mission in Iraq and also follow the path forward that was recommended and have our troops home by April 1, 2008. We know the Levin-Reed-Hagel, et al, amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to begin reducing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq no later than 120 days to begin those important diplomatic and political strategies. And it also leaves U.S. forces there for three missions: protecting other U.S. troops, completing the training of Iraq troops, and engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations. But it also requires them to complete it by April 30, 2008. This is what I advocate. I am not new to this position. I never wanted to go to war in the first place. You see, I read all those intelligence reports, and I never believed that the President should be granted unilateral authority to engage in a war where there was no imminent threat to the United States of America. I was one of 23. Four years ago on October 11, I opposed the President giving this authority and asked that we exhaust our diplomatic options, asked us to stick with the U.N., and I said: I am just so concerned that I don't know if our troops will be met with a parade or a landmine. We know where we are. So off we went. We went to war with Iraq, and now we are at war within Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we are still there mired in a civil war. No one could ask more of our troops. They have been brave, they have been courageous, and they have followed the request of their Commander in Chief. We need to look out for them. I believe we will. Other aspects of this bill, particularly the Wounded Warriors Act, look out for the veterans who have been injured, look out by reforming the disability benefits system, look out for the health care they need from the VA. It is time for a new direction. It is time for us to have this vote. It is time for the Iraqi elected officials to stand up. Twelve Members of the 38-Member Parliament no longer attend Cabinet meetings; 75 Members of the Iraqi Parliament are boycotting their own Parliament so that they cannot get a quorum to do their job, whether it is for oil revenue sharing or power sharing. I think it is time now, I think it is time for us to have a vote. I think it is time to refocus the mission. I think it is time to redeploy our troops. I think it is time to bring our troops home by April 30, 2008. And that is why I think it is time to vote on the Levin-Reed amendment. So, Mr. President, I therefore, ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2088 be withdrawn and that at 8:30 p.m. today, the Senate vote on the Levin-Reed amendment No. 2087 with the time, in all fairness, equally divided on both sides in the usual format, and no second-degree amendments be in order.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am so sorry to hear that objection. But I have now concluded my remarks for this part of the evening and yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Could I just offer an observation? We are not the minority, we are the majority.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the Dignity for our Wounded Warriors Act, which has just been approved as an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense authorization bill. Under the leadership of Senators Carl Levin, Patty Murray, and Daniel Akaka, we have drafted this comprehensive response to the failures of the Bush administration to properly care for our wounded servicemembers and veterans. We were all shocked and awed by the sorry state of outpatient care at Walter Reed. More than 22,000 Purple Hearts have been awarded in Iraq. We know now that our troops have been twice wounded--once on the battlefield and again battling a bureaucracy at home. We know that acute care for our injured troops has been astounding. Our military medical doctors and nurses are performing heroically, giving our troops historic rates of survival against devastating new weapons of war. We owe a debt of gratitude to these military medical professionals and to the medics on the battlefield. But while we have saved their lives, we are failing to give them their life back. Outpatient care, facilities, social work, case workers, disability benefits--the whole system seems dysfunctional. In March, I visited Walter Reed and met with outpatients at Mologne House. I am so proud of their service and sacrifice for our Nation and so embarrassed by the treatment they have received. We know this problem isn't limited to Walter Reed. It is part of the reckless incompetence of this administration. They took us into this war without a plan for winning it or caring for those we ask to fight it. That is why the Senate has today taken this important step to provide the care our troops, veterans, and their families have earned. This is a comprehensive bill to address the treatment and care of injured veterans and servicemembers. To ensure that what happened in Building 18 at Walter Reed never happens again, the bill establishes minimum standards of repair and maintenance for military treatment facilities and outpatient housing. It authorizes at least $73 million in additional funding to enhance care for traumatic brain injury, TBI, and post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, including $3 million for pilot projects to monitor TBI; $10 million for Centers of Excellence for TBI; and $50 million for additional TBI and PTSD research. This is in addition to the $900 million in funding for TBI and PTSD programs added by Congress to the fiscal year 2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. To support a smooth transition for injured troops from military medical care to the Veterans' Administration, this bill also authorizes $10 million for a joint DOD/VA office for electronic health records and establishes comprehensive readjustment studies for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans by the Defense Department, the Veterans' Administration, and the National Academy of Sciences. To develop a better understanding of the signature wounds of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the amendment directs DOD to establish Centers of Excellence for TBI and PTSD and to report to Congress on their progress. It requires comprehensive plans for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of TBI and PTSD as well as long-term studies, clinical trials, and research about mental health, TBI, and PTSD. Our amendment also addresses the unique needs of female servicemembers by requiring DOD and the VA to take into account the needs of women servicemembers and women veterans in every aspect of patient and veterans care. Every report required by the amendment must include a description of how it specifically addresses the needs of our women warriors. It requires DOD and the VA to review the need for mental health treatment tailored to meet the needs of female servicemembers and veterans and requires the two agencies to develop a joint policy for the treatment and care of mental health, TBI, and PTSD for female servicemembers and veterans. To cut through the health care bureaucracy, our bill entitles any servicemember or former servicemember with ``severe injury or illness'' to treatment in any DOD or VA approved medical facility, whatever is closest or most convenient for the patient. It also authorizes military and VA facilities to provide counseling and medical care for families and caregivers who are supporting servicemembers--this is important support for those who have to travel to a treatment facility in order to support their injured loved one. To help injured servicemembers transition from DOD health care to the VA system, the amendment requires improved information sharing between agencies and establishes common processes, procedures, and standards between the two agencies. It also institutes a 3-year overlap of healthcare service between DOD and VA for severely injured servicemembers, so no injured servicemember is allowed to fall between the cracks. This amendment also takes several important steps to improve the quality of care in the VA health care system. It requires the VA to create rehabilitation and reintegration plans for veterans suffering from TBI and to provide nursing home care to veterans with severe cases of TBI. The amendment also extends the window of time during which veterans can seek combat-related medical care, from 2 years to 5 years. This will especially help veterans suffering from PTSD, which can take several years to develop and diagnose. Mr. President, our Nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises we make to troops and their families when they answer the Nation's call to duty. I am proud to fight each year to make sure these promises made are promises kept. This amendment honors our Nation's service men and women.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Webb amendment. I know there will be many speakers. Like everything I do, I want to seize the day and talk about what I think about the Webb amendment. It is almost 10:30 in the morning in Washington. It is 6:30 in the evening in Baghdad. Yesterday, in Washington it was 98 degrees, and everybody was complaining about the heat wave. They couldn't wait until they got into air-conditioning. Well, it was 115 degrees in Baghdad and, boy, would I like to get our troops in air-conditioning--in air- conditioning back home. I check the temperature every single day in Baghdad because I want to think about our troops. I want to try to envision what they are going through. I think about those men and women out there carrying over 100 pounds of body armor in brutal heat, being shot at, being attacked by brutal IEDs. Yes, it is hot in Baghdad, and it is hot in more ways than one. We need to care about our troops, and we need to care for our troops. We all say we support our troops. Well, let's support them, all 100 of us, all 100 Senators. Regardless of party and how we voted on the war, let's say we support our troops. Then if we really do support them, let's support the Webb amendment. The Webb amendment does support our troops and our families and also the employers of those in the Guard and Reserve. But it supports our troops. The Webb amendment gives our troops a breather, and if the Pentagon will not do it, Congress needs to do it. That is why I support the Webb amendment. I salute the Senator from Virginia. Senator Webb is a freshman Senator, but he is no stranger to war. He is a warrior's warrior, a combat veteran. He also was the Secretary of the Navy. He knows full well the stresses the men and women in our military are facing and their families are facing. The Webb amendment is simple and straightforward. It supports our troops by giving them more time at home between deployments. It deals with troop fatigue. It deals with troop exhaustion. For our men and women in the military, if you are in the full-time military, the all- volunteer military, your time at home would be at least as long as the length of your last deployment. For the Guard and the Reserve, no one would be redeployed within three times of their previous deployment. Why is this important? Our military is overstretched, and our troops are exhausted. Their families are also living with tremendous stress. Every time they hear a news report about another attack, they wonder how their loved one is and if they are surviving. They have an unending, agonizing fear of a strange car pulling up to their home with unbearable news. Whether you are a spouse, a mom, or a dad, or children, you are bearing the stress of this war. The Webb amendment gives our troops a breather and some relief to our families. This current President says the struggle in Iraq will be long and will require continued sacrifice. Sacrifice from whom? There is no shared sacrifice. The sacrifice is falling on our troops now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sacrifice has been made by those who died in Iraq, by the 85 Marylanders who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. President, you are from Maryland. You know that some of the men and women who died came from our service academies--West Point, the Naval Academy. Some came from renowned schools and universities. Some of our kids came from the school of hard knocks. One, named Kendall Frederick, only had a green card. He died when a bomb hit his convoy when he was driving to get his fingerprints taken so that he could become an American citizen. Thousands of others are wounded. Some say we are micromanaging the war. You know what. I am for micromanaging the war. Maybe if we micromanaged the war, it would not be costing us $12 billion a month, and maybe we wouldn't be going it alone. So no matter how one feels about deadlines or benchmarks, we must support our troops. And I believe this is the way to do it. I conclude by saying this: While our troops are out there every day in 115-degree heat, let's see what the Iraq Parliament is doing. Our guys are fighting for a military solution. Let's see what they are doing for a political solution. The Iraqi Parliament cannot even reach a quorum. Mr. President, 12 members of the Iraqi 38-Member Parliament no longer attend Cabinet meetings. So one-third of the Cabinet doesn't show up for meetings. Seventy-five Members of the Iraqi Parliament are boycotting, refusing to do any work at all so that the very Parliament cannot get a quorum. While the Iraqi Parliament doesn't show up and stays home in its air- conditioning, our guys and gals are out there patrolling Baghdad in 115-degree heat with 100 pounds of equipment and body armor. Listen, if you support the troops, support Webb. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask that I may speak in morning business on the Democratic side.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Dr. Nathan Carliner. Dr. Carliner was a well-respected cardiologist who practiced at the Baltimore Veterans Affairs Medical Center and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He will be remembered for his commitment to his patients, his colleagues, and his students, as well as his devotion to friends and family. Dr. Carliner was born in Baltimore and raised on South Road in Mount Washington. He followed in the footsteps of his father, Dr. Paul Carliner, who was also a doctor and codiscovered Dramamine in 1947. After his father's untimely death at just 46 years old, Nathan decided to devote his life to medicine. He was a 1958 Gilman School graduate and earned a bachelor of science degree at Johns Hopkins University. He went on to graduate from Hopkins Medical School in 1965. After completing his internship and residency, Dr. Carliner joined the Army Medical Corps. He was medical service chief at the 3rd Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, MASH, at Binh Thuy in the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam war. After the war, Dr. Carliner studied cardiology and advanced electrocardiography before moving back to Baltimore in the 1970s. Once he returned to his hometown, Nathan continued his service both to his state and his country. He was a full professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and he was associate chief of cardiology and director of noninvasive cardiology services at the veterans hospital. Dr. Carliner was known not just for his professionalism and his experience but also for his calming demeanor and his commitment to mentoring medical students and postgraduate trainees. Nathan touched so many lives and made many great contributions both to his field and to his colleagues. Nathan Carliner's death is a tragedy. Yet his life was a triumph. I offer my heartfelt condolences to his family--his brother Mark, his sister Esther Carliner Viros, and his four nephews, particularly Paul Carliner, who worked in my office for over 12 years and who shares his uncle's commitment and dedication to helping others. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting this extraordinary man.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator, I am fighting for jobs today and jobs tomorrow. Unions play a vital role in ensuring safe and fair working conditions. That is why I support the right to form and join unions and I will continue to fight to preserve the rights of workers. It is time to get behind the working people's agenda. That is why I am proud to stand with the labor movement. I wear the union label on my clothes, on my heart, and on the floor of the Senate. I am proud of union members. You all work hard. You work three shifts: one at your jobs to make a living, then with your family to make that living worthwhile, and a third with your union to make a difference. I know the importance of unions, and that is why I am an original cosponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. With union membership at its lowest point in more than 60 years, this bill takes several steps to make it easier to unionize without employer coercion. Workers understand the benefits of joining a union--53 percent say they could join one today if they could. But the right to organize is deliberately denied by many employers. 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. Workers face three obstacles when trying to unionize: unfair union election rules, meaningless penalties, and employers' refusal to bargain with employees. This bill would level the playing field by letting workers choose how to form a union, establishing meaningful penalties, and guaranteeing both sides bargain in good faith. Workers organize themselves by signing a document saying they want to join a union. Once a majority of workers signup, they can ask their employers to be recognized as a union and collectively bargain for a contract. However, employers often refuse to recognize the union and require workers to go through an intimidating anti-union campaign that ends in an unfair election. The Employee Free Choice Act makes it easier to form a union by not allowing employers to veto employees' decisions about how to organize and force an unfair election. Workers could still request an election, but it would be their choice--not the employers. The other big problem for workers who want to unionize is that the penalties for companies that break the laws are too low. Employers who break union election rules only have to post a sign saying that they won't do it again. Employers who fire a worker for being pro-union are only required to pay wages they would have owed if they had followed the law minus whatever the fired employee earned since his or her firing. And because cases can be tied up in court for years, employers are able to fight dirty against unions and workers with near impunity. The Employee Free Choice Act raises penalties for unfair labor violations to $20,000, requires employers to pay workers who were unfairly fired three times backpay, and requires the NLRB to seek an injunction when they have evidence that an employer has violated a union election law. Even when unions are able to overcome these slanted rules, employers still undermine the will of their employees by refusing to negotiate in good faith. Today, if a union and an employer can't agree on a contract within a year, the employer can call an election to disband the union and another unfair antiunion campaign begins. While not bargaining in good faith is prohibited by law, the NLRB has set the standard of proof too high to ever be met except in the most blatant cases. This gives antiunion employers every reason to stall during negotiations, and that is why one-third of unions formed through elections don't get a contract within a year. This bill ensures fair negotiations by establishing reasonable time tables for negotiation and mediation. In the rare cases when that fails to produce an agreement, this would also require arbitration so that parties have incentives to compromise and find a middle ground that benefits everyone. 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 Employee Free Choice Act gives workers the rights they deserve, restores integrity to our Nation's labor laws, and lays the foundation for working and middle class Americans to once again share in our country's economic prosperity. America's economy continues to grow but working class economic security and opportunity have gone in the opposite direction. Wages are lower today than they were 30 years ago, employers no longer offer good benefits, and workers don't make enough to save for retirement or send their kids to college. Despite working longer and being more productive, American families find it harder to break into the middle class and families in the middle class are finding it harder to stay there. This bill is a step in the right direction for working Americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet today, Thursday, June 21, 2007 from 11 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Russell 325 for the purpose of conducting a hearing. The hearing will be concerning: America's farming population.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in closed session to mark up, under sequential referrel, S. 1538, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, and to consider certain military nominations pending before the committee.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 21, 2007, at 10 a.m., in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Working towards ending homelessness: Reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.''

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing will focus on legislation introduced by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), S. 704, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2007, to protect consumers from deceptive practices involving caller identification information also known as caller ID ``spoofing.'' The hearing will also address issues related to the ability of consumers to port telephone numbers between competing voice service providers.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing will consider currently available technologies, and both State-sponsored and corporate programs that reduce total energy use and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, in order to hear testimony on ``Barriers to work for individuals receiving social security disability benefits.''

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on a strategic assessment of U.S.-Russian relations.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 2 p.m. to hold a nomination hearing.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct an oversight hearing on law enforcement in Indian country.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Civil Rights Division Oversight'' on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Witness list: Panel I: Wan Kim, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: Wade Henderson, President and CEO, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, DC. Brian Landsberg, Professor, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, Sacramento, CA. Helen Norton, Visiting Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD. Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity, Falls Church, VA. Robert N. Driscoll, Partner, Alston & Bird LLP, Washington, DC.