Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak enthusiastically in favor of the Higher Education Access Reconciliation Act and to also speak against the Sessions amendment to eliminate the debt forgiveness program for entering public service.

I can't tell you how happy I am today to be speaking on legislation helping our young people have access to higher education. Finally, after a very dark week, where we were gagged and muzzled from trying to deal with bringing the Iraq war to an end, we now have an open debate on how to achieve the American dream. This is what I came to the Senate to be able to do. This is what the voters wanted us to do when on November 7 they held a national referendum and put the Democrats back in charge so we could change the tone, have a civilized debate such as we are, and also to change the priorities--and changing the priorities Senator Kennedy has, by leading us in a direction where we can expand opportunity for our young people without expanding our deficit.

We will not expand our Federal deficit and we will help families not expand their family deficit, as they try to help their kids achieve higher education. This legislation pending before us today should be passed in a swift, expeditious, uncluttered way. This bill is absolutely a great bill for students and it is a great bill for America. It gives our students access to the American dream. It gives our young people access to the freedom to achieve, to be able to follow their talents, and to be able to achieve higher education in whatever field they will be able to serve this country. We do it by providing an increase in Pell grants.

But the bill is also fiscally responsible as well as socially progressive. It cuts subsidies--big, lavish, bloated subsidies--to banks. In eliminating these bloated, unneeded subsidies in today's era of cheap money, what we are able to do is put that back into student aid. So we up the student aid, but we don't create more borrowing in order to do it.

The bill also has other reform elements to it. It reforms the application process. Anybody in here who is a mom or a dad--or an Aunt Barb--knows that, boy, is that process complicated. You almost have to have been to college in order to apply for student loans to be able to go to college.

The other thing it does is it keeps an eye on those colleges and universities. We have seen tuition creep--we have seen tuition gallop-- to where now there is an ever-increasing escalation. We worry if we increase the Pell grants, are they then going to increase tuition? So there is reform methodologies in this, and we salute Senators Kennedy and Enzi for being able to do this. So this is why I am so enthusiastic about this bill.

As I travel around my own State of Maryland and I talk about what we want to do with our Federal legislative initiatives, I often say to audiences--and I say here today to my colleagues--we in this country enjoy many freedoms--the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, the freedom of religion--but there is an implicit freedom our Constitution doesn't lay out but which brings people to this country and excites the passions and hopes and dreams and that is the desire and the ability to have the freedom to achieve; to take whatever talents God has given you, to fill whatever are the passions in your heart, to be able to learn so you can earn and make a contribution. That is what I call the freedom to achieve.

The freedom to achieve should never be stifled in this country because of economic reasons. Your freedom to achieve should never be determined by the ZIP code you live in, by the color of your skin, or by the size of your family's wallet. It should be, in a democratic country, that everyone has access to be able to do that. That means affordable education. That means access to the opportunity ladder that students and families can count on, because we know a degree is something no one can ever take away from you.

When I was a young girl at a Catholic all-girls high school, my father and mother encouraged me to seek higher education. My father's grocery store had a terrible fire, and I offered to not go on to higher education but to work in our little family grocery store. But my father said, no, Barb, you have to go, and your mom and I will find a way, because no matter what you do or what in life happens to you, no one can ever take that degree away from you. As your father who wants to help you and to protect you, the best way I can protect you is to make sure you will be able to earn a living all of your life.

My father gave me the freedom to achieve. But tuition costs were different in those days, and now people rely upon student loans or student assistance. That is what we need to continue to do.

We also know when we are helping our young people, or not-so-young people who return, the value of higher education doesn't only accrue to the individual, it accrues to the Nation as a whole. Every time we help someone be able to go on and have that freedom to achieve, we might be educating someone who is going to find the cure for cancer. We are going to be educating the cop on the beat who might save that old lady from being mugged. Whatever we do, that education lifts not only that person but it lifts the level of attainment of the Nation as a whole.

That is why this is an important public investment. This is why on this day, this week, we finally have some light coming into the Senate.

We know higher education is a great opportunity. As I said, this means there will be people who are young and not so young who will bless us for what we are doing today. Getting a college education is the core of the American dream, and I am going to be sure that every student has access to that dream and make sure that when they graduate, their very first mortgage isn't their student debt.

My colleagues have spoken eloquently about how often that debt is $20,000 or more. I know in my home State college tuition is on the rise. The tuition at the University of Maryland, a land grant college, has increased by almost 40 percent since 2002. Financial aid is not keeping up. Pell grants now only cover 30 percent of what a 4-year public college costs, but 20 years ago those Pell grants covered 80 percent of the cost.

We look at our families, our middle-class families, and they are stretched and they are stressed. Families in my State are worried about many things. They are worried about their jobs, worried about the cost of raising a family, gas prices are up, the cost of utilities is up, the cost of health care is up--you name it, everything is up but wages. They are racing from carpool to work and back again. While they might be taking care of mom and dad who need assisted living, they are also wondering how are they going to assist their kids to go to college so they are assisting their kids with learning how to earn a living. Our families need help. By gosh, I believe that help begins at home.

This is what this legislation does. It will increase student aid by increasing Pell grants from $4,300 per year to $5,400 per year. It is a $1,100 increase. This is wonderful. That is already a $5,000 break over a 4-year program. If you are looking at a community college, this could help you pay for this. For so many of our young people, the community college is the first access to higher education.

These families and these students will know exactly what this means. The simple expansion of Pell grants is going to take that opportunity ladder and take that first rung and make sure it is reliable and stable.

There are other important aspects in this bill in addition to that. I am so proud we have extended our deferred loans for our men and women in the armed services. Under the old law, servicemembers could only defer their student loans for 6 months. They are fighting in Iraq. I think we ought to defer it indefinitely, but we will take what we can get in the law. That is an important step.

I want to say a word about the comments about public service. Why is it every time we talk about public service jobs it is in a snide and snarky way? I am tired of people talking about public service jobs in a snide and snarky way. Somehow or other, in private sector jobs you work hard. I know for those hedge fund managers, walking down that rugged terrain of Wall Street, fighting their way to get a latte, is tough work. But why is it if you are an FBI agent we are going to talk about you in a snarky way? What about if you are a nurse in the VA helping fit that prosthetic device for that injured warrior coming back? We have to remember that civil service is honorable and civil service is hard work, and public service makes contributions to the public good.

I hope we then in this debate also follow the kind of rubric that has been developed by our colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich. He is worried, too, about all the retirements that are coming in civil service. We are going to recruit, but let's talk about specifically what this does. This is debt forgiveness where we are facing shortages. We are talking about debt forgiveness in law enforcement. Law enforcement all over the United States is facing shortfalls in recruitment. There are people who no longer want to be cops on the beat because it is a dirty, dangerous job. We have a shortage of nurses. Let's talk about our teachers--oh, our most important asset is our children. We will not pay to recruit and retain, but we will overregulate our teachers. We have to be able to get them in.

When we talk about the fact that if you are an elementary schoolteacher or you are that preschool teacher who gets our kids reading ready, often they are very poorly paid, paid less than if they had worked in fast food operations. We have to help our teachers.

Then I want to talk about an area that is very near and dear to me, the nursing shortage. I have worked on a bipartisan basis with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, on how to deal with the nursing shortage. It is now achieving a critical mass. Over 40 percent of our nurses will be retiring in a very short time. It is difficult also to retain our nurses. We need to be able to recruit and retain our nurses.

When we hear about: Why don't they work their way through? Let's work our way through. Have you ever been to a nursing school? Have you ever been in a nursing school? I have. Nursing school is tough, demanding, unrelenting. If you are in a nursing college program, whether it is a community college or a 4-year college, you have to do your lab work, you have to do your clinical work. You can't take time off to go work to earn that tuition. You have to be there learning to be a nurse. There is practically no way that, if you want to be a nurse, an x-ray technician, an occupational therapist, a physical therapist--anything in allied health--you can take time off to work your way through. But you are mounting debt. This is a way that gives you a break.

I believe in giving help to those who will be able to help us in our community.

To finish my point and my momentum here, I believe the Kennedy approach on student debt forgiveness is wise and prudent, and I believe can be implemented in a way that does not create abuse. Let's respect public service. Let's try to deal with the fact that we are facing critical shortages. Let's also begin to work together to solve our Nation's problems.

We are willing to spend thousands of dollars to recruit in critical areas in the military. I happen to support that, to keep that sergeant, to recruit that lieutenant and so on--I absolutely think we should.

I urge the passage of the Higher Education Access bill and at the same time the defeat of the Sessions amendment.

I yield the floor.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

First, if I could respond to the Senator, that is exactly right. We are experiencing the same situation for that level of public indebtedness in our public universities. If one would then go on to a private university such as Johns Hopkins, it would also be substantially more.

I would be happy to respond, if the Senator would allow me to focus on the allied health professions of which I am quite familiar, that it affects, first of all, when you look at what you could owe, it affects your major. So if I want to major in nursing, or where there is another shortage, x-ray technology, and you look at what you are going to earn, and what you are going to owe, well, you will take perhaps an easier path, and something that will be more lucrative at the end of graduation.

So it starts in the freshman year when they are looking at that. Second, let's go to another issue in nursing. As the Senator knows, we have a problem with having enough people to teach nursing. That requires graduate training, master's, plus doctoral. Well, if you come out and you owe this bucket of bucks, and you are trying to pay off your undergraduate loan, working the terrific shifts the nurses work, and you are thinking about graduate school, you are not going to go get a master's or a doctorate to teach nursing, and we have little in the way of helping you. So we are, No. 1, affecting the shortages we have in these areas, and we are also exacerbating the people who would then have to go on to graduate school to teach the very people we need to teach.

Does that help?

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.

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.

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.

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

Yes.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, today, the Senate is trying to come up with an energy bill. I know Senators have been working very hard on all sides of the aisle to come up with consensus legislation we can support, and I really do support them. I wish to particularly call to the attention of the Senate the efforts of Senators Pryor and Levin and Stabenow to try to come up with a compromise on the CAFE. But we are now where we are. We are at a very important juncture in our history.

You know me. I am a blue-collar Senator. My heart and soul lies with the blue-collar American. I spent most of my life in a blue-collar neighborhood. When Bethlehem Steel went on strike, my dad gave those workers credit. When UAW was having a hard time, my father and mother tried to smooth the way by helping them in the grocery store. My career and my public service is one of deep commitment to the working people. So when automobile manufacturers told me they could not meet the increased CAFE standards, I listened. I listened year after year, and now I have listened for more than 20 years. When they told me they needed more time, I agreed. When they told me an increase in CAFE standards was unattainable with existing technology, I voted against the increase to give more time so we could come up with attainable and existing technology.

But 20 years have gone by since the last increase in fuel efficiency standards. I was here when we voted for those CAFE standards. Now, after 20 years, I firmly do believe it is time for a change--not any kind of change--a smart change, a feasible change, an affordable change. That is why I support the Energy bill that is before us. I support the framework that has been generally presented by Senator Feinstein of California. I know that American automobile manufacturers and their workers are true patriots. They want what is best for our Nation. They have faced challenges before and they have met them and I believe they will face these challenges now. I believe they want to build vehicles that are safer and more energy efficient.

The time has now come to increase fuel efficiency standards. We need a national effort. We need a national standard. It is time for our automobile industry to make the changes because they need to be able to do that to help their own industry survive and also for the interest of the Nation.

I believe our world and our Nation is facing a crisis. When you look at the increased gas prices at the pump, it is hurting every single one of us. When you talk to families, you learn it now costs $90 to fill up a minivan. A commuter who has no other way to get to work than an automobile is now paying more to get to work than they are for their food bill in certain areas. As the Presiding Officer knows, small businesses need those vans to make those deliveries, whether they own a flower shop, whether they are a heating and air-conditioning guy, whether they are a plumber or whether they are the person delivering pharmaceuticals to nursing homes. In my own State right now, the watermen, those fishermen are out on the Chesapeake Bay trying to harvest ever-diminishing crabs with ever-increasing fuel prices.

It is time to conserve our energy resources and to deal with the crisis we are facing. We know that energy and gasoline and petroleum products are in limited supply and are going up. We know that America's dependence on foreign oil presents a very serious national security challenge.

I am on the Intelligence Committee, and I know what these transnational threats are. I know that energy independence is absolutely crucial to fighting the global war against terrorism. If we follow the money, we know that every time we are putting money into the tank, we are putting money into the pockets of the petro jihadists, those petro jihadists who are trying to undermine us everywhere around the world. They are undermining and attacking our troops in Iraq. They are funding Hezbollah so they can attack Israel; Hugo Chavez, shake, rattling, and rolling in Latin America. Do we want our money going to the petro jihadists who want to plot and destroy not only American lives but the American way of life? I don't want to support al-Qaida by buying more gasoline than I have to, but this is what Iran, Venezuela, and others are doing.

We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and that is one of the most important ways we can as the public is by fighting the war against terrorism. There are 150,000 men and women fighting in Iraq today. The temperature is 110 degrees. We already have lost 14 more military. While we are doing that, though, there are 300 million of us who don't have to share in the sacrifice of the battle in Iraq, but we can share in that sacrifice if we embrace energy conservation and are serious about it. At the same time, we know there is a dangerous increase in the climate crisis that affects the life of our planet. It, too, is a national security issue because, make no mistake, the climate crisis will affect our food supply and will create a climate in which infectious disease will grow and natural disasters will increase.

What can we do about it? How can we sign up to have a safer America, a safer planet? Well, I believe the most sensible foundation of an energy plan must begin with conservation. We have to make better use of what we have in our homes, in our businesses, in our cars, and in our airplanes. We also need incentives for new renewable energy and energy- efficient technologies that we can use in our homes and in our businesses and an increase in fuel efficiency standards for our vehicles on the road and our vehicles in the air.

Now, in considering any fuel efficiency standard, otherwise known as CAFE, I come back to where I began: My heart and soul lies with the American worker, so I believe anything we do must preserve American jobs, but it also must achieve real savings in oil consumption. It also has to be realizable and achievable. That means a real technological ability to accomplish it. That means a reasonable lead time to adjust our production.

I also believe we have to create incentives to enable companies to achieve those goals. I don't believe in an industrial policy where we pick winners and losers, but if we are going to pick a winning energy policy, we have to provide some type of help to the industry to help them get where we need for them to go.

In the 1950s, when part of the world saw the Iron Curtain come down and they went into communism, many against their own will, such as Poland, Latvia, and Estonia, there was a whole other world that chose to go with what they called a Socialist tendency. We saw industrial democracies such as England, France, and Canada develop a national health system. We said: Oh, no, we are Americans. We don't want to go that way. We don't want to have a national health system. So we said to the private sector: Provide health care, provide pensions, and we will support that. So our American manufacturing base went to a defined benefit. They did provide health care. They did provide pensions. Now, they should not be penalized for it. Yet you look at the fact that our American manufacturers and our automobile industry itself does carry the legacy cost of health care; we asked them to do it and they did do it. General Motors provides more health care than the VA system. They provide more health care than some countries around the world. They have legacy costs to retirees. So if we are going to make the move in CAFE, we have to acknowledge that issue and how that impacts their competitiveness.

Let's put our thinking caps on. Let's not only help one industry. Maybe this is the time to motivate us to get serious about having universal health care and a real prescription drug benefit so we don't dump it on the private sector to do.

I also know, when we look at this in terms of preserving jobs, we need to also make sure that the technology is achievable, and I believe it is. I believe also there are certain waivers in this bill that help them achieve--that deal with the fact that if they cannot increase some of these standards, the mandates can be waived. But you don't get an energy policy by mandates alone. We can't mandate and regulate our way out of this.

I am going to vote to raise fuel efficiency standards, only because I am so convinced it is in our national security

interests. But I do not want to ignore the economic impact that this is going to have on the automobile industry. We can't just mandate and we can't just regulate. So I say to my colleagues, if we are going to go energy, then let's go to health care. If we are going to go energy, then let's fix the prescription drug benefit and don't talk about vetoes and filibusters. Let's now work in our national interests. Let's now work for our manufacturing base.

Out-of-control health care costs mean that companies are less able to be innovative and invest in technology. Our current President likes to talk a lot about relieving the tax burden, but to our business community, the cost of health care is a tax because we have not gotten serious about how to provide affordable health care, both to the people who want to buy it and businesses who want to provide it. So let's get rid of that health care tax on American business and come up with universal health care. Last year we made some progress in helping manufacturers meet their pension obligations, and we can do it in health care.

The time has come to raise the CAFE standards, but the time has come also to put our thinking caps on, to be an innovation society, and to come up with new ideas for efficiency, new technologies for energy efficiency, new composite materials to make cars lighter but keep them safe, and at the same time to seriously come to grips with health care.

This is not an easy vote for me. I am telling you, this is not an easy vote for me. I have always, for 20 years, stood with colleagues such as Senators Levin and Stabenow. I stand with them now. But I also know that if the American automobile industry is going to survive and that if we are going to deal with the petro jihadists, we need to get serious about fuel efficiency. Let's get serious about the legislation. Let's get serious about health care. Let's be serious about the American workers, and let's get the job done the people want us to do.

So today, I know we voted for cloture on the bill, but we have to continue to speak up on what we need to do to make us a safer country, but to keep a stronger economy, and for God's sake, could we start to be smarter about it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 2 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Private Sector Preparedness I-- defining the problem and proposing solutions.''

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.

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.''

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.

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.

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.''

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a markup hearing on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Room 226.

Agenda

I. Committee Authorization: Authorization of Subpoenas in Connection with Investigation of Legal Basis for Warrantless Wiretap Program.

II. Bills: S. 1145, Patent Reform Act of 2007 (Leahy, Hatch, Schumer, Cornyn, Whitehouse).

III. Nominations: Leslie Southwick to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.

IV. Resolutions: S. Res. 230, Designating July as National Teen Safe Driver Month (Isakson); S. Res. 235, Designating July 1, 2007, as ``National Boating Day'' (Whitehouse, Vitter); S. Res. 225, Designating the month of August 2007 as ``National Medicine Abuse Awareness Month'' (Biden, Grassley).

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a roundtable entitled ``SBA Reauthorization: Small Business Venture Capital Programs,'' on Thursday, June 21, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

select committee on intelligence

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.

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.

I thank my colleague.

I understand this is his first amendment that will be voted on in the Senate. I am proud to stand with him as he stands up for Maryland and also stands up for the fact that when we are talking about the siting of an LNG facility, those who are the most affected should have the most to say, which means the State in which it is being located. I support this amendment because it is also the right public policy and because it is the right public policy for Maryland.

I am absolutely opposed to a new LNG facility in Sparrows Point, MD. As the senior Senator from Maryland, I will do all I can to protect the people of Baltimore and to protect the Port of Baltimore. I oppose this LNG facility because of my fears and frustrations. I worry about a terrorist attack. I worry about an accident with ghoulish consequences. This is a national security issue and a community security issue, not just an energy or a budget issue.

These concerns are not mine alone. According to a GAO report, scientists and engineers have raised enormous concern about the potential hazard of an accident or an attack on LNG facilities. GAO says we don't know about the impact of an LNG accident on public safety. We are talking about possible injury and death. How can anyone make a decision on LNG without knowing the decision on public safety?

This is why I support this amendment. This amendment gives States and communities a stronger voice by making sure the Army Corps of Engineers gets the approval of the affected State before giving permits for construction for an LNG facility. That means the Governor can say: ``Hold on a minute; this is not good for my State,'' or, ``Hold on a minute; it is good for my State.''

We cannot let a Federal agency rubberstamp plans for an LNG facility. I am committed to promoting America's energy independence, but it must not compromise our national security or our neighborhood security. I want to make sure we know the consequence of what happens when an LNG facility comes to a geographic area. What can be done and should be done to review and control the plants, the docks, the ships, the crews?

I do not want permits issued and foreign-flagged tankers coming to our ports until we know key answers. I do not want permits authored by Federal agencies when our States are adamantly opposed and they are not involved in the decision making. Many States will welcome it. Some States will raise questions as we have.

It is my responsibility as a Senator to make sure we ask the right questions to protect the American people. But, most of all, we want to give the people most affected something to say.

We worry about this second LNG facility in Sparrows Point. It is 50 miles up the Chesapeake Bay. These tankers will have to pass under the Bay Bridge. My Governor is worried about the impact on the Port of Baltimore, and the people are worried about the impact on the community.

My colleague says we have another facility, and it was in the right place. Well, I am not sure it was in the right place. They built this LNG facility 3 miles away from a nuclear powerplant--3 miles away from a nuclear powerplant--but it got closed in the 1980s when the market went down. But guess what. FERC issued a permit to reopen Cove Point in a different part of the State 1 month after 9/11, and they did not ask about security concerns. It took this Senator--and then my colleague, Senator Sarbanes, and I--demanding the Department of Homeland Security get involved, demanding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to say: Is it OK to have an LNG facility down the street? I had to force the Coast Guard to look at it from a security standpoint rather than just an environmental standpoint.

I worry about the rockfish in the bay, but I worry about the people who eat the rockfish in the bay, meaning my constituents. We finally got the reviews we needed and we moved ahead with the permit. Let me tell you, I am on the side of safety, and I believe the safest thing is to make sure the Governor has a chance to comment with the Corps and to have an expressed impact on this permit facility.

I think the Senator's policy is a wise one; it is a prudent one. It is narrowly crafted. I ask my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a marine officer from my home State of Maryland, LTG Emerson N. Gardner, Jr., now serving as the Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources, Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, as he prepares to leave this position for one of even greater importance.

The position of Deputy Commandant for Programs and Resources is one of the most demanding and important jobs within Marine Corps Headquarters. For the past 2 years, as Deputy Commandant, Lieutenant General Gardner has been responsible for planning, programming, budgeting and executing total appropriations in excess of

$100 billion. He has led the effort to ensure that the Marine Corps had the resources they needed for success in the current conflict and prepared to answer the nation's call in the future.

While Lieutenant General Gardner is responsible for many critical issues, he has been a champion in protecting our forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been a particularly strong advocate for the mine resistant ambush protected family of vehicles, or MRAP. These vehicles have the possibility of drastically reducing American casualties caused by improvised explosive devices and Lieutenant General Gardner has been leading the effort to secure support for them. Lieutenant General Gardner has taken the time to educate, encourage, guide--and when necessary to cajole and prod--decisionmakers and action officers wherever necessary to accelerate the fielding of MRAP vehicles. Throughout this process, he has been everywhere and involved in every aspect of the MRAP program. So ardent has Lieutenant General Gardner been in support of this life saving program, that he has become known within Headquarters Marine Corps and throughout the Pentagon as ``Mr. MRAP.''

I know that a grateful nation shares my admiration for Lieutenant General Gardner an indomitable leader whose tireless efforts have directly contributed to the timely delivery of MRAP vehicles to theater. I am confident that my colleagues will join me in expressing the gratitude of the Senate, and bestowing upon him the unofficial title of ``Mr. MRAP.''

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act.

We must honor our U.S. soldiers who 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. 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.

I am deeply concerned that burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans have not kept up with inflation and rising funeral costs. We are losing over 1,000 World War II veterans each day, but Congress has failed to increase veterans' burial benefits to keep up with rising costs and inflation. While these benefits were never intended to cover the full costs of burial, they now pay for only a fraction of what they covered in 1973, when the federal government first started paying burial benefits for our veterans.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for working with me in the 107 Congress. Together, we were able to increase modestly the service-connected benefit from $1,500 to $2,000, and the plot allowance from $150 to $300. While I believe these increases are a step in the right direction, they are not a substitute for the amounts included in my bill.

That is why I am again introducing the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act. This bill will increase burial benefits to cover the same percentage of funeral costs as they did in 1973. It will also provide for these benefits to be increased annually to keep up with inflation.

In 1973, the service-connected benefit paid for 72 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Today, this benefit covers just 39 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the service-connected benefit from $2,000 to $4,100, bringing it back up to the original 72 percent level.

In 1973, the nonservice connected benefit paid for 22 percent of funeral costs. It has not been increased since 1978, and today it covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the nonservice connected benefit from $300 to $1,270, bringing it back up to the original 22 percent level.

In 1973, the plot allowance paid for 13 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Yet it now covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the plot allowance from $300 to $745, bringing it back up to the original 13 percent level.

Finally, the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act will also ensure that these burial benefits are adjusted for inflation annually, so veterans won't have to fight this fight again.

This legislation is just one way to honor our Nation's service men and women. I want to thank the millions of veterans, Marylanders, and people across the Nation for their patriotism, devotion, and commitment to honoring the true meaning of Memorial Day. U.S. soldiers from every generation have shared in the duty of defending America and protecting our freedom. For these sacrifices, America is eternally grateful.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act.

We must honor our U.S. soldiers who 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. 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.

I am deeply concerned that burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans have not kept up with inflation and rising funeral costs. We are losing over 1,000 World War II veterans each day, but Congress has failed to increase veterans' burial benefits to keep up with rising costs and inflation. While these benefits were never intended to cover the full costs of burial, they now pay for only a fraction of what they covered in 1973, when the federal government first started paying burial benefits for our veterans.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Veterans' Affairs Committee for working with me in the 107 Congress. Together, we were able to increase modestly the service-connected benefit from $1,500 to $2,000, and the plot allowance from $150 to $300. While I believe these increases are a step in the right direction, they are not a substitute for the amounts included in my bill.

That is why I am again introducing the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act. This bill will increase burial benefits to cover the same percentage of funeral costs as they did in 1973. It will also provide for these benefits to be increased annually to keep up with inflation.

In 1973, the service-connected benefit paid for 72 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Today, this benefit covers just 39 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the service-connected benefit from $2,000 to $4,100, bringing it back up to the original 72 percent level.

In 1973, the nonservice connected benefit paid for 22 percent of funeral costs. It has not been increased since 1978, and today it covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the nonservice connected benefit from $300 to $1,270, bringing it back up to the original 22 percent level.

In 1973, the plot allowance paid for 13 percent of veterans' funeral costs. Yet it now covers just 6 percent of funeral costs. My bill will increase the plot allowance from $300 to $745, bringing it back up to the original 13 percent level.

Finally, the Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act will also ensure that these burial benefits are adjusted for inflation annually, so veterans won't have to fight this fight again.

This legislation is just one way to honor our Nation's service men and women. I want to thank the millions of veterans, Marylanders, and people across the Nation for their patriotism, devotion, and commitment to honoring the true meaning of Memorial Day. U.S. soldiers from every generation have shared in the duty of defending America and protecting our freedom. For these sacrifices, America is eternally grateful.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the AmeriCorps Week Resolution, which designates May 13-20, 2007, as a time to salute AmeriCorps members for their work, thank community partners who make the program possible, and encourage more people to join. I want to first say thank you to all the volunteers and service workers everywhere. They take time out of their lives to help their fellow Americans in their time of need, and they do it out of the goodness of their hearts. I love AmeriCorps. I love what they do for communities, I love what they do for America.

AmeriCorps is stronger than ever. Since its creation in 1994, 500,000 people nationwide have joined the program and taken the AmeriCorps pledge to ``get things done for America.'' AmeriCorps members have served more than 630 million hours nationwide. To date, 9,310 Maryland residents have earned education awards totaling over $30 million. These awards help volunteers pay for college, graduate school, vocational training, or to pay back student loans. The NCCC program, which has a campus in Perry Point, MD, is a full-time residential program for 18- to 24-year-olds designed to strengthen communities and develop leaders through team-based service projects. Each year, approximately 1,100 participants reside in its 5 campuses nationwide. The Perry Point campus houses 200 AmeriCorps members every year, and since 1994 its residents have logged more than 400,000 service hours.

AmeriCorps is the embodiment of the spirit of volunteerism and service to our country. They tackle the toughest problems in our communities: tutoring teens, starting neighborhood crime watches, turning vacant lots into neighborhoods, and helping communities clean up and rebuild after natural disasters. AmeriCorps volunteers are unflagging, unflinching and determined to make a difference. I know how important AmeriCorps is to communities across the country and to the

young people who want to serve. We are so grateful for all the hard work that they do.

I fought to create AmeriCorps and I will continue to fight to strengthen AmeriCorps so it can continue to help local communities meet local needs. Today's Federal investment, like these fine volunteers, are needed now more than ever.