Floor Statements

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 10th anniversary of the Child Abuse Listening, Interviewing and Coordination Center, CALICO Center.

CALICO Center was established in 1997 to provide a supportive environment for children in Alameda County who have suffered from abuse. By providing a safe and secure place where children are the first priority, CALICO Center successfully minimizes the trauma that these children face when dealing with the after effects of abuse. As a multidisciplinary center, CALICO Center brings together law enforcement, child welfare workers, and prosecutors to coordinate Alameda County's response to child abuse. CALICO Center also works with the community to increase the prosecution of child abusers who engage in such heinous crimes.

Since it first opened, CALICO Center has effectively served more than 5,000 children, most of whom were victims of violence in their homes and communities. It also connects children and families with critical therapeutic, medical and legal support services that are essential to the healing process.

I commend CALICO Center's dedicated staff and volunteers, who have worked tirelessly and unrelentingly to help children and end child abuse in Alameda County for the past decade. They have an incredibly difficult job, but the men and women at CALICO Center prove every day that they are truly community heroes by helping these innocent victims of child abuse.

Child abuse is one of the most vicious crimes known to humanity. Since 1997, CALICO Center has served as a model for how to successfully engage the entire community in protecting its most vulnerable citizens. Its dedication to the community is inspiring and impressive. I congratulate CALICO Center on its 10th anniversary and wish them many more years of success.

Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, to introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 118 Minner Avenue in Bakersfield, California, as the Buck Owens Post Office.

Country western legend, Buck Owens was one of the pioneers of the ``Bakersfield Sound,'' that brought the raw edge of electric guitars and a rock and roll beat to country music. A great musician and a generous man, Buck left behind a legacy of artistry and love for his adopted hometown of Bakersfield and California's Central Valley.

The son of a sharecropper, Buck was born Alvis Edgar Owens, Jr. in Sherman, TX, in 1929. At an early age, he nicknamed himself ``Buck'' after a mule on the family farm. In 1937, the Owens family moved west seeking better fortune during the Great Depression. When he was just 13 years old, Buck dropped out of school to find work, but he never stopped pursuing his passion for music.

A natural musician, Buck taught himself to play guitar in his early teens. When he was just 16, he had already landed a regular show on a local radio station and was playing shows in honky tonks and bars around Phoenix. Just 6 years later, Buck moved his young family to Bakersfield, California, where he began to make his mark on country music as a performer, a songwriter, and a recording artist.

Buck's trademark stinging electric guitar and rhythm sound revolutionized country music and challenged the Nashville establishment. His 20 number-one hits are a testament to his place among the greatest artists in country music history. Throughout his decades as an entertainer, Buck delighted audiences from Bakersfield to Nashville, all the way to Japan and even the White House.

Buck's pioneering work has continued to inspire a new generation of musicians. In 1986, when Buck had finished a 25-year run as the cohost of the Hee Haw television show, Dwight Yoakam and other new traditional performers were just beginning a revival of his hallmark Bakersfield Sound.

I was fortunate to have met Buck back in 1997 at his Crystal Palace in Bakersfield, when I was invited to

present one of his special red, white, and blue guitars to a promising music student named William Villatoro. I still vividly remember how the young man was deeply moved and inspired by Buck's generous gesture. I will certainly remember Buck Owens as a man of great compassion who possessed a profound love for his country. Although he is no longer with us, I take great comfort in knowing that Buck Owens was able to be a shining light not only in the life of a young man from Bakersfield but also to the millions of others who admired his musical gifts and were touched by his humanity.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation as we commemorate an icon of American music whose artistry and generosity touched so many lives in his community.

Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleague, Senator Feinstein, to introduce legislation to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 118 Minner Avenue in Bakersfield, California, as the Buck Owens Post Office.

Country western legend, Buck Owens was one of the pioneers of the ``Bakersfield Sound,'' that brought the raw edge of electric guitars and a rock and roll beat to country music. A great musician and a generous man, Buck left behind a legacy of artistry and love for his adopted hometown of Bakersfield and California's Central Valley.

The son of a sharecropper, Buck was born Alvis Edgar Owens, Jr. in Sherman, TX, in 1929. At an early age, he nicknamed himself ``Buck'' after a mule on the family farm. In 1937, the Owens family moved west seeking better fortune during the Great Depression. When he was just 13 years old, Buck dropped out of school to find work, but he never stopped pursuing his passion for music.

A natural musician, Buck taught himself to play guitar in his early teens. When he was just 16, he had already landed a regular show on a local radio station and was playing shows in honky tonks and bars around Phoenix. Just 6 years later, Buck moved his young family to Bakersfield, California, where he began to make his mark on country music as a performer, a songwriter, and a recording artist.

Buck's trademark stinging electric guitar and rhythm sound revolutionized country music and challenged the Nashville establishment. His 20 number-one hits are a testament to his place among the greatest artists in country music history. Throughout his decades as an entertainer, Buck delighted audiences from Bakersfield to Nashville, all the way to Japan and even the White House.

Buck's pioneering work has continued to inspire a new generation of musicians. In 1986, when Buck had finished a 25-year run as the cohost of the Hee Haw television show, Dwight Yoakam and other new traditional performers were just beginning a revival of his hallmark Bakersfield Sound.

I was fortunate to have met Buck back in 1997 at his Crystal Palace in Bakersfield, when I was invited to

present one of his special red, white, and blue guitars to a promising music student named William Villatoro. I still vividly remember how the young man was deeply moved and inspired by Buck's generous gesture. I will certainly remember Buck Owens as a man of great compassion who possessed a profound love for his country. Although he is no longer with us, I take great comfort in knowing that Buck Owens was able to be a shining light not only in the life of a young man from Bakersfield but also to the millions of others who admired his musical gifts and were touched by his humanity.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation as we commemorate an icon of American music whose artistry and generosity touched so many lives in his community.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Parliamentary inquiry: I understand I am supposed to speak after Senator Biden, but he told me before he left the floor that if he weren't here, I could reverse the order. I wonder if Senator Levin would give me permission to do that.

Madam President, this is a very important week for this country as we bring the issue of Iraq back to the Senate floor and listen to the American people, who are very clear. They want this war to end. They want the troops to come home. They know our service men and women have given everything there is to give, and more. They know the policies we have followed in Iraq since day one have backfired. They are looking to us.

If I might say where we are in this debate in this Senate, in my opinion, is between talk and action. It is very easy to talk and say: Oh, we need a change. We must have a change. It is important that we have a change, and call press conferences and say we need a change. It is time for change. But let's see how people vote. Will they vote for a sense of the Senate that has absolutely no force of law, which says it is the sense of the Senate we should change course, or will they vote to start redeploying our troops out of the middle of a civil war, out of chaos?

My colleagues know I represent the largest State in the Union, and we are taking a major hit. We have lost hundreds and hundreds of soldiers. We see thousands injured from our State. We see a National Guard that doesn't have the equipment it has to have. Some reports are the equipment is down 50 percent. What does that mean? It means if, God forbid, there is an earthquake, a fire, all the things we have to deal with in my beautiful State, who is going to protect the people? How much longer can we afford the bloodshed? The dollars--we are now told $12 billion a month is being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Presiding Officer and I share a lot of common interests. One of them is, for example, to make sure our kids can go to afterschool care, because that is the time they get in trouble. That is a high-risk time. Do my colleagues know what it would cost to fund afterschool care to the level that it is supposed to be, according to No Child Left Behind? It would cost $3 billion a year. We are funding it at $1 billion. Millions of kids are on the street. We spend $12 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan in 1 month, but we cannot find a couple of billion in a year for our children. We can't find the money to insure our children, to protect their health. Oh, no. We don't have the money for that. The President is going to veto this bill and veto that bill. He can't help the farmers. We can't do this, we can't do that, but $12 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan--no problem. No problem to save his reputation, to save him from having to prove to the world he was wrong. Well, it is one thing to have an argument with someone and have pride and say: You know, I am not going to admit I made a mistake. It is another thing when people are dying because of your mistake--every day.

Now, in November of 2006, the American people voted against the Iraq war. They elected Democrats. They want this war to end. They want this mission to end. They don't want our troops in the middle of a civil war, getting killed and getting maimed, getting post-traumatic stress, getting brain injuries that are the signature injury of this war.

We will be dealing with the problems of this war for decades to come. Anyone who lived through Vietnam knows that if you go on the streets today and look at who the homeless are, you know who they are. A third of them are veterans, most of them from Vietnam who never got over the experience. That is why Senator Lieberman and I have worked together to try and get the people who are coming back the mental health care they need. Senator Lieberman and I do not agree on this war. We are polar opposites on this war. But let me tell my colleagues, we are working together to get these troops the mental health care they need. Their marriages are breaking up. They can't sleep at night. They are having trouble with their employers. We have so many problems, and the American people expect us to fix it.

I see my friend Senator Biden is on the floor, and I will tell him I will speak for about another 10 minutes.

Now that my friend is on the floor, Senator Biden is the Senator who has looked ahead, who has said there is a light at the end of the tunnel. He has put forward a plan, and he put it forward a long time ago, for a diplomatic solution here, because there is no military solution. How many more explosive devices are going to blow up in the faces of our troops before we start bringing them home? How many more Iraqis are going to die--women, children? How many more faces are we going to look at on the front page before we get the guts to do the right thing?

The President doesn't listen. He didn't listen after the election. Oh, he said he did. He said he had a new strategy. What was it? The surge. The surge is not a new strategy. It is a military tactic, and it isn't working. Here is what the President said after he sent in more than 20,000 additional troops. He said:

Over time, we can expect to see . . . fewer brazen acts of

terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's

residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis

will gain confidence in their leaders, and the Government

will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in

other critical areas.

Wrong. The President was wrong again. The Washington Post reported on Sunday:

The Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the

political and security goals or time lines President bush set

for it in January. . . .

And today the AP, Associated Press, reports:

Iraq fails to meet all reform goals.

Not even one goal was met, and our people are dying. They cannot meet

one goal. The violence continues unabated.

Since the President made his speech on January 10, after the election, when he said there was going to be a new strategy, 590 U.S. service men and women have been killed, 107 of whom did not live to see their 21st birthday. What kind of change is that this President brought?

The average number of daily attacks by insurgents and militias has not dropped below 150 per day. In Baghdad alone, there has been an average of 50 insurgent attacks a day. Over the weekend, more than 150 Iraqis were killed in one single bombing. These bombings are not isolated events. In June alone, there were 39 bombings in Iraq that resulted in multiple fatalities. The number of suicide attacks more than doubled in Iraq since the surge began--from 26 in January to 58 in April. What kind of new strategy is that? If that is a new strategy, it is worse than the other one. The average number of Iraqi civilians killed has risen to more than 100 per day.

The administration is failing on the security front; they are failing on the political front. They don't listen to Senator Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. They don't listen to Senator Lugar, the ranking member. They are all saying you have to have a political solution.

The administration is failing on the reconstruction front. Iraqis living in Baghdad still receive an average of 5.6 hours of electricity a day. The President can't even keep the lights on, let alone succeed in this surge.

Yesterday, Tony Snow said:

The President wants to withdraw troops based on the facts

on the ground, not on the matter of politics.

Well, I say to Tony Snow, elections have consequences, and you lost in 2006. The issue was Iraq and the policies on the ground are not working; they are failing. So whether you listen to politics or what is happening on the ground, the answer is the same.

On February 1, Tony Snow described the surge in this way:

We are talking about significant economic development

efforts; we're talking about significant political

reconciliation. These are the kinds of things we expect to

see.

Well, they have not seen them. We know the President is going to address the American people. I say to the President, tell the truth to the American people. Lay out what you expected, and then lay out the reality, and start getting the troops home. We have not seen improvements. Now our military is at the breaking point. Listen to retired generals. They don't have to toe the line. They tell the truth. Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the U.S. are rated ``not ready''--largely as a result of shortfalls in equipment that jeopardize their capability to respond to crises at home and abroad. In my State, our equipment is down 50 percent. So who will be responsible when we have a disaster, I say to the President? Who is going to be responsible? The same people who have brought us Iraq are going to bring us a crisis in our States. We already saw what happened in Katrina from incompetence. Let's match incompetence and lack of equipment and see what happens then.

What about Iraqi forces? On January 11, Secretary Gates said:

We are going to know pretty early on whether the Iraqis are

meeting their military commitments. . . .

He said we would know early on. The answer is they are not meeting their military commitments. After this weekend's violence, senior Iraqi officials called on Iraqi civilians to arm themselves and fight insurgents. That is from their Government. They are not telling the people this Government will protect you; that the Americans have trained 300,000 of us and we are ready to protect you. No. The answer is to arm yourselves so that when insurgents break down your door, you can kill them before they kill you. What a situation.

The Iraqi Vice President said:

The people have no choice but to take up their own defense.

We need to chart a new course on Iraq today. As Senator Lugar said:

Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay

policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting

our vital interests over the long term.

But the administration doesn't seem willing to chart a new course. As stated on the front page of today's Washington Post, ``GOP Dissent Spurs Change in Message But Not Course.'' That is another way of, I think, confusing the subject. Get up and give a great speech and then you vote against anything that has any teeth in it. You vote for something that says it is the sense of the Senate that things are not going well, rather than it is time to change this mission and get our troops out of the middle of a civil war, and make sure what we are doing is training the Iraqi soldiers, and that is fine, and going after al-Qaida, which is fine, protecting our forces, and that is fine, but get most of them out of there.

A change in message will not prevent the deaths of more Americans and will not salvage the President's failed policy. Over the next 2 weeks, we will have the opportunity to debate several amendments that will mandate a change of course on Iraq. I urge my colleagues, as strongly as I can, as someone who has stood up here time and time again and said we are making mistakes, to finally admit it--but not just admit it, do something about it. That is what we have to do. We have to change the reality of what is happening.

As the experts have told us over and over again, what are we doing here? We are in the middle of a civil war; we are neglecting the war on terror. We say we are fighting the terrorists there and we will stop them from coming here. That is what Tony Blair said, but it didn't stop anything. This is a recruitment tool for al-Qaida. Iraq is a recruitment tool for al-Qaida. Peter Bergman said that a long time ago when we went into Iraq. He is an expert on the Middle East. I don't want to recruit al-Qaida; I want to go after them. I voted to go after them after 9/11. I didn't vote to change course and go in another direction for regime change based on faulty information, faulty intelligence.

This week and next week, we will find out who talks in the Senate and who is willing to take action in the Senate. I hope the American people will look at the amendments we are voting on and, at the bottom line, understand which ones are just talk and which ones will actually result in redeployment of the troops out of a civil war--who walks the walk versus who talks the talk. Action means a deadline. Action means you change the mission. Action means you start bringing the troops home. Action doesn't mean a change in message, but a change of course. Reshuffling the chairs on the deck of the Titanic is not what we should be doing. We need to change course.

I have spoken with mothers and fathers who have lost sons and daughters. They have begged me in the most tearful way to spare other families what they are going through. If this war was working, that would be one thing. But there is no military solution here. We need to listen to what our chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee is saying about a political solution, about separating the warring parties, about bringing in the nations of the region, and doing it now--before another soldier is blown up or breaks up with his wife because of the stress, or before another child has no dad or mom. The time is now.

I am so glad we are going to be doing the Defense authorization bill and have our opportunity to actually put our ideas into action. I will be supporting every single amendment that will result in a change of course, accountability, starting to bring the troops home.

I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Delaware for allowing me to go before he goes.

I yield the floor at this time.

[Applause in the Gallery.]

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding. The Senator made the point that the liberal left wants us out of Iraq. I want to make sure the Senator is aware that the latest polls show 70 percent of the American people want us to have a strategy to leave. And my question is, A, is the Senator aware of that? And, B, the followup to that question is, has the Senator read the various proposals, the Levin-Reed proposal, which I strongly support? There is no precipitous withdrawal.

I think the Senator is setting up a straw man, if you will, here. The fact is, those of us who want to leave want to do it in the right way-- --

And we also change the mission to continue training the troops, and so on. I want to make sure the Senator is aware of that point.

Mr. President, I am voting present on the nomination of Douglas E. Lute to be Special Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although I respect General Lute's distinguished 30-plus year career in the U.S. Army, I view this position as rearranging the bureaucracy at the White House. The creation of a ``war czar'' will not hide the President's failed policies and is another way for him to duck responsibility for the war in Iraq.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, I come from the House of Representatives, as my friend from New York and my friend from South Carolina. Over there, in that body, the Speaker decides how everything is going to go, whether the Speaker is a Republican or Democrat. Then some people come over here from the House, and they decide they are going to use the rules of the Senate to call attention to what they think is the issue of the day.

I want to thank my friend. My question to my friend is this: If you went out and asked the average person on the street what they think about the Congress and whether we need ethics reform and if we should pass ethics reform, my friend, I think, would agree--and I will ask him this--they would answer, yes.

Then, if you followed it up, I say to my friend, and said: Well, there are one or two things missing from this bill; we took care of 12 things, but it is tough because we have to work across party aisles. It is tough because everybody has his or her own idea. Do you think it is good to get started with the package we have and get it done for the American people?

What does my friend think the average person would say?

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act. This important legislation addresses the urgent need for the development of new technologies to detect and diagnose prostate cancer, and for the education of the dangers of this deadly disease.

I thank my colleagues, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator John Kerry, for joining me as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the United States, and the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men. This cancer strikes one in every six men, making it even more prevalent than breast cancer, which strikes one in every seven women.

In 2007, more than 218,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 27,000 men will die from the disease. One new case occurs every 2.5 minutes and a man dies from prostate cancer every 19 minutes.

The Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act, also known as the PRIME Act, will mirror the investment the Federal Government made in advanced imaging technologies, which led to life-saving breakthroughs in detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to expand research on prostate cancer, and provides the resources to develop innovative advanced imaging technologies for prostate cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment.

The Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act would also create a national campaign conducted through HHS to increase awareness about the need for prostate cancer screening, and the development of better screening techniques. Since African American men are 56 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer compared with Caucasian men and nearly 2.5 times as likely to die from the disease, this campaign will work with the Offices of Minority Health at HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that this effort will reach the men most at risk from this disease.

The Prostate Research, Imaging and Men's Education Act will also promote research that improves prostate cancer screening blood tests. According to a recent National Cancer Institute study, current blood tests result in false-negative reassurances and numerous false-positive alarms. Some 15 percent of men with normal blood test levels actually have prostate cancer. Even when levels are abnormal, some 88 percent of men end up not having prostate cancer but undergoing unnecessary biopsies. Furthermore, the prostate is one of the last organs in a human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken.

Government initiative in research and education can be the key to diagnosing prostate cancer earlier and more accurately. This legislation would strengthen our efforts to fight this disease.

As June is Men's Health Month, this is an ideal time to draw attention to the issue affecting so many men across the Nation. I ask all my fellow Senators to join with me in ensuring the health of our husbands, brothers, sons, and friends against this disease.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act. This important legislation addresses the urgent need for the development of new technologies to detect and diagnose prostate cancer, and for the education of the dangers of this deadly disease.

I thank my colleagues, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator John Kerry, for joining me as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in the United States, and the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in men. This cancer strikes one in every six men, making it even more prevalent than breast cancer, which strikes one in every seven women.

In 2007, more than 218,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 27,000 men will die from the disease. One new case occurs every 2.5 minutes and a man dies from prostate cancer every 19 minutes.

The Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act, also known as the PRIME Act, will mirror the investment the Federal Government made in advanced imaging technologies, which led to life-saving breakthroughs in detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. This bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, to expand research on prostate cancer, and provides the resources to develop innovative advanced imaging technologies for prostate cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment.

The Prostate Research, Imaging, and Men's Education Act would also create a national campaign conducted through HHS to increase awareness about the need for prostate cancer screening, and the development of better screening techniques. Since African American men are 56 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer compared with Caucasian men and nearly 2.5 times as likely to die from the disease, this campaign will work with the Offices of Minority Health at HHS and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that this effort will reach the men most at risk from this disease.

The Prostate Research, Imaging and Men's Education Act will also promote research that improves prostate cancer screening blood tests. According to a recent National Cancer Institute study, current blood tests result in false-negative reassurances and numerous false-positive alarms. Some 15 percent of men with normal blood test levels actually have prostate cancer. Even when levels are abnormal, some 88 percent of men end up not having prostate cancer but undergoing unnecessary biopsies. Furthermore, the prostate is one of the last organs in a human body where biopsies are performed blindly, which can miss cancer even when multiple samples are taken.

Government initiative in research and education can be the key to diagnosing prostate cancer earlier and more accurately. This legislation would strengthen our efforts to fight this disease.

As June is Men's Health Month, this is an ideal time to draw attention to the issue affecting so many men across the Nation. I ask all my fellow Senators to join with me in ensuring the health of our husbands, brothers, sons, and friends against this disease.

I object.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Employee Free Choice Act. For far too long, our Nation's labor laws have created an environment that has made it harder and harder for workers to organize and form unions.

The current system overwhelmingly favors the employer, who too often use their advantage to intimidate and coerce their employees.

The end result of this system has led to a squeeze on America's middle-class families, and the time has come to put an end to a union election system where employer intimidation tactics prevent middle- class workers from earning decent wages, health care, and fair working conditions.

It should come as no great surprise that middle-class families are facing increased economic hardships because of the Bush administration's policies.

Corporate profits have jumped 83 percent since 2001, with the richest Americans getting richer, while health care, energy, food, and education costs have skyrocketed, creating the largest income gap in 65 years.

In 2005, households in the bottom 90 percent experienced a .6-percent income loss, while workers at the top enjoyed a 16-percent increase in income.

Real wages for U.S. workers are lower today than in 1973, and in California, the real median hourly wage fell by 2.7 percent between 2003 and 2005.

In addition to seeing their wages squeezed, many middle-class workers are unable to provide health care for their families.

Over 7 million Californians are uninsured and the numbers of uninsured increase every year.

In fact, from 1999 to 2005, the number of Californians with employer- provided health care dropped from 60 percent to 55 percent.

To put into perspective the pressure being placed on the middle class, I recently found my son Doug's pay stub from when he worked as a checker at a supermarket in 1986.

Twenty-one years ago, a checker at his supermarket earned $7.41 per hour. According to the United Food and Commercial Workers union, an entry-level checker starting today would earn around $8.90 per hour, which is $4.86 less than my son's 1986 wages adjusted for inflation.

This downward pressure on middle-class wages must stop--and increased union participation can help solve this problem.

Encouraging more participation in unions is a simple and proven way to help middle-class families.

Union wages are on average more than 30 percent higher than nonunion wages. Union cashiers earn 46 percent more than nonunion cashiers. Union food preparation workers earn 50 percent more than nonunion workers.

To help increase participation in unions, the Employee Free Choice Act puts to an end the current culture of intimidation and coercion that surrounds some union elections, and instead presents a choice to workers contemplating unionization.

Under EFCA, workers can choose to proceed with union elections through secret ballot or they can choose organization through a simple card check procedure. Under current law, only the employer can choose how its employees choose to elect union representation.

Responsible employers, like Kaiser Permanente and Cingular, gave their employees such a choice, and the results have been great.

At a Kaiser Permanente health care facility in Orange County, CA, nurses were able to quickly and easily form a union without fear of intimidation and illegal firings. The smooth unionization process has led to an all-time low nurse vacancy rate and low nurse-to-patient ratios, which has increased the quality of health care provided to Kaiser's patients.

But workers who have not been given a choice on how to proceed with union elections have faced unfairly harsh consequences.

Employer intimidation and coercion are serious problems.

In 2005, over 30,000 workers lost wages or were fired because they were involved in union organizing activities.

The current union election system is badly broken and breeds fear in the workplace.

Workers under open threat of firings and layoffs from their employers are not given a real choice in choosing to organize a union.

Workers are fired in 25 percent of all private sector union organizing campaigns, and 1 in 5 workers involved in union organizing efforts is fired.

Over 75 percent of private employers require managers to give anti- union messages to employees, and over half of all employers threaten to close or relocate the business if workers elect a union.

At a Rite Aid distribution center in Lancaster, CA, workers thought forming a union would help them negotiate better working conditions. Workers at this distribution center work with no job security, mandatory overtime after 10-hour shifts, and no temperature controls in the warehouse.

When the union movement began to gain momentum, one of the lead employees, who had worked there for 6 years with a spotless record, was fired for poor performance.

Said the worker after his termination, ``People were afraid to sign union cards because they saw what happened to me.''

At the Los Angeles Airport Hilton Hotel, two workers leading the union effort were fired on trumped-up charges. One of them, Alicia Melgarejo, is a single mother of a 14-year-old daughter, who worked as a housekeeper at the hotel for 8 years.

Despite the fact that she had never been disciplined in 8 years on the job, she was immediately fired after being accused by management of stealing towels.

She asked management to show her video to back up their claim, but they refused. She believes she was simply fired for her role in union organizing efforts and her active support of Los Angeles' living wage law.

Under current law, these gross examples of intimidation can only be penalized by what amounts to a slap on the wrist for large companies. Employers can ruin lives, like they did to Alicia and her daughter, yet they often build into their budgets the costs of union-busting activities and the small penalties authorized by the National Labor Relations Board.

The current union election system creates a battle between employer and employee, with no real winner.

Our workers have earned the right to work in an environment free from fear, and they should be given the right to choose if they want a union through a process that doesn't provide incentives for employers to coerce and intimidate their employees.

EFCA changes the game and provides workers with a fair choice in choosing to organize.

It also takes away incentives for employers to break the law and illegally fire union organizers by requiring back pay for workers who are fired or retaliated against, increasing civil fines to up to $20,000 for each illegal act, and authorizing Federal court injunctions to immediately return fired workers to their jobs.

EFCA provides employees with a choice in choosing a union, gives teeth to penalties for violations to prevent employer bullying and intimidation, and levels the playing field for workers seeking well- deserved living wages, health care, and fair workplace treatment.

I urge my colleagues to support cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me for a moment as I reflect on the many accomplishments of Barbara Kerr, who has just stepped down as president of the California Teachers Association. Barbara's dedication to California's teachers is matched only by her dedication to California's schoolchildren.

Barbara Kerr began her career in education as a first grade teacher at Woodcrest Elementary School in Riverside, CA. After a very long involvement with the California Teachers Association, she took the reins as its president 4 years ago. During her presidency, Barbara has had an intimate hand in six statewide elections, and she has been on the winning side in most of them. Her success can be attributed to her boundless energy, her ability to connect across the political spectrum, her keen insight, and her passion for giving every child the best possible educational opportunities.

Last year, the Los Angeles Times named Barbara Kerr the third most powerful person in southern California, ranking her well ahead of both business leaders and elected officials. And the Los Angeles Times was right. Barbara has led the California Teachers Association through some of the most turbulent times in California's history and has done so with a clear aim to put California schools and their teachers and students first.

Barbara is retiring from both the California Teachers Association and from teaching. I know that teachers across California will miss her strong leadership, and I will miss her perspective and wisdom on issues of education and more. But Barbara is also considering where the future may lead, and I can only hope that she will continue to stay involved and stay active. Where ever the future leads her, I know that Barbara will continue putting the needs of our children first.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

First of all, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, your words are really like music to my ears. I am so grateful that you, Senator Durbin, are in the leadership because I think you reflect the views of the vast majority of Americans who see the challenges ahead and know we just can't do business as usual.

I think this bill is a very fair bill when it comes to fuel economy. This bill went through the Commerce Committee, a committee on which I serve, and it was a bipartisan measure. Everyone voted for it. It was fair; it was good.

The question I have for my colleague is, I just wanted to make sure he was aware of another provision in this bill, which is a good one, too, and that is to make sure the Federal Government is, in fact, the model of energy efficiency when it comes to the purchase of new cars. I wanted to make sure my friend was aware because it is tucked away in this bill, a provision we got out of the Commerce Committee, that says from now on, when the Federal Government buys its 60,000 cars a year-- 60,000 cars a year for its Federal fleet--that it buy the most fuel- efficient car. Is my friend aware of that?

Well, absolutely, I say to my friend, and again I thank him for yielding for another question.

Several of our offices are part of this model project to see how energy efficient we can be. It is a pretty straightforward way for us to lead by example.

The other question I have for my colleague is this: The bill that is on the Senate floor, which Senator Reid worked so hard to put together, along with Senator Bingaman, myself, and Senator Inouye and others-- Senator Kerry was involved, and I know my friend was involved as the assistant leader. There are other provisions in this bill--which is why I am so hopeful we will get this done--that take this notion of the Federal Government being a model to our buildings as well.

I am not sure my friend is aware of the exact number, but the Federal Government either runs or operates 8,000 buildings--8,000 buildings. When my friend talks about global warming, it is a fact that in America 39 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions comes from buildings. So if we can set the tone here, and we can move forward with a bipartisan vote--we were able to pass a lighting efficiency bill for the Federal Government, which is included. This also has a component where grants will be given across this country to cities and counties to make their buildings energy efficient in terms of lighting. It will save money, and it will reduce the carbon footprint.

Then, with the help of Senators Lautenberg and Warner, we got another piece of legislation included in this bill, which is called the green buildings bill, which also impacts all new and existing Federal buildings and also requires the EPA to come out with a model of green buildings for schools. So we will help our schools because you are so right when you talked about your 11-year-old grandson. I have a 12- year-old grandson, as you know. They are going to ask those tough questions, and they may well ask it of the schools they are in too.

So I wanted to make sure my friend knew, since we really are talking more with the leadership of Senator Bingaman, who has been working on the most contentious amendments, that there is so much in the underlying bill that came out of his committee, my committee, and other committees that is strong, and that is why we would hate to see this derailed. This would be an enormous setback.

The people want us to reach across party lines and take care of business, and an energy policy is going to take care of business.

Madam President, thank you so much.

I thank Senator Bingaman very much for this amendment we have worked very hard on for days now. I am delighted we are able to offer it.

I see my ranking member is here because he has an amendment that in concept--I am going to look at the details--in concept makes a lot of sense. In terms of this amendment, I hope I will be able to support it because what we are trying to make sure of is that in the new fuels program, this bill, we do not lose any ground in terms of the Clean Air Act so we still are able to give EPA important authority under the Clean Air Act to mitigate any adverse air quality impacts that might result from the increased use of renewable fuels.

What we learned when we dealt with MTBE, which was an additive in gasoline, was we were not prepared for any adverse impacts from MTBE. We thought it was going to be the answer. As you know, MTBE permeated the water supplies in many States. We thought it was going to clean up the air and, guess what, it did. But it created havoc with our water quality.

We want to make sure--we worked hard on this--that in this new fuels program, we do not backslide and that we are able to have all the protections we need. So at first, we fixed the water problem and now this is fixing the air quality problem.

What we do is, we give EPA authority under the Clean Air Act to consider impact on water quality when regulating fuel. Such authority, as I say, will prevent future MTBE situations. We require EPA to contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the environmental impact of increasing use of renewable fuels.

The study will analyze impacts of renewable fuels on air quality, water quality, land-use patterns, deforestation rates, greenhouse gas emissions, ecologically important areas, and the long-term ability to produce biomass feedstocks.

Now, I wanted to say to my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, if I can have his attention, that I know what he is trying to do in his amendment in many ways parallels this. We, in this amendment, make sure that EPA can look at the long-term to produce biomass feedstock because that is a very important point.

I think the Senator and I both care about this. I think the Senator and I both care that the EPA is not going to lose jurisdiction over this new fuels program.

The amendment to me is also exciting because it includes a grant program for biofuels that achieve at least a 50-percent reduction of lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases. So what we are saying is, we want innovation, and we are saying we will start a grant program so we get that technology that we all know is going to, in fact, step up and meet the challenge of global warming.

There are so many ways we can meet the challenges of reducing our carbon footprint. One way is to have fuels that have a 50-percent better carbon footprint. This amendment ensures that EPA will play a critical role in protecting our environment from any adverse environmental impact that may be realized from an increase in the production and use of renewable fuels.

So it is pretty simple. The Senator from New Mexico and I have been in very close contact over these last several days. I have been helping him to manage this bill, although I have to say, he is very competent at doing it himself.

But I have given him my advice and my help and the help of my good staff. We did have a worry at the very beginning that we did not want to live to see another MTBE problem, that is, unintended consequences of a new fuels program and unintended consequence. So how we would protect against is to be very vigilant, and we are very vigilant.

We say to the EPA: Make sure that whatever these fuels are, they are real good for our people, good for our air, good for our water, good for our land use, and also our long-term ability to produce biomass feedstocks.

Again, we go a step further we set up a grant program for new fuels, biofuels that achieve at least a 50-percent reduction in the lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases. This particular program is authorized at $500 million. Of course, it is subject to appropriations. I do not have the need to speak any longer on this amendment. I would retain the balance of my time Senator Bingaman gave me.

I yield the floor.

May I ask my friend to yield. It can come off my time.

Thank you so much. Let me say to my ranking member I agree with him. We tried that approach. We were not able to gain ground. So I am with you. But we were not able to do it in our negotiation with the Energy Committee. So we went as far as we could go, and I think we have made tremendous progress.

Again, it was give and take and it was tough and your staff was very helpful as they were helping us get the best we could get. But I think after this amendment, we can foresee a future where any President--this one said he would not do it, but a future President could take the whole fuels program and eliminate EPA. So I would hope my friend would join me in this.

The other part, we are asking for reports from the EPA, we are not giving them authority over these issues. We are going to get information from them. That information we can share with local and State.

So I know my friend is going to give it some real hard thought, as I am about his amendment. But perhaps we can wind up supporting each other's amendments. But we will see where we go from here. But I say to my friend, he is absolutely right, striking the offending language would have been great for me, but we were not able to achieve that with the Energy Committee.

Mr. President, I say to the Senator, if you could yield me about 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has asked if he could have a minute and a half. If there is no objection, I suggest we allow that to happen at this time, and I will then follow him with 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I just wanted to say I hope amendment No. 1693 that has been offered by Senator Bingaman and myself will be overwhelmingly supported by both sides. We know what happens when we ignore unintended consequences. I think this amendment makes sure we don't experience another MTBE; that, in fact, we are careful, regardless of what the fuels turn out to be, because we are not picking winners and losers. We are saying: Let technology go.

As a matter of fact, in this program we have to assist in the development and production of biofuels, cellulosic. So what we don't know is when these fuels come, what are they going to do to the environment? We all want to be free of foreign oil. Every one of us. But we don't want to make mistakes.

So I hope this amendment No. 1693 will be strongly supported. It ensures that the EPA stays involved. It doesn't give away all the powers of EPA to the Department of Energy. We just need to make sure what we are doing in the future is sound.

I think Senator Inhofe has made a very important point about corn. There are wonderful things about corn, but there are some negatives.

I think this first amendment can protect against these problems.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.