Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I recognize the National Week of the Young Child. This week provides all of us here in Washington the opportunity to reflect on the ways in which we can better care for children in our communities and more effectively cooperate with teachers, parents, and other caregivers. Critical to the success of many disadvantaged Iowa children is the Head Start program. If we really want to get kids ready for school, we must focus on early intervention. This means improving access to education and developmental services to help provide kids with a good start in life. Since 1965, Head Start has served more than 24 million low-income children and their families. Head Start programs help Iowa families to meet young children's basic educational, health, nutritional and social needs with a goal of having these kids ready for the first day of kindergarten. I was pleased to recently help modernize and update Head Start by passing The Head Start for School Readiness Act, which allows more families access to programs, improves early childhood training for Head Start educators, and updates learning standards to reflect the latest research in child development. I also made sure that early learning programs do not ignore the importance of wellness and healthy behaviors by requiring training to integrate physical activity and good nutrition in the classroom. I have heard tremendous stories from my State of children whose lives were improved through the social services Head Start provides. These children received eye glasses or necessary dental work thanks to the early intervention of our Head Start programs. Head Start educators and employees often connect parents in need to the outreach services which help give children safe and comfortable homes. I was particularly touched by the story of Rebecca Navarro. She writes that her youngest son, Anthony, received help learning his letters and colors, and improved his social skills, through their local Head Start agency. At the same time, a Head Start social worker helped Ms. Navarro go back to school and receive her degree, pay for food and utilities and provide a better quality of life for Anthony and his four siblings. Anthony has now successfully graduated the 6th grade with math skills above his grade level, and plans on going to college and getting his master's degree in engineering and math. Providing our Nation's youngest learners with the tools they need to succeed benefits not only those children and their families, but our Nation as well. While celebrating the victories of Head Start this week, we should also continue to work hard to ensure every child has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, the Menu Education and Labeling Act, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Ms. Feinstein of California, and Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Poor nutrition and obesity are a major public health problem in the U.S. The issue is far from merely cosmetic. It is medical and economic. Diet-related disease are prevalent in the U.S. Cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death in the U.S., is clearly linked to poor diets. Type-2 diabetes, results in amputation, blindness, and premature death. Diet is also clearly associated with rising rates of overweight and obesity. More than 65 percent of American adults are overweight, and more than 30 percent are clinically obese. We lead the world in this dubious distinction, which is growing worse. Increasingly the problem starts in childhood. According to the Institute of Medicine, since 1963, obesity rates have quadrupled among older children ages 6 to 11 years, and tripled for adolescents between the ages of 12 and 19. If we do not change course, kids attending school today will be the first generation in American history to live a shorter lifespan than their parents The obesity epidemic has far-reaching consequences. Overweight people have an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancers and other illnesses. Sixty percent of overweight youth already have at lest one risk factor for heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the U.S. Obesity also causes or contributes to $117 billion a year in health care and related costs, more than half borne by taxpayers. There is no single solution to the complex problem of poor nutrition and diet-related disease, but we must start taking meaningful steps to address this growing problem by giving people the tools necessary to consume healthier diets. The legislation that we are introducing today will extend nutrition labeling beyond packaged foods to include foods at chain restaurants with 20 or more locations, as well as food in vending machines. This common-sense idea will give consumers a needed tool to make wiser choices and live healthier lives. In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, NLEA, requiring food manufacturers to provide nutrition information on nearly all packaged foods. The impact has been tremendous. Not only do nearly three-quarters of adults use the food labels on packaged foods, but studies indicate that consumers who read labels have healthier diets. American adults and children now consume a third of their calories at restaurants and nutrition and health experts say that rising caloric consumption and growing portion sizes are causes of obesity. However, restaurants were excluded from the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Consumers say that they would like nutrition information provided when they order their food at restaurants, yet, while they have good nutrition information in supermarkets, at restaurants they can only guess. Similarly, vending machine food sales also play a large role in contributing to the diets of Americans. Over the last three decades vending machine sales have shot up 85 percent after inflation. Most vending machine sales include foods of low nutritional value. The Menu Education and Labeling Act will require fast-food and other chain restaurants to provide point of sale information on calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium and will require point of sale labeling of calories on foods sold in vending machines. I would also like to note that last night, one of the true lions of the Senate, my old friend Howard M. Metzenbaum from Ohio, passed away. Senator Metzenbaum was a good friend and a great senator. One of his great achievements in the Senate is that he was the author of and the driving force behind the Nutrition Education Labeling Act, which first established nutrition labeling for packaged foods. The bill that we are introducing today builds upon Senator Metzenbaum's work on nutrition labeling, and in honor of his work and his distinguished career, I am naming this bill after him. Let there be no doubt: poor nutrition in America is indeed an epidemic, and it is continuing to grow. This is a public health crisis and we must address it. Although this bill alone will not end poor nutrition or halt rising obesity in its tracks, it provides consumers with an important tool with which to make better choices about the food that they and their children consume.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, April 11, 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the enactment of the Fair Housing Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Signed into law just 1 week after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the bill made discrimination in the sale and rental of housing illegal based on a person's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This act opened doors of opportunity. It was a big step towards eliminating discrimination in housing and to providing fair housing. Dr. King's inspiring message of equal opportunity for every person and the commitment to change views and attitudes is embodied in the Fair Housing Act. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of this historic legislation, we must reaffirm our commitment to ensure that every person has equal access to housing. I want to commend the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and the 25 local commissions across Iowa for their advocacy of housing opportunities for all of our citizens. These commissions provide comprehensive community education, public outreach, investigation, mediation, and training to foster fair housing by enforcing local, State, and Federal fair housing laws. I would encourage my fellow Members of Congress to support a commitment to fair housing by strengthening laws against predatory lending practices, racial segregation, and restoring rights for persons with disabilities under the ADA. On this 40th anniversary, we can celebrate many victories, but, unfortunately, housing discrimination still occurs. We still have many battles to be fought in our march towards a future where there is justice and housing opportunities for all Americans.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, the Menu Education and Labeling Act, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Ms. Feinstein of California, and Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts. Poor nutrition and obesity are a major public health problem in the U.S. The issue is far from merely cosmetic. It is medical and economic. Diet-related disease are prevalent in the U.S. Cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death in the U.S., is clearly linked to poor diets. Type-2 diabetes, results in amputation, blindness, and premature death. Diet is also clearly associated with rising rates of overweight and obesity. More than 65 percent of American adults are overweight, and more than 30 percent are clinically obese. We lead the world in this dubious distinction, which is growing worse. Increasingly the problem starts in childhood. According to the Institute of Medicine, since 1963, obesity rates have quadrupled among older children ages 6 to 11 years, and tripled for adolescents between the ages of 12 and 19. If we do not change course, kids attending school today will be the first generation in American history to live a shorter lifespan than their parents The obesity epidemic has far-reaching consequences. Overweight people have an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancers and other illnesses. Sixty percent of overweight youth already have at lest one risk factor for heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the U.S. Obesity also causes or contributes to $117 billion a year in health care and related costs, more than half borne by taxpayers. There is no single solution to the complex problem of poor nutrition and diet-related disease, but we must start taking meaningful steps to address this growing problem by giving people the tools necessary to consume healthier diets. The legislation that we are introducing today will extend nutrition labeling beyond packaged foods to include foods at chain restaurants with 20 or more locations, as well as food in vending machines. This common-sense idea will give consumers a needed tool to make wiser choices and live healthier lives. In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, NLEA, requiring food manufacturers to provide nutrition information on nearly all packaged foods. The impact has been tremendous. Not only do nearly three-quarters of adults use the food labels on packaged foods, but studies indicate that consumers who read labels have healthier diets. American adults and children now consume a third of their calories at restaurants and nutrition and health experts say that rising caloric consumption and growing portion sizes are causes of obesity. However, restaurants were excluded from the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. Consumers say that they would like nutrition information provided when they order their food at restaurants, yet, while they have good nutrition information in supermarkets, at restaurants they can only guess. Similarly, vending machine food sales also play a large role in contributing to the diets of Americans. Over the last three decades vending machine sales have shot up 85 percent after inflation. Most vending machine sales include foods of low nutritional value. The Menu Education and Labeling Act will require fast-food and other chain restaurants to provide point of sale information on calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium and will require point of sale labeling of calories on foods sold in vending machines. I would also like to note that last night, one of the true lions of the Senate, my old friend Howard M. Metzenbaum from Ohio, passed away. Senator Metzenbaum was a good friend and a great senator. One of his great achievements in the Senate is that he was the author of and the driving force behind the Nutrition Education Labeling Act, which first established nutrition labeling for packaged foods. The bill that we are introducing today builds upon Senator Metzenbaum's work on nutrition labeling, and in honor of his work and his distinguished career, I am naming this bill after him. Let there be no doubt: poor nutrition in America is indeed an epidemic, and it is continuing to grow. This is a public health crisis and we must address it. Although this bill alone will not end poor nutrition or halt rising obesity in its tracks, it provides consumers with an important tool with which to make better choices about the food that they and their children consume.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, some time back, a principal of a school in Atlanta, GA, explained why his school had eliminated recess from its school day, and why new elementary schools in Atlanta were being built without playgrounds: He told The New York Times: ``We are intent on improving academic performance. You don't do that by having kids hanging on the monkey bars.'' Now, there is no reason to pick on Atlanta alone. Nationwide, only 8 percent of elementary schools provide daily physical education or its equivalent for all students. We are building schools without playgrounds, subdivisions without sidewalks, roads without bicycle lanes. The average American spends more than 4 hours each day sitting passively in front of the TV set-- that is equal to 2 months of nonstop TV-watching per year. Then we are shocked, shocked to find that rates of overweight, obesity and diabetes are skyrocketing, and cardiovascular disease remains the No. 1 cause of death in our country. Among children, we have what the Centers for Disease Control describes as an ``epidemic'' of obesity and juvenile diabetes. The shame is that so much of this is entirely preventable. Americans are suffering from a range of diseases and conditions--obesity, heart disease, diabetes, stress, and depression. All of these are largely preventable by changes in diet and lifestyle; specifically, by increasing the amount of physical activity in our lives. I am a firm believer that people want to stay healthy, and that Government can help out by giving Americans the tools they need to take charge of their own health. But, right now, individuals do not know how much physical activity they should be getting daily. They don't have a target to shoot for. That is why, today, I am joining with Senator Sam Brownback, Congressman Mark Udall, and Congressman Zach Wamp to introduce the Physical Activities Guidelines for Americans Act of 2008. Our bill would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare and promote science-based physical activity guidelines for Americans, similar to the dietary and nutritional guidelines, commonly known as the Food Pyramid. Our bill also would require that the guidelines be updated every 5 years. I believe that the Physical Activity Guidelines will assist many Americans in living longer, healthier, and more active lives.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, some time back, a principal of a school in Atlanta, GA, explained why his school had eliminated recess from its school day, and why new elementary schools in Atlanta were being built without playgrounds: He told The New York Times: ``We are intent on improving academic performance. You don't do that by having kids hanging on the monkey bars.'' Now, there is no reason to pick on Atlanta alone. Nationwide, only 8 percent of elementary schools provide daily physical education or its equivalent for all students. We are building schools without playgrounds, subdivisions without sidewalks, roads without bicycle lanes. The average American spends more than 4 hours each day sitting passively in front of the TV set-- that is equal to 2 months of nonstop TV-watching per year. Then we are shocked, shocked to find that rates of overweight, obesity and diabetes are skyrocketing, and cardiovascular disease remains the No. 1 cause of death in our country. Among children, we have what the Centers for Disease Control describes as an ``epidemic'' of obesity and juvenile diabetes. The shame is that so much of this is entirely preventable. Americans are suffering from a range of diseases and conditions--obesity, heart disease, diabetes, stress, and depression. All of these are largely preventable by changes in diet and lifestyle; specifically, by increasing the amount of physical activity in our lives. I am a firm believer that people want to stay healthy, and that Government can help out by giving Americans the tools they need to take charge of their own health. But, right now, individuals do not know how much physical activity they should be getting daily. They don't have a target to shoot for. That is why, today, I am joining with Senator Sam Brownback, Congressman Mark Udall, and Congressman Zach Wamp to introduce the Physical Activities Guidelines for Americans Act of 2008. Our bill would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare and promote science-based physical activity guidelines for Americans, similar to the dietary and nutritional guidelines, commonly known as the Food Pyramid. Our bill also would require that the guidelines be updated every 5 years. I believe that the Physical Activity Guidelines will assist many Americans in living longer, healthier, and more active lives.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of my alma mater, Iowa Sate University, and recognize it upon its 150 years of leadership and service to the United States and the world as Iowa's land-grant university. Iowa State has a colorful and progressive history. The university was founded under the Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862. Representative Justin Smith Morrill, who wrote the bill, and Abraham Lincoln, who signed the act into law in the midst of the Civil War, had the vision to establish a public institution that provided and still provides a top flight, affordable education for people of all walks of life. Iowa was the first State to accept the terms of the Morrill land grant and pioneered all three parts of its mission. The act calls for schools that provide ``access to all, regardless of race, gender, or class.'' The act also limits funding to only schools that conduct ``Practical Research.'' Finally, the Morrill Land Grant Act calls for the schools provided for to serve significant ``outreach'' in the surrounding community. Iowa State has certainly lived up to those lofty words of the Morrill Act. Iowa State University has been home to some of the most important technological and agricultural advances in history. Professor John Atanasoff and graduate student Clifford Berry of ISU have been credited with the invention of the electronic digital computer in the late 1930s. When they constructed the Atanasoff-Berry computer, they were the first to incorporate the seven basic principles of modern computing. Professor Henry Gilman laid the foundation for the modern plastics industry with his research in polyethylene materials. In the 1920s, ISU was home to the development of hybrid seed corn. Professor Orland Sweeney conducted pioneering work on soybean oil extraction and producing ethanol from corn and other plant materials in the 1930s. Iowa State has produced such esteemed graduates as George Washington Carver, a man who shattered the glass ceiling for minority inventors, women's rights activist Carrie Chapman Catt, and astronaut Clayton Anderson, just to name a few. John Garang, who earned a Ph.D. in economics from Iowa State, not only went on to serve as vice president of Sudan, but in his role as leader of the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army worked to end his country's violent civil war. One cannot forget to mention that Mildred Day, the inventor of Rice Krispies treats, also graduated from Iowa State. In addition to Mildred, former CEOs of Boeing, Dow Corning, 3-M, and Lockheed Martin have all claimed Iowa State University as their alma mater, as do I. I attended ISU on a Naval ROTC scholarship. The program covered my books and tuition, as well as $50 a month to cover extra expenses. I was well taken care of at ISU. With NROTC and a loan from the National Defense Scholarship Program, started under President Eisenhower, I was able to make it through college and flourish. It is my honor today to stand in support of my resolution honoring Iowa State for its long and storied history of graduating men and women who are creative, productive, and innovative. As the ISU fight song goes, ``Loyal sons forever true, and we will fight the battle through. And when we hit that line we'll hit it hard ev'ry yard for I.S.U.''

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to pay tribute to a good friend, Janez Drnovsek, who passed away on Saturday. Dr. Drnovsek served as the second Prime Minister of Slovenia from 1992 to 2002, and as President from 2002 to 2007. In these and other capacities, he played a truly historic role in giving birth to a free and independent Slovenia, while avoiding the bloodshed and warfare that engulfed other nations as they seceded from the former Yugoslavia. Dr. Drnovsek was born on May 17, 1950, in Celje. He graduated from the University of Ljubljana's Faculty of Economics. In 1986, he finished his doctoral studies in economic science at the University of Maribor. In 1994, he received an honorary doctorate from Boston University. In 2004 he was named Protector and Honorary Senator of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts in Salzburg. But Dr. Drnovsek will be best remembered as a statesman of enormous ability, vision, and courage. A brilliant economist, he unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit of the Slovenian people and played a historic role in establishing his new nation as a robust democracy with one of the most successful economies in Central and Eastern Europe. Today, thanks in large measure to Dr. Drnovsek's leadership, Slovenia is a full member of the European Union and NATO, and a force for stability and democratic reform across the Balkans. The world looks at Slovenia's success in the nearly 17 years since she declared independence, and it wonders: How could a nation of just 2 million people accomplish so much in so short period of time? As an American, I know the answer. Bear in mind that, when Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, America was also a nation of just 2 million people. Like Slovenians in 1991, Americans in 1776 dared to break away from a much larger and more powerful mother country. Like Slovenians, Americans demanded a democratic course for their new country. But the most important parallel between our two countries is this: Historians of the American Revolution have marveled that a tiny nation of just 2 million people was blessed with such an extraordinary collection of thinkers and leaders, including Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin. At this crucial crossroads in Slovenia's history, it, too, has been blessed with extraordinary leaders. And Dr. Drnovsek will be remembered as one of the most talented of these Founding Fathers. On a personal note, I was very fortunate to spend time with President Drnovsek during my trip to Slovenia in August 2005. Clearly, he was an independent thinker and a free spirit. One obituary in the Washington Post on Sunday noted that in his youth and early adulthood, he was a member of the Communist Party, which was the only political force in the former Yugoslavia. But he was never a Communist at heart, and he made a point of going off to ski whenever the party held a congress. Mr. President, with the passing of Dr. Janez Drnovsek, the world has lost an important leader and a wonderfully decent human being. He was instrumental in founding and nurturing a free, democratic, successful Slovenia. History will not forget him, nor will the citizens of his grateful nation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a very special Iowan and a truly exceptional labor leader, Mark Smith. Mark retired earlier this month after serving 28 years in leadership roles in the Iowa Federation of Labor. He served as secretary-treasurer from 1974 until 1997, and as president from 1997 until his retirement. Throughout, he has remained a member of the American Federation of Teachers, Local 716. Prior to coming to the Iowa Federation of Labor, Mark spent 5 years as an instructor at the University of Iowa's Labor Center, where he taught up-and-coming union leaders about labor law, labor history, communication, leadership, economics, and public policy. Mark may have left the classroom, but he never stopped being a teacher and mentor. He has always believed strongly that to achieve real successes for working families and to advance a progressive public policy agenda, it is critical to train people to organize and advocate for themselves. Throughout his distinguished tenure as IFL president, Mark was respected for his keen intelligence and his direct, honest, feisty style of doing business. He understood the political system, and how to get things done. He didn't believe in top-down political engagement; he believed in organizing and empowering people at the grass roots to fight for a brighter future--and to win. Mark is a proud progressive, with a passion for economic and social justice. He is also a passionate believer in bringing people together in collective action, whether in the political arena, at the bargaining table, or in the community. He has devoted his life to building stronger unions because he believes that they are an ideal vehicle for effecting positive change for ordinary people. For many years, I have counted on Mark for his friendship, counsel, and support--and that will not change. But his retirement is a tremendous loss for working families and for the labor movement in Iowa. In the Bible, it says that ``if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle?'' For more than a decade as president of the Iowa Federation of Labor, there has been nothing uncertain about Mark Smith's trumpet. He has been a great labor leader, and a strong, unwavering voice for progressive change. I wish him a long and happy retirement with his family, including wife Marty, daughter Christine, sons Michael and Erich, and grandson Isaiah.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague from Iowa to introduce a bill to provide the town of Windsor Heights, IA, its own ZIP code. Currently, the residents of Windsor Heights share three ZIP codes with surrounding communities, Des Moines, West Des Moines, and Urbandale. Confusion between the ZIP codes and city boundaries has caused delays in mail delivery, an increased amount of undelivered mail, and numerous complaints from frustrated citizens. Each day sensitive materials, including financial statements, credit cards, Social Security checks, and passports pass through the mail stream. It is imperative that residents are able to rely on the safe and timely delivery of these documents. The complications from this problem reach beyond mail delivery. During the recent Iowa Caucuses, residents living in Windsor Heights Precinct 2 were directed to the wrong address when looking for their caucus location. Windsor Heights residents who use the 50322 ZIP code-- one which is shared with neighboring Urbandale--were incorrectly advised that the caucus location was in Urbandale, rather than Windsor Heights. Furthermore, because insurance rates are based on ZIP codes, residents pay premiums based on neighboring Des Moines and Urbandale, rather than Windsor Heights, making it more difficult for providers to sell car insurance to residents. City officials have tried in vain for almost 5 years to acquire a ZIP code for Windsor Heights. It is my hope that the Senate will quickly act upon this legislation to enable them to do so.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I rise with my colleague from Iowa to introduce a bill to provide the town of Windsor Heights, IA, its own ZIP code. Currently, the residents of Windsor Heights share three ZIP codes with surrounding communities, Des Moines, West Des Moines, and Urbandale. Confusion between the ZIP codes and city boundaries has caused delays in mail delivery, an increased amount of undelivered mail, and numerous complaints from frustrated citizens. Each day sensitive materials, including financial statements, credit cards, Social Security checks, and passports pass through the mail stream. It is imperative that residents are able to rely on the safe and timely delivery of these documents. The complications from this problem reach beyond mail delivery. During the recent Iowa Caucuses, residents living in Windsor Heights Precinct 2 were directed to the wrong address when looking for their caucus location. Windsor Heights residents who use the 50322 ZIP code-- one which is shared with neighboring Urbandale--were incorrectly advised that the caucus location was in Urbandale, rather than Windsor Heights. Furthermore, because insurance rates are based on ZIP codes, residents pay premiums based on neighboring Des Moines and Urbandale, rather than Windsor Heights, making it more difficult for providers to sell car insurance to residents. City officials have tried in vain for almost 5 years to acquire a ZIP code for Windsor Heights. It is my hope that the Senate will quickly act upon this legislation to enable them to do so.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, on January 25, all who work and struggle for social and economic justice, who dedicate themselves to peace and ending war, lost a wonderful friend in Sister Dorothy Marie Hennessey. The world lost a true Christian soul who, in her own quiet, humble way, fought relentlessly for peace and social justice. Sister Dorothy lived 94 years, 67 of them as a member of the Sisters of St. Frances. She was the eldest of 15 brothers and sisters who grew up on a farm near Oneida, IA, taught by their parents that the Golden Rule was not an abstraction but a way of life. She fondly always remembered that her family ``always fed and housed the tramps who came to [their] farm.'' Sister Dorothy kept her theology simple and straightforward. She said: I've learned in 75 years in the convent that God is a compassionate God who loves all of us, but who also loves the poor and the people who are oppressed. But Sister Dorothy also believed, in the words of President Kennedy, that ``God's work on Earth must truly be our own.'' She was the opposite of a cloistered nun. She was an activist. She stepped forward boldly, if humbly, to make the world a better and fairer and more just place. She taught in Catholic schools in the Dubuque area for 28 years and another 4 years in Portland, OR. But in the 1960s, her social consciousness came alive. She was deeply disturbed by the tragedy unfolding in Vietnam. And she was shocked to learn from her brother, also a priest--Father Ron Hennessey, a longtime missionary in Latin America--about the atrocities committed by dictators and their death squads in Central America. Father Ron was, as we know--and he was a friend of mine, and I knew him well--also a friend of Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador, and he witnessed the Salvadoran military firing on mourners after the archbishop's assassination. Sister Dorothy became a leader in a newly formed human rights group in Dubuque and spent the rest of her life engaging in principled acts of dissent and protest, at times putting her own life at risk. For example, in 1984, she went to Nicaragua with the group Witness for Peace, acting as human shields to protect northern border villages from attacks by the CIA-backed Contras. In 1986, at the age of 73, she joined more than 1,000 activists in the Great Peace March for Global Nuclear Disarmament, traveling 3,500 miles from Los Angeles to Washington, DC--at the age of 73. Beginning in 1997, she participated in annual protests at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, GA, where graduates had been implicated in human rights abuses all over Latin America, Central America, including the murder of six Jesuit priests in El Salvador. Sister Dorothy was arrested three times for crossing the line onto the Army base. On the third occasion, at the age of 88, she was one of 3,600 protesters who were arrested. Twenty-six of them were selected by lottery to be prosecuted in Federal court, including Sister Dorothy and her sibling, Sister Gwen, also a Franciscan Nun. Sister Dorothy was sentenced by a Federal judge to 6 months of detention in her convent, but she refused this leniency. She insisted on receiving the same treatment as her other 25 codefendants. So her sentence was changed to 6 months at the Federal Prison Camp in Illinois. As a Des Moines Register columnist noted, ``She was allowed to take her hearing aids, but not her Bible.'' After a month and a half, she was transferred to a correctional facility in Dubuque, supposedly for health reasons. But Sister Dorothy knew better. The real reason was the Federal Government's sheer embarrassment at incarcerating an 88-year-old nun because she dared to stand up for justice. During her time in prison, Sister Dorothy was interviewed by a reporter with the Public Broadcasting System. She said: I feel that it's our duty. We can't protest everything, but we can pick out some of the worst things to protest, and that's what I've tried to do. So into her eighties, nineties, Sister Dorothy continued to find new ways to serve people and to help change the world for the good. From 1996 to 2000, she worked as a daily volunteer at Clare House, a residence in Cedar Rapids for people with AIDS. She cooked and cleaned for the patients. She spoke out loudly and clearly, also, for the rights of gays and lesbians. On a personal note, I will always be grateful to Sister Dorothy for her many years of friendship and counsel. It has been one of the privileges of my life to know so many members of that wonderful, wonderful Hennessey family--Father Ron, all the years he risked his life in Central America, and both Sister Dorothy and Sister Gwen, and another sister. There is Sister Miriam, who was tragically killed in a car incident some years ago. What a wonderful family. Sister Dorothy worked for a while as a senior intern in my Dubuque office. I say ``for a while''--actually, for 8 years. She was a great mentor and inspiration to all of my staff. So I will always cherish my friendship not only with Sister Dorothy but also with Sister Gwen, Sister Miriam, Father Ron, and so many other members whom I have known of the entire Hennessey family. Madam President, as you can clearly see, Sister Dorothy was a remarkable person. I am reminded of the old saying: We make a living by what we make; but we make a life by what we give. Throughout her amazing life, Sister Dorothy was the ultimate giver. She gave her adult life to the church and to the Sisters of St. Frances. She gave more than three decades of dedicated service to her students. She gave her service on boards and in countless volunteer organizations. And, as I have pointed out, she gave of herself in dissent and protest many times against oppression and to end war. She gave us her moral passion. She gave us her fine Christian example. She gave us her courage and decency, her love and friendship. She gave it all she had to make sure the world was a better place, that we all--all--had that prickling conscience that things were not right when poor people suffered, when war became the norm, when there were so many abuses of human rights and oppression against the disenfranchised and the poor in this country and in other places around the globe. So after a rich lifetime of service, Sister Dorothy has been called home. She left the world a better place. I am deeply grateful to have had her as a friend. To all of the Franciscan nuns, to her family, of course, my deepest condolences from me and all of my family on her passing, but also our deepest thanks for sharing such a wonderful, magnificent person with us during her lifetime. We will remember her and hopefully honor Sister Dorothy by continuing to do what we can to make sure that our Government works more for social justice and economic justice, that we turn away from the instruments of war and the funding for war and making war sort of the norm, and that we reach out in understanding and peace to the rest of the world. She would have not only asked nothing less, she would have demanded nothing less of us. So we say goodbye to Sister Dorothy and, again, honor her memory by continuing to do what we can in our lifetimes to continue in her great work. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article that appeared today in the Des Moines Register by Rekha Basu regarding Sister Dorothy be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand we are in a period of morning business.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thought I would take a few moments to talk about this stimulus package that is sort of maybe making its way through the Congress. I was in my home State of Iowa this weekend, and a lot of people came up to me, from various walks of life, questioning whether we had lost all our sanity around here in terms of this stimulus bill. Well, as I probed and asked questions, it seemed everyone thought this idea of just sending a check out to everybody--when we are borrowing the money from our kids and grandkids--to do it did not seem to make much sense, especially if some of that so-called stimulus money is used to buy a flat-screen TV made in China. So we borrow money from China, we go into more debt to them--which our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids and on and on will have to pay for--so that people here can buy a consumer good made in China, and send the money to China. So whose stimulus is this? Is it for our country or is it for China? So people really rightfully question it. Now, they have heard that maybe we are going to send a check to everybody regardless of income, that Bill Gates--and God bless him; he is always the foil, I guess, for the wealthiest in our country--and people of that magnitude of income would actually get a check. I have to believe people are beyond laughing about this now. I have to believe the citizens of this country are scratching their heads and wondering just what are we doing. What I heard from my constituents in Iowa is that if you really want to do something in terms of the economy, first of all, you take care of those who are hurt the most, those at the bottom, and then you take and you invest money in the economic well-being of this country. So the more I talked to people about this issue, it became very clear to me that what we should be focusing on in the stimulus package--not what the White House has said and not even what the House said. I was not part of that agreement. I was not invited to those talks or anything else. It was only done by the Speaker of the House, I guess, and the minority leader of the House and the President. Well, there are 100 Senators here, too, and we represent people. It would seem to me we should have some input into what this ``stimulus package'' is. So it is clear to me that just taking a bunch of money we borrowed from China--which our kids and grandkids have to pay back--and giving it in a check to everyone, just throwing it out there, is just throwing money at the problem. How many times have we heard around here: Don't just throw money at the problem. So if we have an economic slowdown, let's target--let's target--what it is we are going to put our money into. Now, first, you want to ask the legitimate question of, if you are going to spend a dollar, what gives you the most economic activity? What rolls around the most in the economy? What has the largest multiplier effect? Well, the Economic Research Service, the Moody's have all said that the biggest bang for the buck we could get is in food stamps--either a 1.73 or a 1.84 multiplier effect. It means for every $1 you put in, you are getting $1.84 more in economic activity. That is the highest. It dwarfs everything else. Here is a way we can actually do something about the economy, target money and help those who need help the most. We have had a constant erosion in food stamps, a 30-year erosion in the asset level. The asset level right now for a person who qualifies for food stamps in this country is $2,000. In other words, if you are a single parent with a couple of kids and you are working--maybe you are in a temporary layoff now with the economic turndown, but let's say while you were working you saved a little bit of money for that rainy day. We are always telling people to save money. It is good for you. It is good for your future. So maybe they saved a little bit of money. Well, if they saved over $2,000, they do not get food stamps. That is the same level it was in 1977. If it had kept pace with inflation, the asset level today would be about $6,000. So we have had that erosion now for 30 years. We have had 11 years of an erosion of the standard deduction, which is, without getting into the nitty-gritty of how it works, just a standard deduction for a family on food stamps, taking into account certain factors that comes out to be a deduction of about $130 a month. That is at the level it was 11 years ago. It hasn't changed. It was frozen at that level in 1996. The childcare deduction is now capped at $175, and it has been that way for 11 years. There has been no increase in the childcare deduction, even though we know childcare costs more money today than it did 11 years ago. So we have had great erosions. Couple that with the fact that since 2000, the number of people on food stamps in this country has gone from 16 million to 26 million. So while the economy may have been good for some people over the last 5 or 6 years, it was good for people at the top. But if the economy was so darn good over the last several years, why did we go from 16 million on food stamps to 26 million on food stamps? Because for those at the bottom, the economy was not very good; thus, the widening gap between the rich and the poor in this country. So it would seem to make sense, if we are going to have some kind of ``stimulus package,'' the first rule would be do no harm, and then target it so that it is effective. Ask the economists. They all say the best bang for the buck is when you put it in food stamps. So here is our opportunity, both to have some multiplier effects and to help stimulate the economy and do what really is morally right, what we should have done a long time ago, and that is to make sure the people at the bottom don't keep falling through the safety nets. So I say, I don't know what the Finance Committee is going to do. This is not in their jurisdiction. I understand. They can't do anything about food stamps; that is not in their jurisdiction. But when that bill comes up, and when we get it to the floor, I want everyone to be aware that we are going to have an amendment--and I will have an amendment on food stamps--to put a significant amount of money into food stamps, about a 20-percent increase in food stamps for the next year. That gives us 12 months. Now, why 12 months rather than 6 months or 7 months or 8 months? Well, first of all, we have a farm bill in which both the House and the Senate addressed some of these longstanding problems in the food stamp structure. I don't know when that farm bill is going to get passed. The President has threatened to veto it. We will get it done sometime. Sooner or later we will get this farm bill done--hopefully, in the next month or so. But then the changes that have to take place to change the system so we can begin to increase the asset level, take the cap off of the childcare deduction, and then take a standard deduction and factor in inflation for that, that takes time. We will not get it done right away. I think it would be the height of cruelty to say to people who need this food and who need food stamps that we are going to increase it for 6 months and then we are going to take it away. Now, at least if you get a rebate--as I said, I am not in favor of all of these checks going out, but if you are going to get a check, you can save it for a rainy day or you can do something like that. But with food stamps, you can't do that. So if you get food stamps, and we say, OK, we will increase your food stamps, you can buy a little better protein, you can eat a little bit better for 6 months, and then we are going to cut it off. Keep in mind that right now, under our Food Stamp Program, the amount of money a person gets per meal on food stamps is $1--$1--$1. Have you ever tried eating a meal for a dollar? Try it sometime. So what we are talking about is not lavish living. We are talking about giving people just the basic necessities. So, again, this is our chance to do something that is morally right and at the same time target our help in stimulating the economy. Second only to that would be increasing unemployment benefits. People who have been unemployed for a long time need to have it extended, to have their unemployment benefits extended. That also has a big multiplier effect. Also, close on the heels of that in terms of benefiting the economy is the money that we use to build our infrastructure; that is, the roads and the bridges, the school buildings, the sewer and water systems, government buildings. It would be things like community development block grants that we put out to our cities and communities to do construction projects. So it seems to me, again, if we are going to put money out there, this is what we ought to be doing. We have billions of dollars of construction that is needed to be done in this country on school buildings, classrooms, bridges--need I mention Minnesota--highways. Our highway system is falling apart, that great interstate highway system that we built, and I worked on when I was in high school, well over a half a century old. Keep in mind when it was built, we didn't have the truck traffic then that we have today. So we need to put money into the infrastructure. Those jobs are ready to go by May. By the time these checks would get out they are talking about, you would have people starting to go to work. The benefits of putting money into an infrastructure project are multiple. There are multiple benefits. First of all, the work is done locally. You can't outsource it to India or China. Obviously, if you are going to build a schoolhouse, you have to hire people locally to do it. So the work is done locally. Secondly, almost all of the materials used in any kind of infrastructure project, whether it is cement or reinforcing rods or whether it is carpeting or doors or windows or lights, heating and air- conditioning systems, drywall--you name it--almost all of that is made in America. Maybe not all of it, but the vast majority of it is made in this country. So the ripple effect throughout our economy is great when you do an infrastructure project. You put people to work. Most of the materials and stuff you buy are American made. Third, once you do this, you have something of lasting good to our economy, something that helps the free enterprise system function better. When our roads and highways are plugged up with traffic and it can't move, that hurts business. When we don't have adequate clean water and sewer systems for communities, businesses can't locate and, therefore, operate efficiently. When we don't have the best schools in America with the best facilities, the high-speed hookups to the Internet, when we don't have schools which are the jewel of a neighborhood--the best thing that kids would ever see in their activities during the week would be the school--not the mall, not the theater, not the sports arena but their school. What if that was the nicest thing in every neighborhood? I tend to think that would help our teachers to teach better, our recruitment of teachers, and give kids more incentive to study. But it provides a lasting benefit for this country. So mark me down as one who is--I am just more than a little cautious and maybe a little bit more conservative on this idea of sending everybody a check. I think people would be better off and our economy would be better off if we did those three things: Do something on the food side for the people who are hardest hit in our economy, extend unemployment benefits, and put a slug of money into infrastructure. That is what we ought to tell President Bush. That is what we ought to tell the White House. That is our program. That is the Democrats' program for this country: to put people back to work, not just to send everybody a check, but let's give everybody a job. Let's give them jobs out there that will build our country. The multiplier effect on that is enormous. But if you are just going to send somebody a check, that is it. They might just tend to buy something made in China or Japan or who knows where else. That is just not the best thing for our long-term economy and not for what we want to do in this country. So, once again, it seems as though we look for short-term solutions to long-term problems. Our long-term problems are the infrastructure of this country and the fact that we don't have a good job base for people in this country--long-term problems. We are importing more and more and more from overseas. I listened to the President last night in his State of the Union message when he talked about how exports are up. He didn't mention how much more imports were up over exports. He just didn't even mention that. We are in hock to China up to our eyeballs, and it is getting worse not better. So we are going to send everybody $500 and tell them to go spend some money on things probably made in China. So, again, I don't think we ought to roll over. I don't think we ought to block anything. But I think we ought to come up with a package that does something for our economy. The things I just outlined I think will do more for our economy than sending everybody a $300, $500, or maybe a $1,200 check. Lastly, I see there is some talk about sending everybody a check--no income limit. Well, I thought the income limits in the House were too high: $75,000, $150,000 for a couple, so you could get up to 1,200 bucks. I just don't think that is logical, and I don't think it is healthy. I don't think it is good for our country. I don't think it is good for the long-term health of our economy. So I hope we can work together in a bipartisan atmosphere to come up with a package that is not just throwing money at the problem but targets it, and targets it to those areas that will be effective in putting people back to work, helping people at the bottom of the ladder, and providing for the long-term economic underpinning of our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to take the floor for a few minutes before we adjourn today to talk about the economy and about this stimulus package we are hearing the House is developing and will send over here some time in the next few weeks. I must say, first, it is clear that there is a downturn in the economy that is causing a lot of anxiety among all Americans. It is clear we need to do something. Over the last 6 years, I must admit, I have been disturbed by the lack of fiscal discipline by this White House and by this Congress, as the deficits have piled up. Think about this: In 2001, when President Clinton left office, we had surpluses. We were going to have surpluses as far as the eye could see. We were talking about paying down the national debt, saving our Social Security system. That all changed. It all changed because the new President came in and said: What is more important than paying down the debt, paying our bills, putting us on a sound fiscal basis? What is more important than that is tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country. Oh, sure, everybody got a little bit, but a lion's share of it went to the wealthiest in our country. I guess I shouldn't have been too surprised. The President's philosophy has always been one of trickle down, trickle-down economics. How many times do we have to keep enduring trickle-down economics when time after time we know it does not work? It may give you a little bit of a good feeling for awhile, but it always leads to disastrous consequences. So that is what we had in 2001. We had trickle down, give the most to the wealthiest in the country; it will trickle down to everybody. It didn't trickle down. What it did was widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The very highest income earners in our country have gotten wealthy beyond Midas' imagination and the rest are down here, and the poor have gotten poorer and they have gotten to be a bigger part of our population. Children in poverty have gone up since 2001. I suppose it was a nice dinner party for those who were at the top of the ladder for the last 5, 6 years, a wonderful ride, but look what it has led to. Now we have these huge deficits. The debt has piled up. We are now stuck in a war in Iraq that is costing us $10 billion to $12 billion a month, with no end in sight. Still we have these big tax cuts for the very wealthy going on and on. Again, here we are. And, now we have a downturn. What do we do? We have to do something. There are times when deficit spending in the short term is prudent and necessary. That is when there is an economic downturn. But during the times when the economy is sound, that is when you ought to be paying down your debts. When the economy was sound for the last few years, we gave it all away. We gave it away, again, mostly to the wealthiest in our country. Now we are in a situation in which we want to ward off a deep recession. Recessions always hurt those at the bottom worst. And now we are going to have to, because we don't have any money, do it with deficit spending, which I don't like, but we are going to have to do it. I think it behooves us if, in fact, we are going to have to ask our grandkids and great-grandkids to pay the bill--that is what the national debt is; they have to pay it--if we are going to borrow from them for right now to get us through a recession, then we ought to be prudent about what we do with that money and how we do it. I guess from my standpoint, taking a bunch of money and throwing it out there is not the way to do it. Don't throw money at the problem. That is why I have very serious reservations about what I hear coming from the other body. We haven't seen anything. All I know is what I read in the paper and see on the news and what I hear about what the White House is doing. I have no doubt the House is acting in good faith. I am all for a bipartisan solution. But I remind both the President and my colleagues that we in the Senate are going to have some say-so in shaping the final stimulus package. Any bill that comes from the House is going to be fully amendable here, and I intend to be here with a number of my colleagues to amend it if what I hear is coming from the House, and that is mainly a rebate. I don't know what the parameters are of the rebate. That is to be decided yet. But I hear the rebate can go to couples making $150,000 a year. I guess when you figure out what the average income of Americans is, that is pretty high. Everybody likes free money. Hey, come on, everybody likes to have the Government send them a check. Why not? I repeat, if we are going to borrow money from our grandkids and great-grandkids, let's be prudent about it. Let's put the money where it is most effective and where it is most needed, and that is not some kind of a general rebate for people. We have unemployment rising, house prices are falling, and the home construction industry is in a severe slump. That affects everything, not just the house that is going to be built or is not being built. That is the window manufacturers, the tubing, the piping, the plumbing, the heating and air conditioning, and everything else down the line. That is a real factor, something about which we should be concerned. Furniture makers, appliance makers, so many are also affected. Millions of Americans face the prospect of foreclosure, losing their homes. Banks are tightening their lending requirements. New credit is drying up. Even as the Fed reduces their interest rates, banks are tightening up the requirements. And who always gets hit the hardest? You got it, low-income people. Prices are rising. I need not tell everybody about the rising price of fuel. But I also have to tell you that in many cities in this country, the price of a gallon of milk is higher than a gallon of gasoline. I read where somebody said once a price of gasoline may not affect a lot of low-income people because they ride mass transit and they don't have a car. They eat. And when the price of a gallon of milk is higher than a price of a gallon of gasoline, you don't have much choice. If a gallon of gasoline is high and you don't like it, I supposed you can ride mass transit, ride a bicycle, or walk. If you are hungry, you have to have food. I don't know any substitute yet for food. We need a stimulus package, but we have to get it right, targeted to those who have been hit the hardest and invest in the growth in the U.S. economy. Don't think about this as a one-time thing, if we spend a lot of money now that will get us through it. If you have someone who makes $150,000 a couple or $75,000 for, let's say, a single person, you give them 600 or 700 bucks, what they are talking about, I think studies have shown a big portion of that will be saved. There is nothing wrong with that. That is fine. I am all for saving. People ought to save more. But another portion of that will be used to pay past bills, and another portion of that, guess what, is going to be used to buy things. One might say: That is the deal, we want people to buy things; that is the idea of a stimulus. Yes, but what are they going to buy? Are they going to buy a new flat-screen TV made in China? Are they going to buy a new electronic game made overseas? So many of those items are made in foreign countries, so a lot of money will flow from here right to China, Japan, Korea, or who knows where else. You can buy clothes. Most of our clothes are made overseas. You can buy a pair of shoes. We don't make many shoes here anymore. I am saying you have to think about who is getting helped and where is the money going, and is it going to help build the structure of America and make for our economy to be sound. On that score, the proposal I see from the House does not quite do it. There are three big items, as I understand, that they leave out. The first is food stamps. I was in my office today listening and I heard some speakers on the floor talk about all we need in a stimulus package. Some of them never even mentioned food stamps, and yet these are the people hit the hardest by a recession. We know the multiplier effect of food stamps is better than any other single program in which we can invest. Here is a chart that indicates that. This is prepared by Moody's Economy. It is not a Government source. Here are the proposals that deliver the demand generated by $1 of stimulus. For $1 of stimulus, what do you get back? For business investment writeoffs, if you invest $1, you get 27 cents; extend the Bush tax cuts, you get 29 cents. Who is going to invest a dollar to get back 29 cents, I ask you. Then income tax cuts, payroll tax rebates, aid to States, unemployment, food stamps, a $1.73 multiplier effect for every dollar you put in. These are the people hit the hardest. We know food prices are extremely high. A gallon of milk is more than a gallon of gasoline. There is no substitute for food. It seems to me that if we are going to invest in a stimulus package, this is a key place where we ought to be investing our money. Not only does it help the poorest in our Nation, to give them the food they need, but think about it in another way. When you give someone food stamps, they can't spend it on a flat-screen TV made in China, they can't spend it on a new electronic game or an iPod; it has to be food. For the most part, most of that food is grown in the United States, it is processed in the United States, it is packaged in the United States, it is shipped in the United States, and it is sold in stores in the United States. And, they will spend it all. That is why the multiplier effect is so big. Now, from what I hear, the House proposal has zero in it--zero--for food stamps. Well, that has to be taken care of. And when that bill comes, if it doesn't have it in here when it comes here, I, along with others--and I see my colleague from Ohio, who I know is going to be stalwart on that too--we are going to demand that any stimulus package have food stamps. Food stamps. And why shouldn't it? That is the biggest bang for the buck right there. Now, again, everybody likes rebates and stuff. Maybe I am a little more conservative on this issue than others and I see it in those terms, that we have to be very careful about how we are spending deficit money. Put it here and it gets spent and it will go for everything made in the United States. You get a big multiplier effect on that. And it has to be a distinct change. Here is what I would propose that we do on food stamps. First of all, raise the asset level for which you qualify for food stamps. Right now, it is $2,000. Let me make it very clear what I mean by that. Let's say that you are a single parent, you are working at a low-income job, and you temporarily get unemployed, which is what is happening now because unemployment goes up in a recession, and you find it necessary to get food stamps for your children. If you have $2,000 that you have salted away in a savings account, in a 401(k), no matter what, if you have $2,000 salted away, you don't get food stamps. Now, that level was set in 1977--in 1977. What if that had just kept pace with inflation through all these years? What if we had the same asset level exclusion today in real dollar terms as we had in 1977? What would it be? I will tell you right now. It would be about $6,000. So what we are saying to food stamp recipients today is: You are worse off, you are worse off than a food stamp recipient was in 1977. So the first thing we have to do is raise the asset level for which you qualify for food stamps, and we ought to raise it up to what the level would be had it kept pace with inflation, and that is roughly in the neighborhood of about $6,000. Imagine that, $6,000. We want poor people to save. One of the reasons people get stuck in poverty is they do not save any money. Yet we tell them: If you save and you hit a rough patch and you get unemployed, guess what, no food stamps. You have to spend your savings. What kind of message does that send? So that is No. 1. Number 2, we ought to take off the childcare cap. Take it off. Now, I will admit that the Bush administration, in their farm bill proposal they sent down, also asked that we take off the cap. So there shouldn't be any argument there. So if you have to have childcare, whatever you spend for childcare is not taken into account. You get to deduct all that. You get to deduct whatever the cost of childcare is from your income. Right now, it is capped at $175 per month. That is not enough and it is very hard to work with young children with no one at home to take care of them without child care. So we shouldn't have the argument from the administration since they proposed that too. The third thing is to exempt from your savings, from your income, anything that you put into an education account or into a 401(k). That ought to be exempt. The administration proposed that, also, so we shouldn't have any problem there. The fourth thing we need to do is to raise the standard deduction. Now, the standard deduction is a deduction that applies to a family who depends basically on income and depends on how many kids you have. That standard deduction was set in 1996--welfare reform. Guess what. It hasn't changed since then. So the standard deduction needs to be raised to keep pace with inflation, and it needs to be indexed. We need to index both the asset level and the standard deduction so that in the future we don't have this problem anymore. We should do those four things. Now, the fifth thing we ought to do is to recognize that many people who get food stamps don't get enough food stamps. During an economic downturn, a lot of people rely upon our food banks to get food for the rest of the month. You can go to any food bank in your cities, anywhere, and they will tell you that the third and fourth weeks of the month is when they get hit the hardest because people run out of food and come in there to supplement their food. But our food banks are in dire need of more food. So I would suggest, modestly suggest, that we ought to put somewhere in the neighborhood of about $100 million in this stimulus package to go out--that is under the Emergency Food Assistance Program--to be able to get food to our food banks. Again, not only does this go to people who are on food stamps but also to homeless people, soup kitchens, and the things that really help the poorest people in our country. Yet this is nowhere in the stimulus package. Again, keep in mind this money would be spent for food produced in the United States, processed, packaged, and for people who work in a lot of our food banks and in our soup kitchens and places such as that. So, again, those are five things which need to be done on food stamps. The second thing we need to do is to extend unemployment benefits. Second only to food stamps, unemployment benefits give you the biggest return on every dollar--$1.64 for every dollar spent. After all, isn't that what we are talking about, people who have been on unemployment but their benefits have run out? They should be extended. I mean, common compassion would tell you they ought to be extended, but common sense should also tell you that too. In a stimulus package, we ought to extend our unemployment benefits for those who no longer have jobs. Yet, as I hear about and read about the House package, that is not there. That is not there. Now, the third thing we have to do is invest in the future structure of America so that we have some investments that will lead to a better economic footing for this country. As I said, and I will repeat myself for emphasis' sake, if we just give someone money and they spend it on a flat-screen TV made overseas, some of that helps here, but a lot of it doesn't. What is there that we can invest in that will put people to work right away, spend money in this country, and most of the money stays right here in America? What that means is infrastructure money. That is money that goes out for repairing our roads and bridges and sewer and water systems, school construction and weatherization. There was some talk that we need to put money in here for LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It is a vital program. It helps a lot of low-income elderly heat their homes during the winter and, in the South, cool their homes in the summer. We ought to be putting money into weatherization programs for insulation and things such as that for these homes as well to save for the long term and also to create jobs. It puts people to work. I actually did a workday once with a weatherization group, and when you think about it, you get this done, and then their heating bills for the next 5 to 10 years will be lower. That is what we need, to invest in the infrastructure of our country. Right now, I know that in the Department of Agriculture, we have over $1 billion backlogged right now for just sewer and water projects, just sewer and water programs. Many are ready to go with all of the plans that are there, designs all set, but they just don't have the money. Small towns and communities could benefit from this, and it would put a lot of people to work. School construction--so many of our schools have outdated heating systems that cost a lot of money every year. They may need to expand, or they may need new fire and safety materials. Sometimes they just need to build new schools. A lot of these are ready to go. Why not invest the money there? Roads and bridges, our interstate highways and bridge rehabilitation projects that are ready to go, courthouses that need to be built with the plans done but are waiting for funds. People could be at work on these by this summer. Some time government will be paying for these projects. Why not do the work this year when it will help a weak economy? I hope people don't get deluded into thinking that all we have to do is pass $150 billion, throw it out there in the next couple of months, and it is all over with. That is not going to happen. Better we do it carefully. If we can get this money out by this summer and put people to work, it would be one of the best things we could do. Again, keep in mind, when you give aid to the States for infrastructure--think about this--put a new roof or remodel the school or whatever--think about this--the work is all done here. You can't outsource that. So the work is done here, the people who work here are paid here, and they spend their money here. Secondly, most of the materials that go into construction are made in America--your lights, your heating, your wiring, your drywall, windows, doors, and rerods. When you think about it, it is almost all made in America. There may be some things made elsewhere, but probably 90 percent of all the construction materials we use in this country are made in America. That is why this multiplier effect is so big. So not only do you employ people here, who spend their money here and help their families out, you are buying materials that are made somewhere else in America. That helps those jobs and helps those people go to work, whether it is making windows or doors or floors or faucets or piping or wiring or lightbulbs or whatever it might be. So that is why I say that what I hear about coming from the House I think really misses the point. It misses the point. Don't just throw money at the problem. Don't just throw money at it. And don't throw money at it in a way that people who make a lot more money than poor people get a bigger piece of the pie. Let's put it where it really has an effect--food stamps, unemployment benefits, and investment in needed infrastructure. If we just did those three things, that would do more to stop a recession in this country than anything we could do, and it would do more to build for the future--to build for the future--than anything else we could do. So I hope, Mr. President, we get a better package than what I am reading about. I hope when it comes over here that we will have it on the floor, it will be open, and we will be able to offer amendments, and I hope we can be heard on this and we can offer these amendments to try to focus this where it is really needed. To me, that is what a stimulus package ought to be about. No more trickle down. No more just throwing money out there. Everybody loves free money. What the heck, everybody loves free money. That is not the point. The point is, we are borrowing from our kids and grandkids. We ought to treat it carefully, be conservative about it, and we ought to do what will get the most bang for the buck and lead to a more sound economy in this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation introduced this week to extend unemployment benefits temporarily as a means of stimulus. Like many of my colleagues I certainly have a list of ideas for best stimulating our struggling economy. But unemployment insurance certainly needs to be a part of the picture. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for so quickly introducing this bill to extend current unemployment benefits by at least 20 weeks, and by an additional 13 weeks in States experiencing especially high unemployment rates. There are two key principles this legislation addresses. First, we need to make sure that we are prudently spending money in a way that encourages an increase in actual economic activity. Second, we need to help the people who are most hurt during difficult times. We need a combination of prudent fiscal policy and human compassion. So first, it is just plain good sense to target people who are unemployed. They are going to spend this money immediately on food and clothing, and this money will very quickly churn in the local economy. But equally importantly, the goal of stimulating the economy should be one of improving the quality of life for Americans. The people who are in the greatest need of help, directly hurt by economic decline, are those who have lost their jobs. It only makes sense that we make their needs a priority. I think that this period of economic difficulty also highlights the need to pass the broader unemployment reform efforts that Senator Kennedy is spearheading. While this stimulus measure will help many people who are unemployed, we need to cover part-time workers who have lost their jobs, and make sure we are counting all recent periods of work toward unemployment eligibility and levels. Extending unemployment benefits is regularly employed to stimulate a flagging economy, and these payments have been proven to quickly add demand to the economy. I hope that we are all in agreement that this is an essential component of any stimulus package.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we have a saying in my Senate office: Once a member of the Harkin family, always a member of the Harkin family. On Monday, with the passing of Donna Anthony, a longtime staffer in my Des Moines office, we lost a very valuable and dear member of our family. It seems like just yesterday that I was presenting Donna with a pin recognizing her 20 years of service to the people of Iowa as a Senate employee. In Donna's case, that wasn't ``service to the people of Iowa'' in the abstract; it was service to thousands of individual Iowans whose lives she touched in very real, concrete ways. Donna was one of those people who give bleeding-heart liberals a good name. She was always on a personal mission to save the world, or at least as many people as she could. She was constantly taking up the cause of people who are down on their luck, whether it was a senior citizen getting stiffed by Medicare, an immigrant family who desperately needed a visa, a victim of domestic violence, you name it. Her title may have been ``caseworker supervisor,'' but these were not just cases to her, they were people-- and she took each one to heart. She put the passion in compassion. I remember in Catholic school being taught that Saint Jude was the patron saint of lost causes. Well, I was blessed to know Saint Donna, the patron saint of people in dire need. Saint Jude intercedes with God. Saint Donna interceded with the Federal Government--which may be more challenging. She was constantly working her little miracles. Donna certainly came through for me--again and again. I long ago lost track of the number of people thanking me for the work that Donna did. And her personal loyalty was just extraordinary. She was always looking out for my best interest and for ways to make me look good. I remember when I was in Iowa Falls this past August, meeting with the economic development group. They had heard about the great work Donna had done for Marshalltown, and they wanted her to do the same for Iowa Falls. In fact, what she did in Marshalltown was typical of Donna Anthony going the extra mile, going the extra 10 miles. She worked closely with the Marshalltown Chamber of Commerce when they started making their trips to Washington to lobby for assistance. She drove back and forth to Marshalltown for countless meetings and served as an all-round counselor and advocate for their projects. The Marshall County sheriff, Ted Kamanches--a prominent Republican--became a big supporter of mine because of the great work Donna did for his police force, including having a Federal drug task force placed in Marshalltown. Twenty years ago, Donna started out in my Des Moines office as receptionist and front-desk person. She kept getting calls from people on the north side of Des Moines who wanted me to do something to stop prostitution in the area. Donna went to bat for them, and that is how she got her start in community casework and making connections with local law enforcement. She had a knack for bringing people and agencies together and helping them to get things done. This was the beginning of a long and fruitful relationship not only with neighborhood groups in Des Moines but with law enforcement officials all across Iowa. Mr. President, there is an old expression that we make a living by what we make, but we make a life by what we give. For 20 years in my office, Donna gave her all for the people of Iowa. She touched countless lives. And she made a life to be proud of. I can offer no higher praise for Donna--or anyone else, for that matter--than that she was a good, decent, and caring human being. I valued her friendship, her counsel, and her incredibly hard work. I think I speak for all of us in the Harkin Senate family in saying that we love Donna very much, and we are deeply grateful that she was a part of our lives.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the end of this year brings the loss of one of this body's most talented, dedicated, and accomplished staff members. Patricia Knight, Senator Hatch's longtime chief of staff, is retiring after three decades of distinguished public service to the Senate, House of Representatives, and the Department of Health and Human Services. I have had the pleasure of working with and knowing Ms. Knight for at least 13 years. My work with her began when Orrin Hatch and I teamed up in 1994 to pass the landmark Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA. That legislation, which assured continued consumer access to and better research into dietary supplements, is a testament to Trisha's mastery of health care issues, her commitment to legislating across party lines, and her sharp attention to detail. Truly, without her, there would be no DSHEA today. For the past nearly 30 years, Trisha Knight has been in the middle of almost every major piece of health legislation enacted into law. From DSHEA to the Children's Health Insurance Program, from the Medicare prescription drug legislation to the FDA Modernization Act, her stamp is on a host of major laws that will endure for many years to come. Mr. President, the American people owe a debt of gratitude to Patricia Knight. While most may not know her, they know and appreciate the public policies she has helped create. She has worked day and night for many years of public service. And all the while she carried with her a passion for public policy, an unflagging dedication to her bosses and great, sharp wit. I wish Trisha all the best as she moves on and tip my hat to her for a job well done. She will be missed.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I certify that neither I nor any of my family members have a pecuniary interest in the New Century Farm Programs for which I requested congressionally directed spending via floor action on Harkin amendment No. 3500, a substitute to H.R. 2419.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed with the omnibus appropriations bill that is before us today. With the McConnell amendment, this omnibus bill will write yet another blank check--this one for a whopping $70 billion--for the President to spend on his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, this bill will grossly underfund urgent priorities here at home--everything from cancer research to law enforcement to home heating assistance. And why is this happening? It is happening because President Bush has refused to compromise, refused to negotiate, refused to respect Congress as a coequal partner in the budgeting process. The President claims that he is standing on principle, the principle of budget restraint and fiscal conservatism. But this claim is laughable. Think about it: Mr. Bush provoked a bitter confrontation with Congress over the $22 billion that we proposed spending on urgent domestic priorities above his budget request. Democrats offered to split the difference, lowering that amount to $11 billion. But Mr. Bush still refused to negotiate or compromise. Meanwhile, he and his allies have insisted on vastly more than that-- a total of $144 billion--for the war in Iraq this year, all of which will simply be added to the deficit. At the same time, he demands a $50 billion AMT fix--which we all favor--but he insists that we not pay for it. That's another $50 billion piled onto the deficit. So the President has forced Congress to cut $22 billion in domestic funding from the budget, and he turns right around and demands that Congress add more than 10 times that--more than $200 billion--for wars and tax cuts, all of it unpaid for, all of it added to the deficit. And this is what he calls budget restraint and fiscal conservatism? As I said, that claim is simply laughable. Actually, this is not so much laughable as it is shameful. Bear in mind that in October the Senate passed an appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education by an overwhelming 75 to 19 margin, including a strong majority of Republican Senators. That bipartisan support reflected the fact that the bill funded essential, life-supporting, and life-saving services for millions of people in this country. That bill reflected the values and priorities of the American people. But even before we brought the health and education appropriations bill to the floor, President Bush threatened to veto it. He dismissed the bill as ``social spending,'' as though it pays for Saturday night socials or something. Then, on November 13, in one fell swoop, Mr. Bush vetoed the bill, and insisted, again, that we bend to his budget demands. Let me remind our colleagues what Mr. Bush was demanding. The President demanded that we cut cancer research and other medical research at the National Institutes of Health. He demanded that we cut thousands of families from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. He demanded that we completely eliminate the safety net that includes job training, housing, and emergency food assistance for our most needy citizens, including seniors and people with disabilities. He demanded that we slash funding for Community Health Centers, preventing 225 new centers from opening. He demanded that we dramatically cut funding for law enforcement and the COPS program. He demanded that we cut funding for special education and Head Start. I am pleased to say that we did not allow these heartless, misguided priorities to prevail entirely. The President has refused to compromise, refused to negotiate--and, no question, this is going to hurt millions of Americans, including the most needy among us. Nonetheless, I am pleased with what we have been able to salvage in this bill. The omnibus bill before us today technically yields to the President's top-line number of $515.7 billion. But I am pleased to report that it shifts funding in order to address some of the bottom- line priorities of the American people and of the Democratic majority in Congress. Even within the constraints of this bill, the final Labor-HHS- Education section of the omnibus includes significant increases above the President's budget. For instance, it includes: an additional $607 million for the National Institutes of Health, additional $788 million for LIHEAP, the home-heating assistance program for low-income families. It provides $77 million above the President's budget for community Health Centers, allowing more than 50 new centers to be opened. It provides an additional $955 million for Head Start, Title I, special education, and teacher quality. It also provides an additional $150 million for the Social Security Administration to help clear out the backlog of disability claims. However, because of the President's veto threat and refusal to compromise, law enforcement remains woefully underfunded, in particular support for local police departments. Fewer community health centers will be opened and fewer children will be vaccinated. More than 80,000 fewer children will be served under Title I. Every dime of additional funding in this bill goes to meet basic, essential needs here at home--needs that have been sadly neglected in recent years, even as we have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. I voted against the McConnell amendment to provide another $70 billion in funding, mostly for Iraq. The war in Iraq has not reduced the threat of another terrorist attack in America, it has increased that threat. It has not defeated Islamic terrorists, it has brought more recruits to the ranks of al Qaeda. Nor has the so-called ``surge'' in Iraq succeeded as advertised. The whole rationale for the surge was to create breathing space for new elections in Iraq and reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. These things have not happened. I joined with Senator Feingold to attempt to link any new funding for Iraq to a deadline for redeployment of our troops. Unfortunately, that amendment failed. This means that the next $70 billion appropriation for Iraq will not require any redeployments, nor will it include any benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet. It is simply a blank check, untied to any demands or expectations, and that is unacceptable. Indeed, I find it ironic that Mr. Bush has been more than happy to spend untold billions of dollars on schools, hospitals, job training, and law enforcement--in Iraq. But when we try to address those priorities here at home, Mr. Bush gets out his veto pen and hoists the flag of what he calls ``fiscal conservatism.'' But, as I have said, Mr. Bush's pose as a fiscal conservative is absurd. During the six years that the Republicans largely controlled Congress, Mr. Bush did not veto a single appropriations bill, including many that exceeded his budget requests. He is demanding that we pass supplemental bills that bring war spending, this year alone, to more than $196 billion, mostly for Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that Mr. Bush's war in Iraq will cost a staggering $1.9 trillion through the next decade. Yet, just last week, he pledged to veto the omnibus bill because of $11 billion in funding for education, health, biomedical research and other domestic priorities. Think about it: The President is demanding that we continue to spend $12 billion a month on his war in Iraq, yet he objected to an additional $11 billion over a full year for domestic funding. This is simply not reasonable or rational. At the same time, the President is insisting that we send him an Alternative Minimum Tax fix costing $50 billion. Yes, we need to fix the AMT, and we need to do so in a responsible way. But, Mr. Bush has a different idea. He refuses to pay for the AMT fix. He insists that we simply pile it onto the deficit, dumping it on our children and grandchildren. Bear in mind, by the way, that this AMT problem is not a surprise to anyone. The 2001 tax cut bill deliberately refused to address the AMT issue in order to squeeze in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional tax cuts, overwhelmingly for the well-off. Mr. Bush used the AMT to mask the true cost of the tax cuts. But, in doing so, he left the AMT as a ticking time-bomb that would soon double the number of Americans subject to the tax. Today, that time-bomb is exploding, threatening to hurt millions of middle-class families. The House of Representatives, to its great credit, came up with a responsible way of paying for the AMT fix. The House proposed to eliminate the so-called ``carried interest'' tax break for hedge fund managers with multi-million-dollar incomes--a tax break that allows them to pay their taxes at lower marginal rates than middle-income Americans. Eliminating this egregious tax break is a matter of basic fairness. It also would help to pay for the AMT fix. But the President said no. He promised to veto it. All of which means that the $50 billion we spend on the AMT patch will not be paid for; it will be added to the deficit and the debt. That is not just a shame; it is shameful. So I regret that the President vetoed a good, bipartisan Labor-HHS- Education appropriations bill that passed this body overwhelmingly. I regret that Mr. Bush has refused to negotiate or compromise. I regret that he demands that we spend endlessly on his war in Iraq, even as he demands that we slash essential services and programs here at home. But, despite all of these disappointments, we can take pride in the fact that this omnibus bill, in important ways, reflects the values and priorities of the American people. We have found additional funding for our priorities--priorities ranging from cancer research to education to law enforcement. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill.

Mr HARKIN

Mr HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the legislation pending before the Senate today, which will ensure that Iowa's seniors continue to have access to their physicians and will reauthorize the SCHIP program through March 31, 2009, with additional funds for the ``shortfall States,'' like Iowa. I am however concerned about one provision that is not included in the legislation, a provision that is critically needed to help Iowa's midsized hospitals. Unfortunately, current Medicare payment rates for hospitals do not account for the fact that most rural facilities cannot achieve the same economies of scale as large hospitals. This leads to inadequate reimbursement, which threatens the very existence of some of these facilities. To help address this situation, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee MedPAC has recommended implementing a payment adjustment for certain small rural hospitals that serve a lowvolume of patients. For example, Grinnell Regional Medical Center in Grinnell, IA, is having difficulty keeping their doors open simply because of its size and location. Due to Medicare policies, they are currently reimbursed at 60 percent of its costs. This cannot continue. These hospitals are essential to giving our seniors good access to healthcare.