Floor Statements

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. President, today I pay tribute to the accomplishments and inspirational life of Byron Janis as he approaches his 80th birthday later this month.

I learned about Mr. Janis's upcoming milestone from his good friend Dick Thornburgh, the former Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Thornburgh was a key advocate during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush for enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, and I was proud to be the chief sponsor of the ADA in the Senate.

A Pennsylvania native, Mr. Janis is renowned as one of the world's most talented concert pianists. In addition, his perseverance is a source of inspiration to countless Americans. By the age of 20, his virtuosity at the piano was so extraordinary that he performed a sold out debut at New York's famed Carnegie Hall.

Later, Mr. Janis was chosen to be the first individual to represent the United States in a cultural exchange with the Soviet Union. Remarking on this mission, The New York Times wrote that ``if music could replace international politics, Byron Janis could consider himself an ambassador.''

In the decades since, Byron Janis has dazzled audiences worldwide. He has performed for numerous U.S. Presidents, and has been honored with countless awards from around the globe.

However, perhaps Byron Janis's greatest contribution to America lies not in his musical talent but rather in the example he has set of an individual responding to adversity with grace and courage, and with a truly indomitable spirit.

In 1973, he was diagnosed with arthritis in his hands and wrists, which could have ended his career as a pianist. But Mr. Janis refused to be stymied or stopped. As he put it, ``I have arthritis--it doesn't have me.''

He continued to play for 12 years before disclosing his arthritis at a White House performance. That same day, Mr. Janis assumed the role of Ambassador for the Arts for the Arthritis Foundation.

Through his continued performances and other appearances, he has raised awareness as well as funds to support the foundation's noble cause. To this day, audiences continue to be captivated by Byron Janis's musical talents, even as they are impressed by his amazing persistence in the face of adversity.

March 24 will be Byron Janis's 80th birthday. And this year also marks the 60th anniversary of his debut at Carnegie Hall. Across all those years, his determination, courage, and selfless service have embodied the American spirit at its best. His lifetime of accomplishments as a performer, cultural ambassador, and role model are truly remarkable. I am pleased today to recognize and congratulate Byron Janis for his triumphs, for his accomplishments, and for inspiring millions of individuals around the world.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.