Floor Statements

Mr. President, over the next 10 days, a remarkable event will unfold in Shanghai, China. Every 2 years, thousands of Special Olympics athletes from around the world come together to showcase their athletic skills and celebrate the spirit of Special Olympics. Starting today, more than 7,500 Special Olympians will begin competing in Shanghai in the 2007 Special Olympics World Summer Games.

Over the coming 10 days, tens of thousands of athletes, coaches, volunteers, family members, government and industry officials, plus experts in health and education from 165 countries have come together to celebrate the talents of those among us who have intellectual disabilities. This spectacular event is not about athletic skill as much as it is about determination, courage, and the desire to compete.

I can speak firsthand about what a rewarding experience it is for all of us who have been involved in Special Olympics. Last year, my State of Iowa hosted the first USA National Summer Games. Thousands of athletes, volunteers, coaches, and families attended our games, in addition to 30,000 fans and spectators. Ames, IA, was transformed into an Olympic Village, and it was thrilling to experience.

I am pleased that three extraordinary athletes from Iowa are now in China competing: Corey Leonhard in track, and Jenna Schrack and Jody Sheriff competing in bowling. Team USA includes 401 athletes, and 102 of them are at the World Games today.

Special Olympics is not just about sports. It is about spirit, and it is about drawing out the best in all of us. The Special Olympics organization is responsible for much more than the games. Its Special Olympics Healthy Athletes Program, developed over a decade ago, focuses on the health, fitness, and well-being of people with and without disabilities. Last year alone, it made possible more than 135,000 health care screenings. Volunteer health care professionals and students were trained to provide the screening and compile the data. In China, medical volunteers will provide health examinations free of charge, including dental, vision, and hearing exams.

The Special Olympics is both a world-class sporting event and a world-class humanitarian experience. Many countries have sent delegations to the games. In addition to our athletes and volunteers attending the Opening Ceremonies, the U.S. delegation will include Department of Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, figure skating champion Michelle Kwan, former Assistant Secretary of Education John Hager, Ernie Banks of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, Lynn Fuchs, Professor of Special Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University, Anne Sweeney of Disney Media Networks and Disney-ABC Television Group, Jennifer Polk Wardlow, a Special Olympics North Carolina athlete, Dr. Tim Shriver, chairman of the board of Special Olympics, and the incomparable Eunice Kennedy Shriver, founder of Special Olympics.

Mr. President, I regret that, with the Senate in session, I couldn't attend today's opening ceremonies. But my

thoughts are with each and every one of Special Olympics athletes. I wish them all the very best.

Go ahead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the closing of my remarks, the Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester, be recognized.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for accepting my amendment to support the families of those National Guard and Reserve individuals serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. I thank Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their support and assistance in including it as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, on which we will be voting on final passage later today.

This is a new era for our National Guard and Reserves. They are shouldering a huge share of the combat burden in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus a

stepped-up role here in homeland security. It speaks volumes that more than four times as many Guard members have been killed in Iraq as during the entire Vietnam war.

With many Guard and Reserve members on their third or even fourth deployment, and with some deployments being stretched to at least 16 months, the stresses on their families are acute. Their children are at greater risk for depression, behavioral disorders, and academic problems. Long family separations often result in financial difficulties and troubled marriages.

Earlier this year, I introduced the Coming Together for National Guard and Reserve Families Act, which is the heart of this amendment. That amendment was accepted by the majority and the minority. The amendment does a number of things: It strengthens the family assistance program to ensure there are adequate resources for Guard and Reserve families throughout the deployment cycle. It provides special attention for the children of deployed servicemembers, who often react to parental separation with acting-out behaviors, anxiety, and depression. Finally, the amendment ensures that Guard and Reserve families receive appropriately timed information about the psychological symptoms that can appear long after coming home--such as anger, depression, alcohol abuse, or post-traumatic stress disorder--to help them take advantage of the services and support they may need.

Shortly after introducing the bill, I received a letter from the fiance of an Iowa Guard member deployed in Iraq. It was one of many letters I received. I cannot read them all. I thought this portion of it summed it up:

I received a letter from you today about the S. 902 bill

that would help National Guard families, and I just wanted to

say thank you. I cried when I first read this; for the first

time in 2 years I feel like someone heard me. I hope this

bill is passed and carried out. My fiance is in Iraq with the

133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard. He was due home in

March but now will be there until August. To say the least, I

was devastated when I heard that he was extended, and

honestly believe that it is such a terrible thing. Since he

has been extended, many of his friends in the unit have tried

to commit suicide and even more are deeply depressed. More

times than not, I hear him saying how he wishes he could just

have his life back. And I ask that you keep fighting for this

because our soldiers' lives are hanging in the balance. My

soldier and I will have to deal with the long-term

consequences of his being in a war zone for so long for the

rest of our lives, and we have to stop this before our

children and grandchildren have to deal with this as well. .

. . I am proud to live in the United States of America.

However, my fiance has done his part; he has protected this

country for 22 months and he has been away from my side for

that long. Let him come home, give us our lives back.

Mr. President, one happy result is that the brave men and women of the 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard--the same soldiers who inspired this amendment--returned home in July after serving as part of the longest continuous deployment of the Iraq war, spending nearly 2 years in active duty and 17 months in Iraq.

Senator Grassley and I passed a resolution earlier honoring the service and sacrifices made by these brave soldiers and their families. But there is more we can do. Of course, I am working with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and others, to begin the long, overdue process of redeploying our troops out of the civil war in Iraq. I hope we can make real progress on this in the coming weeks.

Until we are able to accomplish that, we must do everything we can to make sure the loved ones and family members of our deployed soldiers receive the support they need and deserve.

These families, many of whom are just starting their lives together, are dealing with tremendous stress. They include many small children who have grown up while their mothers or fathers were away.

Mr. President, this is a quiet crisis that we don't read about in the morning newspaper, but it is a crisis nonetheless. This amendment addresses that crisis by strengthening family assistance programs and doing outreach to parents and professionals who serve children-- including mental health counselors and teachers--to alert them to the special needs of kids in military families, especially those with a parent in a war zone.

This amendment also ensures that families receive support after soldiers come home. The amendment ensures that families receive mental health information for up to 6 months post deployment so they can have access to the services and support they need.

Again, why is the amendment necessary? It became clear, after visiting with families of these National Guard troops and reservists who were overseas in Iraq that we have one set of family services and intervention and support for families of regular military personnel in the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force, but don't have the same support services for National Guard and Reserves. Many times in our small towns and communities you have one or two families who have a husband or a father overseas in the National Guard for an extended time, but those families don't get the same support and services as a family with a loved one in the regular Armed Forces, either throughout the deployment or when the soldier returns. Perhaps this made sense in the past. But the line between the Reserves and National Guard and the regular forces has become very blurred with the war in Iraq. So we see the National Guard carrying out what normally would have been done by the Active- Duty military. That is why this amendment, providing Guard and Reserve families with this support, is so important.

On a final note, the benefits of this amendment will apply to all Guard and Reserve troops, as well as their families--and I might point out, even those who disagree with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. They can disagree and this amendment will still apply to them. I feel obliged to say this because a prominent conservative leader, Rush Limbaugh, of radio infamy, said men and women in uniform over in Iraq who oppose the war are ``phony soldiers,'' and are presumably unworthy of the American people's support.

Earlier today, I was here and I heard Senator Reid, our majority leader, speak about this. This statement is outrageous and despicable. Our men and women in uniform in Iraq have made extraordinary sacrifices. 3,800 have been killed and nearly 28,000 have been wounded, many with amputations and brain injuries they will live with for the rest of their lives. Our troops live in constant danger. Meanwhile, their families at home have had to cope with repeated separations and with the constant dread of bad news from Iraq. The very thought of Rush Limbaugh sitting in his air-conditioned broadcast studio and ranting about ``phony soldiers'' in Iraq who dare to speak their mind is just shameful. Perhaps in Mr. Limbaugh's case the correct word is ``shameless.''

I realize he and some other extremists on the right hold the view that you are either with us or you are against us; you are either a good American or a bad American, depending upon whether you agree with the conservative Republican line. But that is not the way most Americans think. We respect disagreement. We value dissent. We don't resort to name-calling when our fellow Americans--especially those in uniform--express a differing point of view.

For the record, by labeling as ``phony soldiers'' those who disagree with the war or the President's comments, that denigrates many thousands of our Armed Forces serving in Iraq. Listen to this. A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found that fully 42 percent of servicemembers disapproved of President Bush's handling of the war, while just 35 percent supported it.

In other words, our men and women in uniform are not much different from the rest of the American people, the majority of whom also disagree with Mr. Bush's conduct of the war. Frankly, it increases my respect for those soldiers' professionalism and sense of duty. They disagree with their Commander in Chief, but they continue to perform their jobs with enormous courage, confidence, and commitment. That is cause for admiration and praise, not name-calling and denigration.

I must add, as a veteran, I find it offensive that Rush Limbaugh, who never put on the uniform of this country, would attack the patriotism or dedication of any soldier fighting in Iraq. I have often said about someone like that, before they drape themselves in the flag of this country, they ought

to put on the uniform first to defend it. In Limbaugh's case, he would not do that.

Well, I also find it disturbing that his offensive comments have not been condemned by our Republican colleagues, or by the Commander in Chief, all of whom were so quick to condemn a similar personal attack on General Petraeus several weeks ago.

The Boxer-Levin-Durbin Amendment to the Defense authorization bill said the Senate ``strongly condemns all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving in the Armed Services.'' I just point out that all but two Republican Senators voted against this amendment. Will any one of them stand up and be brave enough to take on Rush Limbaugh? Will anybody on that side of the aisle take on Rush Limbaugh for this statement? We have not heard anything yet, but I hope they do.

The silence from President Bush and the Republican leadership is simply deafening. Is this because they agree with Mr. Limbaugh, or they don't want to risk angering such a prominent conservative by taking him to task.

Mr. President, in August, seven soldiers published an op-ed in the New York Times criticizing the current strategy in Iraq. Tragically, two of those soldiers were subsequently killed in action, making the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

I only can assume by Mr. Limbaugh's definition that they, too, were phony soldiers. What is most despicable, Rush Limbaugh says these provocative things to make more money. So he castigates our soldiers. This makes more news. It becomes the news, more people tune in, he makes more money.

I don't know, maybe he was high on his drugs again. I don't know if he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. That shouldn't be an excuse.

I wish to make it clear that I respect Mr. Limbaugh's right to say whatever he wants, but we also have a right. We have a right not to listen to him.

So I think the best thing to do for him is to tune him out, tune out Rush Limbaugh and listen to more responsible talk show hosts in this country.

I think that it is time, again, for us to stand up for our troops, as we have, I think, in the past, to give them every bit of support and give their families support. That is what my amendment does. I am pleased this amendment has been included in the National Defense Authorization Act, because it is an important step toward ensuring that our National Guard and Reserve families receive the kind of support the families of our regular forces also receive.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Daniel Gutman and Jordan Anderson of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record an article on the death of Dr. Alvin Smith, who passed away last week at the age of 75. The son of sharecroppers, he went on to become a noted physician who worked throughout his life to increase access to the health care system, an issue that is near and dear to my heart. My condolences go out to his wife Ann, his three son, and his six grandchildren.

The article follows.

[From newsjournalonline.com, Sept. 19, 2007]

Noted Area Physician Dies With Family at Side

(By Anne Geggis)

Dr. Alvin Smith devoted his life to saving the lives of his

patients and curing the ills of the health-care system.

Smith, 75, died Tuesday morning at his Ormond Beach home.

His family was at his side.

The son of Alabama sharecroppers overcame meager beginnings

to become one of the most respected physicians in the area.

The 1952 Mainland High School graduate was perhaps best

known to the community as the director of the Herbert D.

Kerman Regional Oncology Center at Halifax Health Medical

Center and as the owner of Angell & Phelps Chocolate Factory

that his son, Alvin Jr., now runs.

In addition, he felt a strong pull toward changing the

system so more people had access to medical care, serving as

president of the Volusia County Medical Society and the

Florida Medical Association.

Smith was a self-confessed truant who went to fifth grade

for only one day and didn't come back to school for a year.

He quit high school in 10th grade and finally graduated from

Mainland at the age of 21. But then he went on to become the

first college graduate in his family, earning a biology

degree from the University of Florida before getting his

doctorate from the University of Miami.

It was as president of the Florida Medical Association in

the 1990s, however, that Smith achieved one of his most

enduring accomplishments: convincing then-Gov. Lawton Chiles

to form an autonomous state Department of Health. During that

time, he also lobbied for legislation allowing the state of

Florida to sue the tobacco industry to recover Medicaid

costs.

``He wanted to make sure that no patient in Florida went

without the best health care they needed, regardless of their

ability to pay,'' said Dr. Carl ``Rick'' Lentz, also a past

president of the Florida Medical Association and a Daytona

Beach surgeon.

His voice choking, Lentz recalled how Smith recently handed

him his Florida Medical Association president's pin because

Lentz never got one during his term as president.

``He's a wonderful human being who's been a blessing to the

whole world,'' Lentz said. ``There's not a patient who has

been with him that doesn't love him. Anytime you call on Al,

he's there for you.''

Former County Councilman, local talk show radio host and

gadfly Big John recalled meeting Smith as an ``intern'' at

Halifax Health Medical Center in which community members were

invited to spend time with doctors to learn about the

hospital's functions.

``He was a great guy--great personality,'' John said.

Smith's boyhood longing for chocolates he couldn't afford

in the window at Angell & Phelps gave way to occasional

indulgence. When the chocolate factory came up for sale, he

bought it to make sure all his favorite recipes stayed the

same.

Daytona Beach Mayor Glenn Ritchey served with him on the

Halifax Community Health System Board.

``I have known him to be a great community servant, as well

as a wonderful doctor who has meant so much to our area,''

Ritchey said. ``He'll be greatly missed.''

Smith served in the U.S. Army, retiring as a major, and

from the U.S. Army Reserves as a lieutenant colonel. He was

active in civic organizations, ranging from the Boy Scouts to

the People to Prevent Nuclear War. He served on boards

including the United Way, Hospice of Volusia/Flagler and A

Child's Place.

``Alvin's one of the really good guys,'' said John E.

Evans, a former TV personality and spokesman for what was

then called Halifax Community Health System.

Survivors include his wife of 50 years, Ann; three sons,

Alvin Jr., Ormond Beach, and Chuck and Mike, both of Palm

Coast; a sister, Ginny Little, Ormond Beach; and six

grandchildren.

Viewing will be from 5 to 7 p.m., Friday at the social hall

at Central Baptist Church, 142 Fairview Ave., Daytona Beach.

Services will be at 11 a.m. Saturday at Central Baptist

Church. A private military burial will be next week.

Mr. President, I want to take some time to remind our colleagues, and indeed all Americans, that today, September 21, 2007, is the International Day of Peace. The United Nations and its member states unanimously established an International Day of Peace in 1981. However it was not until 2001 that September 21 was agreed to as the permanent date. According to the U.N. resolution, the International Day of Peace should be devoted to commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples. I applaud Governor Chet Culver for his proclamation affirming Iowa's observance of International Peace Day. And, at this time, I would like to do my own part to mark this day, especially on the behalf of the many Iowans who are committed to the ideals of peace.

Unfortunately, this may be International Peace Day, but this is hardly a day of peace. The United States is in the fifth year of a devastating war in Iraq, a war of choice that was launched preemptively by the current U.S. administration. The Middle East is marked by conflict and bloodshed from Lebanon to Israel to the Palestinian territories to Iraq and Afghanistan. The genocide in Darfur continues to rage. Militias continue to prey on innocent women in Eastern Congo. In Guatemala, there is an increase in violence against women and against those fighting for the rights of the indigenous population as a result of the most recent elections. HIV/AIDS continues to ravage the continent of Africa. Millions of children are forced to work in abusive conditions--in many cases, as outright slaves--and are denied an education.

Historically, the mixture of strength and a preference for peaceful relations with the rest of the world is what has given the United States its moral standing. In the past, it was our willingness to come to the aid of those who could not defend themselves, and a commitment to resolving conflicts peacefully, if at all possible, that made us the beacon of hope for a better world.

But a true commitment to peace is not measured by a proclamation or by high-minded speeches on one day of the year. It takes more than good intentions and high ideals. What it takes is the hard work of diplomacy, people-to-people exchanges, and active, assertive peace movements in each country. It takes a sustained effort to understand our adversaries and, if at all possible, to resolve our differences peacefully.

I have long been committed to finding peaceful solutions to conflicts. That is why I was present at the creation of the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Throughout our long history, America has been proud of its strong, well-led military. And this outstanding military leadership is no accident. It is possible because we maintain prestigious, world-class military academies that train some of the best and brightest minds in America in the art and science of war. But Americans also have a long history as a peace-loving people. Time and again, we have brokered peace agreements between warring nations, and we have intervened to head off potential conflicts. The Institute of Peace draws on this proud tradition, and today makes a vital intellectual investment in the art and science of peacemaking.

I look forward to a time, hopefully not too far in the future, that will truly be a day of peace. But let us remember that peace is not merely the cessation or absence of hostilities. The ideals of peace require us to practice understanding, tolerance, and honorable compromise. The ideals of peace require us to look upon our fellow human beings and to see them as our brothers and sisters. The ideals of peace require us to reject unprovoked aggression and violence as acceptable instruments of national policy.

On this International Day of Peace, I salute the many good people in Iowa, across America, and around the world who devote themselves 365 days a year to the cause of peace and nonviolence. The world is a better place because of their activism and engagement, and because they summon us to what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.

Mr. President, a year ago, there was a large-scale outbreak of food-borne illness caused by a virulent strain of E. coli in fresh bagged spinach. More than 200 people became ill, and three died. Since then, U.S. consumers have been bombarded with news of repeated cases of contaminated food--everything from peanut butter to seafood to pet food. Just this week, there was a recall of a Dole bagged salad product because of E. coli contamination.

We need to restore the public's confidence in American fresh produce and the agency that regulates it. To that end, I am introducing the Fresh Produce Safe Act of 2007. My colleague Senator Kohl has joined me in co-sponsoring this legislation, and our aim is to create, for the first time, an effective national food safety framework for all fresh produce.

Industry groups are acutely aware of the need to restore consumer confidence. For instance, the California leafy green produce industry has come up with a marketing agreement to certify the safety of its products. The Florida tomato industry has pushed the State to inspect and regulate its products. But this regional, patchwork approach is simply not adequate. We need a national program to ensure the safety of all fresh produce all across the country.

Under the Fresh Produce Safety Act, FDA would have the authority to require produce companies to follow commonsense food safety guidelines. Those guidelines currently are only voluntary. Now, obviously, it would be a waste of resources to require the same stringent controls for, say, apples that we would require for leafy green produce. That is why the bill requires FDA to establish national standards tailored to specific types of produce and the particular risk factors arising from the way each is grown and handled. The legislation also requires stepped-up inspections of operations that grow and process fresh produce, such as spinach or lettuce.

Other key provisions of the bill include a surveillance system to identify and stop the sources of fresh produce contamination, and a research program to better understand and prevent contamination of produce. The legislation would also require FDA to write rules to ensure that imported produce has been grown and processed under the same standards that we will have in the United States.

The Fresh Produce Safety Act is timely for another reason. Eating fruits and vegetables promotes lower body weight, stronger bones, and lower risk of developing diet-related diseases such as diabetes. In recent years, major efforts and investments have encouraged people to eat these healthful foods. It can only turn people away from healthy eating to have continuous instances of E. coli contamination and fresh produce recalls.

The American people need to have confidence that their fruits and vegetables are produced and handled in a safe and wholesome manner. That is exactly the goal of the Fresh Produce Safety Act.

Mr. President, a year ago, there was a large-scale outbreak of food-borne illness caused by a virulent strain of E. coli in fresh bagged spinach. More than 200 people became ill, and three died. Since then, U.S. consumers have been bombarded with news of repeated cases of contaminated food--everything from peanut butter to seafood to pet food. Just this week, there was a recall of a Dole bagged salad product because of E. coli contamination.

We need to restore the public's confidence in American fresh produce and the agency that regulates it. To that end, I am introducing the Fresh Produce Safe Act of 2007. My colleague Senator Kohl has joined me in co-sponsoring this legislation, and our aim is to create, for the first time, an effective national food safety framework for all fresh produce.

Industry groups are acutely aware of the need to restore consumer confidence. For instance, the California leafy green produce industry has come up with a marketing agreement to certify the safety of its products. The Florida tomato industry has pushed the State to inspect and regulate its products. But this regional, patchwork approach is simply not adequate. We need a national program to ensure the safety of all fresh produce all across the country.

Under the Fresh Produce Safety Act, FDA would have the authority to require produce companies to follow commonsense food safety guidelines. Those guidelines currently are only voluntary. Now, obviously, it would be a waste of resources to require the same stringent controls for, say, apples that we would require for leafy green produce. That is why the bill requires FDA to establish national standards tailored to specific types of produce and the particular risk factors arising from the way each is grown and handled. The legislation also requires stepped-up inspections of operations that grow and process fresh produce, such as spinach or lettuce.

Other key provisions of the bill include a surveillance system to identify and stop the sources of fresh produce contamination, and a research program to better understand and prevent contamination of produce. The legislation would also require FDA to write rules to ensure that imported produce has been grown and processed under the same standards that we will have in the United States.

The Fresh Produce Safety Act is timely for another reason. Eating fruits and vegetables promotes lower body weight, stronger bones, and lower risk of developing diet-related diseases such as diabetes. In recent years, major efforts and investments have encouraged people to eat these healthful foods. It can only turn people away from healthy eating to have continuous instances of E. coli contamination and fresh produce recalls.

The American people need to have confidence that their fruits and vegetables are produced and handled in a safe and wholesome manner. That is exactly the goal of the Fresh Produce Safety Act.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor, today, to introduce the Fair Home Health Care Act of 2007 to recognize the extraordinary value of the services that home health care workers perform. This legislation is in response to a Supreme Court decision in June that ruled that home care workers are not entitled to the protections provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

At the center of that case was a 73-year-old retiree named Evelyn Coke, who spent some two decades of her life cooking, bathing, feeding, and caring for the everyday medical needs of people who cannot take care of themselves. Today, Evelyn Coke suffers from kidney failure. But despite 20 years of working more than 40 hours a week, she can't afford a home health care worker to take care of her. She sued her employer for not paying time-and-a-half pay for all those hours that she worked overtime but was denied premium pay by way of compensation. Unfortunately, Evelyn Coke lost her case before the Court because of an outdated exemption to the Federal minimum wage and overtime laws.

In 1974, Congress expanded the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, include protections for most domestic workers, such as chauffeurs and housekeepers. However, a narrow exemption was created for employees providing ``companionship services'' to seniors and people with disabilities. At that time, home care, like babysitting, was largely provided by neighbors and friends.

In the three decades since the exemption was created, the numbers of home care workers and their responsibilities have expanded dramatically as the population has aged and more and more people are choosing long- term health care services in their homes rather than in institutions. There are more than 1 million home care workers in the U.S. They provide physically and emotionally demanding and often life-sustaining care for the elderly and disabled still living in their own homes.

This bill brings together two issues that are very close to my heart--on the one hand, independent living and quality of life for seniors and people with disabilities, and, on the other hand, the basic rights of American workers to premium pay for overtime work. Service providers and the people they serve agree on this: no one is served well when home care workers are not paid a living wage. Home care workers deserve fair pay. Seniors and people with disabilities deserve continuous relationships with home care aides that they can trust to deliver the care that they need.

Last week, several constituents who provide these kinds of services came to my office. One man, Pete Faust, has worked in home care settings for 30 years. Pete makes $12 an hour and admits he has trouble making ends meet; the overtime pay he receives makes it possible to pay the bills. He knows that he could go work somewhere else and make twice as much, but he worries that it is hard on his clients not to see the same friendly familiar face on a regular basis.

Casey Cole is another of my constituents, and he is in a similar position. He works 12 days in a row, and then gets two days off. Often, however, there isn't anyone else to cover the shifts when he is off, so he will work 26 days in a row. Even his days off aren't really days off, because he's answering calls or checking in to make sure that all the people under his care are getting their needs met.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a Pete Faust or a Casey Cole to help them out. There is a shortage of qualified home care workers, and of there is high turnover in the field. Some 86 percent of direct care workers turn over every year. Almost 90 percent of homecare workers are women, and they are predominantly minority women, making an average of just $9 an hour.

The reason for the shortage of people to do this work is certainly not a shortage of compassion. The problem is that people need to be able to make a living wage when they have their own families to take care of. It is high time to grant these hard-working people the minimum wage and overtime protection. That is why I am introducing this legislation, today.

The Fair Home Health Care Act will include home care workers under the same rules that currently cover babysitters. That is to say, they will be entitled to Fair Labor Standards Act protections if they are not employed on a ``casual basis.'' Casual basis is defined as employment on an irregular or intermittent basis, when the employee's primary vocation is not the provision of homecare, the employee is not employed by an agency other than the family or household using his or her services, and the employee does not work more than 20 hours per week.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. The bill will improve pay for hardworking caregivers, and it will increase access to care for our Nation's seniors and people with disabilities.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor, today, to introduce the Fair Home Health Care Act of 2007 to recognize the extraordinary value of the services that home health care workers perform. This legislation is in response to a Supreme Court decision in June that ruled that home care workers are not entitled to the protections provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

At the center of that case was a 73-year-old retiree named Evelyn Coke, who spent some two decades of her life cooking, bathing, feeding, and caring for the everyday medical needs of people who cannot take care of themselves. Today, Evelyn Coke suffers from kidney failure. But despite 20 years of working more than 40 hours a week, she can't afford a home health care worker to take care of her. She sued her employer for not paying time-and-a-half pay for all those hours that she worked overtime but was denied premium pay by way of compensation. Unfortunately, Evelyn Coke lost her case before the Court because of an outdated exemption to the Federal minimum wage and overtime laws.

In 1974, Congress expanded the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, include protections for most domestic workers, such as chauffeurs and housekeepers. However, a narrow exemption was created for employees providing ``companionship services'' to seniors and people with disabilities. At that time, home care, like babysitting, was largely provided by neighbors and friends.

In the three decades since the exemption was created, the numbers of home care workers and their responsibilities have expanded dramatically as the population has aged and more and more people are choosing long- term health care services in their homes rather than in institutions. There are more than 1 million home care workers in the U.S. They provide physically and emotionally demanding and often life-sustaining care for the elderly and disabled still living in their own homes.

This bill brings together two issues that are very close to my heart--on the one hand, independent living and quality of life for seniors and people with disabilities, and, on the other hand, the basic rights of American workers to premium pay for overtime work. Service providers and the people they serve agree on this: no one is served well when home care workers are not paid a living wage. Home care workers deserve fair pay. Seniors and people with disabilities deserve continuous relationships with home care aides that they can trust to deliver the care that they need.

Last week, several constituents who provide these kinds of services came to my office. One man, Pete Faust, has worked in home care settings for 30 years. Pete makes $12 an hour and admits he has trouble making ends meet; the overtime pay he receives makes it possible to pay the bills. He knows that he could go work somewhere else and make twice as much, but he worries that it is hard on his clients not to see the same friendly familiar face on a regular basis.

Casey Cole is another of my constituents, and he is in a similar position. He works 12 days in a row, and then gets two days off. Often, however, there isn't anyone else to cover the shifts when he is off, so he will work 26 days in a row. Even his days off aren't really days off, because he's answering calls or checking in to make sure that all the people under his care are getting their needs met.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a Pete Faust or a Casey Cole to help them out. There is a shortage of qualified home care workers, and of there is high turnover in the field. Some 86 percent of direct care workers turn over every year. Almost 90 percent of homecare workers are women, and they are predominantly minority women, making an average of just $9 an hour.

The reason for the shortage of people to do this work is certainly not a shortage of compassion. The problem is that people need to be able to make a living wage when they have their own families to take care of. It is high time to grant these hard-working people the minimum wage and overtime protection. That is why I am introducing this legislation, today.

The Fair Home Health Care Act will include home care workers under the same rules that currently cover babysitters. That is to say, they will be entitled to Fair Labor Standards Act protections if they are not employed on a ``casual basis.'' Casual basis is defined as employment on an irregular or intermittent basis, when the employee's primary vocation is not the provision of homecare, the employee is not employed by an agency other than the family or household using his or her services, and the employee does not work more than 20 hours per week.

I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. The bill will improve pay for hardworking caregivers, and it will increase access to care for our Nation's seniors and people with disabilities.

Mr. President, over the last 3 months a majority of project-based section 8 housing had payment disruptions with HUD not making timely payments under its contractual obligations to the owners of the housing facilities. As of the end of August, 50 facilities had not received payments just in my State of Iowa. The payments not received cover 2,466 apartments. Twenty-two percent of those projects were designated as ``family projects,'' and 78 percent are elderly or disabled projects or a combination of the two. Some of those facilities were still waiting for their June and July payments when the August payments failed to arrive.

As of yesterday, I understand that about 20 projects in Iowa which have reached their contract expiration date at the end of June, July, or August still have not seen the routine work to renew the contracts, and payments have not been received in Iowa. I expect that Iowa is typical of the Nation in this regard.

The failure to make timely payments not only results in added costs to owners, it creates a chill on future investments in low-income housing. With that chill, I fear that the number of low-income housing units available to families and the elderly in need will be reduced.

I urge that the committee work to provide for methods and requirements as well as financial resources so HUD will provide proper timely payments to all project-based section 8 projects in the coming fiscal year. I am particularly concerned with the situation that may occur if the Congress passes one or more short-term continuing resolutions for the beginning of the fiscal year. I would like to work with Chairman Murray and Senator Bond to accomplish these goals.

Madam President, today I call to the attention of my colleagues three very special families from Rose Hill, IA, and their extraordinary contributions to our Nation.

First, a little bit of background. As we all know, the National Guard and the Reserves have been shouldering a huge share of the combat burden in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not only away from their families, they are also away from their employers. Bear in mind that these are citizen soldiers. In civilian life, they are teachers, firefighters, farmers, attorneys, and members of just about every other profession. And when they are deployed, their employers also have to make sacrifices.

Every year, the Department of Defense presents its Freedom Award to a small number of employers that go above and beyond the call of duty in supporting employees who are deployed with the Guard or Reserve. This year, one of those employers is Augustine & Sons farm in Rose Hill, IA.

Augustine & Sons is not one of those big corporate conglomerate farms. We are talking about a family farm owned and worked by brothers Dan and Mike Augustine. They are the sixth generation of the Augustines to farm this land since it was homesteaded in 1852. They have just two employees on the farm, and one of those employees is Matthew Strasser, a first sergeant with the Iowa National Guard who is on his second deployment overseas. First Sergeant Strasser previously served in Kosovo, and he is now deployed in Afghanistan.

The next time we see one of those bumper stickers that says, ``Support Our Troops,'' we should think of the Augustine families. When First Sergeant Strasser left for Afghanistan, the Augustines lost one- half of their two-man workforce. But the Augustine brothers have continued to pay his entire salary, including an annual bonus. The Strasser family continues to live rent-free in a house on the farm. The Augustine families look in on the Strassers like they are just one big family--helping with chores, taking the boys fishing, and much more.

It is just an extraordinary story of good, decent people going the extra mile--I should say, the extra 100 miles--to extend a helping hand and to be endlessly generous. The Augustines may have a relatively small farm, but they have very big hearts.

The Augustine and Strasser families are in Washington today, and the Augustines will be presented with a 2007 Freedom Award at a special dinner this evening. It was a great honor to have them at my weekly constituent breakfast this morning. I had the pleasure of meeting Dan Augustine, his wife Teresa and son Ryan; Mike Augustine, his wife Leesa, and son Caitlin; and Jessica Strasser, the wife of 1SG Matthew Strasser, and their sons Reece and Tyler.

I am sure that the entire Senate joins me in saluting 1SG Matthew Strasser for his courageous service in Afghanistan and also for the sacrifices on the homefront by Jessica Strasser and their sons. We also are deeply grateful to the Augustine families for their generosity and their very special brand of patriotism.

Yesterday, Americans commemorated the anniversary of the September 11, 2007, attacks. It has always struck me that those attacks, which represented humanity at its very worst, have led to so many acts of generosity and sacrifice that represent humanity at its very best. The Augustine and Strasser families make me very proud to be an American, and it was wonderful to meet them this morning.

Madam President, I take great pride now in asking unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 2 minutes so we may greet five Parliamentarians from the Republic of Slovenia. I take great pride in this. As the occupant of the Chair knows, my mother came from the small village of Suha in Slovenia, was an immigrant to this country. I know the grandfather of the Senator from Minnesota also came from Slovenia. So for those of us with Slovenian roots, this is a proud moment. In its 16 years of independence, Slovenia has established a stable multiparty democracy, a free press, an independent judiciary, and an excellent human rights record. In 2004, Slovenia joined NATO and became a member of the European Union. In fact, in January of 2008, Slovenia will ascend to the presidency of the European Union.

So we are proud to have five members of the Slovenian Parliament here: Miro Petek, Marijan Pojbic, Jozef Horvat, Samo Bevk, and Marjan Drofenik.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 2 minutes to greet these fine Parliamentarians.