Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Robert B. Mehnert, who is retiring after 48 years of dedicated service to the Government and people of the United States of America.

Mr. Mehnert began his public service in 1958 with the U.S. Army, continuing in uniform until 1962. In 1963 he reentered Federal service, this time as a management intern with the then-Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He rose quickly through the ranks and, in 1971, Mr. Mehnert became Chief of the Office of Public Information at the National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health. Since 1998 he has directed the Office of Communications and Public Liaison at the library. For more than a quarter century, Mr. Mehnert's keen editorial and literary talents have helped library's director, Donald A.B. Lindberg, M.D., and his predecessor, Martin M. Cummings, M.D., to communicate the most current and reliable medical and consumer health information to medical professionals, researchers, patients, families, and the public.

During his tenure at the National Library of Medicine, Mr. Mehnert has been in the vanguard of a revolution in health information. The introduction of the Internet and the Web environment vastly increased the number and extent of NLM services and audiences. In 1997, after more than a century of serving the library and medical communities exclusively, the National Library of Medicine launched Medline freely on the Web and declared that it would seek to serve the general public as well. With Mr. Mehnert's help, other NLM services for the consumer public quickly followed. In 1998, MedlinePlus.gov, a source of authoritative full-text health information written for the consumer was unveiled. In 2000, ClinicalTrials.gov--an NLM Web site that provides consumers with information on medical research studies that are recruiting patients--was launched. Other NLM consumer-oriented databases were introduced in the last decade as bandwidth and the power of personal computers increased. They have included NIHSeniorHealth.gov, a talking Web site with topics and formats tailored to the needs of older persons; Genetics Home Reference, a Web site that makes genetics and its relationship to disease more understandable to the public; the Household Products database that provides easy-to-understand information on the potential health effects of ingredients contained in common household products; and many others.

One of Mr. Mehnert's most tangible legacies has been his recent service on the editorial team responsible for producing a new quarterly NIH magazine, NIHMedlinePlus, which is sent to doctors' offices nationwide for their patients to read. The production of this consumer- oriented magazine fulfills Congress's call to publicize the fruits of NIH-sponsored research to patients, their families, and the public at large.

Mr. Mehnert has been recognized by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health for his exceptional leadership and achievements. Aside from numerous merit awards, his honors have also included being the recipient of both the NLM Director's Award and the NIH Director's Award on several occasions.

As someone who has worked for many years to support medical research, I am especially grateful to people who have dedicated their lives to this crucial public health mission. Bob Mehnert has done that and is a great testament to what public service is all about. Bob and his wife, Helene, have three daughters, seven grandchildren,

and 1.5 great grandchildren--that is, one is on the way. I thank Bob for his distinguished career in service to the American people, and I wish him many well-deserved years of happiness in retirement.

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

Madam President, a few minutes ago in the Mansfield Room, which is right off the Senate floor, we had a very moving ceremony, one that brought home to so many of us just what we ought to be about as representatives of the people. It was the enrolling ceremony for the bill, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, that passed the House of Representatives a couple of hours ago. In the Senator Mansfield Room off the Senate floor were Senator Reid, our majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, along with Congresswoman DeGette from Colorado, who has been the prime mover of this legislation in the House, Congressman Mike Castle of Delaware, also a prime mover in the House. It was Representatives Castle and DeGette who worked together to get this bill through the House both last year and this year; also, Congresswoman Capps from California and Congressman Jim Langevin from Rhode Island.

We had this enrolling ceremony to send the bill to the President. With us in the room at the time were people who in their own personage represent so many of the illnesses and diseases that stem cell research holds so much promise for curing, everything from juvenile diabetes to Parkinson's, Rett Syndrome, spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, and so many others were there. You see these little kids and you see their families, and what they have left is hope. They have hope that scientists, working collaboratively, will unlock some of these mysteries, will find the interventions and the cures to so many of these illnesses and diseases.

I saw there a little girl who had Rett Syndrome, with her mother. There was another young girl with juvenile diabetes, thinking about what her life is

going to be like. We know stem cell research holds hope that scientists can unravel some of these mysteries. Those of us who have been involved in at least the legislative end of stem cell research, through all the hearings we have had going clear back to 1998 when the first embryonic stem cells were derived in Wisconsin, we know the great advances that have been made. We know how close we are to having some wonderful breakthroughs.

Yet on August 9, 2001, President Bush, in his first year in office, spoke to the Nation--I remember it very well--and limited the number of stem cell lines that could be investigated by Federal researchers or through the auspices of the National Institutes of Health. They might not be Federal employees. They could be researchers at the University of Minnesota, the University of California, or the University of Iowa, but they would be getting grants from the National Institutes of Health for biomedical research. On August 9, 2001, the President basically said we are going to limit the number of stem cell lines.

We thought at the time maybe 75 lines were enough. Then it turned out there were 20 some lines, then fewer than that. Then we found out later every single one of these stem cell lines was contaminated because they had been grown in a medium with mouse cells. So they are contaminated. None of them will ever be used for any kind of human intervention.

Since that time, we have worked to overcome this Presidential fiat, if you will, one person, the President of the United States, being able to limit the expenditures of Federal money for stem cell research. Here I give my utmost praise and thanks to Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. He has been stalwart, first in his chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee that funds biomedical research. He was the first one to have congressional hearings on embryonic stem cell research. I believe we have had 20-some hearings since then. I was his ranking member and, of course, now I am Chair and he is my ranking member. But we have worked hand in glove all these years to overcome this Presidential fiat that limits, that put shackles on the scientists who want to unlock these mysteries, who want to work to help cure diseases such as juvenile diabetes, Lou Gehrig's disease, and spinal cord injuries.

I can remember once when my good friend--now he is deceased-- Christopher Reeve, whom we all remember as Superman, the first Superman, had a severe spinal cord injury and he labored hard all the time for overcoming the President's order of August 9, 2001. He worked so hard to try to get a stem cell bill passed.

One time, we had seen a film of a mouse--actually a rat, sorry, a rat--whose spinal cord had been severely damaged. There were pictures of this rat that couldn't walk--only with its front feet; its back feet were totally paralyzed--treated with stem cells, and the rat then walked. That was when Christopher Reeve uttered his famous line: ``Oh, to be a rat.'' Or as I said at the time, we are actually about 99 percent rat. I don't mean politicians, I mean humans, genetically, DNA- wise. And if that could be done there, then there is so much hope that can be investigated and taken on in trying to cure severe spinal cord injuries, for example.

It was a very moving ceremony, looking at the faces of the mothers and the fathers, the children who were there, and thinking that this is what we ought to be doing. We ought to be giving them the hope that we are going to employ our best minds, our best science to heal the sick-- to heal the sick. I think and I hope that is one of the primary reasons for government, for our government--to help alleviate human suffering wherever we find it. So I am hopeful that the President will change his mind about his thoughts on vetoing this bill.

As you all know, we passed this bill last year. I might add that this bill was passed with the House and Senate under Republican control, sent to the President, and he vetoed it. Well, we did not have the votes to override the veto. But we said we would be back under a new Congress, and we did come back. The Senate passed a bill a couple of months ago, in April.

I might add, if you add up all of the votes--and there were some people missing, but if you added up all the votes with those who were for the bill and those against it, basically we had 66 votes in favor of this bill. That is one vote shy of enough to override. If I am not mistaken, I believe we had 18 Republican Senators. So this is not a partisan issue. It is not partisan. The same in the House. One of the leaders in the House is Mike Castle of Delaware, a Republican, and I mentioned Senator Arlen Specter, one of our great Republican leaders in the Senate on biomedical research.

I guess you have to wonder why it would be that just one person, the President of the United States, has the power to deny so much hope to so many people. I am hopeful the President will reexamine his thoughts, listen to the kinder voices of his nature, and listen to those around him who understand this legislation has strong ethical guidelines. This bill has stricter ethical guidelines on stem cell research than is existing in law today.

I might also add that the President has made it clear there was one moral line he would not cross. He said Federal tax dollars should not be used to destroy embryos. Well, we expressly crafted this bill, S. 5, to ensure that it does not lift the existing Federal ban on using Federal funding to destroy embryos. We have fully addressed the President's No. 1 concern. As I said, S. 5, the bill that was just enrolled and sent to the President, imposes stricter ethical requirements than exist today.

We tried to meet the President halfway. Isn't that what this is about--the art of compromise? Maybe he is not all right all the time, maybe we are not, so we try to meet halfway. Last year, when the bill passed the Senate floor, there was a Specter-Santorum provision that was not put in the bill. The President said he was in favor of that. So we put it in the bill. That provision promotes alternative ways of deriving stem cells. The President last year said he endorsed that. Here is his chance to sign it and make it a law, along with a bill that has stricter ethical guidelines than what exist today.

I see no reason, no ethical reason, no logical reason why the President would once again veto this bill. It is not the same bill he vetoed last year. It is a different bill. We put in the Specter- Santorum language. We put in the ethical guidelines. I want to make it clear this bill we will send to the President has requirements that are very strict.

First, the only way a stem cell line can be eligible for federally funded research is, No. 1, if it were derived from an embryo that was otherwise going to be discarded.

What do I mean by that? Well, there are about 400,000 embryos right now frozen in in vitro fertilization clinics. The moms and dads have had all the children they want, they no longer need any more of the embryos, and so those embryos are going to be discarded. It happens every day at fertility clinics all over America. All we are saying is, instead of discarding them, let's allow a couple to donate those, if they wish, to create stem cell lines that can cure diseases and save lives. Throw them away or use them to ease suffering. It is the second choice--use them to ease suffering--that I believe is the truly moral pathway and truly respectful of human life.

Think about it. Think about a couple who has used in vitro fertilization to have a family. Over 50,000 children are born every year to couples who otherwise would be infertile. Let's say the couple has had the kids they want to have but there are leftover embryos. The couple's only choice now is to continue to pay the IVF clinic to keep them frozen in nitrogen for all their lives, and perhaps when they die they will be thrown away, or to throw them away. Those are the only two choices. Why not give a couple the choice of saying to the IVF clinic, you can take the leftover embryos we have and donate them to science for embryonic stem cell research.

Some people might say, maybe then people will get into the business of paying couples--paying them to donate embryos, embryo farming and all of that, which we have heard about. We have covered that in the bill. We have strict ethical guidelines. No. 1, no money or any other consideration can be given to a couple for donating embryonic stem cells. No money or any other consideration. It must be strictly voluntary. And the donors have to give

their informed written consent. The last ethical guideline is that these embryos that are donated can only be used for embryonic stem cell derivation and nothing else.

As I said, these are stricter guidelines than exist today. So why wouldn't we allow couples who have had their family, rather than saying throw them away, why not allow them to be able to donate them for the kind of research that will ease human suffering and lead to cures?

There is overwhelming support across the country for this legislation. Some 525 different groups have endorsed this bill--patient advocacy groups, religious groups, health organizations, scientific societies, and universities. They know it holds hope, hope for people with Lou Gehrig's disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, people with diabetes, and people with cancer.

This is not just us saying that. Don't just take our word for it. In March of this year, in front of our committee, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the Director of the National Institutes of Health--keep in mind he is the head person of all of the Federal biomedical research, Dr. Zerhouni, head of the NIH--appeared before our committee. I asked him whether scientists would have a better chance of finding new cures and treatments if the administration's current restrictions on embryonic stem cell research were lifted. Dr. Zerhouni said, unequivocally, yes.

Keep in mind, Dr. Zerhouni is the Federal Government's top scientist in the area of medical research. He was appointed by President Bush to his present position. So I think it took great courage on Dr. Zerhouni's part to say in public that his boss had it wrong on stem cell research. But I know Dr. Zerhouni. He is a preeminent scientist; the greatest doctor, and I know that he knows--he has so stated it-- that we must move ahead on embryonic stem cell research. Here is what he said, and let me quote him:

It is clear today that American science would be better

served and the Nation would be better served if we let our

scientists have access to more stem cell lines. It is in the

best interest of our scientists, our science, and our country

that we find ways and the Nation finds a way to allow the

science to go full speed across adult and embryonic stem

cells equally.

Well, Madam President, we must move forward. We must move forward. I just hope the President will sign this bill. But I can assure you, on behalf of the hundreds of millions of Americans who suffer from different kinds of diseases that have the potential--the potential--to be cured through embryonic stem cell research, if the President vetoes it, we will be back, and we will back again and again and again. This issue is not going to go away. We are going to keep hope alive for people with spinal cord injuries, with Parkinson's disease, and with so many others.

We don't require astronomers to examine the skies at night with Galileo's telescope. We don't tell our geologists to study the Earth with a tape measure. Are we really serious about unlocking the mysteries of stem cells and all of the things that we have seen happen with stem cells? We have already seen stem cells that have differentiated into motor neuron cells, nerve cells, and heart muscle cells. We have already seen this take place. Now it is just a matter of more science, getting more of our smartest scientists involved in this to take the next step and the next step and the next step so that someone suffering from Parkinson's disease will have a cure. I believe it is possible. From all the scientists I have talked to, I believe it is possible, and it could be possible in our lifetimes.

A Nobel prize winner, the discoverer of the double helix of our DNA, Dr. Jim Watson, said to me not too long ago: With all that we have done in unraveling the mystery of the human gene--we have mapped and sequenced the entire human genome--with that and with these new breakthroughs in finding that embryonic stem cells can differentiate, we can take them and differentiate them into different tissues--if our scientists are allowed to really go at this full speed, medicine 50 years from now, as it is practiced, will make it look like what we are doing today as being in the dark ages. That is the hope and the promise of embryonic stem cell research. It should not be that one person, the President of the United States, can stop this from going forward.

With this enrolling ceremony we had today and the focus of the Nation on this, all I can ask is: President Bush, listen to the better angels of your nature. Think about all those who are suffering in our society who need this hope and the scientists who can work together, collaboratively, to find the interventions and the cures for so many diseases--think about this before you put pen to paper and veto this bill. So much rides on this. But as I said, if the President does veto it, we will be back, again and again. This is not going to stop. We are going to lift this ban, and we are going to move ahead with embryonic stem cell research.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I would like to express my deep appreciation to Peggy Whitworth, executive director of Iowa's only national trust property, Brucemore. Brucemore, located in Cedar Rapids, IA, is celebrating its 25th anniversary, and Peggy has been Brucemore's only executive director during that quarter century. During this time, her leadership, creativity, and ``can-do'' attitude have made Brucemore a model nonprofit organization and an eastern Iowa landmark.

This past December, Peggy was awarded the National Trust President's Award for her years of dedicated service to Brucemore, as well as for her advocacy of preservation. I would like to add my voice to those honoring Peggy and her work. She is respected not just in Iowa but across the country as a champion for preservation and the promotion of cultural attractions. Her labors on behalf of historical preservation have helped inspire people in other communities to preserve and honor the important architectural, cultural and historic contributions from our past.

Twenty five years ago, when Brucemore was bequeathed to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the idea was to use the mansion for community meetings and activities. That limited perspective did not last long. Under Peggy's leadership, Brucemore has come to offer a full schedule of events, including Bluesmore, Classics at Brucemore, Cabaret in the Courtyard, as well as tours of the mansion which draw nearly 30,000 people annually.

Peggy has also been active in promoting culture and tourism attractions as an economic development tool. In addition to her work at Brucemore, Peggy has served five terms on the Iowa State Historical Society board, including chairing the board. She serves on the Terrace Hill Foundation. And she was recently appointed to the Board of Pharmacy Examiners by Iowa Governor Chet Culver.

Peggy Whitworth is planning to retire later this year. Her leadership and vision will be greatly missed. And we are deeply grateful for her many contributions to the cultural richness of Iowa.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Katherine Chen and Alec Bonander of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, today I join with my senior colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, in introducing a bill to name the Marshalltown Post Office in honor of MAJ Scott Nisely, who was killed in action in Iraq on September 30, 2006.

Major Nisely enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1981 and served in Operation Desert Storm. In 1994, he moved to Marshalltown, IA, with his family and worked at the Iowa Veterans Home as well as at the Marshalltown and Des Moines Post Offices. Because of his love for his country and the military, Major Nisely took a demotion to join the Iowa National Guard and was sent to Iraq in 2005.

Major Nisely was a dedicated husband and father, beloved for his sense of humor and positive attitude. Having served in Operation Desert Storm, he was already a respected Marine veteran and a hero to his family and friends. But with our Armed Forces engaged in Iraq, he once again felt compelled to fight for his country. Major Nisely served in two wars, set a sterling example of selfless service to country, and paid the ultimate price while fighting in Iraq. I am proud to join my colleague in naming the post office in Marshalltown the Major Scott Nisely Post Office, in honor of this fallen hero.

Mr. President, today I join with my senior colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, in introducing a bill to name the Marshalltown Post Office in honor of MAJ Scott Nisely, who was killed in action in Iraq on September 30, 2006.

Major Nisely enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1981 and served in Operation Desert Storm. In 1994, he moved to Marshalltown, IA, with his family and worked at the Iowa Veterans Home as well as at the Marshalltown and Des Moines Post Offices. Because of his love for his country and the military, Major Nisely took a demotion to join the Iowa National Guard and was sent to Iraq in 2005.

Major Nisely was a dedicated husband and father, beloved for his sense of humor and positive attitude. Having served in Operation Desert Storm, he was already a respected Marine veteran and a hero to his family and friends. But with our Armed Forces engaged in Iraq, he once again felt compelled to fight for his country. Major Nisely served in two wars, set a sterling example of selfless service to country, and paid the ultimate price while fighting in Iraq. I am proud to join my colleague in naming the post office in Marshalltown the Major Scott Nisely Post Office, in honor of this fallen hero.

Mr. President, throughout my time in the United States Congress, I have worked with my colleagues to promote the economic security of low-income and working American families. In many respects, we have made significant progress, but in others, much work remains to be done. The last several years have been difficult ones for low-income Americans. Since 2000, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 5 million. At the same time, wages have stagnated for Americans in the bottom tenth of earners. It's no surprise that more and more Americans have turned to vital Federal food assistance such as the Food Stamp Program, which this year will serve 26 million Americans.

The Food Stamp Program is our Nation's first line of defense against hunger, providing modest but vital benefits to millions of American families, and also serving our country during times of extraordinary need. In fact, the Food Stamp Program played a crucial role in helping millions of Americans who were devastated by the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005.

Unfortunately, Congress has not taken action to modernize the program so that it addresses the current challenges that low-income Americans must face. It is time for Congress to make such needed program improvements. With the food stamp reauthorization pending as part of the upcoming farm bill, we have an opportunity and an obligation to invest in the Food Stamp Program and, in so doing, in the food security and health of our country's families.

Today I am joined by my good friend and colleague, Senator Lugar from Indiana, in introducing the Food Stamp Fairness and Benefit Restoration Act of 2007. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his long-time efforts to fight hunger in America, and for joining me today to introduce this legislation.

The bill that we are introducing today contains several particular improvements.

First and foremost, the legislation would halt food stamp benefit erosion that is occurring as a result of draconian cuts enacted in the mid-90s. As a result of these cuts, food stamp benefits are eroding with every passing year and, as they do, the economic situations of families receiving food stamps grows ever more precarious.

Second, the bill would enable families to deduct fully the costs of child care for purposes of eligibility and benefit determination. Currently, program rules allow families to deduct just $175 per month of the cost of child care. Not only has this deduction not been adjusted to account for increases in the cost of child care, but it comes nowhere near covering the cost of child care, which nationwide averages almost $650 per month.

Third, the legislation would update archaic program rules regarding the resources that a family may have and still receive food stamps. In 1977, Congress established a program rule that said that a family may have $1,750 in available liquid assets and still receive food stamps. Had this asset limit been adjusted for inflation, today a family would be able to have nearly $6,000 in savings and still receive food stamps. Instead, we allow just $2,000. This makes no sense. Not only does it actively discourage families from saving for their future, it all but requires families that experience an economic shock such as a job loss or a medical emergency to spend down their savings to hit absolute rock bottom just to receive meager food benefits. It is time to adjust this asset limit and stop discouraging families from doing what we tell every other American that they must do--save. To that end, the bill also exempts tax-preferred retirement and educational savings accounts.

Fourth, this bill restores food stamp eligibility for legal immigrant households. This too is nothing but a basic restoration of a principle of fairness that existed prior to the mid-1990s. Unfortunately, Congress chose, unwisely in my opinion, to take away benefits from those legal immigrants who played by the rules and legally entered our country. Keep in mind these are families who work and are part of our society. I disagreed with the decision then and I disagree with it today. It is time to rectify this grave injustice and abide by the basic principle that those who enter the country legally and play by the same rules as the rest of us, should also be eligible for the same benefits for which they pay taxes. Our bill would do that.

Fifth, the legislation would set more humane eligibility standards for unemployed, childless adults. These individuals are among the poorest in our country and often have significant

mental health and substance abuse problems. They are, in short, among the people who need our help the most. But ironically, they are among those who we deny the most basic of food assistance. Currently, such adults can receive food stamps for only 3 months out of every 3 years. This legislation proposes a modestly more sympathetic standard of 6 months out of every 2-year period.

Finally, my bill would increase funding for commodity purchases for food banks and community food providers. U.S. Government donations to food banks have dropped dramatically in recent years, even as the number of Americans seeking help from community food providers has consistently increased.

I know that the budget is tight and that Congress must be prudent in decisions about how we allocate funding. But I also know that there is no function of the federal government as basic and as critical as ensuring that low-income Americans, families with children, elderly living on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities, have enough food for their next meal. It is past time for Congress to act in this regard, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me and the Senator from Indiana to enact the Food Stamp Fairness and Benefit Restoration Act of 2007.

Mr. President, throughout my time in the United States Congress, I have worked with my colleagues to promote the economic security of low-income and working American families. In many respects, we have made significant progress, but in others, much work remains to be done. The last several years have been difficult ones for low-income Americans. Since 2000, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 5 million. At the same time, wages have stagnated for Americans in the bottom tenth of earners. It's no surprise that more and more Americans have turned to vital Federal food assistance such as the Food Stamp Program, which this year will serve 26 million Americans.

The Food Stamp Program is our Nation's first line of defense against hunger, providing modest but vital benefits to millions of American families, and also serving our country during times of extraordinary need. In fact, the Food Stamp Program played a crucial role in helping millions of Americans who were devastated by the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005.

Unfortunately, Congress has not taken action to modernize the program so that it addresses the current challenges that low-income Americans must face. It is time for Congress to make such needed program improvements. With the food stamp reauthorization pending as part of the upcoming farm bill, we have an opportunity and an obligation to invest in the Food Stamp Program and, in so doing, in the food security and health of our country's families.

Today I am joined by my good friend and colleague, Senator Lugar from Indiana, in introducing the Food Stamp Fairness and Benefit Restoration Act of 2007. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his long-time efforts to fight hunger in America, and for joining me today to introduce this legislation.

The bill that we are introducing today contains several particular improvements.

First and foremost, the legislation would halt food stamp benefit erosion that is occurring as a result of draconian cuts enacted in the mid-90s. As a result of these cuts, food stamp benefits are eroding with every passing year and, as they do, the economic situations of families receiving food stamps grows ever more precarious.

Second, the bill would enable families to deduct fully the costs of child care for purposes of eligibility and benefit determination. Currently, program rules allow families to deduct just $175 per month of the cost of child care. Not only has this deduction not been adjusted to account for increases in the cost of child care, but it comes nowhere near covering the cost of child care, which nationwide averages almost $650 per month.

Third, the legislation would update archaic program rules regarding the resources that a family may have and still receive food stamps. In 1977, Congress established a program rule that said that a family may have $1,750 in available liquid assets and still receive food stamps. Had this asset limit been adjusted for inflation, today a family would be able to have nearly $6,000 in savings and still receive food stamps. Instead, we allow just $2,000. This makes no sense. Not only does it actively discourage families from saving for their future, it all but requires families that experience an economic shock such as a job loss or a medical emergency to spend down their savings to hit absolute rock bottom just to receive meager food benefits. It is time to adjust this asset limit and stop discouraging families from doing what we tell every other American that they must do--save. To that end, the bill also exempts tax-preferred retirement and educational savings accounts.

Fourth, this bill restores food stamp eligibility for legal immigrant households. This too is nothing but a basic restoration of a principle of fairness that existed prior to the mid-1990s. Unfortunately, Congress chose, unwisely in my opinion, to take away benefits from those legal immigrants who played by the rules and legally entered our country. Keep in mind these are families who work and are part of our society. I disagreed with the decision then and I disagree with it today. It is time to rectify this grave injustice and abide by the basic principle that those who enter the country legally and play by the same rules as the rest of us, should also be eligible for the same benefits for which they pay taxes. Our bill would do that.

Fifth, the legislation would set more humane eligibility standards for unemployed, childless adults. These individuals are among the poorest in our country and often have significant

mental health and substance abuse problems. They are, in short, among the people who need our help the most. But ironically, they are among those who we deny the most basic of food assistance. Currently, such adults can receive food stamps for only 3 months out of every 3 years. This legislation proposes a modestly more sympathetic standard of 6 months out of every 2-year period.

Finally, my bill would increase funding for commodity purchases for food banks and community food providers. U.S. Government donations to food banks have dropped dramatically in recent years, even as the number of Americans seeking help from community food providers has consistently increased.

I know that the budget is tight and that Congress must be prudent in decisions about how we allocate funding. But I also know that there is no function of the federal government as basic and as critical as ensuring that low-income Americans, families with children, elderly living on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities, have enough food for their next meal. It is past time for Congress to act in this regard, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me and the Senator from Indiana to enact the Food Stamp Fairness and Benefit Restoration Act of 2007.

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

Mr. President, since it was created the U.S. Postal Service has provided trusted, reliable delivery to tens of millions of households throughout the country. Today, the USPS stands as the second largest employer in the country with over 700,000 employees and is the most efficient postal service in the world. Last year, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was passed and signed into law, ensuring the sustainability of the USPS for years to come.

However, recent decisions by the Postal Service have put the success and reliability of mail delivery in jeopardy. Postal delivery managers are now being encouraged to contract out delivery services for all new deliveries, of which there are approximately 1.8 million per year.

Outsourcing the mailman bypasses the process that ensures that only qualified people handle America's mail, leaving open the possibility that convicted felons, identity thieves, or other undesirable workers could have access to the mail stream.

Furthermore, it limits the ability of the Postal Service to prevent, investigate, and prosecute mail theft, mail fraud, and other illegal uses of the mail.

The USPS employs dedicated postal employees who earn solid middle- class wages and have health benefits and pension plans. The quality of service and reliability that the USPS has been known for is threatened if our mail carriers are replaced by low-paid, short-term workers.

This is why I am introducing the Mail Delivery Protection Act of 2007. This bill would prevent the USPS from contracting out the delivery of mail to postal patrons to private individuals and firms.

Each day millions of sensitive materials, including financial statements, credit cards, Social Security checks, passports, and ballots, pass through the mail stream. We cannot afford to allow the safe delivery of these personal, private documents to be granted to the lowest bidder.

In 2006, 379 Members of the House of Representatives voted against a pilot program testing the feasibility of contracted delivery.

However, postal management has increasingly chosen to contract out the delivery of mail, therefore outsourcing their core service function. A fancy restaurant would not contract out its chefs to a cheap fast-food chain to save money. Why should the Post Office outsource its delivery?

We must remember that this is the U.S. Postal Service. This bill will ensure that the safety and reliability we have all come to know from our local mail carriers will continue.

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

Mr. President, today I am offering legislation to close the U.S. military presence at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There is remarkable agreement on the need to find a way to close this prison. Our closest allies have all urged that Guantanamo be closed, as have many leaders from across the political spectrum in the United States.

Last June, after three detainees committed suicide in a single day, President Bush acknowledged that the prison has damaged America's reputation abroad. The President said:

No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our

friends--provides an excuse, for example, to say that the

United States is not upholding the values that they're trying

to encourage other countries to adhere to.

The President said:

I'd like to close Guantanamo.

More recently, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Rice have urged that the prison be shut down. On March 23, the Washington Post, citing ``senior administration officials,'' reported Secretary Gates had ``repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantanamo would be viewed as illegitimate.'' According to the Post, Secretary Gates ``told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.''

Make no mistake, current detainees at Guantanamo include a number of extremely dangerous terrorists with the determination and the ability-- if they are given the opportunity--to inflict grave harm on the United States and its citizens. Among the detainees are 14 senior leaders of al-Qaida, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has confessed to being one of the masterminds of the September 11 attacks, plus others. We must, and we can, hold these enemy combatants in maximum security confinement elsewhere.

But the critics are right. The 5-year-old prison at Guantanamo is a stain on the honor of this country. By holding people at Guantanamo without charge, without judicial review, without appropriate legal counsel, and--in the past--subjecting many of them to torture, we have forfeited the moral high ground and we stand as hypocrites in the eyes of the world.

Perhaps most seriously, from a pragmatic standpoint, maintaining the prison at Guantanamo is simply counterproductive. It has become a propaganda bonanza and recruitment tool for terrorists. It alienates our friends and allies. It detracts from our ability to regain the moral high ground, and rally the world against the terrorists who threaten us.

The administration has repeatedly described detainees at Guantanamo as ``the worst of the worst'' or, as former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld once described them, the ``most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.'' Unquestionably, some of the detainees fit these descriptions. However, an exhaustive study of Guantanamo detainees conducted by the nonpartisan, highly respected National Journal last year came to the following conclusions: A large percentage, perhaps the majority, of the detainees were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on ``the battlefield in Afghanistan,'' as the President once asserted. Fewer than 20 percent of the detainees have ever been al-Qaida members. Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone al-Qaida members. The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but, rather, handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis, Afghan warlords, and by villagers of highly dubious reliability. For example, one of the detainees is a man who was conscripted by the Taliban to work as an assistant cook. The U.S. Government's ``evidence'' against this detainee consists in its entirety of the following:

One, the detainee admits he was a cook's assistant for Taliban forces in Narim, Afghanistan, under the command of Haji Mullah Baki.

Two, the detainee fled from Narim to Kabul during the Northern Alliance attack and surrendered to the Northern Alliance.

This person is still sitting in Guantanamo.

The situation at Guantanamo, I must add, reminds me of an earlier episode in this Senator's life. In July of 1970, I was a staff assistant to a House committee in the House of Representatives. I was working with a congressional delegation on a factfinding trip to Vietnam. I brought back photographs of the so-called tiger cages at Con Son Island, off the coast of Vietnam, where Viet Cong and some North Vietnamese prisoners, as well as civilian opponents of the war, were all being held together, held incommunicado, tortured and killed, with the full knowledge, support, and sanction of the United States Government. We had heard reports about the possible existence of these tiger cages. But our State Department vehemently denied their existence. They dismissed all of these claims as communist propaganda.

Well, I looked into this and believed the reports were credible. I was determined to investigate further to see if they did exist. Thanks to the courage of Congressman William Anderson of Tennessee, Congressman Augustus Hawkins of California, Don Luce, an American working for a nongovernmental organization, and a brave, young Vietnamese man who risked his life and his brother's life, who was still held on Con Son in the tiger cages, who drew us the maps and showed us how to find the tiger cages at these prisons--Nguyen Caoli was the young man's name. He risked it all by trusting us. Thanks to his maps and telling us how to find them, we were able to expose the tiger cages on Con Son Island in July of 1970.

Supporters of the war claimed the tiger cages were not all that bad. But then Life Magazine and other magazines around the world published the pictures I had surreptitiously taken on Con Son, and the world saw the horrific conditions, as I said, with Vietnamese guerrillas, as well as civilian opponents

of the war, all crowded together in these cages, in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, and in violation of the most fundamental principles of human rights.

At the time, the United States Government had been insisting the North Vietnamese abide by the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of United States prisoners in North Vietnam. Yet, here we were condoning, funding, and even supervising the torture of Vietnamese prisoners and civilians, whose only crime was protesting the war, all in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

There are disturbing parallels between what transpired on Con Son Island nearly four decades ago and what happened at Guantanamo in recent years. In both cases, prisons were deliberately set up on remote islands, clearly with the intention of limiting scrutiny and restricting access. In both cases, detainees were not classified as prisoners of war, expressly to deny them the protections of the Geneva Conventions. In both cases, detainees were deprived of any right of due process, judicial review, or a fair trial.

They were simply held indefinitely in isolation, in limbo. In both cases, when the mistreatment of detainees was exposed, the United States stood accused of hypocrisy, of betraying its most sacred values, and of violating international law.

So you can see why I have watched what has transpired at Guantanamo, and I have thought back to that episode in my life when all of this came out about the tiger cages and the inhumane treatment of these several hundred prisoners who were there at the time. There was a happy ending to that event. Because of the international outcry, the tiger cages were closed down, the prisoners were released, and people went back to their homes.

Many of them who were in the tiger cages I met later on in life. One became the mayor of Saigon, several became successful businesspeople, and others went on with their lives. But watching what happened at Guantanamo and seeing that many of these people were swept up in a war which some of them--many of them--well, the National Journal says a majority of them were not even engaged.

So it is time to close it down. We need to reverse the damage Guantanamo has done to America's reputation and to our ability to wage an effective fight against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, and the essential first step must be to close the prison at Guantanamo as expeditiously as possible. The bill I am introducing today offers a practical approach to accomplishing this within 120 days of enactment of the law.

As I said, there are known hardcore terrorists at Guantanamo, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who must continue to be held in maximum- security conditions. Under my bill, these prisoners will be transferred to the U.S. detention base at Fort Leavenworth, KS. This is a state-of- the-art maximum-security facility just opened in 2002. It has adequate capacity to receive these prisoners from Guantanamo. Under my bill, the remaining prisoners, some 365 in number, would have their legal status resolved. In each case, the administration will determine whether the prisoner planned or committed hostile acts against the United States. Those who did plan or commit hostile acts would be charged and transferred to Fort Leavenworth. Those who did not would be released to the custody of their home country or, where necessary, to a country where they would not face torture.

There is a pending bill, S. 1249, to close the prison at Guantanamo. However, that bill gives the administration too much leeway to maintain the status quo in terms of the detainees' legal status. It allows an enemy combatant to be detained indefinitely without charge--that is what is getting us into trouble in the first place--and it does not require that the administration abide by the Convention Against Torture, nor does it give detainees a forum in which to lodge credible claims of torture or abuse. The bill I am introducing does all of that.

The United States has lost its way, both in Iraq and at Guantanamo. We need to wage a smarter, more focused, and more effective fight against the terrorists who threaten us, and we must do so in ways that do not give credence to their anti-American propaganda and do not rally more recruits to their cause. To that end, we must close the prison at Guantanamo as soon as possible. The legislation I am offering today will accomplish this.

This legislation has the enthusiastic endorsement of Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, Amnesty International, and the American Civil Liberties Union. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unamimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, since it was created the U.S. Postal Service has provided trusted, reliable delivery to tens of millions of households throughout the country. Today, the USPS stands as the second largest employer in the country with over 700,000 employees and is the most efficient postal service in the world. Last year, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was passed and signed into law, ensuring the sustainability of the USPS for years to come.

However, recent decisions by the Postal Service have put the success and reliability of mail delivery in jeopardy. Postal delivery managers are now being encouraged to contract out delivery services for all new deliveries, of which there are approximately 1.8 million per year.

Outsourcing the mailman bypasses the process that ensures that only qualified people handle America's mail, leaving open the possibility that convicted felons, identity thieves, or other undesirable workers could have access to the mail stream.

Furthermore, it limits the ability of the Postal Service to prevent, investigate, and prosecute mail theft, mail fraud, and other illegal uses of the mail.

The USPS employs dedicated postal employees who earn solid middle- class wages and have health benefits and pension plans. The quality of service and reliability that the USPS has been known for is threatened if our mail carriers are replaced by low-paid, short-term workers.

This is why I am introducing the Mail Delivery Protection Act of 2007. This bill would prevent the USPS from contracting out the delivery of mail to postal patrons to private individuals and firms.

Each day millions of sensitive materials, including financial statements, credit cards, Social Security checks, passports, and ballots, pass through the mail stream. We cannot afford to allow the safe delivery of these personal, private documents to be granted to the lowest bidder.

In 2006, 379 Members of the House of Representatives voted against a pilot program testing the feasibility of contracted delivery.

However, postal management has increasingly chosen to contract out the delivery of mail, therefore outsourcing their core service function. A fancy restaurant would not contract out its chefs to a cheap fast-food chain to save money. Why should the Post Office outsource its delivery?

We must remember that this is the U.S. Postal Service. This bill will ensure that the safety and reliability we have all come to know from our local mail carriers will continue.

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

Mr. President, today I am offering legislation to close the U.S. military presence at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There is remarkable agreement on the need to find a way to close this prison. Our closest allies have all urged that Guantanamo be closed, as have many leaders from across the political spectrum in the United States.

Last June, after three detainees committed suicide in a single day, President Bush acknowledged that the prison has damaged America's reputation abroad. The President said:

No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our

friends--provides an excuse, for example, to say that the

United States is not upholding the values that they're trying

to encourage other countries to adhere to.

The President said:

I'd like to close Guantanamo.

More recently, Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Rice have urged that the prison be shut down. On March 23, the Washington Post, citing ``senior administration officials,'' reported Secretary Gates had ``repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantanamo would be viewed as illegitimate.'' According to the Post, Secretary Gates ``told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.''

Make no mistake, current detainees at Guantanamo include a number of extremely dangerous terrorists with the determination and the ability-- if they are given the opportunity--to inflict grave harm on the United States and its citizens. Among the detainees are 14 senior leaders of al-Qaida, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has confessed to being one of the masterminds of the September 11 attacks, plus others. We must, and we can, hold these enemy combatants in maximum security confinement elsewhere.

But the critics are right. The 5-year-old prison at Guantanamo is a stain on the honor of this country. By holding people at Guantanamo without charge, without judicial review, without appropriate legal counsel, and--in the past--subjecting many of them to torture, we have forfeited the moral high ground and we stand as hypocrites in the eyes of the world.

Perhaps most seriously, from a pragmatic standpoint, maintaining the prison at Guantanamo is simply counterproductive. It has become a propaganda bonanza and recruitment tool for terrorists. It alienates our friends and allies. It detracts from our ability to regain the moral high ground, and rally the world against the terrorists who threaten us.

The administration has repeatedly described detainees at Guantanamo as ``the worst of the worst'' or, as former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld once described them, the ``most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth.'' Unquestionably, some of the detainees fit these descriptions. However, an exhaustive study of Guantanamo detainees conducted by the nonpartisan, highly respected National Journal last year came to the following conclusions: A large percentage, perhaps the majority, of the detainees were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on ``the battlefield in Afghanistan,'' as the President once asserted. Fewer than 20 percent of the detainees have ever been al-Qaida members. Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone al-Qaida members. The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but, rather, handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis, Afghan warlords, and by villagers of highly dubious reliability. For example, one of the detainees is a man who was conscripted by the Taliban to work as an assistant cook. The U.S. Government's ``evidence'' against this detainee consists in its entirety of the following:

One, the detainee admits he was a cook's assistant for Taliban forces in Narim, Afghanistan, under the command of Haji Mullah Baki.

Two, the detainee fled from Narim to Kabul during the Northern Alliance attack and surrendered to the Northern Alliance.

This person is still sitting in Guantanamo.

The situation at Guantanamo, I must add, reminds me of an earlier episode in this Senator's life. In July of 1970, I was a staff assistant to a House committee in the House of Representatives. I was working with a congressional delegation on a factfinding trip to Vietnam. I brought back photographs of the so-called tiger cages at Con Son Island, off the coast of Vietnam, where Viet Cong and some North Vietnamese prisoners, as well as civilian opponents of the war, were all being held together, held incommunicado, tortured and killed, with the full knowledge, support, and sanction of the United States Government. We had heard reports about the possible existence of these tiger cages. But our State Department vehemently denied their existence. They dismissed all of these claims as communist propaganda.

Well, I looked into this and believed the reports were credible. I was determined to investigate further to see if they did exist. Thanks to the courage of Congressman William Anderson of Tennessee, Congressman Augustus Hawkins of California, Don Luce, an American working for a nongovernmental organization, and a brave, young Vietnamese man who risked his life and his brother's life, who was still held on Con Son in the tiger cages, who drew us the maps and showed us how to find the tiger cages at these prisons--Nguyen Caoli was the young man's name. He risked it all by trusting us. Thanks to his maps and telling us how to find them, we were able to expose the tiger cages on Con Son Island in July of 1970.

Supporters of the war claimed the tiger cages were not all that bad. But then Life Magazine and other magazines around the world published the pictures I had surreptitiously taken on Con Son, and the world saw the horrific conditions, as I said, with Vietnamese guerrillas, as well as civilian opponents

of the war, all crowded together in these cages, in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, and in violation of the most fundamental principles of human rights.

At the time, the United States Government had been insisting the North Vietnamese abide by the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of United States prisoners in North Vietnam. Yet, here we were condoning, funding, and even supervising the torture of Vietnamese prisoners and civilians, whose only crime was protesting the war, all in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

There are disturbing parallels between what transpired on Con Son Island nearly four decades ago and what happened at Guantanamo in recent years. In both cases, prisons were deliberately set up on remote islands, clearly with the intention of limiting scrutiny and restricting access. In both cases, detainees were not classified as prisoners of war, expressly to deny them the protections of the Geneva Conventions. In both cases, detainees were deprived of any right of due process, judicial review, or a fair trial.

They were simply held indefinitely in isolation, in limbo. In both cases, when the mistreatment of detainees was exposed, the United States stood accused of hypocrisy, of betraying its most sacred values, and of violating international law.

So you can see why I have watched what has transpired at Guantanamo, and I have thought back to that episode in my life when all of this came out about the tiger cages and the inhumane treatment of these several hundred prisoners who were there at the time. There was a happy ending to that event. Because of the international outcry, the tiger cages were closed down, the prisoners were released, and people went back to their homes.

Many of them who were in the tiger cages I met later on in life. One became the mayor of Saigon, several became successful businesspeople, and others went on with their lives. But watching what happened at Guantanamo and seeing that many of these people were swept up in a war which some of them--many of them--well, the National Journal says a majority of them were not even engaged.

So it is time to close it down. We need to reverse the damage Guantanamo has done to America's reputation and to our ability to wage an effective fight against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, and the essential first step must be to close the prison at Guantanamo as expeditiously as possible. The bill I am introducing today offers a practical approach to accomplishing this within 120 days of enactment of the law.

As I said, there are known hardcore terrorists at Guantanamo, such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who must continue to be held in maximum- security conditions. Under my bill, these prisoners will be transferred to the U.S. detention base at Fort Leavenworth, KS. This is a state-of- the-art maximum-security facility just opened in 2002. It has adequate capacity to receive these prisoners from Guantanamo. Under my bill, the remaining prisoners, some 365 in number, would have their legal status resolved. In each case, the administration will determine whether the prisoner planned or committed hostile acts against the United States. Those who did plan or commit hostile acts would be charged and transferred to Fort Leavenworth. Those who did not would be released to the custody of their home country or, where necessary, to a country where they would not face torture.

There is a pending bill, S. 1249, to close the prison at Guantanamo. However, that bill gives the administration too much leeway to maintain the status quo in terms of the detainees' legal status. It allows an enemy combatant to be detained indefinitely without charge--that is what is getting us into trouble in the first place--and it does not require that the administration abide by the Convention Against Torture, nor does it give detainees a forum in which to lodge credible claims of torture or abuse. The bill I am introducing does all of that.

The United States has lost its way, both in Iraq and at Guantanamo. We need to wage a smarter, more focused, and more effective fight against the terrorists who threaten us, and we must do so in ways that do not give credence to their anti-American propaganda and do not rally more recruits to their cause. To that end, we must close the prison at Guantanamo as soon as possible. The legislation I am offering today will accomplish this.

This legislation has the enthusiastic endorsement of Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, Amnesty International, and the American Civil Liberties Union. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unamimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amy Meyers and Adam Zimmerman of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I note the loss of former Congressman Jim Jontz, who died last month after a 2- year battle against colon cancer. All of us, and especially our Nation's political discourse, are much the poorer for the loss of Jim's energetic voice for progressive politics and his use of grassroots organizing to connect people not only to elective politics, but even more important, to the politics of governing--to the art of making our government institutions respond and work for the people they serve.

Jim's indefatigable, tireless approach to politics put him in the Indiana House of Representatives at age 22. He won that race, against the sitting House majority leader, by two votes, which he claimed to have picked up in a laundromat late in the night just hours before the election. He served in the Indiana House for 10 years, then in the Indiana Senate for 2 years.

Jim was elected to Congress in 1986 and served in the House of Representatives from 1987 to 1993. A big part of his successful congressional campaign was his call for more effective Federal action responding to the worst economic crisis in American agriculture since the Great Depression. It was typical of Jim that he saw the pervasive ramifications of the farm crisis as striking at the heart and character of rural America. And he fought to turn that situation around.

During his time in Congress, Jim emphasized environmental issues, as he had in the Indiana Legislature, including pushing for protection of forests in the Pacific Northwest. As a member of the House Agriculture Committee during debate on the 1990 farm bill, he was out front, in truth ahead of his time, in calling for a greater emphasis on promoting and supporting more effective agricultural conservation and environmental practices.

As could be expected, some who were beholden to the conventional wisdom sought to portray Jim as attacking the very underpinnings of U.S. agriculture. Theirs was the politics of division, of contriving threats and sowing fear, but his approach, as usual, was not to deepen divisions but rather to find common ground.

In Jim's proposals, stronger Federal policies to help agricultural producers practice better conservation and stewardship would also improve their prospects for making a living and remaining in agriculture, while enhancing the environment and quality of life for their families and others living in rural communities.

Looking back from today's vantage point, much of what Jim was proposing for the conservation of our Nation's resources is now widely accepted as a fundamental part of our Nation's agricultural policy-- although we still have a long way to go to fulfill the vision Jim did so much to instill.

For a second-term Congressman working on his first farm bill, Jim played an unusually significant and effective role in the 1990 farm bill. Many of his amendments promoting agricultural conservation and sustainable agriculture were adopted in the House bill and ultimately in the conference report enacted as the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. He also successfully pushed for initiatives involving packer concentration, grain quality, food aid, agricultural research and farm income assistance.

After leaving Congress, Jim served for several years as the president of Americans for Democratic Action, and in recent years served as ADA's president emeritus. In that capacity, he led ADA's Working Families Win project which focused on heightening the profile of fair trade and environmental issues among presidential and Congressional candidates. True to his grassroots organizing origins, Jim employed the Working Families Win project to activate and motivate local efforts on outsourcing, minimum wage and health care issues.

Jim's untimely death at age 55 leaves a big hole in the leadership of America's progressive politics. We should all take inspiration and instruction from this master in the art of deploying grassroots organizing and high-minded politics toward the highest ideals and aspirations for our great Nation.

Along with my colleagues, I extend my deepest sympathy and condolences to Jim's mother, stepfather, sister and three nieces, and to the many friends and people he touched in his abundant but too short life.

Mr. President, today, along with Senators Grassley, Brown, and Baucus, I am introducing legislation that will expand opportunities for our next generation of farmers and ranchers. Over the next two decades, an estimated 400 million acres of agricultural land will be transferred to new owners. Today, farmers over the age of 65 outnumber those below the age of 35 by a margin of nearly two to one. The future structure, health and vitality of our Nation's food and agriculture system depend on sound public policies that provide the next generation of farmers and ranchers the help they need to successfully enter farming and ranching.

The next generation of farmers and ranchers need access to training and mentoring which will help them obtain the critical management and marketing skills vital to their success. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Program, created in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, is the first USDA program other than credit financing to focus specifically on beginning farmers and ranchers. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2007 would reauthorize this program and provide $25 million a year in mandatory funding. We also propose to make beginning farmer issues, such as land transition, farm transfer and succession, and entry into farming priority research areas within the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.

Beginning farmers and ranchers who are unable to obtain credit from commercial sources are eligible for Farm Service Agency direct farm ownership and operating loans up to an amount of $200,000 for each type of loan. This limit has not been adjusted in nearly

two decades despite the rising cost of land, equipment and energy, and thus it is no longer sufficient. We propose to increase direct farm ownership and operating loan limits from $200,000 to $300,000 to reflect economic realities. The authorization of appropriations for direct loans is adjusted in the bill to reflect the new loan limits. It is important to increase direct loan authorization levels and appropriations, along with adjusting the direct farm ownership and operating loan limits or the net result may well be larger loans to fewer borrowers out of a constant pool of loan funds.

We propose several adjustments to the beginning farmer and rancher down payment loan program. This loan combines the financial resources of the beginning farmer, the Farm Service Agency and commercial or private lenders. Throughout the 1990s this program was very successful, but in recent years it has not been widely used due to low interest rates on traditional direct farm ownership loans. The interest rates on the down payment loan and direct farm ownership loan have been comparable so qualified borrowers have chosen to use the traditional FSA direct farm ownership loan for which no down payment is required.

The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2007 would adjust the current interest rate of 4 percent for beginning farmer and rancher down payment loans to a floating rate of 4 percent below the regular FSA direct farm ownership interest rates, or 1 percent, whichever is greater. It would also reduce the beginning farmer's down payment from 10 percent to 5 percent of the total price of land and increase the FSA portion of the loan to 45 percent from 40 percent. A commercial lender or private seller would still be required to supply the remaining portion of the partnership loan.

These changes, along with a few others, would make the program more attractive for beginning farmers and ranchers. Creating more attractive incentives in this beginning farmer and rancher down payment loan program should result in limited Federal dollars supporting more qualified borrowers since the government's portion of financing a farm purchase is only 45 percent as opposed to the traditional direct farm ownership loan where the government finances 100 percent of the loan.

The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2007 creates a new beginning farmer and rancher individual development account pilot program. This program is designed to help beginning farmers and ranchers with limited resources establish savings. Eligible program participants agree to save money which is matched by federal and local money. The savings may be used by a participant for capital expenditures for farm and ranch operation, including the purchase of land, buildings, equipment and livestock. This program will help participating beginning farmers and ranchers save and invest in assets that will increase their long-term equity and likelihood of success.

The challenges beginning farmers and ranchers face are immense. The cost of land and equipment, obtaining credit, turning a profit and building equity in a highly uncertain business are just a few of the challenges. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2007 will help address the big challenge facing America's next generation of farmers and ranchers. This bill is a comprehensive initiative which provides farmers and ranchers critical help they need to enter and succeed in farming and ranching, to be good stewards of the land, to be innovative and entrepreneurial and to respond to rapidly changing markets and economic realities. I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation and help enact it this year.

Mr. President, I am honored to join with the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, to introduce the Cancer Screening, Treatment an Survivorship Act of 2007.

Last summer, Lance Armstrong came to Iowa to testify at a field hearing on cancer research. He is a national hero for winning the Tour de France 7 years in a row. But he has become a national treasure as America's No. 1 advocate for cancer research, detection, and treatment. I deeply appreciate his advocacy and tireless efforts to fight this disease. Lance is one of the millions of people across America who has been touched by cancer.

The bill I am introducing today is personal with me. I have lost 4 of my 5 siblings to cancer. And, with better detection and screenings, perhaps my siblings would have had a better outcome.

I believe passionately in doing our best to prevent cancer, by encouraging appropriate lifestyle choices. But I am equally passionate about the need to do a better job of detecting cancer as early as possible, so we have a better chance of beating it.

And that is the aim of the Cancer Screening, Treatment, and Survivorship Act of 2007. We have simple goals: To detect cancer earlier. To reduce cancer mortality rates. To improve the quality of life for those diagnosed with cancer. And, yes, to save health care dollars.

As I said, my hope is that the bill we are introducing today will take us to the next level and begin addressing survivorship and people that are living with this chronic disease. Together, we can work to improve the quality of life for those diagnosed with cancer and save lives. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is passed and signed into law.