Floor Statements

Madam President, I would like to take a moment and comment about an important program that I worked to include in the 2002 farm bill. I wish to engage Chairman Bennett, manager of the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture appropriations bill, in a colloquy regarding the Farmers Market Promotion Program.

The House of Representatives has already passed its Agriculture appropriations bill, which includes $1 million in funding for the Farmers Market Promotion Program. As the Senate wraps up its work on the pending bill and looks ahead to conference, I would like to request that the chairman do all he can in those negotiations to secure full funding for this important program.

Authorized in section 10605 of the 2002 farm bill, the Farmers Market Promotion Program would provide critical Federal grant dollars to local governments, chambers of commerce, farmers market alliances, coops, and economic development organizations to support the expansion, development and maintenance of farmers markets and other direct marketing opportunities. An initial investment of $1 million will help to get this program up and running, bringing critical resources to communities nationwide.

I make this request of the chairman understanding the budget pressures and competing interests within this bill. I would like to say at this time, however, this $1 million would be very well spent. Consumers are demanding locally grown farm raised agricultural products and producers want to meet this demand. In my State and across the Nation exciting things are happening in the area of new markets for agricultural products, but many communities lack the needed seed money to get off of the ground.

I am grateful to the Chair and thank him again for his skillful work at crafting a bill that can be supported by the full Senate.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1835.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, first, I want to commend Senator Bennett and Senator Kohl for their work on the bill that is before us today, the Agriculture appropriations bill. They worked hard to put together a good bipartisan bill and overall I find no fault with it. I think it is a great bill and it will have my support. I thank both Senator Bennett and Senator Kohl and their respective staffs for working with me and with my staff on a number of issues that are in the Agriculture appropriations bill.

I want to draw the attention of Senators to page 160 of the bill, section 746:

None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to

study, complete a study of, or enter into a contract with a

private party to carry out, without specific authorization in

a subsequent Act of Congress, a competitive sourcing activity

of the Secretary of Agriculture, including support personnel

of the Department of Agriculture, relating to rural

development or farm loan programs.

Well, what does all that say? What it says basically is that the Department of Agriculture cannot engage in any contracting out to private contractors applications processes for anyone coming in to get any assistance under rural development or farm loan programs. In other words, those have to be carried out by public employees, employees who are publicly hired, and that any activity relating to that must go through those employees.

It says basically it has to be that way until we in the Agriculture Committee on the Senate and the House authorize the Department of Agriculture to specifically engage in such contracting activity.

Do I support section 746? Yes, I think it is a good addition to the bill. I do not think the Secretary or the Department ought to be going out and contracting out to private entities these kinds of activities until we have had a chance to look at it, until the authorizing committees of the Senate and the House have hearings, take into consideration what is involved, and either grant that to the Secretary of Agriculture or not grant it.

So I think section 746 is basically a sound approach that recognizes both the value of the public sector and public employees, and recognizes the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committees. However, there is something missing from section 746. I believe this same logic should apply to other USDA programs. In particular, I believe we need to protect vital services and benefits offered through the Food Stamp Program.

The amendment I am offering would apply the same protection that 746 applies to farm loan and rural development functions to the Food Stamp Program as well. In other words, my amendment basically says if you want to contract out to private contractors elements of the Food Stamp Program that have to do with application processes, you cannot do it until it is specifically authorized by Congress--just as the underlying bill requires for rural development or farm loan programs.

My amendment is basically an extension of the logic of the underlying bill. It is not a departure from it. It is not a major policy change. It simply says the Food Stamp Program, like rural development and farm loan programs, is a vital public service program. It is not broken, it is working well. If you want to make some changes, why don't you come to Congress. We will have some hearings, and we will see if it needs to be fixed.

I have been on the Agriculture Committee now for 30 years. That is right, this is my 30th year, now that I think about it: 10 in the House and 20 in the Senate. We have been through a lot in the Food Stamp Program in 30 years. We have always made changes to it to meet changing times and circumstances. I was one of those who was in the lead on getting rid of food stamps and getting it to an electronic benefit transfer program, where you have a debit program. It has worked well.

However, in all of those cases we in the Congress decided on the changes that should be made to the underlying program, not just the Secretary of Agriculture. As I said, this program is not broken. In fact, recent events have highlighted the value of the Food Stamp Program and the need to protect it from changes that could undermine it.

Amidst the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, the Food Stamp Program has nobly and efficiently served those in need.

There has been a lot of criticism of the Federal Government's response to Katrina, but I have heard no criticism of the Food Stamp Program. In many places hit by Katrina, the Disaster Food Stamp Program was one of the first responders. We often think of first responders as being firefighters and policemen, emergency services personnel. That is true, they are. But in this case, first responders were also those public employees who helped those most in need get the food they needed for themselves and their families.

In Louisiana, nearly 300,000 households are already receiving food stamps and have been for the last couple of weeks since the hurricane hit. In Texas, another 125,000 households are receiving emergency food stamp assistance. Overall, approximately 1 million individuals affected or displaced by Hurricane Katrina are receiving emergency food stamp benefits.

The USDA was able to respond quickly and set up these programs efficiently, in large part because the programs were run by State agencies in consultation with the Federal Government. That was their purpose. That was their reason for being.

Why do we want to allow the Food Stamp Program to be privatized and put out to private contractors? Usually you do that if there is a problem, if something is failing to meet the needs of people. I defy anyone in this Senate to come up and show me or show anyone where the Food Stamp Program is failing to meet the needs of the people it serves, or is not being run efficiently.

When the next disaster occurs, do we want an outside contractor responsible for running the Disaster Food Stamp Program? Do we in the Senate want to open up the program to the risks associated with food stamp privatization in general? We can ill-afford to put the Food Stamp Program and the millions who benefit from it at this kind of risk.

What do I mean by risk? What is at the bottom of this? We know there has

been a State that is currently seeking permission from the Department of Agriculture to privatize food stamps. Here is what they want to do. They want to close a number of food stamp offices where a person goes to meet face to face with someone to determine eligibility and get their approval for food stamps. They want to close about 100 of those and open up three call centers. If you want to apply for food stamps, they tell me you are going to have to call on the phone. Or you can go online, as if people who apply for food stamps are sitting at home at their computers.

Let's take the case of these call centers. I have no reason to believe that it couldn't work like this. Imagine, here are people desperately in need of food stamps. They get a number to call--probably an 800 number or something like that, probably toll free, I assume. They call up. A voice answers, an automated voice answering system answers and says: I understand because you are calling you probably want to apply for food stamps. If you want to apply for food stamps and you live in this area, punch 1; if you live in this area, punch 2; if you live in this area, punch 3. You get all the way through and you are pretty confused about where you live.

Let's say you figure it out and you say I am in this area and you punch 3. Then another voice comes on and says: OK, we understand you live in this area and you want to apply for food stamps. If you are a single person, punch 1; if there are two of you, punch 2; if you have a family of three, punch 3. You see what I am saying? Then you have to punch in another entry.

Another automated voice comes on and says the next step in this process: If you are over a certain age, press this number; if you are under a certain age, press this number; if you have ever applied for food stamps--do you see what I am getting at? You have a person on the phone who wants to apply for food stamps and they are sitting there trying to figure out, punch 3 for this, punch 4 for that.

Finally, after they get through all of these automated voice prompts they are probably told: Thank you, your waiting time to talk to the next operator is now 19 minutes. And you have to sit there and listen to music. If you are patient enough to wait that long, you are probably going to get someone on the line you will talk to. For all I know, by the time you actually get to them, the person on the other line may not even be in the United States. That is what this is all about.

There are some companies that want to do this. They probably figured out they can make a lot of money. They hire someone in another country for, I don't know, 50 cents an hour.

Again, the underlying bill says you cannot do that if you are a utility company and you want to apply for a rural development loan. They don't make you go through call centers. They have someone there you go see.

If you are a farmer, if you have a farm, you have assets, you own something, and you want to apply for a farm loan, you don't have to go through a call center. You go see someone. But by allowing wholesale privatization of the Food Stamp Program, we would not be providing to low-income Americans the same basic treatment. Poor people have to go through call centers and get all the runaround that we always get when we try to call and get someone in one of those call centers.

That is why section 746 needs to be amended. That is why it needs this addition, so that the Food Stamp Program is treated the same as farm loans or rural development. If they want to change it, have them come up to Congress. We will have hearings. We will take a look at it. Maybe they can make a good case. I don't know. But I am just concerned if we do not add this amendment, that waivers will be given that will allow contracting out the food stamp operations.

Furthermore, this may undo a lot of the progress we have made in improving program integrity. Right now, program error in the Food Stamp Program is the lowest than at any time in its existence. Why do you want to change it? If something is working, why try to fix it? Why would we choose to put these successes at risk by now turning it over to untested entities and call centers?

Under the current food stamp law, public employees of State food stamp agencies are responsible for two essential oversight functions: Payment accuracy and an annual self-evaluation of program management. But if these functions are turned over to a private contractor with no experience in running the Food Stamp Program, how do we know if they will be able to maintain program accuracy? Should we just roll the dice and take it on faith that they will continue the error rate as low as we have it right now?

I want to make it clear, I am not opposed to privatization of certain things. I point out the electronic benefit transfer program under food stamps is privatized. It is all run by--I guess Citibank or someone, I don't know, I could be a little wrong on that. But that is fine. There is nothing wrong with turning to specialized contractors for technical services like financial operations. What I am talking about is when you apply for food stamps; when you are in need and you want to apply or you want to modify your food stamps because of another child born or some other thing, something else has happened to change your life. That is when you need to have someone there who can help you immediately in your situation and talk to you.

Anyway, as I said, my amendment would not stop that. It would not stop the private contracting out for EBT, but it certainly would for fundamental program functions like application and eligibility processes.

To repeat for emphasis sake, there is no evidence that we have any problems in the Food Stamp Program that requires privatization. The error rate is the lowest ever. The accuracy rate is high. Emergency food stamps for disaster situations have worked extremely well. So there is no evidence, nor have we had a hearing, to suggest that privatizing the Food Stamp Program would in any way improve program effectiveness. That is why we should have extensive hearings on this before allowing any waivers to be granted.

The Food Stamp Program is strong. Not only does it deliver much needed food assistance to 25 million Americans, but as we have just shown with Katrina, it is serving hundreds of thousands of families, over a million people devastated by that hurricane.

My amendment simply ensures that the Food Stamp Program remains as it is with those public employees best suited to carry it out. It extends the logic that is in Section 1746 of the underlying bill dealing with rural development farm and loan programs to the Food Stamp Program as well.

As I said, if they want to do something, they can come to the Agriculture Committee. We can have hearings and take into account some problems that somebody might feel would be cured by privatizing and setting up these call centers for food stamp applications.

I ask for support of the amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for his kindness and having this vote. Hopefully we can at least keep this in as we move ahead going to conference.

I thank the chairman for his kindness.

I understand that the House report on this appropriations measure includes language that directs the APHIS to adopt a particular standard with respect to microchip identification tags for pets, but that the present measure does not include this language.

As the ranking member of the authorizing committee that has jurisdiction over this issue, I strongly disagree with this language being inserted in an appropriations report, and with a process that would dictate a standard for these microchips without fully considering alternatives. It is my understanding that pet animals with chips that conform to the standard included in the House report are a small fraction of all the pet animals in the U.S. that presently have a microchip identification tag implanted under their skin. These ID tags play a vital role in reuniting pet animals that have gone astray with their families.

Further, I understand that adopting this standard as directed would interfere with ongoing intellectual property litigation over patented technology incorporated in the most widely adopted microchip standard in the U.S. I think it would be improper for Congress to take this action at this time.

I do not advocate any action in the current legislation, other than to ensure that the language unfortunately included by the House is not included in the conference report. I would ask the subcommittee chair and the ranking member whether, since the Senate report is silent on this issue, this issue is preserved for our consideration as part of the conference, and whether they agree with me that this provision should be dropped from the conference report?

Mr. President, the continuing scenes of the suffering and devastation in New Orleans and across the Gulf Coast weigh heavily on our hearts and minds. It is clear that as a nation we have a monumental challenge ahead of us to rebuild and restore one of America's most unique and important regions. There is the challenge of repairing and replacing the physical infrastructure of a number of cities, including the great city of New Orleans. There is also the challenge of restoring jobs and income and opportunity and hope to hundreds of thousands of desperate and displaced people.

Hurricane Katrina did more than rip the roofs off buildings along the Gulf Coast. It also ripped off the mask that has covered up the plight of millions of working Americans who live in poverty, as well as nearly one out of every five American children who are now growing up in poverty. Too often the poor are out of sight and out of mind. Katrina changed that. Hurricane Katrina opened the eyes of people all across this country. The poor are now in sight and on our minds. Americans are shocked. Frankly, we are ashamed that such desperation and deprivation could exist on such a large scale in the wealthiest nation on Earth. Americans expect more, and we deserve more.

Those of us who are working in the cool air-conditioned buildings of Washington have to take a long, hard look at the priorities and choices that have contributed to a situation where Americans, moms and dads, husbands and wives, people of all walks of life, work hard but still are unable to make ends meet and still live in poverty. One might think that we would be so embarrassed about these misplaced priorities that have contributed to this situation that we would change course, that we would do all we can to support those who work hard to make ends meet.

One would think that reordering priorities would be especially important in our efforts to rebuild the Gulf Coast, to restore jobs and create new opportunity, get income into people's pockets so they can rebuild their lives and jump start the local economy.

Unfortunately, as if we had learned nothing at all, one of the very first actions taken by President Bush in the wake of this storm was to issue an executive order suspending the Davis-Bacon Act, the Federal law that requires employers on Federal projects to pay employees the prevailing wage of that area. This is a law that has been supported by every President since Franklin Roosevelt, Republican and Democrat.

Even more disturbing, if press reports are to be believed, the President is apparently planning to compound the damage by also rescinding what is known as the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act which contains similar wage protections for employees working on Federal service contracts. It is a law that goes back over 50 years.

Until now, I have muted my voice. I have not criticized the President nor anyone else on what has happened in New Orleans and what happened in the wake of Katrina. I have said that the time for that would come later. For now, it is time to get food and shelter and clothing and health care to the people so devastated. That is why I am so disappointed with this action by the President which will negatively impact workers' wages. So, while we need to set up a separate commission to look at what happened in the aftermath of the hurricane, why the planning was not done, why so much suffering and death before poor people were moved to places of safety, the fact is things are now moving ahead.

With the stroke of a pen, the President is going to remove the requirement for the prevailing wage to be paid for workers in this region. If press reports are to be believed, he is now going to compound it by rescinding the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act that would apply that prevailing wage to Federal service contracts.

This is exactly the wrong way to put the Gulf Coast region back on its feet. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama already have low wage levels compared to the rest of the Nation. For example, the current prevailing wage in the New Orleans area for a truck driver working on rebuilding the levees is $9.04 an hour. In the New Orleans area, the prevailing wage for an electrician is $14.30 an hour. Think about it. That comes to an annual income of barely $18,000 a year for a truck driver and about $28,000 a year for an electrician working full time. It is hard enough for a family to rebuild their lives in that devastated area at that income. Why in the world would the President want to slash that income, especially at this time?

Let's look at some more of the workers who would be negatively impacted by this action. We are talking about sheet and metal workers in Pearl River County, MS, who currently make less than $19,000 a year. That is their prevailing wage. We are talking about carpenters in Mobile County, AL, who currently make less than $20,000 a year. We are talking about laborers in Livingston Parish, LA, who make less than $20,000 a year. At this time, why would we want to cut their already meager income? These are the very workers we will be counting on to rebuild the highways and bridges, reconstruct houses and schools and hospitals, get our electricity up and running again in all those areas. These are the workers who will do the hazardous waste cleanup. Their wages are already barely at the poverty line. The President's actions will drive those wages down even lower.

Given the conditions these people will be working in--areas rife with bacteria and mold, chemical contaminants--we ought to be giving them a wage premium to work in these areas. Instead, the President's action will give them a wage cut. This policy fails the basic test of fairness and equity. Is the President calling for a cap on executive salaries? I haven't heard him call for that. Is there any effort to see if the companies involved in the cleanup and rebuilding would be willing to accept less than the normal profit? I see that one of the first no-bid contracts let was to Halliburton.

We know who the former president of Halliburton is: Vice President Dick Cheney. We know that one of the chief clients of the former head of FEMA, Mr. Albaugh, who now has a consulting firm, is Halliburton. We know that Mr. Albaugh's hand-picked successor, Mr. Brown, was the head of FEMA when they gave the no-bid contract to Halliburton. It sounds like a sweetheart deal to me. Is the President calling for a cap on profits earned by those companies? Of course not. So why in the world is the President singling out low-income workers in that area and saying: We are not just going to put a cap

on what you make. We are going to lower prevailing wage. We are going to take it away. Why is he cutting their pay at a time when we should be trying to boost income and give a helping hand to people in this area?

For the life of me, the more I think about this, the more I read about it, I don't get what the President is trying to do. They have a prevailing wage. He is saying, you are not going to get that. What happens when you don't have a prevailing wage in a desperate situation? There is always somebody worse off than you that will take a job at less pay. There is always somebody a little bit more desperate. So if the prevailing wage for a truckdriver was $9 an hour, if there is no prevailing wage, the company could come in and say: Anybody want a job for $8 an hour? Someone says: Yes, I will take it for $7. Someone else will say I will take it for $6 because I am so desperate. I need work. I need income.

You end up with a race to the bottom on the wages these jobs pay if you don't have that prevailing wage. That is precisely what is going to happen in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region. It is a blow to the workers who have already lost their homes. Many have lost jobs, families disrupted, coming back to clean up the mess in their neighborhoods. Now they are being told their wages are going to fall. Think about this. Before Katrina, a truckdriver would be making $9.04 an hour. Post-Katrina, they will get less money. Can someone please explain to me what sense this makes? Pre-Katrina we pay you more for the work you do; post-Katrina, we are going to pay you less.

I say to the President of the United States: You are going to be on television tomorrow night to talk about the cleanup effort. Please explain to the American people why it is you took away the prevailing wage for workers. Explain why it is necessary for them to make less now than they made before. Explain why it is necessary to cap their wages, but we don't cap the profits of the companies doing the work. We don't cap the executive salaries of the executives of those companies.

This is devastating. I have held my criticism of the President, but this is unconscionable. This is not right. It is not right for individuals, and it is foolish economic policy for a region that we are trying to get back on its feet. FEMA is already signing scores of contracts for vast sums of money. The question is: Will a fair share of this money work its way down to the ordinary laborers who do the dirty, hazardous jobs of cleanup and rebuilding? Or will it mostly go for executive salaries and corporate profits? Certainly, we do not want a replay of Iraq, where billions of dollars in contracts have been awarded, enriching people at the top, but with precious little trickling down to ordinary Iraqis to put income in their pockets and encourage a grassroots economic recovery.

Surely we can learn from the mistakes we made in Iraq where we just threw billions of dollars to these companies, and not much of it got down to the people in Iraq. Surely we can learn from that and not repeat those mistakes in the Gulf Coast.

The good news is that it is not too late for the President to correct this misdirection. We are still at the beginning of our response to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. As we saw when the FEMA Director was reassigned earlier this week and has since left, of course, the President and his team have shown a capacity for shifting gears and making midcourse corrections. That is fine.

Tomorrow night, the President needs to take a second midcourse correction in the strongest possible terms. I urge the President to use his prime-time address to the Nation to reverse course and reinstate the Davis-Bacon protections for the Gulf Coast region.

I also urge the President to put in place a network of auditors and overseers to ensure that the billions of dollars going to Katrina relief is spent effectively, that the lion's share is used to restore and create jobs, to boost incomes, to spark a bottom-up economic recovery and revival all across the devastated region.

There have been numerous articles written in the days since Katrina hit the Gulf Coast underscoring how shocked Americans are to see with our own eyes the poverty and the deprivation that unfortunately still exists on a large scale in the wealthiest Nation on Earth. We need to address the issue of poverty in this country. We knew before Katrina struck. We saw the data. The U.S. Census Bureau issued updated poverty data showing that 37 million live in poverty--13 percent of our population. Since 2001, 4 million more Americans have fallen into poverty. Nearly 5 million more Americans are without health insurance. And worst of all, poverty is increasing sharply among the working poor, people who have full-time jobs. The Census Bureau's numbers show that over the last year alone, the number of Americans who work but live in poverty increased by 563,000 people--over half a million. Meanwhile, the latest Census numbers show that over the last year, real median earnings fell by nearly $1,000 for male workers, more than $300 for female workers.

It should offend our basic sense of fairness to know there are any Americans working full time, playing by the rules, and still living in poverty. Once again, it is not too late to act. Katrina can serve as a wake-up call to all of us to reorder our priorities, as I said earlier.

Before Katrina, people in the Congress, the leadership, the Republicans in Congress were poised to slash food stamps and Medicaid for the poor at the same time that we were supposed to get a bill to eliminate the estate tax and extend other tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Prior to Katrina, their agenda consisted of coming back here and cutting food stamps, cutting Medicaid for the poor, cutting estate taxes, giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. Let's hope Katrina has been a wake-up call that these are misordered, wrong priorities. They would have been misordered before Katrina, and they are glaringly misguided in a post-Katrina America. We should be focusing on initiatives that lift people out of poverty, not slashing programs that provide health care and food support to working families.

We must increase the minimum wage, which today is not even a living wage but a poverty wage. We need to increase education and job training opportunities. We need to be making college loans and grants more widely available and cheaper. We need to be strengthening the ladder of opportunity that allows people to achieve their own American dream. We cannot do that if we keep doing what we have been doing--if we keep cutting taxes for the wealthiest of Americans, then turning around and compensating for the deficit created by those huge tax loopholes by slashing food stamps and Medicaid and taking away the prevailing wage for workers in the Gulf Coast region.

I close my statement by, again, calling upon President Bush to do a midcourse correction. I don't know who advised you, Mr. President, to use your pen to cut the prevailing wages for our workers in the Gulf Coast region. Whoever advised you, they were wrong. Now is your time to do a midcourse correction. Tomorrow night, when you address the Nation, Mr. President, tell the American people that you are going to reinstate the prevailing wage for our workers in the Gulf Coast. In fact, give them a premium for all the dirty, hard work they'll have to do. And then don't suspend the act that also provides a prevailing wage for our service workers because they are going to be doing a lot of the hard work also in cleaning up the mess in New Orleans and around the Gulf Coast region.

It would be a terrible thing if we take hard-earned taxpayers' dollars that we are committing to rebuilding the Gulf Coast region, to rebuilding the economy and helping people rebuild their lives--it would be a slap in the face to the American taxpayer if we allow that money to go disparately into the pockets of the executives of the companies that get all the contracts, and in turn cut the wages of the workers who will be physically doing the hard work and the heavy lifting. That is not the America that we want post-Katrina.

Mr. President, tomorrow night, do the right thing: change your course.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in celebration of the 95th birthday later this week of a truly beloved Iowa artist, Lee Allen.

Born in Muscatine on September 16, 1910, Edwin Lee Allen has called Iowa home for his entire life. The son of an engineer, Lee was raised with a unique blend of curiosity and problem-solving ability. As a young boy, his father gave him a set of oil paints and Lee quickly developed into an excellent artist. At the age of 18, Lee won a blue ribbon for oil painting at the Iowa State fair. Another artist who won an award at that fair was Grant Wood, later to become famous for his painting ``American Gothic.'' Lee and Grant Wood became friends and, as director of a Federal fine arts project during the Depression, Grant Wood asked Lee to work for him.

In 1935, Lee studied under Diego Rivera in Mexico City. Upon returning to Iowa City, Lee won a competition to paint murals for post offices. Two were produced. One, ``Soil Conservation,'' still hangs in the Onawa post office, and another, ``Conservation of Wildlife,'' hangs in the Emmetsburg post office. ``Soil Conservation'' was selected for the American Century exhibit at the Whitney Museum of American Art in 1999.

In 1937, Lee began working for the University of Iowa as a medical illustrator in the Eye Department. He quickly distinguished himself as a medical illustrator, but also made many contributions to the medical profession. For example, in 1941, frustrated with then-current gonioprisms, Lee developed the ``Allen-Thorpe Goniprism,'' which was sold by the Bausch and Lomb Company. He also developed the ``Allen Dot'' which diminished flare and reflections on cameras designed for photographing eyes.

Following World War II, Lee began making artificial eyes. And in 1976, he retired from the University of Iowa to open his own company, Iowa Eye Prosthetics. Using the same scientific mind and artist's skill, Lee revolutionized the process of making artificial eyes. His development of the ``painting lens'' allowed ocularists--artificial eye artisans--to develop incredibly comfortable and life-like artificial eyes. His Iowa Eye Implant provided for a very natural eye movement. Because of Lee's success and dedication, today artificial eyes look every bit as natural as the real thing.

Throughout his career, Lee continued to paint and win awards, and his art hangs in museums across the country.

Today, Lee is fully retired and lives in Iowa City, welcoming the opportunity to spend time with his three daughters, Loredo, Mary Lee, and Elizabeth. I wish him the best on this his 95th birthday, and thank him for his contributions to art, medicine, and America.

Mr. President, I have an amendment to this bill that I will be offering shortly along with Senator Smith of Oregon, my cosponsor, and cosponsored by Senators Bingaman, Wyden, Feingold, and Kennedy.

This amendment will increase the amount of money going to legal aid programs across the country from $324.5 million to $358.5 million.

Again, this amendment will throw a lifeline of legal services assistance to people in need.

I point out that this is $4 million less than what the Legal Services Corporation requested in their budget earlier this year. The reason it is slightly less is because we had to do that to get the proper offset for the amendment. Forty-five Members of the Senate, on a strong bipartisan basis, sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member earlier this year seeking the full funding for legal services, which was $362.5 million. As I said, this amendment is $4 million less than what 45 Members of the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, requested earlier this year.

I also point out that 25 percent of the increase goes specifically to those programs providing assistance to victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Even before the devastation and displacement of Katrina, this increase was sorely needed. That is because today, as I stand here, 50 percent of the people eligible for legal services in America are being turned away because the programs simply are underfunded.

Keep in mind, to even be eligible for legal services, one must be below 125 percent poverty. That means for a family of four, you have to have less than a $23,000-per-year income to even qualify for legal services. Again, we are now turning away half of the families in America who need civil legal help who make less than $23,000 a year. That is not justice.

Furthermore, the clients served by legal services are overwhelmingly female. Seventy-two percent of the clients served by legal services are women, most of whom are seeking help with domestic abuse issues, including custody, retraining orders, and safe housing.

Legal services is also the only assistance most low-income women have in getting and keeping safe, habitable housing. It is critical in reducing homelessness among women and children.

In the last 2 years, cuts to legal services programs have resulted in the loss of funding for 200 attorney positions. Every single one of those attorney positions means at least 385 people a year not able to get the legal help they need.

To sum it up, last year, legal services was forced to serve 77,000 fewer people than they did the year before.

The Senate bill before us today, instead of taking a small step to fix this injustice, imposes an additional $6 million in cuts to legal services programs. This is simply unacceptable.

I don't want anyone here to think this amendment we are offering is a drastic fix to the problem. All this amendment does is restore funding for legal services to the fiscal year 2003 level adjusted for inflation. This amendment restores legal services funding to the 2003 level.

If we were serious about providing equal justice under law for all of our citizens and providing the resources that legal services really needs, we would restore legal services to the 1995 funding level of over $500 million a year.

Think about it this way: Since 1995, we have cut legal services, the only civil legal help poor people have in this country, by a third. And need I remind anyone what has happened to poverty since 1995? Has it gone down by a third? No; it has gone up. So poverty has gone up, and we have cut legal services by a third since 1995. Unconscionable.

This, of course, is the picture legal services was facing before Hurricane Katrina. Legal services always plays a critical role in a national disaster, but this disaster will impose more burdens and more challenges than ever before. That is why this amendment devotes $8 million or, as I said, 25 percent of the increase goes to programs directly helping victims of Hurricane Katrina. Again, is that enough? Hardly. This will be a small downpayment on the funding that will be needed, and I hope will be provided, in some of the supplemental funding bills coming down the road.

I heard the majority leader today saying there is going to be a supplemental on the floor today. I don't know what is in it, but there better be something in it to help legal services serve the people displaced. We have to have immediate assistance to these programs to help assist people in the largest displacement in this country since the Civil War. Think about it: The largest displacement of people since the Civil War.

One might say people need food, water, they need clothing, they need shelter, they need schooling. Yes, they need all those immediate needs. But here is why they are going to need legal services immediately, not a year from now.

Let me share with you an e-mail from the State director of the Alabama program, one of the hardest hit States, describing what they will be doing in the next few weeks:

. . . legal services programs are traditionally a critical

partner in long-term disaster response. We will be doing

everything from trying to clear title for FEMA award purposes

(many low-income folks land in houses passed from generation

to generation without any formal conveyance . . . ); to

contractor fraud; to handling credit problems for folks who

are trying to get SBA or other loans with which to rebuild

their lives. Not only will we be helping victims of Hurricane

Katrina [in this State], but there are over 35,000 evacuees

from Louisiana and Mississippi in the State. Every one of our

offices in the State will be serving Hurricane Katrina

victims with already scarce resources.

So it is not something they are going to need a year or two from now, they need it now because, in the initial stages, legal services will be responsible for helping hundreds of thousands of people navigate the system for obtaining disaster-related food stamps, unemployment compensation, and housing assistance. They will be on the frontlines representing people with the agencies to get the needed relief.

Legal services will be the best on-the-ground arbiters of whether deadlines need to be extended to reach the hundreds of thousands eligible for assistance.

I have a little experience in this from both standpoints: One, I was a legal services attorney before I came to Congress. That was my job. So I know a little bit about how legal services work and who they serve. Second, our State of Iowa in 1993 was hit by a devastating flood. Every single one of our counties--99 counties--was declared a disaster area. Some of our small towns were totally wiped out.

So I have a great deal of sympathy and empathy for what is going on in New Orleans. We saw whole towns in our State underwater. Some of them were never rebuilt. We had to move people to other places.

That was 1993. Legal aid lawyers represented thousands of clients in the State of Iowa in landlord-tenant disputes about the ability to terminate leases of uninhabitable property. They assisted people in Iowa with a whole range of issues.

In one example, there was a certain FEMA determination that a woman was not entitled to compensation because the property was in the name of an ex-spouse. It turned out it was not an ex-spouse; it was her spouse who had died, and only legal services could help clear this up for this poor woman. She didn't have enough money to hire an attorney. As I said, to be qualified, one has to have an income of less than 25 percent of the poverty level.

Another example of what they did in Iowa: FEMA determinations that massive property damages were, in fact, preexisting conditions; determinations of SBA loan eligibility.

This all happened in Iowa in 1993, so I know what it means to go through a devastating flood such as this and to have people who are homeless, without housing, with no place to go and needing the help of legal services to navigate, to find out what they can get, to know for what they are eligible.

In the situation we are now facing, much bigger than the flood of Iowa, legal services lawyers will be trying to represent clients who have no access to their homes, many who are temporarily living out of State. At least that did not happen in Iowa, at least not to any great extent. There are evacuees in Texas, in Arkansas, some in Washington, DC. Providing legal help to those most in need is critical in this instance.

Beyond the immediate need of helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina, legal services is critical to reducing violence in this country. When people cannot get results through the legal system, they resort to extralegal means. We have seen that in all areas of the country. We have seen that sometimes in disaster areas in the last week, and we should expect to see more if we cannot quickly get legal help to the people displaced.

It is not true because of Hurricane Katrina; it is true in everyday disputes. Having access to quality legal help reduces tensions, focuses people on compromise, negotiations. Legal services reduces the burdens on our courts. They help to ensure that those people with disabilities get the benefits to which they are entitled.

That is why the Legal Services Program has the complete support of the American Bar Association and every State bar in the United States. I point out that the American Bar Association supports the amendment we are offering.

Let me add that this amendment is fully offset, as it stands now.

I want to also add Senator Obama as a cosponsor to this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. As I said, 45 Senators signed a letter earlier this year seeking this level of funding; $4 million actually more than what we are asking for in this amendment.

So I hope and trust that we will hold this in conference. We cannot continue to say we are a nation of equal justice under law when the poverty rate keeps going up and the amount of money we are giving the Legal Services keeps going down. Poor people are being excluded from our civil justice system. That is wrong. It should not happen in this country.

So this year, next year, the year after, I will be here, and I am sure along with many others on both sides of the aisle, saying we have to get this funding back up. Our courts are plugged with people sometimes with crimes that have to do with property. How many of those might have been forestalled if they had had Legal Services help--or courts plugged because someone is there because of domestic violence. It could have been forestalled if people had had Legal Services.

So that is why we need to get the Legal Services Corporation back up to the level it was at least in the mid-1990s, and actually it probably should be more than that because of the huge increase in poverty in this country.

So if my colleagues believe in equal justice under law, if they believe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, if they believe by a little bit of money upfront helping people solve their legal problems, domestic violence problems, and things like that it will help keep people out of court, which we have proven is true, then we ask for support for this amendment, and hopefully we can hold this amount when we go to conference.

Amendment No. 1659

I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, more than 10 years ago I was proud to work shoulder to shoulder with Senator Orrin Hatch to pass the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act, DSHEA, to give consumers access to dietary supplements and truthful information about these products. That is one of the reasons it is my great pleasure to pay special tribute to Elliott Balbert, upon his retirement as the president of the Dietary Supplement Education Alliance.

Elliott Balbert recognized the need to get the word out about the growing body of scientific support for dietary supplement use. So, 5 years ago, he created a unique industry alliance of companies to focus on providing meaningful information about the health benefits and responsible use of dietary supplements.

Starting a brandnew nonprofit organization is not easy. There were volunteers to recruit, a board to create, paperwork to file, and money to raise. But even though Elliott was still a full-time CEO of a large public company, he managed to build a solid foundation on which the Dietary Supplement Education Alliance can continue to grow.

Elliott Balbert served as president of the board of trustees for the Dietary Supplement Education Alliance for more than 4 years. He planted the seeds, nurtured them, and watched them blossom into a thriving organization.

I admire the fact that Elliott isn't afraid to put his money where his mouth is. He has provided ongoing philanthropic support to a number of health-related charities, including the Vitamin Angels, the Healthy Foundation, and other initiatives that provide health benefits to the underprivileged.

As Elliott moves on to dedicate more time to his business, I want to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the outstanding job he has done for the Dietary Supplement Education Alliance. We wish Elliott and his family all the best, and we salute his leadership in working toward a healthier America.

Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges we face--not just in Iowa but all across America--is preserving the character and vitality of our small towns. This is about economics, but it is also about our culture and identity. After all, you won't find the heart and soul of Iowa at Wal-Mart or Home Depot out in the strip malls. No, the heart and soul of Iowa is in our family farms, and on Main Street in small communities all across my State. That's why we need to be as generous as possible--and creative as possible--in keeping our downtowns not just alive but thriving.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am involved in funding many hundreds of programs every year. But the Main Street Iowa program--providing challenge grants to revitalize downtown buildings across my State--is in a class by itself. It's smart. It's effective. And it touches communities and people in very concrete ways

For example, the citizens of Charles City, IA, are revitalizing their downtown and inspiring new interest in fine arts. Charles City received a Main Street Challenge Grant to construct an elevator addition to the Charles City arts center, which is housed in a historic, city-owned building that was originally a Carnegie Library. This elevator installation is the first phase of a project called ``Expanding Accessibility to the Arts,'' which aims to increase the number of people who can experience the programs and services offered by the arts center. The next steps in the plan are to refurbish the building's workshop and classroom areas to provide wheelchair access and eliminate sources of allergic reaction, and to expand the arts center exhibits and programs to meet the needs of the entire community.

This Carnegie Library building has been the cultural center of the Charles City community since it was opened to the public in 1904. When much of the downtown was devastated by a tornado in 1968, the Carnegie building was miraculously spared. In 2004, the Carnegie Library celebrated its centennial anniversary.

The addition of an elevator, plus other changes to improve access for people with disabilities, will help to equip the Carnegie Library building for its next 100 years. As the principal author of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I am heartened to see more and more of our old, historic buildings being retrofitted to improve access for citizens with disabilities.

The beauty of the Main Street Iowa program is that the ideas and initiatives come from our small towns and rural communities. I have been pleased to secure $1.5 million in funding since 2002 for Main Street Iowa Challenge Grants. The Iowa Department of economic development provides technical assistance, but, as we have seen in Charles City, success itself comes from local leadership, local teamwork, and home-grown ideas and solutions.

This project is demonstrates how renovations of old buildings can serve to jumpstart broader civic improvements. When people see one of the anchors of Main Street being renovated or expanded, this can change the whole psychology of a town or community. It offers hope. It serves as a catalyst for a far-reaching ripple effect of positive changes.

So I congratulate the citizens of Charles City for putting together a winning proposal to secure a Main Street Challenge Grant. Their efforts to reinvigorate the city's historic downtown and improve access for people with disabilities are setting a terrific example for other small towns across America--and for that, I salute them.

Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges we face--not just in Iowa but all across America--is preserving the character and vitality of our small towns. This is about economics, but it is also about our culture and identity. After all, you won't find the heart and soul of Iowa at Wal-Mart or Home Depot out in the strip malls. No, the heart and soul of Iowa is in our

family farms, and on Main Street in small communities all across my State. That's why we need to be as generous as possible--and creative as possible--in keeping our downtowns not just alive but thriving.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I'm involved in funding many hundreds of programs every year. But the Main Street Iowa program--providing challenge grants to revitalize downtown buildings across my State--is in a class by itself. It's smart. It's effective. And it touches communities and people in very concrete ways.

For example, Aubrey Dunbar and the citizens of Adel, IA are taking strides to improve commerce and aesthetics in their downtown area. Adel's Main Street revitalization efforts received a $45,000 Main Street Challenge Grant in 2004 to be used toward the purchase and installation of an elevator in Aubrey Dunbar's Grandeur on the Square, a three story effort containing shops and a restaurant. Mr. Dunbar kept the historic charm of the older buildings by refurbishing rather than replacing the tin ceilings, and even maintained the old Masonic symbol on one of the buildings.

The beauty of the Main Street Iowa program is that the ideas and initiatives come from our small towns and rural communities. I have been pleased to secure $1.5 million in funding since 2002 for Main Street Iowa Challenge Grants. The Main Street programs of the Iowa Department of Economic Development help provide technical assistance, but, as we have seen in Adel, success itself comes from local leadership, local teamwork, and home-grown ideas and solutions.

Projects like the restoration of the Grandeur on the Square in Adel leverage the spirit and morale of people in our small towns and local communities. Grandeur on the Square has drawn affluent shoppers into Adel and has benefited downtown businesses. An average of 200 people now go through downtown Adel daily as a result of the shopping and dining opportunities created by Mr. Dunbar. When people see one of the anchor businesses on Main Street being renovated or expanded, this can change the whole psychology of a town or community. It offers hope. It serves as a catalyst for a far-reaching ripple effect of positive changes.

I congratulate Aubrey Dunbar and the citizens of Adel for putting together a winning proposal to secure a Main Street Challenge Grant. Their efforts to reclaim their heritage and reinvigorate their historic downtown are setting a terrific example for other small towns across America, and for that, I salute them.

Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges we face--not just in Iowa but all across America--is preserving the character and vitality of our small towns. This is about economics, but it is also about our culture and identity. After all, you won't find the heart and soul of Iowa at Wal-Mart or Home Depot out in the strip malls. No, the heart and soul of Iowa is in our family farms, and on Main Street in small communities all across my State. That's why we need to be as generous as possible--and creative as possible--in keeping our downtowns not just alive but thriving.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I'm involved in funding many hundreds of programs every year. But the Main Street Iowa program--providing challenge grants to revitalize downtown buildings across my state--is in a class by itself. It's smart. It's effective. It has a powerful multiplier effect. And it touches communities and people in very concrete ways.

For example, the citizens of Bedford, IA, have shown tremendous initiative in rescuing and restoring an important piece of their heritage, the Garland Hotel, formerly known as the Bedford House. This building and business has been a centerpiece in their downtown since 1857. The Garland Hotel was placed on the National Register of Historic Places by the National Park Service in 1977, but it fell into disrepair and closed in 1997.

The citizens of Bedford are now determined to restore the Garland Hotel its former glory, and they are doing so with the help of a Main Street Challenge Grant. The $40,000 Main Street grant is not only helping the Garland Hotel, it's serving as a catalyst to mobilize the community and leverage additional funding. $260,000 has been invested by private citizens and companies to see the project through its completion. The Main Street grant itself will be used to reinstall the hotel's historic columns, second floor balcony, and the original signage on the hotel's facade.

The beauty of the Main Street Iowa program is that the ideas and initiatives come from our small towns and rural communities. I have been pleased to secure $1.5 million in funding since 2002 for Main Street Iowa Challenge Grants. The beauty of the Main Street Iowa program is that the ideas and initiatives come from our small towns and rural communities. I have been pleased to secure $1.5 million in funding since 2002 for Main Street Iowa Challenge Grants. The Main Street programs of the Iowa Department of Economic Development help provide technical assistance, but, as we have seen in Bedford, success itself comes from local leadership, local teamwork, and home-grown ideas and solutions.

Projects like the restoration of the Garland Hotel in Bedford leverage the spirit and morale of people in our small towns and local communities. When people see one of the anchor businesses on Main Street being renovated or expanded, this can change the whole psychology of a town or community. It sets a positive example. It offers hope. It serves as a catalyst for a far-reaching ripple effect of positive changes.

I congratulate the citizens of Bedford for putting together a winning proposal to secure a Main Street Challenge Grant. Their efforts to reclaim their heritage and reinvigorate their historic downtown are setting a terrific example for other small towns across America, and for that, I salute them.

Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges we face--not just in Iowa but all across America--is preserving the character and vitality of our towns. This is about economics, but it is also about our culture and identity. After all, you won't find the heart and soul of Iowa at Wal-Mart or Home Depot out in the strip malls. No, the heart and soul of Iowa is in our family farms, and on Main Street in communities all across my State. That is why we need to be as generous as possible--and creative as possible--in keeping our downtowns not just alive but thriving.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am involved in funding many hundreds of programs every year. But the Main Street Iowa program--providing challenge grants to revitalize downtown buildings across my State--is in a class by itself. It is smart. It is effective, and it touches communities and people in very concrete ways.

For example, the citizens of Waterloo are in the process of reinvigorating their downtown district. With the support of a HUD challenge grant, National Trust for Historic Preservation, the city of Waterloo, and the local Main Street program, the Fowler Project in Waterloo will play a significant role in the revitalization of its central business district. Upon its completion, the project will encourage and inspire additional participation in the downtown effort, and serve as a progressive economic engine of culture, arts, and entertainment. This will support the synergy of young professionals, increase members of the creative class in the Cedar Valley, and provide an alternative commercial enterprise for the city. The Fowler Project will be an integral tool in remaking downtown Waterloo into a thriving cultural, civic, and commercial crossroads of the Midwest.

The beauty of the Main Street Iowa program is that the ideas and initiatives come from our towns and rural communities. I have been pleased to secure $1.5 million in funding since 2002 for Main Street Iowa Challenge Grants. The Main Street programs of the Iowa Department of Economic Development help provide technical assistance, but, as we have seen in Waterloo, success itself comes from local leadership, local teamwork, and home-grown ideas and solutions.

This project is a shining example of new construction and a catalyst for future projects. When people see one of the anchors of Main Street being renovated or expanded, this can change the whole psychology of a town or community. It offers hope. It serves as a catalyst for a far- reaching ripple effect of positive changes.

So I congratulate the citizens of Waterloo for putting together a winning proposal to secure a Main Street Challenge Grant. Their efforts to reinvigorate their historic downtown are setting a terrific example for other towns across America, and for that, I salute them.

Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges we face--not just in Iowa but all across America--is preserving the character and vitality of our towns. This is about economics, but it is also about our culture and identity. After all, you won't find the heart and soul of Iowa at Wal-Mart or Home Depot out in the strip malls. No, the heart and soul of Iowa is in our family farms, and on Main Street in communities all across my State. That is why we need to be as generous as possible and creative as possible in keeping our downtowns not just alive but thriving.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am involved in funding many hundreds of programs every year. But the Main Street Iowa program--providing challenge grants to revitalize downtown buildings across my State--is in a class by itself. It's smart. It's effective. And it touches communities and people in very concrete ways.

For example, the citizens of Valley Junction, IA, have been working hard to make their area a true destination in central Iowa and a more vibrant community. With the help of a Main Street Iowa Challenge Grant, the Lagniappe in Valley Junction, a trendy boutique offering art, jewelry, gifts, accessories, and clothing with an emphasis on local artists is now expanding. The retail area will be expanded by approximately 1,000 square feet and will offer garden art, fountains, planters, wind chimes, and other outdoor accessories. The new addition will also add a social flare to the specialty shop with an outdoor seating area for 50 people. The second floor remodeling will allow expanded selection of wine and gourmet foods. The addition of a coffee/ wine bar, featuring a beautifully preserved oak and marble bar, will provide an elegant conversation area with access to a rooftop garden. This New Orleans-style atmosphere is quite fitting for this boutique, named for the Creole term for ``a little something extra''

This expansion project is mainly the brainchild of Caren Sturm, the owner of the Lagniappe. Her creative and innovative thinking serves as an inspiration to the rest of Valley Junction, and the project itself will allow for expanded business hours, special events, private parties, and jazz music on a regular basis. This upwards expansion is an innovative solution to the lack of commercial space present in the Valley Junction area. It is a model for other proprietors to emulate, as demand for retail space far exceeds the availability of property. I salute Caren Sturm and the rest of Valley Junction for their hard work to maintain the status of their town as one of the best retail and downtown areas in Iowa.

The beauty of the Main Street Iowa program is that the ideas and initiatives come from local creativity. I have been pleased to secure $1.5 million in funding since 2002 for Main Street Iowa Challenge Grants. The Main Street programs of the Iowa Department of Economic Development help provide technical assistance, but, as we have seen in Valley Junction, success itself comes from local leadership, local teamwork, and home-grown ideas and solutions.

This project is a shining example of new construction and a catalyst for future projects. When people see one of the anchors of Main Street being renovated or expanded, this can change the whole psychology of a town or community. It offers hope. It serves as a catalyst for a far- reaching ripple effect of positive changes.

So I congratulate Caren Sturm and the citizens of Valley Junction for putting together a winning proposal to secure a Main Street Challenge Grant. Their efforts to reinvigorate their historic downtown are setting a terrific example for other shopping districts across America, and for that, I salute them.

Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges we face--not just in Iowa but all across America--is preserving the character and vitality of our small towns. This is about economics, but it is also about our culture and identity. After all, you won't find the heart and soul of Iowa at Wal-Mart or Home Depot out in the strip malls. No, the heart and soul of Iowa is in our family farms, and on Main Street in small communities all across my State. That is why we need to be as generous as possible--and creative as possible--in keeping our downtowns not just alive but thriving.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I am involved in funding many hundreds of programs every year. But the Main Street Iowa program providing challenge grants to revitalize downtown buildings across my State is in a class by itself. It is smart. It is effective. And it touches communities and people in very concrete ways.

For example. the citizens of Story City, IA, and the editor of the Story City Herald, Eloise Thorson are making efforts to improve their downtown and spur investment in the area. Eloise and the Story City Herald received a Main Street Challenge Grant in 2003 to reclaim their old downtown location. In 1987, the building that had housed the Story City Herald was deemed unsafe for occupancy and demolished. Receipt of the $25,000 Main Street Challenge Grant was the true catalyst to the reestablishment of the Story City Herald in its original location.

This positive change is causing more positive change, as vacancies in Story City's downtown are being filled and more building owners are taking interest in improving the look of their downtown. Community pride in the downtown is returning. Since becoming a Main Street Iowa Community in November of 2004, Story City's downtown has seen over $4 million in private investment, as well as a net gain of 16 businesses and 46 jobs.

Eloise Thorson and the Main Street Challenge Grant gave a great deal back to the community by replacing a long vacant building lot with a magnificent piece of architecture, gracing Story City's ``main'' street. The community pride in this project is evident as pedestrians walk along Broad Street and stop to show off this new construction to visitors and tourists. Residents are proud to have this century-old business located back in the downtown district, renewing faith in the future of Story City.

The beauty of the Main Street Iowa program is that the ideas and initiatives come from our small towns and rural communities. I have been pleased to secure $1.5 million in funding since 2002 for Main Street Iowa Challenge Grants. The Main Street programs of the Iowa Department of Economic Development help provide technical assistance, but, as we have seen in Story City, success itself comes from local leadership, local teamwork, and home-grown ideas and solutions.

This project is a shining example of new construction and a catalyst for future projects. When people see one of the anchors of Main Street being renovated or expanded, this can change the whole psychology of a town or community. It offers hope. It serves as a catalyst for a far- reaching ripple effect of positive changes.

So I congratulate Eloise Thorson and the citizens of Story City for putting together a winning proposal to secure a Main Street Challenge Grant. Their efforts to reinvigorate their historic downtown are setting a terrific example for other small towns across America, and for that, I salute them.

Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges we face--not just in Iowa but all across America--is preserving the character and vitality of our small towns. This is about economics, but it is also about our culture and

identity. After all, you won't find the heart and soul of Iowa at Wal- Mart or Home Depot out in the strip malls. No, the heart and soul of Iowa is in our family farms, and on Main Street in small communities all across my State. That is why we need to be as generous as possible--and creative as possible--in keeping our downtowns not just alive but thriving.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I'm involved in funding many hundreds of programs every year. But the Main Street Iowa program--providing challenge grants to revitalize downtown buildings across my State--is in a class by itself. It's smart. It's effective. And it touches communities and people in very concrete ways.

For example, the citizens of Sigourney, IA, have been working hard to improve the image and opportunities offered by their downtown. Forty thousand dollars was awarded to the Sigourney Main Street-Chamber in the form of a Main Street Challenge Grant. The money was used to renovate the building that now houses the Copper Lantern, a restaurant, and Van's Lofts. Each property is on a prominent corner in Sigourney's downtown. Van's Lofts will provide high quality residential living with four new rental units, and the Copper Lantern now offers another dining option.

The beauty of the Main Street Iowa program is that the ideas and initiatives come from our small towns and rural communities. I have been pleased to secure $1.5 million in funding since 2002 for Main Street Iowa Challenge Grants. The Main Street programs of the Iowa Department of Economic Development help provide technical assistance, but, as we have seen in Sigourney, success itself comes from local leadership, local teamwork, and home-grown ideas and solutions.

This project is a shining example of new construction and a catalyst for future projects. When people see one of the anchors of Main Street being renovated or expanded, this can change the whole psychology of a town or community. It offers hope. It serves as a catalyst for a far- reaching ripple effect of positive changes. Both of these projects are cornerstones of community development, and serve as an inspiration to other property owners in the area.

I congratulate the citizens of Sigourney for putting together a winning proposal to secure a Main Street Challenge Grant. Their efforts to reinvigorate their historic downtown are setting a terrific example for other small towns across America, and for that, I salute them.

Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges we face not just in Iowa but all across America--is preserving the character and vitality of our small towns. This is about economics, but it is also about our culture and identity. After all, you won't find the heart and soul of Iowa at Wal-Mart or Home Depot out in the strip malls. No, the heart and soul of Iowa is in our family farms and on Main Street in small communities all across my State. That is why we need to be as generous as possible and creative as possible in keeping our downtowns not just alive but thriving.

As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I'm involved in funding many hundreds of programs every year. But the Main Street Iowa program providing challenge grants to revitalize downtown buildings across my state is in a class by itself. It's smart. It's effective. And it touches communities and people in very concrete ways.

For example, the town of Jewell, IA is taking great strides to renovate and reinvigorate their downtown area. With the assistance of a Main Street Challenge grant, Jewell is taking great strides to restore the vitality and beauty of their Main Street. One such project is at 632 Main Street, a building that has housed a bank, a millinery, a newspaper office, and a senior citizen center. Although the building has been vacant for a number of years, the Jewell Area Development Enterprise plans to return the building to its former grandeur thanks in part to a Main Street HUD Challenge Grant. The hopes and dreams of the original builders will once again be seen in Jewell's future through the renovated building that will hold prosperous businesses on the main floor and an apartment on the upper story. The city received $40,000 through the Main Street Challenge program, and citizens have called that grant a catalyst for the renovation of 632 Main.

The beauty of the Main Street Iowa program is that the ideas and initiatives come from our small towns and rural communities. I have been pleased to secure $1.5 million in funding since 2002 for Main Street Iowa Challenge Grants. The Iowa Department of economic development provides technical assistance, but, as we have seen in Jewell, success itself comes from local leadership, local teamwork, and home-grown ideas and solutions.

This project is a shining example of new construction and a catalyst for future projects. When people see one of the anchors of Main Street being renovated or expanded, this can change the whole psychology of a town or community. It offers hope. It serves as a catalyst for a far- reaching ripple effect of positive changes. This project serves as an impetus for further downtown renovation projects, and the interest to continue in the beautification and restoration of downtown Jewell was clear when I visited it in August.

I congratulate the citizens of Jewell for putting together a winning proposal to secure a Main Street Challenge Grant. Their efforts to reinvigorate their historic downtown are setting a terrific example for other small towns across America, and for that, I salute them.