Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating if you would think if there was a proposal in the substitute to eliminate the whole list of taxes that the gentleman referred to, but I have never heard one case where they have talked about eliminating any tax, only increasing taxes. So it is quite an interesting debate.

Let me just say, I come to this as someone who grew up in a family farm operation, a family small business. I can tell you firsthand from real life, honest experience the effect that the death tax has on families and creating jobs and opportunities and being able to continue what I believe is the American Dream, and that is to have an opportunity for your children and your grandchildren to continue a life that you love and cherish. Nothing stands in the way more for families and small businesses to be successful, to continue, than the death tax.

We spend thousands and thousands of dollars every year as a way to try and avoid what the death tax will do to us. It is morally wrong that the day you die, your heirs should not only see the undertaker but have to go see the tax man to see how much the Federal Government is going to take away from a lifetime of work.

The idea, while the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), I have the greatest respect for him, but the idea of continuing an immoral tax that destroys family, destroys family businesses, I have seen neighbors who have lost everything they have, lost generations of work on a family farm because of the death tax. It is a fact that nothing is more harmful, nothing is more hurtful than a tax that takes away the hope of the American Dream.

This country is based on farms, on small businesses. That is the lifeblood of this Nation, and nothing destroys it more than the death tax; and that is why we have to kill this death tax to make sure that we can experience the American Dream in this country.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support passage of S. 2965, a bill to extend for one year the Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 1999. As the author of the original legislation, I am pleased to see that this important program will continue for one additional year. It is my hope that during that time the program will be improved and, if it is proven cost effective, made permanent.

Four major packers slaughter 80 percent of fed cattle and process about 85 percent of boxed beef. According to producer organizations, because of the high level of concentration, it is very important to maintain a level playing field for all producers.

Mandatory price reporting addresses non-contract livestock producers concerns that the increasing use of contracts prevents complete transparency in livestock prices that, in the past, would've been made public at auction. Additionally, independent livestock producers fear that the increasing use of contracts means that there is less of a market for their product, and the price they will receive will remain low through possible packer collusion. Mandatory price reporting provides market transparency, thus ensuring that our producers get the best prices for their livestock.

Mr. Speaker, I am very supportive of this one-year extension. It will give Congress additional time to determine the efficacy of the program, whether the cost of the program outweighs the benefit, and verify price data problems that arose with USDA's implementation of the program have since been fixed.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of this legislation honoring Special Olympics. I thank my good friend the Majority Whip for introducing this legislation. For over thirty years Special Olympics has played an important role in the lives of some very special individuals with intellectual disabilities. Special Olympics offer a platform of personal improvement while also fostering a spirit of camaraderie in competition.

Competition and sports teach us very important lessons about dedication, determination, responsibility, pride and team work or self- sufficiency, as the case may be. I believe that many of my colleagues in this body learned formative lessons through athletic competition, and I believe that--as the Special Olympics philosophy also articulates--lessons learned in sport and competition shape productive citizens.

In recognizing Special Olympics, I believe that we must also recognize the Shriver family for their role in envisioning the games and allowing them to become what they are today. According to the Special Olympics Web site, the Games have grown from the original 35 participants at Camp Shriver in Rockville, Maryland into a 1.4 million athlete, multi-national movement.

The bill we are considering today is entitled the Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act. The title is fitting because of the bill's four purposes: providing support to Special Olympics to increase athlete participation and public awareness, dispelling negative stereotypes about people with intellectual disabilities, building athlete and family involvement through sport, and promoting the gifts of people with intellectual disabilities.

As a long time supporter of Special Olympics, I am honored to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I am also pleased that Ames, Iowa will be a direct beneficiary of this bill. The inaugural Special Olympics U.S. National Games will be held in my district in Ames, Iowa. This tremendous event will take place from July 3-9, 2006 and is expected to bring 4,000 athletes from all fifty states, over 1,000 coaches, and 9,000 family members and friends to the Ames area. Volunteers are expected to number nearly 10,000.

I believe that this forward looking bill is very worthy of our support and I would ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Special Olympics.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I will be very, very brief.

I would only like to congratulate our great chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and our ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) on a very difficult bill that is one that we cannot fail on. We have to be successful as far as our homeland security.

I would also like to acknowledge the great work of the staff that has done a very good job and worked very, very hard on this bill.

I rise in support of this conference agreement and urge my colleagues to do the same. I want to commend Chairman Rogers, Mr. Sabo and the subcommittee staff for their work in putting this homeland security bill together.

The process of structuring this appropriations bill to address the operational needs of the 22 agencies and departments under the Homeland Security Department has, once again, been a difficult one. I suspect it will be difficult again next year, in part, because we are funding a mission that has many dimensions, and for which there are few absolutes.

As I have watched and participated in this process, I have come to the conclusion that our approach to funding homeland security has been measured and judicious. We have not thrown good money after bad, but rather made difficult choices.

There are some in this House who want to put more money in this bureau or that agency. Some of those Members are well-intentioned, while others simply want to create a political issue by forcing Members to make a choice between spending more money on the one hand, or appearing to be less than responsible on homeland security issues on the other. This is a false choice. In the future, we would do ourselves a favor by avoiding the temptation to politicize the funding of this important function.

I hope that as we go forward in the FY-06 cycle, we will recognize that there is much room for honest debate on the subject of homeland security funding. However, none of our constituents is served well by gaming this funding debate, and certainly the mission of protecting the homeland is not served well by this approach.

As we go forward in the area of homeland security, we will continue to make progress in sorting out priorities. We will continue to benefit from the ideas and knowledge of State and local officials from our districts around the country, and from the innovations of DHS officials. That collective wisdom will serve us well.

The process we went through this year for homeland security represented an improvement over last year. Going forward, we will improve over this year. I think because, once again, we carried out our duty to appropriate these funds in a measured way, we will improve on the FY-06 process.

Again, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking minority member, Mr. Sabo, and urge the Members to support this conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in support of this amendment.

Anyone who deals on the local level with the NRCS understands how the staffing shortages, the need for more funds at the local level are so absolutely critical to be able to handle the programs that are so important to farmers today. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where people who actually do the work are in contact with the farmers themselves, who do all the work out in the fields. This is extremely important that we do have those funds available to make sure that we are adequately staffed.

Also, when we look at rural development, economic development, it is a critical issue for us to make sure that we have the resources available out in the country to be able to help small businesses, to be able to help our rural communities grow and prosper. So I think this amendment is very, very important; and I certainly rise in support.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is a good offset.

It is absolutely critical that we fund renewable energy as much as possible. I am very pleased that we will be able to do this, increase that account. Ethanol is so important as far as our dependency on foreign oil. We have tremendous opportunities in the Midwest, in Iowa, throughout the country to lessen our dependency on foreign oil with such things as soy diesel, biomass, wind, energy, all of those things that are renewable sources of energy and are going to be so important for our future for energy independence in this country.

It is an economic issue. Through rural America, we have an opportunity in rural America to do what we do best, and that is take solar energy through photosynthesis, be able to convert that into corn, soybeans, whatever kind of crops, and then convert that into renewable sources of energy.

We need the dollars for research, it is absolutely critical, and I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I became aware of this over the past year; and it is a very, very important issue that the gentleman from Nebraska is trying to deal with. When we have bureaucrats that are not responsive to

constituents, and without any valid reason, certainly it is something we should all be very concerned about and would support his efforts in any way possible.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. This is a good rule, and it is a good bill. The committee has worked to put together a bipartisan bill, and I believe that goal has been accomplished.

The bill provides critical funding for basic agricultural programs, but it goes farther than that. It also supports rural and economic development, human nutrition, agricultural exports, land conservation and renewable energy, as well as food, drug, and medical safety. This bill will deliver benefits to every one of your constituents every day, no matter what kind of district you represent.

I would say to all Members that they can support this bill and tell all of their constituents that they voted to improve their lives while maintaining fiscal responsibility. Support the rule; support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Texas knows, I have been and remain concerned about the funding level for the renewable energy program. The bill before us today funds this program at $15 million; and even though this funding level is a $4.2 million increase above the budget request, it is $8 million below the fiscal year 2004 funding level.

As we have discussed, this program is important to Iowa and the whole country, particularly in the wind and biomass areas, because it makes grants available to rural, small businesses, agricultural producers and others who purchase renewable energy systems or make energy improvements. This program has the potential to improve rural living standards and economic opportunities and to create jobs. In short, there is a significant value-added component for rural areas that comes with this program.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I know that the chairman has worked very hard to fashion a balanced bill and that he has done everything possible to accommodate the concerns of all Members. I had intended to offer an amendment to increase the renewable energy funding level by $8 million. However, with the chairman's assurances that we will work in conference to raise the funding level of this program, I will not offer that amendment.

I thank the gentleman very much. I look forward to working with him on this.

Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage Members to support this bill as it is a well-balanced measure. The chairman has done an outstanding job of trying to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the broad range of programs that are funded under this bill.

Like many of the Members, I have my thoughts as to some programs that I wish could be a bit more generously funded, but given the need to produce a balanced product under the agricultural allocation, I am pleased with this bill.

I want to comment on a few other areas of interest that I believe are important beyond the renewable energy program that the chairman and I just discussed. For example, we must continue to focus on agricultural research which I think is an area that holds great promise for the future of agriculture economies and the consuming public that those economies feed.

I also think that we should remain diligent about the development of an animal identification program that is reliable and easy to work with for all parties needing to access it. In this regard, it is important that we have adequate resources for animal health monitoring and surveillance, and this bill contains such resources.

Also, I want to mention my support for land conservation which this bill funds. In this regard, I know many Members have constituencies with interests in the conservation security program. The program is of considerable interest in Iowa, not only among those in the agriculture production arena but also those who are generally concerned about the environment in general. I share that concern and want to see the conservation security program as a concept developed in an optimal way. On the other hand, it would be unwise to begin full-scale implementation of the CSP and spend billions of dollars before that program is fine-tuned.

In numerous conversations that I and my staff have had about the CSP in Iowa and elsewhere, the prevailing view is that the CSP program needs work. Both corn and soybean association representatives as well as others with whom I have talked support CSP, but at this point they believe that the program is not ready to go forward at full speed.

I also want to personally thank the chairman and the staff that did such a tremendous job on this bill.

One extraordinarily important item in the bill is the full funding for the National Animal Disease Center at Ames, Iowa. It is a large number in the bill. It is one that the staff and the chairman have really worked hard to secure those funds for us. I certainly thank the President for including funding for the Animal Disease Center in his budget request. This is an extraordinarily important facility similar to the CDC for livestock and animals and very, very important for the security of our Nation, when we talk about anthrax, when we talk about mad cow disease, all of those things. It is very, very important that we have this facility on-line and that it is completed on a timely, expedited basis.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes and that the time be equally divided.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think we could expedite, also, time limits. I think there is a paper that we are waiting for over here, and if we could expedite that, I think we can come to an agreement.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), yes.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, this unanimous consent would say this amendment and all amendments thereto.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

No, Mr. Chairman. We do not at this time anticipate any further amendments to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of H.R. 4567, and I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) who has shown tremendous leadership on this bill, a very, very difficult bill, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and all the staff on both sides of the aisle doing an outstanding job of moving this homeland security appropriations bill to the floor under a very tight fiscal circumstance.

We received a tremendous number of specific requests, and each of us has had to say no many more times than we would have liked to. I know that all Members of this Chamber have specific accounts they believe should have increased funding or areas for which they want to include language. There are particular programs that need more direction and money.

Most, if not all, of our colleagues care deeply about homeland security. We want it done right, and we want tangible results. However, at some point we need to focus on the possible and the reasonable knowing that none of us are going to be fully satisfied. I am not satisfied with the level of funding for the State formula grant, but given all of the factors that must be considered when addressing the various risks in each congressional district, the number for this program is not unreasonable; particularly when one considers that is a half a billion dollars over the administration's request.

We should also remember that there are hundreds of millions of dollars out there in our States that have yet to be obligated for homeland security. I am not satisfied with what I believe is less than adequate attention devoted to the threat of agroterrorism, particularly as it relates to prevention activities and needed work to advance animal vaccines; and I openly criticized the people in the Department who have been shortsighted in this area. I intend to be an advocate for protecting our agriculture economy from terrorism.

The potential cost of agroterrorism to rural economy is hard to imagine, yet alone the cost as far as food safety.

For those who want to score easy political points, this is a great bill for you. I will be one of those first who worry about funding levels. But none of us holds the answers to what truly defines adequate funding for homeland security.

As we debate this appropriations bill, I challenge the critics today to be honest with the American people. This is not an easy bill to write, and the most complex and the most demanding homeland security functions make easy targets for those who claim to be an authority on what is the best way to spend our homeland security dollars.

As the chairman has said, we can all think of more ways to spend money on homeland security, and there is no end to what we could spend. Nobody can argue that. And the issue is how well we shepherd our limited resources. In my view, this is one of the most important spending measures we will consider this year. We all know what the budget situation is; but we have crafted a very, very good bill.

I urge the Members to support this bill, keep the debate honest, and pass it quickly because it is so important to our constituents and to this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I just rise in strong opposition to this amendment. While everyone fights for money, and that is good, that is natural, it is what we would expect, the fact of the matter is these dollars have to be distributed across this country.

The gentleman talked about threat. Well, the way the dollars are given out through the committee, threat is the third highest priority. It is population, it is presence of vulnerability of critical infrastructure and threat; three times more emphasis put on population than on threat.

When you talk about defining threat, you tell me about what destroying our food supply in this country would mean: agri-terrorism. You talk about destroying the infrastructure that we have in this country outside of the major urban areas. When we start talking about the places of high threat, I think there is no way to calculate the number of places that can be destroyed.

We cannot write off the rest of the country. This bill already recognizes a balance between the urban areas and the rural areas. This bill gives the urban areas over $1.2 billion, directed to urban areas, $280 million more than last year; and now they want to take more away from everybody else in this country.

Every State has a plan in place. We have a lot of community entities, counties, in the State of Iowa that are trying to comply with those plans today; and they need the resources as much as any other place does.

If we are just talking about who has got the most people, that is one thing. When we talk about analyzing how people can respond to a threat throughout this country, that is another thing. Everybody in this House has approximately the same number of people, and we all love them as much as the next guy does. I want to protect my people as much as anyone in New York or New Jersey, but I think it is wrong to have all of these dollars go to one area out of my people's protection. It is simply wrong.

The gentleman talked earlier about we have got to do what the President said. He said we should have this many more dollars as far as urban areas. Well, let us just follow that.

If we follow the President's request, we would have no money in this bill for rail security; we would have cut firefighter grants by $245 million; we would have doubled airline ticket taxes; there would be $43 million less for air cargo security. You might be interested, if you are from New York, we would have no money for metropolitan response teams, for which the committee gave $50 million. There would be

$50 million less for radiological detection devices at our seaports and $29 million less for baggage screening at our airports. In fact, if we followed the President's request, there would be $500 million less in this bill to go to your protection.

I think it is a balanced bill as it is; and like the chairman said, is there ever enough anywhere? Well, maybe not. Will one more dollar do it in one place rather than another? I do not know. No one knows that. But the fact of the matter is, there are real threats in rural America; there are real threats in urban America.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Yes, it would.

The gentleman is correct.

That is correct.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, obviously the chairman is correct.

The fact of the matter is, I honestly believe there is not enough money for the formula grants. As we are pursuing this amendment, I have another amendment where we will transfer $275 million back into the formula grants, because I think it is so important that the entire country be protected, and not just certain areas who cannot define threat and are only basing their premise on how many people live in one area.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, I would like to say that the gentleman from New York said that dollars going to protect my citizens in my State, their safety, their well-being, is pork. I take great offense to that. It is not pork to have people who are safe in their homes. I do not care where they live in this country.

I will also say that when we talk about this formula, talk about threat, the fact of the matter is there are some very, very large threats or potential threats in rural areas, whether you talk about nuclear energy plants, whatever. But just because they do not have people living immediately around them, they are not going to be eligible for any of the funds at all.

I would also like to address one quick point talking about intelligence. The fact of the matter is there were hundreds of U.S. agriculture documents that were found in al Qaeda caves and also a large part of the al Qaeda training manual is devoted to agri- terrorism. If you do not like to eat in New York, apparently, let us just forget about the rest of the country.

Mr. Speaker, former President Reagan's influence on the world was tremendous. He was bigger than life. Whether it was on the silver screen or before thousands of cheering Americans--he was, in so many ways, the American dream. His messages of hope and possibility touched so many people around the world.

Many Iowans have a special place in their heart for Ronald Reagan or ``Dutch'' as he was known to those who used to listen to him on the radio during the 1930s.

In 1932, after graduating from college, Reagan began working as a temporary staff announcer for radio station WOC in Davenport, IA. In 1933, WOC merged with radio station WHO in Des Moines, and Reagan was hired as chief sports announcer for the new station. Here, Reagan announced Chicago Cubs baseball games--reading them from teletype reports. I remember him recounting how he was forced to improvise games for as long as 15 minutes when the teletype machine would unexpectedly stop.

At the time, radio personalities were treated as big stars and what a great place to start a career in entertainment--in Iowa. As we all know, Mr. Reagan went on to a career in movies but many Iowans remembered listening to his sportscasts and helped him in pursuit of higher office in the 1970s and 80s.

I can remember ``Dutch's Dollies''--a group of ladies who were longtime fans cheering wildly at his campaign events. They were loyal supporters with very long memories of their man Dutch.

There are many great stories about Ronald Reagan and his ties to Iowa, but I want to express my admiration for the entire Reagan family.

Ronald Reagan touched me in a manner I could not anticipate--through Alzheimer's disease.

For the better part of the last decade I shared the sadness of this disease with the Reagan family. Like all Americans, we read about the Reagan family's long goodbye to the President. During their painful days, the entire Latham family was saying their own long goodbye to my father Willard Latham, who succumbed to the disease in 2001.

Ronald Reagan will be remembered for many things but for millions this week we are reminded of the ravages Alzheimer's disease has on its victims and their families. Let us all pray for those who are devastated by this affliction and let us keep the Reagan family in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an accomplished small businessman from my Congressional District. Waldo ``Wally'' Smeby, President of Metalcraft, Inc. in Mason City, Iowa was recognized by the U.S. Small Business Administration as the Iowa Small Business Person of the Year. Next week Mr. Smeby will join other accomplished small business people in Orlando, Florida as the Small Business Administration will award the National Small Business Person of the Year.

Wally is well deserving of this recognition.

Wally first joined Metalcraft as an assistant controller in 1959, and in the true spirit of the American Dream, began working his way up. He went on to become controller, sales and marketing director, general manager, and finally company president from 1988-1993. In 1993, after the passing of founders of the company, Wally purchased the company.

His entrepreneurial achievements have established Metalcraft with worldwide sales of over $7 million and 70 employees. The majority of the growth and success the company has enjoyed has come while Wally was in a leadership position.

Wally's dedication and work provides benefits to the entire country. Small businesses are the engine of the American economy, as they represent 99.7 percent of all employers.

As his Congressman, and fellow small businessman, I join with all Iowans in wishing Wally the best of luck next week. And, I thank him for the work he has done for his community, his state, and his country.

Mr. Speaker, I recently received a letter from a constituent of mine who is an Americanism Chairman for the American Legion in Osage, Iowa. This person asked for the attached article's inclusion in the Congressional Record. Because of the exceptional work that the American Legion and the American Legion Auxiliary do for our country, I believe that this gesture is a small token of the appreciation of the Congress.

4th District Junior Conference

The Osage Unit 278 hosted the Fourth District Junior

Conference on March 21, 2004 with about 70 people in

attendance.

The new officers for the coming year will be:

President--Nicole Schroeder, Unit 672 Fort Atkinson.

Vice-President--Alicia Brandau, Unit 278 Osage.

Secretary--Mallory Schweiger, Unit 278 Osage.

Historian--Amy Schroeder, Unit 672 Fort Atkinson.

Chaplain--Kelsey Klimesh, Unit 266 Calmar.

Sergeant-at-Arms--Brittney Shannon, Unit 9 Oelwein.

Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms--Kalinda Kolek, Unit 605

Protivin.

The many talents of the young people of the Fourth District

shown through once again in the form of contest entries that

were submitted for judging. Congratulations to all who worked

so hard on their projects. The top place contestants were:

Poppy Posters: Class I--1st--Jake Tyler, Hawkeye, 2nd--

Dustin Elsbernd, Calmar, 3rd--Miranda Walz, Monona Class II--

1st--Holly Randall, Guttenberg, 2nd--Lukes Elsbernd, Calmar,

3rd--Megan Fink, Fort Atkinson Class III--1st--Emily Faust,

Colesburg, 2nd--Kelsey Klimesh, Calmar, 3rd--Lindsi Franzen,

Calmar

Poppy Corsages: Class I--1st--Grace Blocker, Fort Atkinson,

2nd--Kalinda Kolek, Protivin, Class II--Micki Schuck,

Oelwein, 2nd--Carrie Pout, Oelwine, 3rd--Cassidy Pout,

Oelwine, Class III--1st--Jessica Milbrandt, Fort Atkinson,

2nd--Kristen Milbrandt, Fort Atkinson, 3rd--Kerri Boies,

Oelwein

Chaplain's Book of Prayers & Inspirations: Class II--1st--

Jessica Milbrandt, Fort Atkinson, 2nd--Kristin Milbrandt,

Fort Atkinson, 3rd--Kalinda Jo Kolek, Protivin

Junior History Book: Kristin Milbrandt, Fort Atkinson.

Junior Scrapbook: Jessica Milbrandt, Fort Atkinson.

Americanism Essay Contest: Kristin Milbrandt, Fort

Atkinson.

Handiwork: 1st place all classes--Fort Atkinson.

A wonderful lunch was served by the host Unit and the

entertainment of Hawaiian dancing very enjoyable. The Oelwein

Unit will host the 2005 conference and I hope to see many

Juniors in attendance. Mary E. Lukes, Fourth District Junior

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of H.R. 1561. The legislation is the culmination of years of hard work between the appropriators and the members of the Judiciary Committee. It allows the appropriators to retain oversight of the Patent and Trademark Office, while permanently ending the practice of diverting fees paid by users of the Patent and Trademark Office. In the past, these fees were used for unrelated government programs. I am pleased because these fees will specifically go to improving patent quality, reducing the time it takes to examine a patent and increasing efficiency of the Patent and Trademark Office in total. These are the goals of the 21st Century Strategic Plan that was developed by the Patent Office and reviewed by the Congress.

Finally and most importantly this bill ensures that companies can and will continue to have opportunities to innovate and remain competitive in this global economy.

Mr. Speaker, on October 30, 31 and November 1, 2003, Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa, will hold a landmark event that will be the Nation's tribute to the late John Vincent Atanasoff's 100th birthday (October 4, 2003). Dr. Atanasoff, along with electrical engineering graduate student, Clifford Berry, developed the world's first electronic digital computer from 1939 to 1942 while serving as a

physics and mathematics professor at Iowa State University. Known as the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, the invention was Atanasoff's solution to finding a better, more efficient way for his students to learn. It was the principles of his invention that changed the face of technology forever.

The university is organizing the International Symposium on Modern Computing, October 30-November 1 in celebration of his life's accomplishments. Leaders in the computing field, internationally renowned academic researchers, and college and university students from across the Nation will come together to discuss the newest technologies and research that have the potential to change the world as dramatically as did the principles that Dr. Atanasoff's invention established. Dr. Atanasoff is a recipient of the Nation's highest award for innovation, the National Medal of Technology, which was presented to him by President George Bush in 1990. Dr. Atanasoff died in 1995.