Tammy Baldwin

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2356) to amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage the display of the flag of the United States on Father's Day.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the Loving v. Virginia decision was a milestone in our continuing efforts to fulfill the original promises of our Constitution, fulfilling the blessings of liberty for all Americans. It is highly fitting that we remember and honor the decision on its 40th anniversary. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 431, a resolution I introduced along with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), commemorating the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing interracial marriages within the United States. I thank Chairman Conyers for expedition consideration of this resolution so it could be brought to the floor before the actual date of the anniversary which is tomorrow, June 12. In June of 1958, two residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black Native American woman, and Richard Perry Loving, a Caucasian man, were married in Washington, D.C. Upon their return to Virginia, Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving were charged with violating Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes, which made their marriage a felony. They challenged their convictions, culminating in the June 12, 1967, U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Loving v. Virginia, striking down the remaining anti-miscegenation laws that were still in effect in 16 States. In the unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court rejected bigotry against interracial relations, recognizing an individual's right to marry under the 14th amendment. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote: ``Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the 14th amendment, is surely to deprive all the States' citizens of liberty without due process of law.'' The opinion also stated that ``the 14th amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.'' The Loving decision marked a critical step forward in our Nation's struggle toward equal rights for all, particularly full marriage equality. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, from 1970 to the year 2000 the percentage of interracial marriages has increased from 1 percent of all marriages to more than 5 percent. The number of children living in interracial families has quadrupled between 1970 and 2000, going from 900,000 to more than 3 million. Because of the decision's profound impact in our society, numerous cities and towns across this country have already proclaimed June 12 Loving Day in commemoration of this decision. Indeed, the Supreme Court's opinion forcefully rejected the argument employed by Leon Bazile, the trial judge of the case, who defended his decision convicting the Lovings as part of God's plan. Unfortunately, after 40 years, similar types of arguments are still being employed by a few to deny full marriage equality to everyone. In commemorating the legacy of Loving v. Virginia in ending the ban on interracial marriage in the United States, H. Res. 431 reaffirms the Loving court's recognition that marriage is one of the ``basic civil rights of man'' at the heart of the 14th amendment protections. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this timely resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to C. Dixon Osburn, who, as co-founder and Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), led the national movement to repeal ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' for the past fourteen years. Under his leadership, SLDN has moved our nation many miles closer to its goal of freedom to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces without regard to sexual orientation. It has been my honor to work with Dixon for many years to improve the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. Our work is not done, but one day ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' will take its place among the relics of history and be replaced by a fairer, better policy that truly honors the patriotism of all Americans. And we will remember Dixon and the foundation he built with Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. I wish Dixon all the best in his future endeavors, and I thank him for his significant contribution to improving our Nation's Armed Forces.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the work of a remarkable activist from Wisconsin--Bob Hudek of Citizen Action of Wisconsin. Bob Hudek is retiring from Citizen Action of Wisconsin after serving 12 years at the helm of an organization that has become a national model for how to engage people in progressive politics. During that time he displayed the strong leadership skills necessary to build Citizen Action of Wisconsin into an effective, statewide organization. It is known throughout the State for its fabulous issue work and serves as one of the best organizing models in Milwaukee. Bob Hudek's passion for fairness and compassionate public policy spans a broad range of serious issues facing the people of Wisconsin. From education to health care to consumer protection, Bob's commitment to the community and promoting the principles of social justice is truly unbounded. Bob Hudek served to continue Wisconsin's long history of progressive politics. He worked undauntedly to elect progressive legislators who shared his commitment to the Wisconsin ideal. His leadership furthered the progressive movement at the State and national levels and will have an impact that will reverberate for years to come. With an unmatched generosity of spirit, Bob Hudek is able to bring together people and organizations with an array of viewpoints and help them to find common ground. This dedication to the issues he holds dear fostered the development of not only Citizen Action of Wisconsin but other organizations as well. Thank you, Bob, for the years of service you have provided Citizen Action of Wisconsin, the progressive movement, and the people of Wisconsin.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the House today has a historic opportunity to expand upon the principles of equal rights and equal protection embodied in our Constitution by passing the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This Act would offer Federal protections for victims of hate crimes targeted because of their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. These characteristics are included in this hate crimes legislation, not because they deserve any special protection as opponents of this legislation claim, but because of the history of particularly heinous and violent crimes committed against individuals based on such characteristics. That's what warrants this inclusion. I wanted to share several stories about why this legislation is so important. I only have time for one. Let us never forget the story of Matthew Shepard, who was brutally attacked by his hateful, homophobic assailants and left to die on a fence in a remote area of Wyoming. Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes and its horrific effect on the entire targeted commune. The sponsors of the Senate hate crimes legislation have renamed the bill the Matthew Shepard Act. Today we have been joined by Matthew's mother, Judy Shepard and a lead investigator in this case, David O'Malley, who are still courageously advocating for the passage of this legislation more than 8 years after Matthew's death. The passage of hate crimes legislation is long overdue. This will be critical for both symbolic and substantive reasons. The legal protections are essential to our system of ordered justice and essential for ensuring that those who commit heinous crimes are punished. But on a symbolic basis, it is important for Congress to enunciate clearly that hate-based violence targeting women, gays, lesbians, transgender individuals and people with disabilities will no longer be tolerated. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, and the staff of the Judiciary Committee for their diligent work in bringing the bill to the floor. Hate crimes are different than other violent crimes because they seek to instill fear into a whole community--be it burning a cross in someone's yard, the burning of a synagogue, or a rash of aggravated batteries of people outside a gay community center. These are crimes motivated by prejudice and meant to send a message to society and others who belong to the same category. This sort of domestic terrorism demands a strong, federal response because this country was founded on the premise that persons should be free to be who they are--without fear of violence. I want to share with you a few reasons why the passage of this legislation is so urgent and necessary. Last week in Committee, we heard from a very young man, Mr. David Ritcheson, who was brutally beaten last year by two individuals due to his ethnicity as a Mexican- American. Mr. Ritcheson spent the next 3 months and 8 days in the hospital, recovering from severe internal injuries. Yet because the attack took place in a private yard rather than an area of public access, the FBI had no grounds to investigate the attack under existing hate crimes laws. The story of Brandon Teena also demonstrates the need for this legislation. Dramatized in the movie ``Boys Don't Cry,'' Brandon was raped and later killed after the discovery of his biological gender by two acquaintances. Five days before his murder, Brandon reported his rape and beating by the same perpetrators, but the Richardson County Nebraska Sheriff would not pursue the case against Brandon's attackers. Let us never forget the story of Matthew Shepard, who was brutally attacked by his hateful homophobic assailants and left to die on a fence in a remote area of Wyoming. Matthew's death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes and its horrific effect on the targeted community. I remember the impact locally in Wyoming. I was in the midst of my first campaign for Congress in October 1998. Many gay and lesbian youths roughly Matthew's age were working on my campaign. I remember the impact of the crime on them. They were afraid for their safety, and that is precisely the effect these crimes have. The sponsors of the Senate hate crimes legislation have renamed the bill the Matthew Shepard Act, and today we are joined by Matthew's mother Judy Shepard and the lead investigator in his case David O'Malley, who are still courageously advocating for the passage of this legislation more than 8 years after Matthew's tragic death. Mr. Speaker, the passage of hate crimes legislation is long overdue. The passage of H.R. 1592 today will be critical for both substantive and symbolic reasons. The legal protections are essential to our system of ordered justice and essential for ensuring that those who commit these heinous crimes are punished . . . but on a symbolic basis, it is important for Congress to enunciate clearly that hate-based violence targeting women, gays and lesbians, transgender individuals, and people with disabilities will no longer be tolerated. The opponents of this legislation will disseminate a lot of misinformation today in order to derail this bill. But make no mistake, the legislation we are considering today has been carefully crafted to protect an individual's First Amendment right to speech, expression, and association. It also provides much needed federal resources to local law enforcement authorities without usurping local authority. Finally, the bill is fully consistent with Supreme Court precedence on both First Amendment and interstate commerce cases. Our society is not perfect; the passage of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act will not make all hate crimes go away. H.R. 1592 is about giving state, local, and federal law enforcement authorities the necessary resources and tools to combat violent crimes based on prejudice and intended to terrorize a group of people or an entire community. Such hate crimes are in desperate need of a federal response, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight during Cover the Uninsured Week to draw attention to a national crisis. According to the Census Bureau, 46.6 million Americans are without health insurance. Millions more encounter a health care system that is inadequate in meeting their basic medical needs because they are underinsured. According to a recent Commonwealth Fund study, there are 16 million Americans who are underinsured, meaning that their insurance did not adequately protect them against catastrophic health care expenses. That means, in total, 61 million Americans have either no health insurance or only sporadic coverage, or have insurance coverage that leaves them exposed to high health care costs. Sixty-one million Americans is nearly 21 percent of all Americans, one in five. The lack of affordable, comprehensive health care affects every congressional district in this Nation. To highlight the issue and the real impact that being uninsured has on the lives of Americans, I have selected some letters that I have received from my constituents who have had difficulty in obtaining and affording comprehensive health care coverage. Too often here in Congress we speak of health care issues in antiseptic jargon of policymakers and lawyers. But people across America are hurting, and these letters tell their stories in their own words. I represent a district in south central Wisconsin, and while the letters I read may be from the State of Wisconsin, they speak to the difficulties of people all over the United States, difficulties people face every day. I am going to start with a few letters about the ever- increasing price of health care. Eva from Madison, Wisconsin writes: ``I am contacting you in regards to my desperate need for public health care. I am a grad student. I recently sprained my ankle playing soccer and had to go to the emergency room for x-rays. My bill came out to $1,242.50 because I can only afford measly insurance that only has catastrophic coverage. This is a ridiculous amount of money for such a visit, and it causes me to consider those less fortunate than me who have even more serious injuries and less familial support. This cost can truly make waves in the lives of people.'' Suzanne from Stoughton, Wisconsin writes: ``It is time, time to have the government deal with health care. We are covered under COBRA, which will run out in March. The cost is going from $500 per month to $900 per month. We checked with Blue Cross, and they refused us coverage because of a preexisting condition. They will not even offer a waiver for this preexisting condition. We checked with the Wisconsin State Insurance Program, which will cover us for $1,200 per month. Please, let people over 60 buy into Medicare. It is impossible to find a job that offers health insurance.'' And then there is the story of Sylvia from Fitchburg, Wisconsin. Sylvia was uninsured when she was hospitalized with a need for an appendectomy. Even after the hospital charity program reduced her bill, she still owed over $11,000 to the hospital. Sometimes the bill collectors call her at home five times a day. Sylvia chips away at this bill sending in the most she can, $20 to $50 a month. Roberta from Janesville, Wisconsin writes: ``I think insurance bills for both medical and dental care are horrendous. Both my husband and I work full time, with two small children, living pay check to pay check. My insurance costs have caused us many heartaches, with us owing more money than what needs to be paid. As a result, I will not get a needed medical procedure done. Something drastically needs to change in the United States of America where hardworking individuals and families can get the treatment they need without going broke.'' Roberta brings up an important point in her letter, because people without health insurance are often not getting the care that they desperately need. A recent study released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that cost prevented 41.1 percent of uninsured adults from seeking a doctor when they needed to seek care. But getting needed care is also difficult for Americans who have health insurance because of the financial strain relating to high premiums, high health care costs, increasing copays, deductibles. These place an incredible strain on American families, often forcing them to choose between needed health care and basic necessities like food. It is no wonder that illness, injury and medical debt is responsible for nearly 50 percent of all personal bankruptcies in the United States. Only about 40 percent of businesses who employ low-wage or part-time workers offer health benefits. And at $11,480 a year, the average family's health insurance premiums now cost more than a minimum wage worker makes in a year. And as we all know, the costs of health care are rising faster than inflation. Between 2000 and 2006, health premiums for employer-sponsored insurance jumped 87 percent, far outpacing inflation's 18 percent overall increase over the same period of time. Patricia, from Madison, Wisconsin writes: We need to fix health care. I have to choose between heat and food and medications. I have lost 80 pounds because of this. Please help. Heather, from Waterloo, Wisconsin writes: I am married and together with my husband I own a home. We live a modest, middle-class life, managing to always have what we need except for health care coverage. My husband has excellent health care at his job, but for me to also be covered by his plan, we would need to pay nearly $400 per month. That is two-thirds as much as our home mortgage. Through school, I have worked less and less in order to maintain health coverage, and I have only been able to afford short-term, major medical coverage. I am grateful that we can afford this, and it does make a difference. However, even now, I have a sore throat and I will wait for a few days to see how I feel. And I will wait because if I don't need to go, I will certainly save the money. This is disturbing to me, as a nursing student, because I know about the importance of early treatment and prevention. And it is upsetting to me as a person because I value my health. It is unacceptable to me as a citizen, because I know there are other people just like me who wait and get sicker or can't take the medications they need. Mr. Speaker, simply put, our health care system is failing, and America knows this. Among the thousands of letters regarding health care that I receive, there is a common thread, a common theme that brings them together, and that common theme is an overwhelming frustration with the system, a system they know is just not working, and a call for us in Congress to take action, bold action. Brad, from Mount Horeb, Wisconsin writes: I write to you today to urge you to take action on a growing crisis in America: health care. I strongly believe that we need a national health care plan to insure all Americans. My major concern with the current system is that when people attempt to obtain insurance, insurance companies refuse them because of past health history. Let's face it. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. The best way to make a profit is to insure the healthy so you can minimize the claims you pay out, and not insure those who need medical care or may potentially need medical care. Brad goes on to write: I am 38 years old, with a family of four. I currently participate in a health savings account. For all practical purposes, I pay all of my own medical needs, including the recent birth of our daughter. I recently attempted to switch insurance providers. The insurance companies will insure me, but they will not insure my daughter for any type of treatment for her asthma for 3 years, along with no drug coverage for life. The policy I was requesting had a $10,000 deductible, yet they still refused the coverage. Lisa, from Madison, Wisconsin writes: I am a very healthy person, and my husband and children are very healthy. We cannot get insurance. I think everyone should attempt to gain an individual health policy just to see how impossible it is. I am not a risk. Really, I am not. I am terrified right now because we are uninsured. Carol, from Madison, Wisconsin writes: As someone who has had no health insurance at all for 3 years, I can tell you that it was pretty miserable being one of the millions of people in this country without health insurance. Not long ago, my best friend died at age 42 because of ovarian cancer because she did not have health insurance and waited too long to see what was causing all of her symptoms. Yes, people in America actually die from not having health insurance. Darla from Fitchburg, writes me. She says, ``I lost my job because of unpredictable attendance due to my health issues. Upon losing my job I signed up for COBRA. Last week I received a letter indicating that my COBRA eligibility ends soon. In order for me to get health coverage, I would have to work at least 20 hours per week, but my physicians believe that it would do me more harm than good relating to my health issues. If I don't get some sort of health insurance, I will need to stop all treatments, as I have no money to pay for doctors' services. My prescription drugs will have to stop, as I will not be able to pay for them either. What can I do?'' Darla asks. Kimberly, from Madison, Wisconsin writes to me, ``I am writing today because of my family's frustration and anxiety over health care. Although we hear a lot of rhetoric about making health care more affordable and/or more available for Americans, nothing is happening, at least not soon enough. ``Let me briefly share our story,'' Kimberly proceeds. ``My husband recently started his own business. Obviously, it will take some time for his new company to see any profits, much less income. In the meantime, we are without health insurance. I am 5 months pregnant, and we have a 2-year-old son. Because of my preexisting condition, we cannot buy affordable health coverage. COBRA would cost us $1,200 per month. I am currently applying for Medicaid and other forms of public assistance as a last resort. This is ridiculous. ``As someone with no insurance, I wonder what could possibly be the problem with implementing a public health care system. Oh, I have heard the horrible stories about having fewer choices in doctors or longer waiting lists for procedures and less incentive among doctors and researchers to develop new technologies. But what is most frightening to me is the chance that my son might get sick, or my baby might be born with expensive complications while we are uninsured. ``I am not naive. I know that funding public health care is an issue. But is it wise to sacrifice the health and well-being of American citizens to avoid the challenge of implementing a change? I, for one, would be satisfied to pay more for goods and services if I could rest assured that my family's basic health care needs were being met.'' David, from Cross Plains, Wisconsin writes, ``My wife and I have been self-employed for over 18 years, and have paid thousands of dollars for health insurance premiums. As of a few months ago, we had to drop out and are now without health insurance. The cost is completely out of reach. In fact, it is nuts. Now that I am 50 years old, it is not a matter of if I will have health problems, it is a matter of when. Tammy, we will lose everything we have ever worked for. So much for the American dream. Now we look forward to dying broke and possibly homeless.'' Victor, from Stoughton, Wisconsin, writes, ``My wife can only work part time because of her health. Her employer offers a generic policy that costs only $3.97 per week and requires no background check. This policy covers basically nothing. Medical supplies, check-ups, doctors' visits necessary on a routine basis for my wife to survive are now not covered. My wife is uninsurable because of her health, and we have been turned down for health insurance that we have applied for. We cannot believe that this is happening.'' Ronald, from Deerfield, Wisconsin writes, ``I was on COBRA insurance for 3 years, which ended this past fall. I spent from March until September trying to get private insurance, but could not because of my neck injury. I was, in effect, looked at and dismissed by 33 private insurance companies because of my preexisting condition with my neck injury. Imagine how you would feel, after being dismissed by this many companies. I was finally insured through disability and Medicare. The sad reality of it is that if I want to try to work full-time again, I cannot, because in doing so it would cost me the only insurance options that I have left. ``The truth is that many other countries can and do provide equitable health insurance to all of their citizens, no matter what preexisting conditions they have, or their ability to pay, or what income level they have. I believe this country does have top-notch medical facilities, but not decent or equitable insurance for the poor and middle-income families. Susan, from Baraboo, Wisconsin writes me, ``I am writing you today regarding health insurance coverage for single people with no children. As of this time, I feel that I am left out of the loop in regards to this topic. I am 42, and last September I was diagnosed with breast cancer. In January of this year, the company that I worked for informed us that they would be closing down. I was laid off in December while I was out due to my cancer treatment. I have been searching for health care coverage everywhere because my COBRA will be going up, and I am on unemployment and barely able to pay the $244.76 for the coverage now. I cannot get insurance because of the breast cancer. ``The High Risk State Insurance Program, which is the Wisconsin program, is too expensive for me to get coverage, since they want 4 months of premiums up front, and as they only cover some things. What are single people supposed to do,'' Susan asks? ``We don't qualify for any government assistance because we are single. We cannot go without insurance. There are no programs to help us out. So when you are working on health care in the House of Representatives, please remember that there are other single people out there also in my shoes. I am at a crossroads because I have no avenue for assistance when it comes to health care. Come November, I will be unable to get coverage when I need it at this point in my life: Janet from Portage, Wisconsin writes, ``I have a 53-year-old brother who has psoriasis all over his body and arthritis that is caused by this. Three weeks ago he fell and needs surgery on his shoulder to repair it. He has no job, no money, and no insurance. We started looking for a program to help him. There are none that we can find. There is nothing to get him help to get his shoulder fixed. But after it heals wrong and he is disabled because of it, then there are programs to help him. They won't help him get it fixed so he can find a good job. Instead, they would rather support him for the rest of his life instead of trying to help him now: Gail, from Janesville, Wisconsin writes, ``My husband recently lost his job. He applied for over 100 positions, only to be told that he lacked a college degree, or he is overqualified, or that they can only pay $8 an hour. I was diagnosed with breast cancer in June of 1998, and again in 2003. I have gone through breast cancer twice, and have undergone a mastectomy and reconstructive surgery. COBRA has run out, and without a stable income, we cannot afford to pay the premiums for our own health care policy. My husband is 59 and I am 58, and we have no medical coverage. I have looked into every insurance company and get turned down because of my medical history. All our lives we have paid into these insurance companies, only to be turned away when we need the coverage the most.'' Lastly, I want to relay a story that was shared with me by Laurie. Laurie is a fourth grade teacher in the Madison, Wisconsin, public school system. Laurie recently had a student fall during recess and break his foot. Laurie wrote: ``As he was waiting, in extreme pain and cold, for the school nurse to get to him, he cried to an assistant waiting with him, 'I can't go to the doctor. We don't have insurance.''' That a 9- or 10-year-old boy should think even something like this is an atrocity. Mr. Speaker, I hope that as Cover the Uninsured Week continues, my colleagues will join me in recognizing that obtaining comprehensive, affordable health care presents a very real challenge for millions upon millions of Americans. We cannot turn a deaf ear to our constituents' pleas for help. I invite my colleagues to join me in working on this most pressing domestic priority to provide affordable health care for all Americans.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed three votes on amendments during debate of H.R. 1257 last Friday, April 20, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted in opposition to the following three amendments to H.R. 1257: the Sessions amendment (rollcall vote No. 236), the Garrett amendment (rollcall vote No. 237), and the McHenry amendment (rollcall vote No. 239).

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Wheelchair Basketball team, who--in a stunning display of athleticism and courage, captured the 2007 National Intercollegiate Wheelchair Basketball Championship. Led by Coach Tracy Chynoweth, the Warhawks capped an extraordinary season by defeating the Fighting Scots of Edinboro University to win their fourth national championship in 5 years. UW-Whitewater coiled a 28-2 season record, with a conference record of 18-0. The Warhawks were led by freshman standout Joe Chambers, who averaged 15 points and 10 rebounds this season and registered 23 points and 12 rebounds in the championship game. His play was complemented by National Play-of-the-Year Matt Scott, who averaged 14.5 points per game, including 14 points and 9 rebounds against Edinboro. ``It's an honor to be a part of this team,'' said Chambers. ``We clicked on all cylinders and played like a band of brothers.'' The Warhawks are favored to return to the National Title game next year as they lose only one player from this year's championship team. Winning the title in front of 1,750 fans, the Warhawks brought tremendous victory home to the great state of Wisconsin and established their dominance as the premiere wheelchair basketball program in the country. I sincerely congratulate the University of Wisconsin- Whitewater Wheelchair Basketball team for their remarkable achievements and wish them the best of luck in their quest to repeat as National Champions.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, it is high time we reauthorize the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. This important program provides breast and cervical cancer screening to low-income, uninsured women who otherwise would have little or no access to such care. Early detection is a woman's most powerful weapon against breast or cervical cancer because early detection, followed by early treatment intervention, greatly increases a woman's odds of beating cancer; and we know that our vigilance is having results as this is the second straight year of declining cancer deaths. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program is a Federal-State partnership that builds on the existing public health infrastructure and involves all sectors of the community in outreach and delivery of services. Established in 1991, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program provides low-income women who have limited or no health insurance with breast and cervical cancer screening, education, outreach, and case management services. Administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program provides access to mammograms, pap tests, surgical consultations, and diagnostic testing. The program is operational in all 50 states, four U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, and 13 American Indian or Alaskan Native organizations. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program also works with nonprofit organizations that provide supplemental funding for screening, education, outreach, case management and treatment services. To date, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has provided nearly 6.5 million screenings to 2.7 million women, detecting almost 30,000 breast cancers, almost 90,000 precancerous cervical lesions and 1,700 cervical cancers. This reauthorization will strengthen this important program by increasing the program's authorization level. At its current $205 million funding level, it is estimated that the program only provides services to 20 percent of all eligible women in the United States. This additional authorization would enable the program to provide 147,000 more screenings per year. In addition, it will assist rural communities and special populations by permitting a five-State demonstration program for States to receive a time-limited waiver of current regulatory requirements in order to provide greater emphasis on education and outreach, while ensuring that women continue to have access to life-saving screening services. I have been honored to work on this reauthorization, and I want to thank the American Cancer Society and the Susan G. Komen Foundation for their continued support of this critical program. In addition, I have been honored to work with my colleague, Congresswoman Sue Myrick, in advancing this important legislation. In the war against breast and cervical cancer, we know that screening and early detection saves lives. I am very proud and pleased that on this issue Republicans and Democrats are working together to support a life- saving program. I urge all of my colleagues to support this reauthorization.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the matter before us today, the Iraq Supplemental, is before us for the first time. However, this is not the last time that we will vote on this bill. This bill will go to the Senate and from the Senate to a Conference Committee and from there back to the floor of this house. If the President exercises his veto power, we may ultimately vote on this matter as many as three or four times. Today, I make no commitments about what I will do or how I will vote when this matter comes back to this house. How could I? I don't know what this bill will look like when it comes back . . . I don't know what it will say. Rather, I rise to explain how I will vote today, as this bill comes before this house for the first time. It is clear to me that today, we have only two options. We can send to the Senate the bill before us, with binding language to end the war or, should this bill fail, we will send a bill that gives the President unchecked power to continue his misguided, mismanaged war without end. That is the choice today. And my vote will be ``yes'' to advance the bill which begins to end the war. Reaching this decision has been difficult. My deliberation has been long and thoughtful. The difficulty of the decision may seem somewhat surprising given the rather stark description I just provided of the choice before us. However, there are several reasons why this decision has been hard. First, the bill before us, despite its binding language to end the war, is far from perfect. It does not end the war soon enough. It mishandles the issue of Iraqi oil. It fails to address necessary safeguards to prevent this President from taking military action in Iran without Congressional authorization. The bill's shortcomings are reason enough for a no vote. Second, until today . . . until this vote . . . I have played a different role. My job yesterday, and the day before (like so many war opponents) was to fight to make the language in this bill stronger and to make this legislation better. And having failed to accomplish all I sought to achieve provides me with another reason to vote no. Third, until this day I have voted against all of the Iraqi war spending bills. I strongly favor using the power of the purse to end the war. That this binding language to end the war is attached to a war funding bill provided me with yet another reason to vote no. Many on the left have invoked the words of Saul Alinsky in describing today's vote: ``. . . I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be,'' he says in his book Rules for Radicals. ``That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be--it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be,'' Alinsky continues. So today we start where this congressional world is, with this imperfect bill as the vehicle to begin to end the war. The choice is clear, today we can begin to end the war, or we can stand in the way of doing so. I will vote to end the war.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 797, the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act. This bill fixes an inequity that has resulted in the denial of appropriate disability compensation to blinded veterans. I wanted to share, first of all, the story of Dr. James Allen after whom this legislation is named. Dr. Allen is a distinguished, caring professor of ophthalmology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine. He has worked at our veterans hospital for nearly 33 years and treated countless eye patients, including many veterans who are blind. One such patient is a Mr. Donald May. Don is a World War II veteran who lost his right eye in a hand grenade explosion. A few years ago, Mr. May began losing vision and ultimately became legally blind in his other nonservice-connected eye. He applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs for help, but was denied further benefits. He was told that the current law in regard to paired organs did not apply to him even though he was legally blind in both his service-connected right eye and his nonservice-connected left eye. After Dr. Allen brought the plight of Don May and many other patients to my attention, I began to research why these veterans were being denied the benefits that I felt they deserved, benefits that I believed Congress intended to grant them. Through my work with the Blinded Veterans Association, we discovered that while the current paired organ statute covers blindness in theory, in practice few if any veterans have been able to qualify for the additional disability compensation under its terms. Congress has rightly recognized that some human organs and limbs are designed to work in pairs: our legs, our kidneys, our lungs, our ears, and of course our eyes. In the instance of eyes, blindness in one eye profoundly affects depth perception, even if sight is fully retained in the other eye. The paired organ statute was written to assist those veterans who experience a service-connected loss of a paired organ or limb. This statute recognizes the interdependency of paired organs, and endeavors to treat the combined disability created by a nonservice-connected loss and injury or degeneration of the remaining paired organ or limb as though it, too, were the result of a service-connected disability. In general, the paired organ statute accomplishes this task except its treatment of loss of sight. With regard to eyesight, the statute does not adequately define the term blindness, nor is any provision made for the impairment of vision in the nonservice-connected eye short of blindness. Rather than using a visual acuity of 20/200 or a loss of field of vision 20 degrees, as is the definition of legal blindness that has been adopted by all 50 States and the Social Security Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs uses a much more restrictive 5/200 rating for legal blindness. I was asked to describe exactly what that 5/200 means. Really, in layman's terms, it is the equivalent to having light perception only, but the specific definition is somebody with the ability to see at 5 feet what most of the rest of us could see at 200 feet. As a result, few if any blinded veterans are able to qualify for additional compensation under the paired organ statute. H.R. 797, the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act, fixes this problem. It defines blindness as impairment of vision where the impairment is to a visual acuity of 20/200 or less or a peripheral field loss of 20 degrees or less. This change in the law would only affect a small percentage, estimated to be roughly 5 percent, of the 13,000-plus veterans who are service-connected for loss of vision in one eye. Yet, such a change would send a powerful signal to our Nation's blinded veterans that their hardships are not forgotten. Indeed, our Nation's blinded veterans face significant challenges in the labor market. The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research found that for individuals with visual impairments, to the extent they are unable to read letters, that the employment rate is only 30.8 percent compared to 82.1 percent for people without disabilities. Given this employment trend, and the unique socioeconomic experiences of our veterans, it is even more urgent that Congress correct this one last inequity in the current paired organ statute and address the life- altering impact of blindness on our veterans. I want to mention also that in compliance with our pay-as-you-go rules, section 2 of H.R. 797 fully offsets the cost of additional vision benefits. It directs the Veterans Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to match and compare VA needs-based pension benefits data, parents' dependency and indemnity compensation data, health care services data and unemployment data with the National Directory of New Hires maintained by HHS for the purpose of determining eligibility for such benefits and services. According to the GAO, the General Accountability Office, such data-matching project would help reduce fraud and waste within the VA system as it determines eligibility and benefits to those veterans thought to be unemployable, but who are indeed working. I would like to thank Chairman Filner, Subcommittee Chairman John Hall, as well as Congressman Boozman, Congressman Snyder and Congressman Miller for their unwavering support of this bill. I also want to thank the staff of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for helping advance this legislation. H.R. 797 is a modest but very important step in restoring fair treatment to those blinded due to their service to our country and to further our commitment to them. Their sacrifices and service to this Nation should be matched by our desire to improve the quality of life for them and for their families. I want to note that the Blinded Veterans Association has identified over 200 soldiers returning from Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom who are blinded in one eye due to service-related injuries and could perhaps in the future benefit from this legislation. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 797.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I regret that due to an illness, I missed recorded votes on March 12, 2007 and March 13, 2007. Had I been present on those days, I would have voted in support of H.R. 85, H. Res. 136, H. Res. 89, H. Res. 64, H. Res. 228, and H. Res. 222.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize one of Wisconsin's own, the Sonic Foundry Company, for its well-deserved attention as leaders of the company rang the opening bell to start the NASDAQ trading day this morning. Sonic Foundry is an example of a company excelling in innovation. Its Web technology is transforming business, government and educational institutions by allowing people to receive critical information and share knowledge. Their Mediasite technology is trusted by Fortune 500 companies, educational institutions and government agencies. In Wisconsin, use of this technology saved the State's budget $800,000 in its first year of use. Sonic Foundry's Mediasite technology also allows the exchange of video greetings and interactive content to be passed between separated family members. Military families have been provided this service for free during holiday occasions. Wisconsin is proud of Sonic Foundry's accomplishments.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution expressing disapproval of the President's decision to escalate the war in Iraq. During the past 4 years, I have embraced, stood by, and prayed with Wisconsin families as they said their last goodbyes to their brave sons and daughters and husbands and wives. Those fallen soldiers have served with the utmost loyalty and courage, trusting decision-makers in Washington, the President, his administration, and this Congress to do the right thing. Like almost all of my colleagues, I have visited with wounded troops at Walter Reed and at home and joined with families and communities to send troops off to war and to welcome them back home. All of them, all of them, the dead, the wounded, the deployed, the returned, and their families, deserve political leaders who will make decisions worthy of their enormous sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, we have fallen well short of that goal, and we will only honor their sacrifices when we acknowledge this and end the war. I want to review just some of the things that we now know. We all know that this is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. We all know that Iraq posed no imminent danger to America that would justify what this administration called a ``preemptive'' war. We all know that Iraq had nothing to do with the tragic September 11 attacks that our Nation suffered. We know that few in the world stood with America as we undertook this nearly unilateral war. And we now know that our war in Iraq has diverted our attention and our resources from efforts to combat terrorist threats to our Nation. And beyond that, we know now that worldwide resentment of our military presence in Iraq has become a central recruiting tool for terrorist organizations worldwide. Therefore, we know that this war continues to make America less safe and more vulnerable. What else do we now know? We now know that the planning and execution of this war was wrought with enormous miscalculations. We know that more than 3,000 American servicemembers have lost their lives in Iraq, and we know that between 56,000 and 61,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war began. And based on polls released Monday, we know that 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of this war. Mr. Speaker, I was among the first group of House Members to speak out against the prospect of going to war in Iraq, and I voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq; and as an early and consistent critic of the war, I understand the importance of offering a new course in Iraq. We must bring an end to our military occupation and replace it with a program of humanitarian relief, rebuilding political stabilization, and diplomatic engagement. We must participate in a robust regional diplomatic effort, including direct discussions with Syria and Iran, to promote stability in Iraq. And I think that this effort will be well received by Iraq's neighbors because regardless of whether these countries are close allies of the United States or not, Iraq's neighbors have more to gain if Iraq is stabilized and more to lose if it is not. We must also heed the advice of many, including the Iraq Study Group, and acknowledge that other conflicts in the Middle East require our attention and leadership if the region is to achieve lasting stability. Therefore, we must also initiate a new push for Arab-Israeli peace. I believe that Congress has not only the right but the responsibility to assert its constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government in overseeing the conduct of this war and bringing it to an end. In doing so, I believe all options, including using the power of the purse, should be on the table. The United States is the lone superpower in the world today. And along with that awesome power comes responsibility to humankind. America's reason for maintaining its superpower status must be to export the best of our democratic system of governance and the hope of the American Dream to the rest of the world. But these cherished ideals cannot be exported through force. We must teach and lead by example Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution expressing disapproval of the President's decision to escalate the war in Iraq. During the past 4 years I have embraced, stood by, and prayed with Wisconsin families as they said their last goodbyes to their brave sons and daughters, husbands and wives. Those fallen soldiers have served with the utmost loyalty and courage, trusting decision-makers in Washington--the President; his administration and this Congress--to do the right thing. Like almost all of my colleagues, I have visited with wounded troops at Walter Reed and at home, and joined with families and communities to send troops off to war and to welcome them back home. All of them, all of them--the dead, the wounded, the deployed, the returned, their families--deserve political leaders who make decisions worthy of their enormous sacrifices. Mr. Speaker, we have fallen well short of that goal, and we will only honor their sacrifices when we acknowledge this and end the war. I want to review just some of the things that we know. We all know that this is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. We all know that Iraq posed no imminent danger to America that would justify what this Administration called a ``pre-emptive'' war. We all know that Iraq had nothing to do with the tragic September 11 attacks that our Nation suffered. We know that few in the world stood with America as we undertook this nearly unilateral war. We now know that our war in and occupation of Iraq has diverted our attention and our resources from our multi-faceted efforts to combat terrorist threats to our Nation and its allies. And beyond that, we now know (based upon last year's declassified intelligence estimates) that worldwide resentment of our military presence in Iraq has become a central recruiting tool for terrorist organizations worldwide to increase their ranks. Therefore, we know that this war continues to make America less safe and more vulnerable as long as it persists. What else do we now know? We now know that the planning and the execution of the war following our invasion were wrought with enormous miscalculations. We now know that billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been lost or squandered through no-bid contracts, lack of accountability measures and lack of Congressional oversight under the previous Republican majority. We know that more than 3,000 American service members have lost their lives in Iraq. We know that between 56,000 and 61,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war began. And, based on polls released Monday, we know that 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of the war in Iraq and 72 percent of Americans believe that things are going badly in Iraq. The situation in Iraq today has variously been called an all-out civil war or more simply a state of chaos. For years many Americans, including many members of this Congress from both parties, gave this war a chance. It is time for this administration to give peace a chance. It is time for the President to pay attention to the vast yet still growing majority of Americans that want us to get out of Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I was among the first group of House Members to speak out against the prospect of going to war in Iraq. I voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and as an early and consistent critic of the war, I understand the importance of offering a new course in Iraq. Many of my colleagues have introduced bills that would redeploy our troops in a responsible manner within a reasonable time frame, while focusing on aggressive diplomatic efforts to stabilize the Middle East. A number of these bills and resolutions establish concrete benchmarks for the Iraqi government. It is long overdue for this Administration to start paying attention to these alternative proposals, that chart a new course in Iraq. I believe that we must redefine our mission in Iraq. We must bring an end to our military occupation and replace it with a program of humanitarian relief, political stabilization,and diplomatic engagement. We must participate in a robust regional diplomatic effort, including direct discussions with Syria and Iran, to promote stability in Iraq. And I think that effort would be well received by all Iraq's neighbors, because regardless of whether these countries are close allies of the United States, or not, Iraq's neighbors have more to gain if Iraq is stabilized and more to lose if it is not. We must also heed the advice of many, including the Iraq Study Group, and acknowledge that other conflicts in the Middle East require our attention and leadership, if the region is to achieve lasting stability. Therefore, we must also initiate a new push for Arab-Israeli peace. I believe Congress not only has the right, but the responsibility, to assert its constitutional role as a co-equal branch of government in overseeing the conduct of this war and bringing it to an end. Our Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress the power to declare war and to raise and support armies. If Congress is given the power to make wars, we must also exercise our power to end wars. In doing so, I believe all options, including using ``the power of the purse,'' should be on the table. The United States is the lone superpower in the world today. Along with that awesome and unprecedented power comes responsibilities to humankind. America's reason for maintaining her superpower status must be to export the best of our democratic system of governance and the hope of the American Dream to the rest of the world. But these cherished ideals can't be exported through force. We must teach and lead by example. Mr. Speaker, while I support the resolution, I strongly believe Congress needs to do more to represent the will of the people and pursue all options that would lead to an end to this occupation and this war.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the memory of a remarkable citizen, Mr. Zachary L. Cooper of Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. Cooper was an educator and scholar who devoted his life to the study and teaching of black history. He was widely known as one of the state's most prominent chroniclers of African-American history. Zachary Cooper was born in Brunswick, GA, in 1935, and eventually settled in Madison, Wisconsin. After spending 2 years in the Army Medical Corps, Mr. Cooper went on to earn a bachelor's degree in European history from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He followed that with a master's degree in American history and earned his Ph.D in curriculum and instruction from the Ohio State University-Columbus. Mr. Cooper spent much of his career documenting the history of black settlers, authoring ``Black Settlers in Rural Wisconsin'' and creating a documentary called ``Coming Together, Coming Apart'' which used oral histories, photos and diaries to preserve evidence of early black families in Wisconsin. Mr. Cooper was also a lecturer for a variety of institutions including the Wisconsin Historical Society, the University of Wisconsin, Edgewood College, Madison Area Technical College, and the Madison School District. Mr. Cooper's passion was working with children. As president of the board of directors at the Early Childhood Learning Center, he was able to impact the lives of all the children at the center. In the spring of 1992, Cooper co-founded JAMAD (Jamaica-Madison Cultural Exchange), a program that creates connections between hardworking students in Wisconsin and Jamaica. Through the program, students establish pen pal relationships which culminate in the students from Wisconsin making a trip to Jamaica to learn more about their peers and the culture. With the passing of Zachary L. Cooper, the world has lost a great scholar, and Wisconsin has lost a great teacher, citizen, and friend.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1245, the Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act, also named Johanna's Law. It is an important piece of legislation which would provide for programs to increase the awareness and knowledge of women and health care providers with respect to gynecologic cancers. Gynecologic cancers include cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, and uterine cancer. Gynecologic cancers affect approximately 80,000 American women each year and take nearly 29,000 lives. While diagnosis and treatment methods are becoming more targeted and accurate for gynecologic cancers, most women do not understand the symptoms or signs of gynecologic cancer and, therefore, are frequently diagnosed late. A late diagnosis often makes treatment more difficult and lengthens the need for medical care. Unfortunately, many women and their physicians are unaware of the symptoms of gynecologic cancers. A recent poll conducted for the Gynecologic Cancer Foundation found that 47 percent of surveyed women could not name any symptoms of gynecologic cancers. Johanna's Law would increase awareness by directing the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to carry out a nationwide campaign to increase women's awareness and knowledge of gynecologic cancers. This campaign would include maintaining and distributing a supply of written materials that provide information to the public about gynecologic cancer. It would also aid in the development of public service announcements intended to encourage women to discuss their risk for gynecologic cancers with their physicians. Furthermore, this legislation would instruct the Secretary of HHS to take a closer look at both its past and present activities regarding gynecologic cancer awareness and education in hopes of learning what works and what does not, and what needs to be done to help with early detection and treatment of gynecologic cancers. While we have made significant progress in fighting those cancers, progress such as the newly developed and improved cervical cancer vaccine, one of the biggest threats that remains is the continued need for increased awareness of gynecologic cancers. Quite simply, knowledge is power. Providing women and their doctors with up-to-date information about the causes and symptoms of gynecologic cancers will strengthen and support women's health. I am proud to support this bipartisan bill to improve women's health, and I applaud the bill's sponsors, Mr. Issa, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Burton for their dedication to women's health. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, again I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting this legislation that will increase awareness and knowledge of women with respect to gynecologic cancers. This bill, as we have heard, will increase the survivability of these cancer diagnoses and prevent cancer deaths. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another primary sponsor of this legislation, Congresswoman DeLauro.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 4 minutes to one of the lead cosponsors of this legislation, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 864, the Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking Act or STOP Underage Drinking Act. Underage drinking is a serious public health concern in communities throughout our Nation. According to 2004 estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were over 142,000 emergency room visits by youth, age 12 to 20, for unintentional injuries and other health-related concerns caused by alcohol consumption. This bill builds interagency and community-based coalitions focusing on underage drinking, funds the production, broadcast and evaluation of national media-based public health campaigns about the dangers of underage drinking, and establishes grant programs for preventing and reducing alcohol abuse at institutions of higher education and surrounding communities. This bill is a great start in moving our Nation towards the goal of decreasing youth access to, and consumption of, alcohol. It has the endorsement of both the alcohol beverage industry and a number of key public health advocates, both committed to the idea that a multifaceted national effort is key to making progress in curbing underage alcohol consumption. I want to express my appreciation to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard's office, as well as the many other lead cosponsors of this bill that include Representatives Wamp, Osborne and DeLauro. I also want to thank the committee staff; the committee staff have dedicated their time and attention and effort to this bill. And I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the bill's primary author, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal- Allard).