Tammy Baldwin

Ms. BALDWIN

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

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to one of the bill's cosponsors, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, on the fifth anniversary of the worst attack on American soil, my Republican colleagues have disgracefully politicized what should have been a solemn and sincere resolution. This week we are mourning the tragic loses of innocent lives as well as commemorating the unsurpassed heroism that was on display that day. We are expressing our gratitude to our Nation's law enforcement officers for their tireless dedication to make our country safer; and we are reaffirming our Nation's resolve to combat terrorism and secure our homeland. But rather than offering a bipartisan resolution that unites us on this solemn occasion, the Republican leadership converted the bill into an endorsement of the PATRIOT Act, punitive immigration bills, and other highly controversial measures, which many of my constituents oppose. This bill was cynically transformed from a memorial resolution to an endorsement of President Bush's failed policies. The Republicans show enormous disrespect to the 9/11 victims and families by playing election year politics with something as solemn as the fifth anniversary of 9/11; I will vote against the bill.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of loss that I rise today in tribute to Governor Ann Richards of Texas whose death leaves a void in the national scene and in the lives of all of us who knew and admired her. Governor Richards was a woman of tremendous achievement and her professional accomplishments are well-documented: teacher, state treasurer, governor, chair of a national political convention. She was also a loving mother, a loyal friend, and a strong woman who bravely faced all adversaries, both political and personal. Whether confronting the demons of illness or the disappointment of political defeat, she emerged from each struggle wiser, wittier, and ever more welcome on the public stage. For me, and many women in and out of politics, Ann Richards was a role model and a mentor. She showed us by example that a woman could succeed in what appeared to be a man's world. For those of us who share her commitment to education, equal opportunity, social justice and the rule of law, she carved a path for us to follow . . . and left big shoes (and boots) for us to fill. When I was first running for Congress in 1998, and then during my re- election campaign in 2000, Governor Richards made time in her schedule to come to Madison, Wisconsin on my behalf. Her support was invaluable. In her inimitable Texas twang, she knew how to rally a crowd, work a room, and deliver a message better than any politician, male or female, I've ever seen. To a young woman coming into the national political arena, her wisdom and warmth were a priceless gift for which I will always be grateful. I shall miss her incredibly and emphatically. Today, I remember Ann Richards in my heart and in these words. But I know she would prefer all of us to remember her in future deeds . . . deeds that push and prod us to be better people and better citizens. I send heartfelt condolences to Governor Richards' family and sincere thanks for sharing this remarkable woman with us.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, proponents of this bill claim that it will guarantee greater local control. But for my constituents, nothing could be further from the truth. More than 5 years ago, the community of Beloit, Wisconsin, began working with the Bad River Band and the St. Croix Chippewa Indians to build a casino in their community. My constituents, through a referendum, expressed their very strong support for this project, and local governments have worked hand-in-hand with the tribes on a project that the community deems important to their economic development. For 5 years they have played by the rules and they are now in the last weeks of the approval process. Now, as the community anticipates a final decision on the tribe's application, this bill abruptly changes the rules, possibly denying the local community what they seek. The citizens of Beloit, the local governments in the area, and the tribes who seek to develop this project, are not seeking any special treatment. They simply want, and deserve, a fair decision on the merits of their application. After 5 years of following a fair process, this is no time to change the rules. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable citizen, Mr. Wesley Gordon II of Fort Atkinson, WI. The National Postmaster of the Year award was recently bestowed upon Mr. Gordon in recognition of his contributions to the community and to the U.S. Postal Service. Mr. Gordon, who began his career as a temporary mail carrier in Middleton, has been head of the Fort Atkinson Post Office since 1995. Serving in a number of different capacities and communities throughout his career, Mr. Gordon served as the officer in charge in Highland, Cottage Grove, Brodhead and Fort Atkinson and postmaster in Wisconsin Dells and Monroe. In addition to his 37 years of work for the U.S. Postal Service, Wesley Gordon has been a longtime soccer and baseball coach, is an active member of the Lions Club and Knights of Columbus and volunteers for St. Joseph Catholic Church in Fort Atkinson. In the local postal community, Mr. Gordon is known as a leader who understands the concept of teamwork. He is quick to point out the importance and excellence of his employees as he talks about his vision for the future, which is ``to make every post office a place people enjoy coming to and want to return to.'' I am pleased to join with the U.S. Postal Service in recognizing Mr. Gordon's hard work and dedication. Fort Atkinson and the State of Wisconsin are fortunate and grateful to be the beneficiaries of Wesley Gordon's work. Thank you, Mr. Gordon, and best of luck with your future endeavors.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to a distinguished American, Shirley S. Abrahamson, who is being honored today at the Wisconsin State Capitol for her 50 years of membership in the bar, 30 years as a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and 10 years as Chief Justice. But Chief Justice Abrahamson is not being honored solely on the basis of time-served. Her colleagues, students, friends, and family, indeed all citizens of Wisconsin, are the beneficiaries of her work ethic, intellect, compassion, sense of humor, respect for justice and dedication to the law. An elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, this daughter of immigrants grew up across the street from her family's grocery store in New York City. The only woman in her law school class, the first woman on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the first woman to serve there as Chief Justice, Shirley Abrahamson, among other honors, was elected by her peers as President of the Conference of Chief Justices and Chair of the Board of Directors of the National Center of State Courts because of their ``abiding confidence in her leadership and her judicial acumen.'' She paved the way for women in the law and set a standard of excellence in the Court, always reminding us, ``We need to be careful to appreciate our system of judicial independence and ensure it survives.'' Last year, while standing patiently in the line of mourners outside the U.S. Supreme Court to pay respects at the bier of Chief Justice Rehnquist, Chief Justice Abrahamson was recognized and urged to exert her celebrity and move to the front of the line. ``That's not the Wisconsin tradition,'' she replied. Shirley Abrahamson not only respects Wisconsin's tradition of equal justice and equal opportunity, she enforces both with strength, courage, and grace. I join the people of Wisconsin in paying tribute to a great jurist and citizen, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize the sesquicentennial celebration of the city of Brodhead, Wisconsin. I am indeed fortunate to represent such a great city. Brodhead is a proud and progressive community of 3,200 found in the beautiful countryside of southern Wisconsin. This peaceful city offers several unique tourist attractions. The most notable is the 23-mile long Sugar River Bike Trail, which includes a ride under the National Award Winning Clarence Covered Bridge replica constructed by the Brodhead Jaycees. Brodhead sponsors an annual festival in honor of the bridge, Covered Bridge Days, which features a tractor pull and flea market. The city was formally founded during the spring of 1856, and named in honor of engineer Edward Brodhead, who was the mastermind behind the Milwaukee and Minnesota Railroad. Only a year later the infamous Brodhead Band was founded. The bandwagon was pulled by six horses and traveled far to Freeport, Illinois, for the Lincoln-Douglas debate. They even enlisted in the Civil War and marched in the Grand Review in Washington at the end of the war. Residents point to the Half-Way Tree as their city's most recognized feature. The bur oak tree is located south of the city, and marks the halfway point from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River. It is believed that Native Americans planted the tree purposefully there in the 19th century. Brodhead's rich history in manufacturing and industry has and continues to provide the city with a solid economic foundation. Most recently, Stoughton Trailers, Kuhn Knight, Inc., and Woodbridge Corporation have helped to contribute to Brodhead's prosperity. The celebration for this momentous milestone will start on August 11 with an opening ceremony followed by a city-wide street dance. The residents of Brodhead will continue to commemorate 150 years through the weekend, finishing on August 13 with tractor pulls and fireworks. The festivities' theme of ``Pride in the Past, Faith in the Future'' is a perfect representation of all that this wonderful city encompasses. The people of Brodhead deserve recognition for their great contributions to the state of Wisconsin, and I congratulate them on reaching this historic benchmark.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Wisconsin, the Political Science Department, and the student participants on the creation and completion of the first annual UW Summer Washington Program. This invaluable opportunity was made possible by the generous support of many UW alumni. The 15 undergraduate students were selected through a competitive application process and are interning in various offices on Capitol Hill. They are gaining experience in legislative offices, lobbying firms, the Department of Justice, and several foreign policy offices, while also participating in a Political Science course. Guest speakers and hosts, all of whom are UW alumni, have been in attendance at each class session offering priceless and practical advice to the students. This program would not have been possible without the support of the Wisconsin alumni who have helped in funding, organizing social events, and speaking to the class. The UW Foundation, in collaboration with the Department of Political Science, has worked with alumni to get this program off the ground in hopes that it will be available to future undergraduate students. The goal of this program is to establish a permanent presence for the University of Wisconsin in Washington, DC. I am proud to rise today to pay tribute to the establishment of this exceptional opportunity. It is truly an honor for me to represent the students, the alumni, and the University of Wisconsin on this occasion, and wish them the best of luck in the successful continuation of this important program.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to the Rosemary Garfoot Public Library in Cross Plains, Wisconsin, on the grand opening of its brand new facility. For nearly 40 years the library has been an impressive tribute to the people of Cross Plains. The public library serves as the cornerstone of democracy, fostering intellectual freedom and making available to all citizens an extensive information network. In a local setting, citizens have access to global resources of information. The public library is critically important in improving the community by providing access to higher learning. It is certainly a requirement for a cultivated democratic society. The public library allows citizens to perform the civic duties placed upon them in our democratic nation. It not only provides free access to worldwide information, but is a place where residents can obtain information about their community. It also serves as a place where Internet access, tax forms, and voter registration forms are provided. The role of the public library is essential in supporting a democratic state. The Rosemary Garfoot Public Library has gone beyond its civic duty in providing these services for the public. To provide the public with a new library facility, the people of Cross Plains were committed to this important project since 2002. I am proud to recognize the efforts of a community that created a dream and followed through to success. I join the residents of Cross Plains in celebrating the grand opening of the newly expanded and renovated Rosemary Garfoot Public Library and wish them the best for many years to come.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Nadler for yielding the time. At the beginning of every session of Congress, I raise my right hand and state the following oath: ``I, Tammy Baldwin, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'' I have felt deep pride in our country and our democracy and particularly in the Constitution itself every time I have taken that oath. But if we were to pass this amendment, it would put a stain on our founding document. In our democracy since its founding, a basic premise is that in a government by, for and of the people, the people must have the ability to petition their government for the redress of grievances. Americans who wanted women to have the right to vote petitioned their government. Americans who wanted an end to slavery petitioned their government. Americans who wanted an end to child labor petitioned their government. Americans who wanted to end segregation policies petitioned their government. Americans who wanted to protect our environment petitioned their government. Our constitutional system, the checks and balances between the three coequal branches of government, was created to ensure protection of minority rights, and throughout history many groups of individuals have sought such protection from their government. Today, Americans who want the protection of marriage laws for their same-sex partnerships are in the process of petitioning their government. The Constitution is for expanding rights, opportunities and aspirations. I want to see the day when I can protect my family, my life partner of 10 years, through the same laws and with the same obligations, responsibilities and rights as can straight Americans. These are my aspirations, both as an American and as a Member of Congress, to see the Constitution that I have sworn to support and protect illuminating a path to justice and equality for more and more Americans. The amendment we are debating today would do just the opposite. Why would we amend the U.S. Constitution to say that one group of Americans, gay and lesbian Americans, can no longer petition their government for redress of grievances? A healthy and a vibrant debate on same-sex marriage is occurring throughout this Nation at this very time in break rooms, in dining rooms, in church basements. Don't cut it off. It is what democracy is all about. One State in our Union allows same-sex marriages, several others have passed civil union protections for same-sex couples, and others still are silent on the issue or have passed laws or State constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. This is what happens in a democracy when people petition their government for change. But we also know that this really isn't about the substance. It is about politics. Why else would we be debating and voting on a measure that the Senate has already effectively killed? You will get your rollcall vote, but shame on you for playing politics with people's families and their lives.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and rise this morning in strong opposition to the rule before us. I hope later today to return to the floor and address the substance of Federal Marriage Amendment. But now I want to speak to this process, because by bringing up this unnecessary and divisive amendment to write discrimination into the Constitution, the leadership of this House once again illustrates just how out of step Congress is with the rest of America. With the defeat of the amendment in the Senate a mere 5 weeks ago, this legislation should have never reached the floor of the House. Yet, unsurprisingly, politics is prevailing over common sense, and today we are going to be hearing a lot of hurtful political rhetoric targeting gay and lesbian families, all for the purpose of pandering to a narrow political base. Mr. Speaker, America faces great challenges, both at home and abroad. We are confronted with record high gas prices, an endless and expensive war in Iraq, skyrocketing health care costs, and a growing international crisis in the Middle East and North Korea. But the Federal Marriage Amendment allowed under this rule, of course, does nothing to address these very pressing challenges. At a time of such great tests confronting our Nation, America's leaders should be uniting, rather than dividing, our country. But the FMA does exactly the opposite of that, and it certainly puts politics ahead of real progress. The Federal Marriage Amendment is also unnecessary. Since 2004, States around the country have been addressing the issue of gay marriage through the normal legislative and governmental process. Today, Massachusetts remains the only State that allows gay marriage. But several other States, including Vermont, Connecticut and California, have passed laws granting civil union protections for same- sex couples. Those laws would certainly be threatened if this amendment were to pass. The proposed FMA limits the ability of States to confer protections such as important rights like hospital visitation rights, health insurance and broader civil union or domestic partnership protections on unmarried couples, and it undermines our federalist tradition of deferring to the States to regulate the institution of marriage. Mr. Speaker, many Americans are struggling with the issue of same-sex marriage on a personal level today. There is a vibrant debate going on across our Nation, in church basements, in break rooms, in dining rooms. This debate would be completely shutdown and stifled if this amendment were to pass. Our Constitution, the most cherished document embodying the American Dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, should not be amended to single out and deny the rights of any one group of Americans. This divisive, hateful, and unnecessary amendment is unworthy of our great Constitution that has been the foundation of our great Nation. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to vote against the amendment.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the tireless work and dedication shown by Mr. Terri Potter of Madison, Wisconsin. After 35 years devoted to the development and improvement of Meriter Health Services, Terri Potter is retiring from his position of CEO and President of the organization. From the local to the federal level, Mr. Potter has been pioneering initiatives to improve health care policy in various areas, including, but not limited to, patient care, health care access, and health care reporting. Under Terri Potter's direction, Meriter Health Services has become one of Madison's top ten employers and remains the only community health care system in the city. Terri Potter's leadership has led Meriter Health Services through momentous growth. From the early 1980s with the merger of Methodist Hospital and Madison General to the present, Mr. Potter has guided its development He has overseen the development of Physicians Plus Insurance Corporation, Meriter Health Enterprises, Meriter Retirement Services, and Meriter Foundation into successful ventures. Mr. Potter has a strong commitment to Meriter Health Services and the community. I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to honor this man today. Madison and the state of Wisconsin are fortunate and grateful to be beneficiaries of Terri Potter's work at Meriter. Thank you, Mr. Potter, and best of luck with your future endeavors.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not advance potentially lifesaving stem cell research. Despite its nice sounding, albeit hard to pronounce, name, the bill simply tells the National Institutes of Health to continue doing what they are already doing. This bill really is here to serve as political cover so that opponents of H.R. 810, the Castle-DeGette bill, can claim that they did something. It is really both useless and superfluous. Instead of spending our time debating bills that would not advance the science of stem cell research, we should be looking for real ways to promote this vital research. We should be empowering our scientists by opening up new resources and new opportunities for them to expand their research. We should be providing patients and families with real hope for the future, not passing empty bills. Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to represent the University of Wisconsin- Madison, where Dr. Jamie Thomson and his team were the first to derive and culture human embryonic stem cells in a laboratory. Embryonic stem cells open the possibility of dramatic new medical treatments, transplantation therapies and cures. But at 9 p.m. on August 9, 2001, the hope and promise of this embryonic stem cell research was greatly curtailed by the administration's restrictions on Federal research dollars for stem cells. We need to end these irrational restrictions. We need to enact H.R. 810 into law. H.R. 810 is real progress, and it provides our scientists with the tools that they need to continue their life-saving research. Please vote against the distraction before us right now.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that on July 2, 2006, the community of McFarland, Wisconsin, will celebrate its 150th anniversary. Since its founding in 1856, this lakeside community has seen tremendous growth, but has maintained the beauty and hospitality characterized by the village founders Located just a few minutes southeast of Madison, the Village of McFarland boasts a thriving business community and commerce park, numerous service clubs and organizations, and excellent recreational facilities. The sizable volunter fire and EMS departments and the outstanding new library demonstrate the residents' dedication to service and development of their community. This community bond stretches from generation to generation. McFarland High School has a tradition of excellence and the community regularly comes together to cheer for the McFarland Spartans. Lake Waubesa, McFarland's most famous natural landmark, serves as a center to many outdoor activities. As the symbolic heart of the village, shops and restaurants surround it, providing a picturesque backdrop of McFarland daily life since the time of its founder, William McFarland. In genuine McFarland fashion, the residents will be celebrating the community's sesquicentennial on Sunday, July 2 with a festival featuring an array of local foods, train rides, and the singing of the village anthem, ``On, McFarland!'' A ceremonial cutting of the village birthday cake to honor William McFarland and his descendants and to celebrate the community's 150-year milestone will also mark this landmark achievement in McFarland's history. It is with great pride that I serve and represent the people of McFarland, Wisconsin, and I extend my deepest congratulations to them.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, we were promised another chance to debate our policies with respect to the war in Iraq. Yesterday and today we had that debate. But those who listened to that debate need to understand that it was mere theater. We had before us today a resolution that could only be voted up or down, yea or nay. If I wished to offer an amendment giving voice to my desire and that of the majority of my constituents to redeploy our troops from Iraq, I could not. You heard me correctly, the rules of this debate that we had today precluded me from taking any substantive action. I believe that one of the fundamental functions of the Congress is to act as a check and a balance to the executive branch. Yet here we are in the people's House, the people's House, unable to do the people's will. Mr. Speaker, America is the lone superpower in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world. Along with that awesome and unprecedented power comes responsibilities to humankind and the planet itself. America's reasons 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 cannot be exported through force. We must teach and lead by example. Leading by example means modeling the behaviors that we want others to emulate. We must respect the rule of law. We must respect civil rights and liberties. We must stand firmly for human rights, renouncing in all circumstances the use of torture, assassinations, kidnappings as political tools, illegal detention, and cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Speaker, we must renounce the preemption doctrine. President Kennedy had this to say about the use of America's military force: ``The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want war. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert and try to stop it, but we shall always do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just.'' Mr. Speaker, I voted against authorizing use of force in Iraq. I believed then, as I do today, that Iraq posed no threat to America's security. I agree with the 9/11 Commission members that there was no credible link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists. I feared that war in Iraq would divert our attention from anti-terrorism efforts and serve to make us less safe and secure. I called upon the President to tell Congress and the American people what circumstances would be required in order to bring home our troops from Iraq. My letter demanding articulable milestones and an exit strategy was sent to the President before the war even started, and to this day that letter remains unanswered. Mr. Speaker, since that time I have participated in fearful troop sendoffs and joyous homecomings. I have nothing but respect for our brave soldiers. During the past 4 years, I have embraced and stood and prayed with Wisconsin families as they said their last good-byes to brave sons, fathers and brothers. As of yesterday over 2,500 young men and women of our military have given their lives in Iraq. During the past 4 years, I have also heard from parents who clearly see that it is their children and grandchildren who will pay the $320 billion that this war has cost to date. Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus and a proud cosponsor of Mr. Murtha's resolution, H.J. Res. 73, to redeploy our troops. I only wish it was that resolution that we had debated over the past 2 days.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit these charts for the Record during the debate on the Point of Order that I raised against H. Res. 850 providing for the consideration of H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006. The charts are compiled by the Alliance for Community Media detailing how 49 local franchising authorities in 13 States will lose huge percentages of their annual PEG funding under the COPE Act.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, H. Res. 850. Page 1, line 7, through page 2, line 1, states: ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.'' The rule makes in order H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, which contains a large unfunded mandate on State and local governments in violation of section 425 of the Budget Act. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Committee on Rules may not waive section 425; and, therefore, this rule violates section 426.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in January of 1995 in the first few weeks after the Republicans took control of this House for the first time in 40 years, they passed a bill they proudly called the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The goals of this bill, they argued at the time, were honesty and accountability. It would force the Congress to publicly acknowledge when it passed legislation that imposed large, unreimbursed uncompensated costs known as unfunded mandates on State and local governments. As our former colleague and current director of the Office of Management and Budget, Rob Portman, said during the debate back in 1995, ``No significant unfunded mandate can now go through Congress without Members having to vote up or down in the public view.'' But here we are 11 years later and the tables have turned. My Republican colleagues are bringing to the floor a bill that imposes hundreds of millions of dollars of unfunded mandates on communities across this country whose local public, educational, and government accessible channels, known as PEG access channels, as well as institutional networks known as I-Nets, over which our police, fire and emergency communications often travel, will be gutted by the legislation we are considering today creating a national cable franchise system. As provided under the rule, H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act, also known as the COPE Act, would limit available support for PEG access channels to a maximum of 1 percent of an operator's gross revenue, less than what many communities receive today. This legislation's one-size-fits-all approach fails to keep communities financially whole. Local cable franchises are long-term contracts signed between a cable operator and a community, and some go as long as 15 years. Yet this bill allows cable operators to walk away from those signed and sealed contracts, causing the city to lose long-term revenue it expected to get under those contracts. Many communities have made the decision in their local franchises to require more than 1 percent worth of PEG and I-Net support more than would be available under COPE. In those communities that make robust use of these resources, enactment of this bill may result in the loss of up to 67 percent of their budgets for these important and crucial services. Indeed, according to the Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate for the bill, by prohibiting local franchising authorities from charging cable providers more than 1 percent of their gross revenues to provide PEG programming, enacting COPE would lead to a loss in State and local revenues estimated to be between $150 million and $450 million by 2011. Even with projected offsets from other provisions of the bill, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the net cost of this mandate would likely fall between $100 million and $350 million per year by 2011. Because of CBO's conclusion that the annual cost of this mandate over the next 5 years will exceed $64 million, which triggers the unfunded mandate law that Republicans so proudly backed in 1995, I am raising this point of order against the rule. The fact is that the rule waives all points of order against this bill. The Budget Act specifically says that the Committee on Rules cannot waive points of order against unfunded mandates, yet the Republican leadership ignores this. So in the spirit of the debate in 1995, I am raising this point of order that will force us all in the public view to vote up or down this unfunded mandate. During these really challenging economic times with very tight local and State budgets, how many States and localities can afford this? Local programming and police and fire communications traffic supported by I-Nets should not be allowed to be diminished through the passage of this bill. Yet because of this unfunded mandate, the city of Madison in my own congressional district will see losses in the tens of thousands of dollars per year, while larger franchises such as that in Montgomery County, Maryland, will suffer almost $2 million in losses. Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record a chart compiled by the Alliance for Community Media detailing how 45 local franchising authorities in 13 States will lose huge percentages of their annual PEG funding under the COPE Act. During the committee markup of H.R. 5252, and subsequently at the Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment that would have remedied this problem. In addition to the option of a PEG fee based on 1 percent of the cable operator's gross revenue, my amendment allowed the franchising authority to continue requiring cable operators with a national franchise to pay a fee equivalent to the value on a per subscriber, per month basis of all PEG support currently provided by an incumbent cable operator in a franchise area pursuant to that incumbent's existing franchise agreement. This hold-harmless approach would have ensured the current level of PEG funding that was in no way diminished by the transition from local to national franchise systems. Under my amendment, the new national cable franchisee will not pay a single cent more than what the current incumbent cable providers are already paying. More importantly, my amendment would have eliminated this unfunded mandate that will cost local communities hundreds of millions of dollars. Unfortunately, my amendment was not allowed to come to the floor for a vote under this restrictive rule. Mr. Speaker, if this legislation passes, the diverse and vibrant offerings of public access channels on cable television will face enormous challenges. I want to talk a little about the importance of PEG access channels as communities' resources. There are over 3,000 PEG access centers across the country today representing 3,000 channels, 250,000 organizations and 1.2 million volunteers. According to a survey of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, 73 percent of communities with PEG capacity receive financial support from the cable operator under terms of the local franchise over and above the franchise fee. Whether it is in the form of an annual fee, a one-time grant, or use of a building or equipment, or a per subscriber fee, such resources are used to support the needs of local PEG communities in their production of local programming. These resources are used by schools for distance education, by our locally elected officials to improve governmental services and enhance democratic discourse, and by our communities as the last source of free speech over the medium of television. My congressional district in Wisconsin has one of the most diverse, enriching, and vibrant public access communities in the Nation. For over 30 years, Madison City Channel has helped connect Madison residents with their local government in much the same way C-SPAN allows our constituents to follow our actions here in Congress. Madison City Channel has provided that window into the workings of county and city governments, the levels of government that most directly impact the lives of our constituents on a daily basis. In addition, the school district operates two channels that feature a variety of school board meetings and forums, as well as interviews with school board members and administrators and sporting events. The channel also features student music events, math and science fairs, and news programming. PEG channels from the city of Whitewater in my district feature not just local election coverage, meetings of the city council and school board, but also programming produced by the local United Way, the Historical Society, and five local churches, among others. Overall, the 80-plus PEG access channels in Wisconsin perform invaluable services on a daily basis commercial free, with the sole basis of informing and educating our citizens. Diversity of programming and coverage are found in communities across the country. I want to note that in addition to coverage of government and educational affairs, different communities adopt various genres of programming to reflect their local interests. For example, religious programming represents 20 to 40 percent of programming in most public access centers, according to a survey of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. And ``Army Newswatch'' is the most-syndicated program on PEG channels, with carriage on over 300 PEG channels nationwide. I know that many Members of Congress host their own public access shows on PEG channels to reach out and connect with their constituents. Preserving PEG funding is about preserving the local flavor and diversity of community voices. It is about transparency and accountability in our local government, and it is about strengthening the sense of shared neighborhoods and communities. Mr. Speaker, the House can either choose to consider this rule in spite of COPE's unfunded mandate; or it can send this rule back to committee, make my amendment in order, and eliminate the unfunded mandate upon which this point of order is predicated.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed from H.R. 2048.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006. Simply put, I support the ends but not the means with respect to this legislation. The goal of increasing competition in the video communication market is worthy. Indeed, it is of great importance. We know that robust competition can improve customer services, reduce pricing, and spark innovation and technological advances. This House is right to take on this critical and timely subject. But I am disappointed the drafters felt the need to use a national cable franchise as the means to achieve these laudable ends. I see numerous examples of telephone companies, small and large, entering into successful negotiations with local franchise authorities, and I believe that we can encourage new entrants and new competition without moving to a federally managed national franchise. But, Mr. Chairman, despite my reservations about the national cable franchise, I might view this model more favorably if the legislation contained adequate safeguards and requirements to ensure that the benefits of increased competition are shared as widely as possible. Unfortunately, this is not what happened in committee when we marked up this legislation and we were denied the ability to bring our amendments to improve the bill to the floor this evening. Instead, H.R. 5252 backs away from the tenet of universal service to all citizens, which has been a fundamental principle of our Nation's communication policies for over 70 years. And while anti-redlining language is included in the bill, other provisions in the bill render it toothless. The legislation also strips the States and localities of their authority to both establish and enforce consumer protections and customer service standards. It makes the FCC the final arbiter of local rights-of-way disputes. Most disappointingly, the bill does little to protect what we call the neutrality of the Internet. Neutrality has become crucial to the development of innovative and competitive broadband content and services. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize the sesquicentennial celebration of the city of Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin. I am indeed fortunate to represent such a great city. The impact the city of Wisconsin Dells has had on the history of the state of Wisconsin is indescribable. Located along a breathtaking 7- mile stretch of the Wisconsin River, it has been a tourist destination for over 150 years, and has now grown to be the largest recreation center for families in the state of Wisconsin and the Midwest, hosting over 2.5 million people annually. In 1856, when the city was not even 1 year old, an editor of a Wisconsin paper wrote, ``We conclude that the wild, romantic scenery of the Dells will always make them a place of resort for seekers of pleasure.'' The natural beauty which originally attracted early settlers and tourists 150 years ago has still been maintained for the enjoyment of current and future generations. Since its beginning, the industrial nature and forward thinking maintained by the community have brought numerous changes and growth. The Dells are widely recognized for diverse entertainment and recreation options. With attractions such as Tommy Bartlett's water ski show, amusement parks, Duck rides on Lake Delton, the oldest family- owned photographic studio in the Nation, and two state parks, Wisconsin Dells is sure to enchant everyone who visits. The celebration for this landmark achievement will be marked over the days of June 10 and June 11, 2006 through events such as the Taste of the Dells Festival, musical performances, and other community activities. The people of Wisconsin Dells deserve recognition for their great contributions to the state of Wisconsin, and I congratulate them on reaching this historical benchmark.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, this week I made a very difficult decision in voting for H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. I have been deeply moved by my constituents from both sides of the issue, including individuals with strong family ties to the Middle East. I want to take this opportunity to share my thoughts behind voting in support of the legislation. In January 2006, Hamas, a designated terrorist organization that does not recognize the state of Israel and calls for an Islamized Palestinian state, won the legislative election to lead the PA government. Since then, the United States and the European Union have announced a series of measures designed to further isolate and pressure the Hamas-led Palestinian government until it recognizes Israel, renounces violence, and accepts previously signed Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements. Specifically, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently announced that the United States has begun to suspend over $400 million in direct aid to Hamas, while redirecting about $100 million from canceled projects to humanitarian assistance such as food and medicine distributed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The canceled aid includes: $45 million in direct aid to the PA; $130 million in infrastructure projects; $20 million in private enterprise development and revitalization, financial markets reform, trade programs and information technology sector support; $17 million in electoral, political party, local government and legislative support programs; $13 million in civil society development; $10 million in rule of law and judicial programs; $7 million in technical assistance and vocational training; $4 million in community policing, among others. Similarly, the EU Commission announced that it had halted payments to the Hamas government, freezing all direct aid to the PA and payment of public employees' salaries with EU funds through the World Bank, but not humanitarian aid through international and nongovernmental organizations. In the mean time, the Israeli government has cut off all ties with nearly all branches of the PA government, including its security. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has declared that his government will avoid meetings with visiting representatives or diplomats from PA. I am in support of certain financial sanctions on Hamas to ensure no U.S. government funding goes directly to support terrorism activities. On February 15, 2006, I voted in favor of, and the House passed, S. Con. Res. 76, which expressed the sense of Congress that no United States assistance should be provided directly to the PA if the majority party in control of the PA parliament maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel. I believe it was a sensible resolution that called for an end of U.S. financial support of Hamas while allowing other forms of humanitarian aid to flow through NGOs to the Palestinian people. The impact of cuts in aid is being felt by the PA. Omar Abdel-Razeq, Finance Minister of the PA, recently confirmed that the PA could not pay March and April salaries to about 140,000 government workers. These salaries support about one-third of the Palestinian population. These cuts in aid came on top of the fact that Gaza's economy is in dire straights, with average family income already below the U.N. poverty line. Economic conditions are also precipitously declining in the West Bank. Overall the PA shoulders a total debt of $1.3 billion, including $640 million to regional and local banks and making it virtually impossible for the PA to obtain new loans. Furthermore, Israel has decided to withhold $50 million a month in customs and tax receipts since January, although it continues to pay Israeli companies about $5.5 million a month from those receipts for the water and electricity used by the Palestinians. The Israeli government has also recently announced that it will buy drugs and medial equipments needed by Palestinian hospitals in Gaza out of the withheld funds. Yet, despite the dire needs of Palestinians, Hamas has chosen to ignore reality in favor of its extremist commitment to terrorism. On April 17 of this year, a suicide bomber struck in a Tel Aviv restaurant, killing nine Israelis and injured dozens. The suicide bombing was carried out by Islamic Jihad, an Iranian-backed extremist group that refuses to acknowledge the cease-fire followed by Hamas. The Passover attack was a grotesque display of terrorism and violence, yet it was quickly defended by Hamas. Sami Abu Zuhri, the official spokesman for Hamas, stated at the time that the attack was ``a natural result of the continued Israeli crimes'' against Palestinians and that ``our people are in a state of self-defense and they have every right to use all means to defend themselves.'' It became clear to me that, without regards to the pressing needs of the Palestinian people, Hamas was ready to ignore its own cease-fire policy in favor of extremist political rhetoric that further isolate and weaken the PA and endangers the humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people. It was a chilling reminder of Hamas' tendency to favor violence over peace and political posturing over progress, all at the expense of Palestinian people's welfare. The Passover bombing and the Hamas response to the bombing was a turning point in my consideration and analysis of H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. I believe that a stronger message must be sent by the United States to Hamas that we will not support a government that continues to embrace terrorism. H.R. 4681 is an appropriate vehicle to send that message. The bill intensifies the pressure placed on the Hamas-led PA by not only restricting direct U.S. aid to the PA (which has already been suspended by Secretary Rice), but also restricting U.S. assistance to NGOs working in the West Bank and Gaza, subject to exceptions based on humanitarian needs. It expresses the sense of Congress that PA-controlled territories should be deemed as terrorist sanctuaries; denies visas to any PA officials or affiliated persons; and restricts the travel of any PA representative to the UN outside of a 25-mile radius of the U.N. headquarters building in New York City. Finally, the bill directs the President to prohibit international financial institutions from directly assisting a Hamas- led PA, and prohibits any U.S. officer or employee from having any official contacts with members or official representatives of Hamas. In examining H.R. 4681 leading up to the vote, the bill had raised several significant questions for me: Is additional financial and political isolation the most effective means to induce changes to Hamas policy towards Israel? Will such noose-tightening prompt the Palestinian people to insist that Hamas change its policy or will it inadvertently lead to humanitarian crisis and civil unrest in the West Bank and Gaza? Will political and financial sanctions firmly aimed at Hamas serve to strengthen the role of Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate President of the PA or further radicalize Hamas while undermining the position of President Mahmoud Abbas? While these are difficult questions with which to wrestle, I eventually decided that H.R. 4681 sends an important and necessary message to PA that the United States will not tolerate a terrorist-controlled government's role in obstructing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. First, I believe H.R. 4681 provides the United States the additional leverage it needs to push Hamas toward the acceptance of Israel and the rejection of violence. The Act amends the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) by adding a new section prohibiting direct financial transfers by the United States to the PA until the President certifies that no part of the PA is controlled by a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) designated by the United States and Europe and no member of an FTO serves in a senior policy making position in the PA, the PA has publicly acknowledged Israel's right to exist and recommitted itself to previous agreements and understandings with Israel and the United States, and the PA has taken effective steps and made progress toward a number of objectives including purging its security services of individuals with ties to terrorists, dismantling terrorist infrastructure, and halting anti-Israeli incitement. I believe these are reasonable and necessary benchmarks that Hamas must make in order to demonstrate its capability to be a responsible government. Furthermore, I believe the bill's humanitarian provisions address my concern that the increased sanctions advocated by the legislation would unnecessarily hurt the Palestinian people. Make no mistake, I do not believe that the Palestinian people should be punished for exercising their right to elect the representatives of their choice. In March 2005, Hamas accepted a temporary cease-fire with Israel in exchange for Abbas' agreement to allow the group into PA's electoral system. Throughout the process, the Bush Administration stood on the sidelines, assuming that Hamas' political participation would either transform the group or marginalize it. Indeed, Secretary Rice stated last fall that the United States had ``to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political process.'' As a result, Hamas entered the field for the 2006 legislative elections. Understanding the widespread public dissatisfaction with the PA's corruption under the control of the Fatah party and the sour economy, Hamas ran on a platform of clean governance and reform, rather than ideology. Subsequently, observers widely agree that Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinian people not for its ideological platform, but for its practical appeal in improving the day-to-day living conditions of Palestinians. I strongly believe Palestinians should not be punished for exercising their Democratic choice in electing their representatives. Yet, with nearly 50 percent of the PA's residents living below the poverty line, unemployment on the rise, and government salaries already not being paid, Hamas' ongoing pursuit of extremist rhetoric demonstrates to me the party's inability to put the interests of the Palestinian people above its terrorist ideology and its unwillingness to govern in a responsible manner. I believe H.R. 4681, which provides an exception to the restrictions for basic human needs such as food, water, medicine, and sanitation services and allows the President to provide other targeted democracy or rule of law assistance, strikes a balance in both pressuring Hamas but also ensuring that necessary assistance reaches the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank. Finally, I believe the approach of economic and diplomatic isolation of Hamas will help strengthen the position of PA President Mahmoud Abbas and lead to the creation of pragmatic, reform-minded activists and parties. H.R. 4681 has been amended to allow for exceptions to the ban on direct assistance permitting the United States to maintain an open dialogue with President Abbas. It allows the president to use a national security waiver to provide assistance to the office of the PA president for non-security expenses directly related to facilitating a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or for the personal security detail of the PA president. Emboldened by U.S. and Israeli opposition to Hamas, Abbas recently announced that it will call a national referendum on accepting a Palestinian state alongside Israel that would implicitly recognize Israel's right to exist. Abbas is ready and willing to demonstrate to the international community that there is a Palestinian partner for negotiations with Israel, and the United States should seize this opportunity to continue press for a breakthrough in long-stalled peace efforts. I sincerely hope that H.R. 4681 will play a constructive role to secure permanent peace in the Middle East.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to represent the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where Dr. Jamie Thompson and his team of scientists were the first to derive and culture human embryonic stem cells in a lab. Embryonic stem cells open up the possibility of dramatic new medical treatments, transplantation therapies and cures. But on August 9, 2001, the hope and promise of this research was greatly curtailed by this administration's severe restrictions on Federal research dollars. Last year, I was proud to fight for the passage of H.R. 810, a bill that opens up Federal research dollars to stem cells derived from donated embryos. One year has gone by since the House passed that bill. It is time for the Senate to act. We can no longer tie the hands of our scientists. We need to unlock the promise that this research holds.