Tammy Baldwin

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1997, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Let us be clear: This bill is nothing more than an attack on a woman's right to choose. By defining the phrase ``child in utero'' to include any member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the woman, this bill provides protections for an embryo or fetus, regardless of the stage of development, from conception to birth. By establishing this fetal personhood in this manner, this bill establishes a legal framework to attack a woman's right to choose as guaranteed by the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade decision. This bill forges new ground in attempting to recognize embryos and fetuses at all stages of development as persons with the same legal status as the mother. In fact, this bill makes no mention of the primary victim of violence, the pregnant woman, and instead creates a new cause of action on behalf of the unborn, and this marks a major departure from existing law and threatens the foundations of the right to choose. We all agree that every time a criminal causes the injury or death of a pregnant woman through violence, it is a tragedy. But we must also acknowledge that an attack against an unborn child is necessarily an attack against a pregnant woman. Unfortunately, rather than supporting tougher laws against domestic violence, sexual assault and battery, we are instead debating a bill that does not even recognize the harm to a pregnant woman. During the debate, I have heard some Members talk about stories they have heard from people they have met. I remember in Wisconsin hearing testimony of a personal story of a woman who was beaten by her spouse when pregnant and lost her child. She was also beaten right after she first got married and beaten before her pregnancy, and beaten in the early stages of her pregnancy. If we had taken a tough enough approach to violence against women, the violence would not have progressed so far. I have long been a supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, which expands protections for women against these callous acts of violence. I believe we would be much better served by laws to protect women, pregnant or not, from violence, instead of establishing an entirely new framework to protect fetal rights. By switching the focus of these crimes, we are diverting attention from the victimized women, and this is not a step forward in the fight against domestic violence. I urge my colleagues to vote against these bills and then work together to do proactive legislation to better attack violence against women.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my opposition to this rule and the underlying bill, and I rise to ask my colleagues to look at this legislation for what it is, not for what it claims to be. We all agree that acts of violence against pregnant women are tragic, and our criminal justice system should respond decisively to them. Those committing these abhorrent crimes should be punished to the full extent of the law. Unfortunately, the bill we will be considering under this rule has another agenda, and that is to erode and undermine the Roe v. Wade decision by treating an embryo or fetus at any stage of development as an individual with extensive legal rights, distinct from the mother. But if we really want to punish crimes that are committed against pregnant women, we can do so in ways that do not tangle this issue with the abortion debate. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I was joined by several of my colleagues during the markup of this bill in offering amendments that would have extricated this issue from abortion politics by clarifying its purpose. My amendment, along with amendments offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), sought to focus squarely on the issue of preventing and punishing violence against women and particularly pregnant women. The rejection of these amendments clearly reveals that supporters of this bill have another objective, and that is to legislate fetal personhood as a foundation for depriving women of their right to make their own reproductive decisions. Violence against women remains a huge problem in today's society; and, yes, we absolutely should focus our efforts on addressing this issue. According to a Commonwealth Fund survey, nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. That is a staggering figure: one out of every three women. And the risk of violence does increase for pregnant women. In fact, murder is the number one cause of death to pregnant women. But this bill will do nothing to protect pregnant women from violence. In fact, the bill makes no mention of the primary victim of violence, the pregnant woman, and instead creates a new cause of action on behalf of the unborn. This is a step backwards for victims of domestic violence. Once again, the attention of the legal system is being turned away from efforts to punish violence against women. Instead of protecting women, this bill lays the groundwork for establishing fetal personhood and eroding the foundation of a woman's right to choose. I have long been a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, which expanded protections for women against callous acts of violence. I believe we are better served by laws that protect women, pregnant and nonpregnant alike, from the violence than we are by creating a whole new legal framework to establish and protect fetal rights. By switching the focus of the crime from the pregnant woman to the unborn child, we are diverting attention from the problem we should be focused upon, violence against women. Think about it. You cannot do this sort of harm or cause these sorts of injuries to a fetus without harming and injuring the mother. If we are sincere in our desire to punish crimes committed against pregnant women, then we should be addressing that issue without tangling it in abortion politics. Let us abandon this thinly veiled attack on abortion rights that is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and address the true issue by providing real punishments for criminals who attack pregnant women. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and underlying bill.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the great life of Elroy ``Crazylegs'' Hirsch. On January 28, 2004, Wisconsin lost a true state icon, but Crazylegs leaves his rich legacy in the hearts of all Wisconsinites. Elroy Hirsch was born in Wausau, WI and grew into an incredible high school athlete while playing football and basketball at Wausau High School. He was such an accomplished high school player that in 1998 he was inducted into the National High School Hall of Fame. After high school, he became a standout halfback for the University of Wisconsin Badgers during the 1942 season. The Badgers finished the 1942 season 8-1-1 and were ranked third nationally by the AP. Hirsch was key to the 1942 victory over top-ranked Ohio State by throwing one touchdown pass and recording more than 200 total offensive yards. It was during this season that he earned the name ``Crazylegs'' after a reporter wrote that ``his crazy legs were gyrating in six different directions all at the same time.'' Due to his assignment with the United States Marine Corps, Hirsch continued his collegiate athletic career with the University of Michigan, and went on to play professionally for the Chicago Rockets from 1946-1948 and then with the Los Angeles Rams from 1949-1957. After a record setting career with the NFL, he was named to the NFL's All- Time All-Star team. Following his time as General Manger with the Los Angeles Rams, Hirsch returned to Wisconsin and the university where he started his collegiate athletic career. When he arrived as Athletic Director, the Badgers' athletic program was struggling. He was committed and successful in turning around the athletic program in his 18-year role at the University of Wisconsin. During the years following his retirement, Hirsch was the Wisconsin Badgers biggest fan. Despite living in various communities across the United States during his accomplished career, it was evident that his home was truly with the people of Wisconsin and Wisconsin athletics, as with every autograph he signed ``always a Badger.''

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This House has already debated and voted on H.R. 975. My amendment does nothing to change that. This is truly a matter between the Republican leadership of the two bodies. The gentleman notes that the chapter 12 provisions have expired six times of varying length, most recently on December 31, 2003. I would note that June 23, 2003, the same gentleman said on this floor that ``it is crucial that this specialized form of bankruptcy relief for farmers not be allowed to sunset for two fundamental reasons. First, family farmers absent chapter 12 would be forced to file for bankruptcy relief under the bankruptcy code's other alternatives, none of which work as well for them as does chapter 12.'' We started the day with a bill before us that was simply a 6-month extension of chapter 12 bankruptcy. We can end the day with a permanent authorization of that bankruptcy code if my colleagues support my substitute amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), who has been extraordinarily active on this issue in fighting for family farmers.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and in closing, I would only reiterate what I said earlier, which is that we started the day, this morning, with a very simple bill before us, a bill to extend by 6 months the Chapter 12 protections for family farmers. We could end the day, if we pass this substitute amendment, with permanent authorization of Chapter 12 bankruptcy protections for our family farmers and family fishermen who are struggling today in the United States. Instead, we have before us a massive bankruptcy overhaul that we have already debated and voted on in this House. These parliamentary maneuvers are most unfair to the farmers across America who woke up today hoping we would provide them relief. That is what we should do, and I urge Members to support the Baldwin substitute amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as you know, Chapter 12 family farmers bankruptcy protection is an effective and noncontroversial part of our Nation's Bankruptcy Code. Since its creation in 1986, it has allowed our Nation's family farmers who face economic hardship a greater opportunity to reorganize their debts and continue in farming. As with many laws that we pass, the benefits of the direct impact, which can be easily measured, are often exceeded by the indirect benefits. Chapter 12 does not just benefit those using its protections. Many farmers who face the possibility of a bankruptcy never get to the point of a court filing. Bankruptcy trustees and bankruptcy attorneys are quick to point out that the very existence of the option of Chapter 12 filing promotes negotiations between farmers and their creditors, thus preventing bankruptcy filings altogether. Chapter 12 protection is currently unavailable to our Nation's farmers. It expired on December 31, 2003. The House should have taken up the 6-month extension bill, Senate bill 1920, passed without amendment, and sent it to the President immediately. However, by approving the rule earlier today, we have foreclosed that option; therefore, I am offering this substitute amendment. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides the House with a clear policy choice by allowing a vote on passing a permanent Chapter 12 authorization instead of continuing to keep it tied to the controversial larger bankruptcy bill. My amendment simply uses the Chapter 12 language that was agreed to by bipartisan, bicameral conferees during the 107th Congress. It is the same as the bipartisan bill, Senate bill 2004, introduced by Members of the other body. The amendment does the following: It makes Chapter 12 farm bankruptcy protections a permanent part of our Bankruptcy Code; it would increase the debt limits that a family farm can hold to qualify for Chapter 12 from $1.5 million to $3.2 million; and it would index those debt limits to the consumer price index. It would reduce from 80 percent to 50 percent the percentage of family farm liabilities that are due to farming operations; it would look at the previous 3 years, instead of only the previous year when determining whether 50 percent of income is from farming operations; and it would expand this type of bankruptcy protection to family fishermen. These changes to Chapter 12 are not controversial and enjoy widespread bipartisan support. Since I was first elected to Congress 5 years ago, we have passed eight, eight temporary extensions to Chapter 12. It is time to end this repetitive cycle of extensions and extensions. Our struggling family farmers should not be used as leverage. They should not have to continue to wait while we play games with Chapter 12 protections. This bill provides a textbook example that what we do here in Washington directly affects the lives of people facing real financial challenges. In Wisconsin recently, a farmer from Columbus filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy. He works day and night to make his farm a success. Unfortunately, like many farmers, the weather and the market conspired to disrupt his cash flow. Filing Chapter 12 bankruptcy gave his family time to negotiate with his creditors while he switched production from corn and soybeans to vegetables, which he now sells in local markets. He sells his produce in farmers markets in Madison and in Princeton, Wisconsin, and he is paying his debts. Under Chapter 12, it was not only the Columbus farmer that benefited, his family and his creditors now are receiving their money. The people in my district can purchase his bounty, and he can continue to support his farm, his family and his obligations. Every time we come to the floor to extend Chapter 12, we are told that a permanent extension cannot be passed separately from the big bill because taking out this terribly popular item would slow the bill's momentum. We were told that we had to strip the permanent extension of Chapter 12 from last year's farm bill because it would slow down the progress of the bankruptcy bill. We were told in June when we extended Chapter 12 again that we had to wait. Our farmers have been waiting for more than 5 years, and it is time to get this done. Let us end the uncertainty these extensions cause by passing a permanent authorization. That is what my amendment would do. I sort of feel like I am in the middle of the movie ``Groundhog Day.'' Every 6 months we go through a process of extending Chapter 12 extensions again. Every session of Congress we go through a drawn-out debate regarding a larger overhaul of our bankruptcy laws. My amendment would break us out of that cycle. It is time to stop using our farmers as pawns to push for bankruptcy reform and it is time to restore this important protection. We should not be playing politics with the livelihood of our farmers by putting the special interests who want the bankruptcy overhaul ahead of the real needs of struggling family farmers. I urge my colleagues to pass the Baldwin substitute amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to oppose the rule. I strongly oppose this rule because it would delay the renewal of Chapter 12 family farm bankruptcy protection that is needed desperately by our family farmers. We should not be amending this bill and sending it back to the other body for more debate. This House should take up the 6-month extension bill, pass it without amendment, and send it to the President immediately. Chapter 12 farm bankruptcy protection expired on December 31, 2003. There is no good excuse for additional delay of Chapter 12 extension. The Committee on the Judiciary chairman, the House leadership and the financial services industry have proposed under this rule that we gut this noncontroversial 6-month extension bill before us to try to force a conference committee on the massive bankruptcy overhaul bill. Groups representing family farmers are opposed to this parliamentary maneuver that will delay the extension of Chapter 12 protection. On January 23, the National Farmers Union wrote to Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi that ``We reject this legislative strategy as an insensitive, cruel and malicious effort that will only serve to increase the level of distress of farm families who are already experiencing severe financial difficulties.'' The National Family Farm Coalition and Farm Aid have also sent letters urging immediate action to extend Chapter 12 and opposing sending this legislation back to the other body. Mr. Speaker, the bankruptcy overhaul bill that this rule moves forward is bad for several reasons. Among them is an attempt in this bill to shield people convicted of crimes against women and abortion clinics from fines and damages. Too often, I am sorry to say, criminals who commit these acts of violence have been able to avoid monetary penalties by declaring bankruptcy. Our bankruptcy laws should not be used and manipulated by criminals to avoid their punishment. Again, the base bill, Senate 1920, could be on the President's desk by the end of this day. It is noncontroversial. Our body has passed this bill unanimously in previous sessions. We are not accomplishing anything by the parliamentary maneuvers that we are engaged in today. Since I have been in Congress, the family farm protections in the Bankruptcy Code have expired six times, and we have acted to extend these provisions eight times. We should stop using family farmers as leverage to pass larger bankruptcy protections. I know these families; I represent many of them. I hear their struggles, I hear their stories. Let us act today to extend family farmer bankruptcy protection. I do want to thank the Committee on Rules and the chairman of that committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for making my substitute amendment in order. However, our farmers need immediate relief, and the only way to achieve that goal expeditiously is to defeat the rule and to take up Senate bill 1920 immediately. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record letters from the National Farmers Union, the National Family Farm Coalition and Farm Aid. Farm Aid, Somerville, MA, January 27, 2004. Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chair, House Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: I am writing to urgently ask you to take action this week to reinstate Chapter 12 Bankruptcy provisions for our nation's family farmers. Since the expiration of Chapter 12 on December 31, 2003, thousands of America's family farmers facing serious financial problems have not been able to consider filing a Chapter 12 bankruptcy. Farm Aid operates a national family farmer hotline. Every day, we receive desperate calls from farm families facing financial crisis. The stresses these families are under could and should be alleviated immediately by reinstating Chapter 12. The reasons for the creation of a separate bankruptcy code that enable farmers to stay on the land while reorganizing their farm operation is as urgent now as it was in 1986 when first created by Congress. This lapse in coverage directly results in farmers having to face foreclosure and liquidation instead of seeking a reasonable negotiation with their creditors that works for farm families, their creditors and businesses in their rural community. I urge you to pass this six-month extension so that the livelihoods of thousands of family farmers are not linked to the cumbersome and controversial overall bankruptcy reform bill. When Congress passed the last extension in July 2003, the vote was 397-3. Every day of delay by Congress has a direct cost to our nation's family farmers. The immediate reinstatement of Chapter 12 bankruptcy will restore an important option for family farmers facing economic crisis. On behalf of America's family farmers, I thank you. Sincerely, Mark Smith, Campaign Director.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a thriving small business in Waunakee, Wisconsin. This year, the Michael F. Simon Builders family business celebrates 110 years of service to the community. Small businesses are vital to the American economy. Founder, Michael Simon began constructing farm buildings in Dane County in 1893, and through the years Michael F. Simon Builders has remained in the family and continued to grow. The business has evolved with the times and now constructs residential and commercial buildings using state-of-art Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD). Now in the hands of Peter and Philip, the founder's grandsons, Michael F. Simon Builders continues to maintain the family tradition and strives to create structures in Madison and the surrounding communities that have style beauty, quality and value. For nearly fifty years, the Simon family has shown a firm commitment to improving our community through their extensive volunteerism with the Wisconsin Builders Association and the National Association of Home Builders. The Simon's ability to create and maintain a successful family business for 110 years is commendable and deserves recognition. I am proud to call Michael F. Simon Builders Wisconsin's own. I wish them continued success for another 110 years and beyond.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Matt Kenseth, a native of Cambridge, Wisconsin, for clinching the NASCAR Winston Cup Championship after placing fourth at the Pop Secret 400 at North Carolina Speedway on November 9, 2003. Matt began working on his father's racecar when he was thirteen years old, and then he got the chance to start racing at the young age of sixteen. As a sign of his early talent for the sport, Matt was racing competitively by the age of nineteen. He moved up quickly to the ultra- competitive Wisconsin Late Model ranks, and he became the youngest winner ever in ARTGO Challenge Series history. After driving the American Speed Association's ACDelco Challenge Series, Matt received a call from Robbie Reiser to drive his Busch Series car. In the NASCAR Busch Grand National Series, Matt excelled in his first full year by finishing second in the points battle. As a tribute to his success, he was called to substitute for Bill Elliott in the elite NASCAR Winston Cup Series at Dover Downs in September of 1998. This was his first start against the biggest names and greatest stock car drivers around, and Matt finished an impressive sixth place. The motorsports world certainly took notice of Matt in 2000, when he took the Winston Cup scene by storm winning the Raybestos Rookie of the Year Award. This year, in his fourth season in NASCAR's top stock car series, Matt's commitment and consistency paid off because with one win, eleven top-five finishes, and twenty-five top ten finishes, he was able to take the Winston Cup title. Matt's achievements certainly have brought out the community pride and hometown spirit in Cambridge and across Wisconsin. He is a hero to countless young aspiring drivers, and he has shown why with his dedication through this long and challenging season. This December, he and his team will deservingly sit at head of the head table at the Waldorf-Astoria. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honor Cambridge Native Matt Kenseth for his accomplished racing career and his recent NASCAR Winston Cup Championship title.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations to Mrs. Helen Everson, who has been selected as Edgerton Rotary's Honored Citizen of the Year. Helen and her husband, Harland Everson, purchased the Edgerton Reporter, in 1951 and made the risky yet insightful decision to change from hot type to offset printing, the first paper in Wisconsin to do so. I rise today to pay tribute to a constituent whose life-long commitment to serving her community as an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and mother serves as a shining example to us all. Helen was raised on a 5,000-acre sheep ranch in northwestern South Dakota and attended a two-room country school until her graduation. Helen's professional experience began at Keating Buick where she quickly gained greater responsibility and expertise and eventually became the Secretary-Treasurer of the car dealership. Helen's life would change dramatically after she met and married Harland. The couple tackled the challenges of operating a growing and award-winning newspaper, in addition to raising a family. Harland and Helen's daughters, Carol and Diane, are both accomplished women in their own right. Carol is an associate professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin and Diane is the publisher of the Edgerton Reporter and past president of the National Newspaper Association. Diane describes her mother as a ``heat seeking missile with boundless energy.'' She is still a tireless advocate for civic development and the Edgerton community. Under her leadership of Edgerton's annual Tobacco Heritage Days, the celebration grew in popularity and became profitable for the first time. For an impressive 52 years, the Everson family has been the steward of one of the state's only independent newspapers. Mr. Speaker, I join the Edgerton Rotary and the Edgerton community in recognizing Helen Everson's achievements and congratulate her as she accepts the Honored Citizen of the Year award.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report which will dismantle Medicare as we know it, harming millions of women who depend on that program. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this sham of a bill. It does not provide the real, guaranteed, affordable drug benefit that our seniors desperately need. Worse yet, this bill sets the stage for dismantling the entire Medicare program. I think that all of my colleagues would agree with me when I say that one of the issues we hear most about is the need for affordable prescription drugs. Whether I am at the grocery store, at the airport baggage claim, or in meetings all across my district in Wisconsin, the one thing that I hear over and over is that seniors cannot afford to pay for their prescription drugs. The bill on the floor today does not contain the prescription drug benefit that seniors deserve. Instead of providing an affordable prescription drug benefit, this bill creates an incomplete and expensive benefit--a benefit with a hole, where seniors will be paying premiums and receiving no benefit. Aside from the meager benefit, there is nothing in this bill that addresses the ever-rising cost of prescription drugs. Instead of including measures to ensure that prescription drugs are affordable, this bill actually prohibits the federal government from negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries. Instead of helping seniors obtain affordable prescription drugs, this bill provides partial coverage of drug spending until total costs reach $2,250 and then leaves seniors high and dry. There is a huge gap in coverage where seniors must pay 100 percent out of pocket and continue paying premiums, until they reach a high out-of-pocket cap. Millions of seniors will fall into this gaping hole. I believe seniors deserve affordable drug coverage, and this bill fails to achieve that goal. Further, this bill takes us down the dangerous road of privatizing Medicare. It is my strong belief that privatization of Medicare is unwarranted. Our Nation's seniors and persons with disabilities have counted on Medicare since it was first enacted in 1965. It has provided health care insurance to the oldest, sickest, and frailest in our society and done so in a cost-efficient manner. Why then, would we seek to dismantle such a successful program? This bill relies on private insurers to provide a prescription drug benefit. Seniors would have to join HMOs and private insurance plans to get the benefit, meaning that premiums and benefits would vary across the country and seniors would not be able to choose their own doctor or pharmacy. In addition, this bill includes a provision that authorizes a massive ``demonstration'' project that could affect up to 6 million seniors. Starting in the year 2010, this ``demonstration'' project forces Medicare to compete with private plans. This competition is wholly unfair and on an unlevel playing field. Seniors will be given a voucher to purchase health care insurance, either from Medicare or from private insurers. We know from past experience what will happen: the youngest and healthiest seniors will go to private insurers, leaving the sickest and frailest seniors in Medicare. This will automatically drive up Medicare's costs and will give Republican legislators ammunition for dismantling this program. Make no mistake about it; this massive ``demonstration'' project will be the beginning of the end of Medicare. Today, we will vote on the most dramatic changes in the Medicare program since its inception. This bill does include unprecedented benefits--unfortunately the benefits will go predominantly to the politically-connected pharmaceutical and insurance industries, rather than to America's seniors who need relief. It saddens me that the legislation we vote on today will not provide seniors with what they need most: comprehensive prescription drug coverage and affordable prices. Seniors need a comprehensive prescription drug benefit that is affordable and dependable for all--with no gaps or gimmicks in coverage. The conference agreement before us fails on all these counts, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, today I am once again introducing legislation to extend authorization of Chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code. This legislation should not be necessary, but a permanent Chapter 12 authorization remains a hostage to more comprehensive bankruptcy law changes. Chapter 12 provides an important backstop for our Nation's struggling family farmers by allowing them to reorganize their debts and keep their farms. It provides an important bankruptcy option to farm families to keep their livelihood and maintain their way of life. This bill provides a textbook example that what we do here in Washington directly affects the lives of real people facing real financial challenges. In Wisconsin recently, a Columbus farmer filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy. He works night and day to make his farm a success. Unfortunately, like many farmers, the weather and the market conspired to disrupt his cash flow. Filing Chapter 12 gave his family time to negotiate with his creditors, while he switched production from corn and soybeans to vegetable production and local market sales. He sells his produce at farmers markets in Madison and Princeton. And he is paying his debts. Under Chapter 12, it was not only the Columbus farmer that benefited. His creditors are receiving their money, the people in my district can purchase his bounty, and he can continue to support his family. Chapter 12 does not just provide a direct benefit to those using its protections. Many farmers who face possible bankruptcy never get to a court filing. The very existence of the option of a Chapter 12 filing promotes negotiations between farmers and creditors. Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection expires at the end of 2003. Before we leave town for the year, Congress should renew this bankruptcy law. That is why I am introducing this bipartisan bill today. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues Nick Smith of Michigan and Tim Holden of Pennsylvania. Once again, we are forced to approve a temporary extension of this vital protection. Since I was first elected to Congress 5 years ago, we have passed 8 temporary extensions. Making this noncontroversial program permanent is beyond overdue. In both this Congress and last Congress, I introduced legislation to modify Chapter 12 to include more family farmers and make it a permanent part of our bankruptcy law. There is great consensus that Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection works well. It is for that reason that we have included a permanent authorization in the comprehensive bankruptcy reform bill for the past three Congresses. In fact, it is considered so popular that it has been held hostage to the bigger bill. Every time we come to the floor to extend Chapter 12, we are told that a permanent extension cannot be passed separately from the big bill because taking out popular items will slow the bill's momentum. We were told we had to strip the permanent extension from last year's farm bill because it would slow down the bankruptcy bill. We were told in June when we extended Chapter 12 again that we had to wait. Our farmers have been waiting for more than 5 years. It is time to just get this done. Let's end the uncertainty these extensions cause by passing a permanent authorization. In reluctant acknowledgment that passage of the permanent Chapter 12 legislation is unlikely this year, I am introducing this 6-month extension. In the absence of a permanent authorization, I would prefer even longer than 6 months. This legislation is a realistic time period that can ensure passage in the few days we have left in this session. Since the current authorization will expire at the end of the year, farmers will need the relief provided by this extension. As our family farmers begin to decide whether they can afford to plant next year, we need to make sure they have the ability to stay in farming by using Chapter 12 to reorganize their debts. This bill will provide the security family farmers to make that difficult decision. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee move this bill before we adjourn for the year. Chapter 12 has expired before, leaving many farmers in great uncertainty. Let's not let that happen again.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this House considered H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Our country has been waiting almost three years for a sound and comprehensive energy bill, and I am sad to say that they will still be waiting if H.R. 6 is signed into law. It was my hope that rolling blackouts in California three years ago, the terrorist attacks on September 11 two years ago, and the massive blackouts in the northeast this past August would have provided Congress with the will and fortitude to pass a truly comprehensive energy bill. This bill should have presented a clear vision of what our energy policies should be well into the 21st century; provided us with the tools and resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and improve the security of our nation; and made investments in alternative and renewable fuels to provide better answers to our energy needs than simply encouraging more drilling and more pollution. It is crystal clear that H.R. 6 fails on all these counts. The Republican leadership crafted this 1,700-page bill in secret and sold out to special interests. For months, Republican leaders presided over meetings in which they were supposed to be laying the foundation for the nation's long-term energy priorities. Instead, they chose to negotiate the bill alone, refusing even to tell their Democratic colleagues where or when important sessions were being held. I believe that cowering under the cloak of darkness and cutting backroom deals are not the ways a bill of this magnitude should be debated, discussed, and crafted. The Energy Policy Act makes a number of changes to our nation's electricity system. The blackouts that wreaked havoc across parts of the Midwest and Northeast four months ago prompted legislators to include much-needed electricity reliability standards in the final bill. I believe this is a good first step in improving the transmission and distribution of the electricity that powers our homes and businesses. Despite this sound provision, H.R. 6 is wrong to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). PUHCA was designed to oversee mergers and prevent power companies from investing in unrelated businesses. PUHCA has been the linchpin in protecting investors and consumers from market fraud and abuse by utilities. By repealing PUHCA and not replacing it with a better alternative, the risk of future Enron-type abuses increases exponentially and our constituents will be the victims. I am pleased H.R. 6 does not include language that would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) or allow for an inventory of oil reserves in our nation's Outer Continental Shelf--but, any benefits of this bill provides our environment stop there. The bill expedites the approval of permits for drilling and mining on federal lands. H.R. 6 also exempts oil and gas drilling activities from some of the major tenants of the Clean Water Act, such as exempting the industry from certain requirements when they inject diesel fuel and other harmful chemicals underground when drilling. The most egregious provision of this bill grants the producers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that pollutes underground drinking water, a liability waiver. While the bill phases out the use of MTBE over the next decade, it makes taxpayers pick up the bill for cleaning up the mess. More incredulously, the bill provides the producers of MTBE $2 billion in subsidies to help them convert MTBE into other types of chemicals. I believe this is simply unacceptable. Polluters should be made to clean up and pay for their messes, not the American taxpayer. Altogether, the energy proposal includes $23 billion in tax giveaways over 10 years and calls for tens of billions of dollars in additional spending. The Republican leadership rejected Senate provisions that would have partially paid for these costs, despite a deficit in the federal budget that could top $500 billion this year. Two-thirds of the tax breaks would go to the oil, natural gas and coal industries, helping to perpetuate the country's dependence on fossil fuels. Less than a quarter of the tax breaks would promote the use and development of renewable-energy sources, and less than a tenth would reward energy efficiency or conservation. It makes no sense to lavish billions of dollars in subsidies to companies that consistently earn large profits every year. The bill does encourage the use of some alternative fuels such as ethanol--which I strongly support--and $2.5 billion to boost development of hydrogen- powered vehicles. However, the money allocated for renewable and alternative fuel development is a mere pittance of what is given to producers of traditional sources of energy. This bill is equally bad for what it does not contain: the legislation does almost nothing to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign gas and oil and nothing to reduce global warming. For example, this bill does not increase the fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. The bill may even wind up lowering the current 27.5 miles per gallon average since it discourages tougher standards. It also scraps a Senate plan that would have required electric utilities to generate more of their power from renewable sources like wind and solar energy by 2015. Finally, outside of a few provisions on electrical appliances and heating systems, the bill does not significantly encourage energy conservation. Instead of creating and carrying out a vision in this bill, lawmakers have put together a jigsaw puzzle with hundreds of unrelated pieces crammed together. A few initiatives are worthwhile, but most look more like a laundry list of special-interest subsidies. Together, they do not add up to a policy that I believe will come close to meeting our future energy needs. While it took three years to finish this energy bill, it is my fear that Congress will spend the next several decades fixing the problems this bill could eventually create.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has ably served the House of Representatives and the citizens of Wisconsin for more than 20 years. In the offices of four Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, Andrea Bagley has worked diligently and compassionately to better the lives of our constituents. Andrea first became a congressional caseworker in 1983, in the office of Representative Steve Gunderson, for whose father she had initially worked as a bookkeeper. In her first case, she helped a young person resolve a problem with a student loan. As a mother of three sons, Andy was already adept at solving problems and offering caring support. When she began her congressional service, Andy handled roughly 500 cases a year, without benefit of fax machines or computers. It's hard for young staffers to even imagine a world of onion skins and carbon copies or the joy of an electric typewriter with memory. In 20 years, she's seen the technology grow with her caseload . . . to more than a thousand a year, yet she's handled them all with calm persistence. To every constituent with a problem she says, ``We can't guarantee you'll get the answer you want, but we guarantee you'll get fair consideration.'' Thanks to her, they have. Andy describes her job as being part detective, part problem-solver, part researcher, and part social worker. For every case, she meticulously amasses bits of information, institutional knowledge, documentation, and paper trails to piece together solutions to problems as finely stitched as the elaborate quilts she makes for her dozens of fortunate friends and family. The gratitude of our constituents is apparent--from the thanks Andy recently received from a man gaining citizenship, to the wedding photos of a bride whose family needed visas to attend the wedding, to the visits of grateful parents and the children they adopted from foreign lands. Congressmen Gunderson, Klug, and Barrett join me in adding our words of gratitude to Andrea Bagley for her 20 years of honorable service to our offices and our constituents. Selfishly, I wish for many more.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 125th anniversary of the Belleville Public Library, in Belleville, Wisconsin. Since 1878, the Belleville Public Library has been providing an invaluable service to the community. The Belleville Library opened its doors on December 14, 1878 when a local businessman, Henry Story, donated a collection of 133 books. The library's collection has grown over the past 125 years to an impressive 20,000 items, serving the community with print materials, audio books, videos, and CD ROM products. Belleville residents are also fortunate to have access to the library interchange network, a consortium of South Central Wisconsin libraries that operate a shared automation system providing access to over 2 million items. A public library is a strong component of a democratic society. Providing an equal opportunity for its residents to learn and grow is just one of the many functions a public library serves. In the library's 125 years of service, the Belleville Public Library has provided programs which foster learning for all within the community. The library has consistently encouraged learning through programs catering to all members of the community including summer reading programs for children, book discussions, and biweekly story hours. For 125 years, the Belleville Public Library has recognized the vital importance of free access to information in a democratic society. I wholeheartedly believe that access to information allows everyone in a community to prepare themselves for the future, experience personal growth, and to perform the civic duties encouraged of all citizens in our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today and join the residents of Belleville in honoring the impressive 125 years of service from the Belleville Public Library.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). Our amendment is simple. It would prohibit funds authorized in this bill from being used to acquire the main propulsion diesel engines for the Coast Guard's new fleet of ships in the Integrated Deep Water System, unless the engines are manufactured in the United States of America. Earlier this year I offered a similar amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. At that time my amendment was not in order; so it did not come up for a vote. But during consideration of my prior amendment to the homeland security bill, a lively debate ensued; and I believe that there was some confusion at that time, and I wanted to take a moment right now to address those misimpressions. A colleague opposed my amendment, arguing that the diesel engines for the new Coast Guard ships were being made in America and that my amendment was not necessary. The gentleman was incorrect. While it is true that there is a Michigan company that was selected to be the vendor for the propulsion system, I have a letter received from the Coast Guard 2 days after the conclusion of that debate that states clearly that the diesel engines are foreign made. The Coast Guard letter states that the components of the propulsion system ``include MTU Diesels of German design and manufacture.'' So while Detroit Diesel may be the vendor for the whole system, the diesel propulsion engines are designed and made in Germany by German workers, not Michigan or other American workers as the gentleman had claimed. As we all know, Congress has made a commitment to overhaul the Coast Guard's fleet, phasing out older and obsolete ships and building new ones. It is a large taxpayer investment, one that I am proud to support. But for goodness sake, let us build those ships and all of their components in America. Our amendment would require that the main propulsion diesel engines, a critical component of this new fleet of large ships, are made in the United States. There are several good U.S. firms with U.S. plants that are ready, willing, and able to provide the diesel engines for the Coast Guard at or below total operation cost of the German-made engines. And in the interest of full disclosure, one of those companies is in Wisconsin. But I also note that the Michigan vendor that I referred to earlier would also qualify for the engine contract under this amendment if it were to pass, if the engines were to be made in Michigan or in other U.S. locations and not in Germany. Madam Chairman, we are bleeding well-paying, family-supporting manufacturing jobs in this country. Since 2000, we have lost over 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. When manufacturing jobs go away, economic history shows us that it is hard to get them back. Let me remind Members that these are United States taxpayer dollars. They should be supporting U.S. workers, and not just U.S. CEO's who are contracting out with foreign sister corporations to take these good jobs overseas. Our amendment would help keep some of those jobs here at home, making vital products for vital parts of the defense of our Nation. Keep in mind, the Coast Guard is part of our homeland defense. Do we want to be reliant on overseas suppliers for essential parts and services for our defense infrastructure, or do we want to produce these important components here at home? I urge Members to support this amendment.

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Wisconsin Citizen Action's 20th Anniversary as the state's leading public interest organization. I am honored to share with you today the accomplishments of this powerful Wisconsin organization. I applaud Wisconsin Citizen Action's twenty year commitment to political activism for progressive change that benefits all of us in Wisconsin. They have helped pass twenty laws, trained and developed hundreds of citizen leaders, and organized tens of thousands of residents to work for social, economic and environmental justice. Just a few of their recent victories include SeniorCare, a vitally important program to provide seniors with prescription drug coverage, a mining moratorium protecting Wisconsin's precious northwoods against unsafe mining, a tough ordinance for lead poisoning prevention in Milwaukee, and they also obtained a five-fold increase in the funding for the SAGE program, which reduces classroom size for our Wisconsin school children. As a former Wisconsin Citizen Action board member, I had the privilege of seeing firsthand the truly remarkable impact Wisconsin Citizen Action has had on our great state. Wisconsin Citizen Action has given Wisconsin residents the power to improve their communities. It is through people working together and sharing ideas that social change is achieved, and as these recent accomplishments demonstrate, Wisconsin Citizen Action does just this. I commend this group for their insight and their tireless action in joining the political power of a few with the voices and ideas of many. Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow Wisconsinites in congratulating Wisconsin Citizen Action on their 20th Anniversary and for their many great achievements. I wish them continued success for another 20 years and beyond.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with a heavy heart. It is weighed down by the many peace and security challenges our nation faces in Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Liberia, Colombia, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, China and Taiwan, and India and Pakistan. It is weighed down by the humanitarian crises we face: famine, displaced persons, AIDS and other health care challenges. And it is also weighed down by the very serious challenges we face here at home: unemployment, budget deficits, the need for affordable health care, improving education for our kids, keeping our promises to our veterans, investing in our infrastructure, guaranteeing Social Security and Medicare, and protecting our homeland and our civil liberties. I wish we had the ability to work on all of these challenges simultaneously. I wish our leaders in the executive branch and those of us here in Congress could give each of these challenges the focused attention needed to make significant progress. I wish we had enough resources to pay for a war, rebuild two countries, fight the war on terrorism, stop nuclear proliferation, negotiate peace in the Middle East, stop the spread of AIDS, return refugees to their homes, ensure that every child in every country has food to eat and is vaccinated against preventable diseases. I wish at the same time we could get our economy growing and put people to work. I wish we could give everyone a tax cut without underfunding our health care, education, and homeland security, or borrowing from our retirement and leaving the bill for our children. I have all of these wishes, but simply wishing will not make it so. Our job is to listen to the American people as they talk about their needs and their desires, and then set and fund our nation's priorities. Our job is to keep our homeland safe. And our job is to protect our freedom and liberty. Mr. Chairman, the war in Iraq is the wrong priority, conducted in the wrong way, at the wrong time. We all were shocked and horrified by the attacks of September 11. All Americans faced a new sense of vulnerability, one that could find them here at home, out of the blue. It was natural for us to be afraid. Our reaction as Americans was to demand action. Our reaction as national leaders was to act to confront the threat and protect our homeland. All Americans were united in the desire to seek justice by finding and punishing the perpetrators of September 11. The world came together in solidarity with our loss, working with us to find the perpetrators, to break up Al Qaeda, arrest its leaders, and to interrupt the flow of money to terrorists. It should have been crystal clear that fighting terrorism and protecting American security would require friends and allies; cooperation, not confrontation. Yet, the Bush Administration instead engaged in a singled-minded drive to achieve its Iraq objectives at any cost, instead of developing a policy to deal with Iraq by working with our allies and the entire world community. It is particularly troubling that the very rationale used by the Bush Administration to try to win the endorsement of the United Nations Security Council--the urgent threat of Iraq's use of weapons of mass destruction--cannot now be verified. Some in the Bush Administration have even suggested that the imminent threat of WMDs was not the main reason for the war. The shifting justifications for war and the lack of WMD evidence undermines U.S. credibility around the world. If the intelligence that Colin Powell brought before the U.N. Security Council now appears inaccurate, how will future intelligence presented by the U.S. be received? Will it be believed? Throughout our history, the United States has been viewed by the world as a beacon of freedom and a pillar of democratic principle. Following the devastation of World War II, the United States showed tremendous leadership as we created international institutions and a framework of international law to prevent war and to sustain and maintain peace. We were the leaders in promoting a world where conflicts could be resolved peacefully and cooperatively. While never perfect, this system of international institutions has been remarkably effective. The United States was seen as a constructive force in the world. Right now we are seen by many as a destructive force in the world. That is not the vision for America that I have, and it is not the vision that Americans have. Many around the world are shocked and dismayed by the unilateral, confrontational approach that the Bush Administration has taken in the world arena. I share their concern. We must recognize the consequences in the world community of our rejection of Kyoto, of the International Criminal Court, of the treaty to ban land mines, our failure to ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and our own withdrawal from the ABM treaty. We must be mindful about how our criticism of the UN and NATO are heard throughout the world community. Calling longtime allies ``Old Europe'' is terribly counterproductive. The war in Iraq is seen against this larger backdrop. I stand here today to urge this President and this Congress to return to our tradition of constructiveness rather than destructiveness. We should be builders rather than destroyers. Before the war started, I wrote to President Bush asking a series of questions concerning possible U.S. military engagement in Iraq. One question asked was, ``what is the exit strategy and how do we know when the campaign has successfully concluded?'' I still have not received an answer to this critical question, nor have the American people. In May, the President dramatically declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. It may have made compelling television, but nearly 170,000 American troops are still in Iraq or the immediate region, facing attacks and wondering when they are coming home. No doubt, they are doing the best they can to carry out their mission. All Americans should be proud of their dedication, hard work and professionalism. We must give our troops every tool they need to protect their safety as well as provide them with every possible comfort during their incredible service in this military campaign. The problem is that the military campaign continues with no end in sight. Since the end of ``major combat operations'' the Bush Administration has been reacting to events and improvising. It is becoming apparent that they still do not have a plan. And they should have had a plan. Prior to the war, most experts were saying that military conquest was the easy part, rebuilding the peace was the challenge. While I am very critical of the rosy scenarios painted by the Defense Department, purposely spread to allay the concerns of Americans about the costs and consequences of war, the real problem here is the lack of leadership. It is unacceptable to claim that events in Iraq could not have been anticipated. It is simply not true that the extent of damage to the electrical and water systems in Iraq were unknown. Prior to the war, the United Nations conducted a detailed assessment of Iraq's infrastructure which clearly delineated the problems and the requirements for repair and rebuilding. The report was unheeded. There was planning for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. The State Department organized the ``Future of Iraq Project'' that brought together exiled Iraqis to develop detailed plans for Iraq's economy, security, and governance. A series of working groups completed these comprehensive plans. So what happened to the recommendations of the ``Future of Iraq Project?'' The first civilian in charge of post-war Iraq reconstruction, General Jay Garner, has said publicly that he was instructed to ignore those proposals. It should be no surprise that so many American troops are still in Iraq attempting to maintain order and begin reconstruction of Iraqi society. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki testified to Congress that ``several hundred thousand soldiers'' would be needed for a year or more. What did Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz say about General Shinseki's estimate? He testified that it was ``wildly off the mark.'' It should be no surprise that the costs of the war and reconstruction are running far higher than suggested by the Administration. When asked about the likely cost of a war with Iraq, then-Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisors Lawrence Lindsay said it would cost between $100 million and $200 million. Budget Director Mitch Daniels and economic advisor Glenn Hubbard immediately said the cost would be much less. If we approve this $87 billion request, we'll be approaching $140 million so far. And with no plan, there is no end in sight. Mr. Chairman, my heart is heavy today because the President of the United States is coming to this Congress and asking us to appropriate $87 billion to a policy without a plan and a military commitment without an exit strategy. The American people have so many questions about our mission in Iraq, but they have received so few answers. I have no doubt that there has been progress in Iraq. Our servicemen and women are working hard to restore security in the streets. No-bid contractors are working on the electrical system and water treatment facilities. I have heard from Iraqis that progress is being made. But I have also heard their fears and concerns. Despite our best efforts, too many streets are unsafe for women to walk along. Jobs are scarce, leaving people with few options to earn a living. Gas lines are long and telecommunications are mostly inoperable. The problem in Iraq isn't that the stories of our successes are not getting out in American media. The problem is we're not making progress fast enough. No PR campaign will fix the electrical system, purify the water, make the streets safe, restore oil production, reconstitute a representative Iraqi government, create jobs, restore hope, or bring our troops home any sooner. Failure to convey a positive message is not the problem, the policy (or rather lack of policy) is the problem. Emblematic of the policy failure is the $87 billion emergency supplemental spending request submitted by the Bush Administration. It contained essential funds to support our men and women involved in the military campaign, but even that amount was insufficient in crucial areas like bulletproof vests and spare parts for Bradley fighting vehicles and Humvees. At the same time, the Administration requested: $400 million to construct two new prisons, at a cost of $50,000 per bed; $20 million for a four-week business course at $10,000 per student; $100 million to enroll 100 five-person families in a witness protection program, at a cost of $200,000 per person; $100 million to finance 500 experts to investigate crimes against humanity, at a cost of $200,000 per person; $9 million to create zip codes and $4 million to create area codes; $100 million to build seven new model communities; and $900 million to import petroleum products like kerosene and diesel to one of the largest oil producing nations in the world. The need to import millions of dollars of petroleum products to Iraq speaks volumes about how poorly the administration of post-war Iraq was planned. Officials did not expect oil refineries and pipelines to be sabotaged or U.S. troops to be continually ambushed. Their revenue projections for Iraqi oil production were off the mark. Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz testified that oil revenues ``could bring in between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now we know that this year the revenues are only going to be a few billion dollars. Today, Defense Department Comptroller Dov Zakheim told the House Budget Committee that revenues are now projected at $31 billion for the next two years. Even if these oil revenues are achieved, it will not all be available for reconstruction since a large portion will need to be used for essential government services like police, health care, education and transportation. I am glad that the House Appropriations Committee dropped many of the most outrageous spending items requested by the Administration. However, I still have major concerns about how much of the reconstruction funds will be used. It is impossible to evaluate whether or not, or how much, money is needed in each area. Iraq's needs are great. It is a country that has gone years under a brutal dictatorship and subject to debilitating international sanctions. By virtue of being the occupying power, under international law, the United States is responsible for what happens in Iraq. We have no choice but to meet our legal responsibility. Beyond legal requirements, we have a moral obligation to help Iraq rebuild. As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has said, ``You break it, you buy it.'' By unilaterally attacking Iraq, we have assumed the task of ensuring it is reconstructed. I hope that the Administration will succeed at the international donor's conference later this month. Iraq needs more help than the United States alone can provide. Debts owed by Iraq, taken out by Saddam Hussein, should be forgiven. Rebuilding Iraq will be hard enough without large debt payments to wealthy countries absorbing Iraq's oil revenues. In deciding to go to war in Iraq with few international allies, the Bush Administration has left the United States in a very difficult situation and with a very large financial obligation. It should be no surprise that those nations that never supported our war with Iraq remain, at this juncture, unwilling to pay for rebuilding it. Because of Iraq's great need, I hope that other countries will reconsider and provide the Iraqi people with the generosity they so desperately need. Mr. Chairman, the Administration has come back to Congress for $87 billion, on top of the $62.3 billion we previously appropriated. It is difficult for those of us who opposed the President's decision to attack Iraq to now give the Administration a blank check, a down- payment on an occupation without an exit strategy and a rebuilding fund without a real plan. Based on the Administration's track record, this funding request is just the tip of the iceberg. Recently, Ambassador Paul Bremer, who is the U.S. Administrator for Iraq, said the country would need $100 billion for rebuilding efforts. Only $20 billion of that is included in the President's current $87 billion request for emergency funding. Since current estimates of likely foreign contributions total a few billion dollars at best, there are huge bills coming due just a short way down the road. The bill we have before us today is inadequate in so many ways. I think that this House could have significantly improved the bill. Many of my colleagues proposed amendments that, if considered, would have improved the bill. The bill could have been improved in many ways, but there are two changes that I believe are essential. First, the bill should require a detailed report from the President describing how funds in the previous war supplemental have been spent, how funds appropriated in this bill will be spent, and the level and types of funding needed for future years for both military and reconstruction activities. Second, the bill should require that Congress be notified of non- competitive contracting, require a report from the General Accounting Office on accountability, and tighten public disclosure requirements. The initial Iraq reconstruction contracts were issued without a standard competitive bidding process. These contracts went to firms closely connected with the Bush Administration. One large contract went to Brown, Root & Kellogg, a subsidiary of Halliburton, the company formerly headed by the Vice President Cheney. The Halliburton, no-bid contract was worth an initial $948 million. Because of this contract, Halliburton has a competitive advantage over other businesses during future rounds of bidding. Another large contract was awarded to Bechtel, a company that is lead by former officials from the first Bush Administration. We need to make sure that every cent of the $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction is awarded fairly and openly. What is wrong with the House voting on these and other amendments? I wish someone would tell us. Unfortunately, the Republican House leadership used procedural roadblocks to prevent debate on most of these alternatives and improvements. The Administration is going to get the bill they wanted, with few amendments, requirements or limitations. I believe it is a mistake to reward their previous poor estimates, bad planning, withholding of information, and refusal to provide cost estimates with a blank check now. It is time for some accountability. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the Iraq Supplemental must be considered within the context of our national priorities. We do not have unlimited funds to spend. With our federal budget in deficit, every dollar we spend in Iraq is money that we are borrowing from our children. Even under the most optimistic scenario for Iraq, in which this is the last request for funding, we will add $178 billion to our nation's budget deficit. Of that $178 billion, $66 billion will be interest payments on that debt. A more realistic scenario, in which our military remains in Iraq until the end of 2006, we draw down our force over that period, and we spend an additional $5 billion for reconstruction, would add $238 billion to the debt, $84 billion just in interest. It's almost surreal to live in a time when our budget deficit is growing by leaps and bounds, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans get massive tax cuts in the midst of economic difficulties, and now this huge unpaid bill is being amassed in Iraq. We have very real domestic priorities that need to be addressed. We must get our people back to work. We must provide funding for ``No Child Left Behind.'' We must to take care of our veterans. We must protect our homeland. Each of their priorities requires resources. The situation in Iraq does not mean that we should not move forward at home. This Administration spends a lot of time talking about fiscal discipline. Yet they have spent more than any Administration in our nation's history. Instead of fiscal discipline and instead of providing funding for our nation's key priorities, they squandered our budget surplus and continue to amass greater and greater debt to pay for tax cuts that we cannot afford. This does not serve our nation well. Our funding priorities must include protecting our brave servicemen and women in Iraq and taking care of their families back home with hazard pay and other tools to make the separation easier to bear. This supplemental bill only takes modest steps to help them. I opposed authorizing the use of force in Iraq. I urged the President to not use that authority after it was granted by Congress. This is not a war that I support. Putting tens of billions of dollars into an inadequate plan with no end in sight makes no sense. I cannot in good conscience vote for this supplemental spending bill. What I suggest is that the Administration go back to the drawing board and work to develop a real plan, with Iraqis, the United Nations and other countries. After we have a real plan, with better cost estimates, the President can come back to us with a detailed proposal. I strongly support our troops. We must ensure they have the resources they need. It is fortunate that a vote against this bill will not harm our troops. An analysis by the Congressional Research Service estimates that already appropriated funds will last until at least early April 2004. That is plenty of time for this Administration to regroup, figure out what they are doing, and return to Congress with a better proposal. Mr. Chairman, my vote today will be cast with a heavy heart. But I cast it with confidence that it is the best vote to serve our country.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Andersen Library at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater. The library's tradition of excellence well deserves recognition. Opened on February 25, 1953, the Andersen Library exemplifies the high standards of education valued by the Wisconsin state university system. Throughout its tenure, the library has served the Whitewater community, professors, and students alike in a variety of important capacities. One of the more notable among these capacities has been the library's accumulation of volumes. In 1953, the Andersen library opened its doors with 41,000 volumes. Today, the collection has grown to an impressive 2 million documents including a variety of print, audio- visual, and electronic files. It has been through this accumulation that the outstanding staff has been able to fulfill the library's mission to provide quality research, service, and teaching facilities to the Whitewater community. Commitment to service is also well demonstrated by the library's annual reception and exhibit of works recognizing UW-Whitewater faculty and staff for their scholarship and creative achievements, Now in its fifteenth year, the program's fascinating exhibits recognize employee work in all media, including print, paint, and photograph. The library's dedication to service and education is highlighted by the life achievements of its namesake, Harold G. Andersen. Mr. Andersen, a lifelong Whitewater resident and graduate of the class of 1917, was one of the many individuals who committed time and energy to the library's opening. In particular, Mr. Andersen helped move the collection with then-university President Robert C. Williams from the old site to the new library on what I can only imagine was a cold February day. Perhaps the original dedication program said it best when stating that the Andersen Library was ``planned with an eye to the future.'' Indeed, the library's past, present, and future are vital to the Whitewater community and deserve recognition.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a person who is a gifted artisan. Mr. Ron Poast is one of our nation's rare makers of the Hardanger fiddles. Mr. Poast's skill in this art has brought him nationwide acclaim. Ron has recently been awarded the National Heritage Fellowship Award. This very prestigious award was presented to only 16 artists from across the nation. The Hardanger fiddle is recognized as the national instrument of Norway. Norwegian cultural influences are prevalent in Mr. Poast's hometown of Black Earth, as they are in much of Wisconsin. Ron's passion for the Hardanger was shaped by his Norwegian-American parents and his grandfathers who were both fiddlers. The Hardanger fiddle has a dragonhead scroll, four bowed violin strings, and five sympathetic understrings that produce a unique droning sound. Before shipping each hand-crafted fiddle that he makes, Ron carefully ``plays it in'' to make sure that it has the right distinctive sound. In addition to his rare talent with the Hardanger, he also makes fine banjos, violins, mandolins, and guitars. Ron has received wide recognition for his excellence in this craft. At the national level, he was recognized by the Smithsonian Folklife Festival. The Wisconsin State Strings Museum Hall of Fame named him Master Luthier of the Year in 1992, and former Governor Tommy Thompson nominated Mr. Poast for the National Living Treasure of the United States Award. When I served in the Wisconsin State Legislature, a photograph of Mr. Poast's great craftsmanship graced the cover of the State of Wisconsin Telephone Directory, a listing of thousands of state employees and their agencies. In 2000, Ron was given the opportunity to display his beautiful instruments internationally at the Chiba People's Days festival in Makuhari, Japan. Mr. Speaker, I join the National Endowment for the Arts in recognizing Mr. Poast's achievements and congratulate him as he accepts the National Heritage Fellowship Award.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the nation's leading providers of health care. The role of SSM Health Care in Wisconsin and throughout the country is deserving of a prestigious award. SSM Health Care is being honored as one of the esteemed recipients of the 2002 Malcom Baldridge National Quality Award, the Nation's premier award for performance excellence and quality achievement given by the National Institute of Standards and Technology within the Department of Commerce. This is the first time in history a recipient has been named in the health care category. SSM Health Care offers a wide range of medical services centered around the values of compassion, respect, excellence, stewardship, and community. We all benefit from SSM Health Care taking such an active role in our community. By engaging in great technological advances, community projects and charity care, as well as a continuous exploration into medical research, SSM Health Care has demonstrated true leadership and exceptional skill. With the increasing aging population in Wisconsin, SSM Health Care has been an important provider of quality medical services, including acute care and nursing home facilities to my constituents. I join the National Institute of Standards and Technology as they recognize SSM Health Care with the Malcom Baldridge National Quality Award.