Tammy Baldwin

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the lead Democrat on H.R. 2621, the Consumer Product Protection Act of 2002. I want to recognize and thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) for introducing the bill and for her excellent work on this issue. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security for their help in bringing this bill to the floor; and of course, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the full committee for their support of this bill. I also want to recognize the staff who have worked hard to bring this legislation to the floor. Their work behind the scenes makes this House function effectively. I urge my colleagues to support and pass this legislation today. Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, consumers have been finding offensive materials attached to or inserted inside the packaging of a variety of products. Most of these inserts are material that is offensive in nature. They are racist, anti-Semitic, or anti-gay. Finding offensive material can be shocking, but it is especially objectionable when a child opens a box and finds offensive, even pornographic, material inside. Responding to customer complaints, manufacturers have sought law enforcement help to address this problem. However, it has become clear that law enforcement officials lack the authority to prosecute these crimes under State or Federal law. Both the FBI's and the FDA's offices of criminal investigations do not believe they have the current authority to prosecute these crimes. The Consumer Product Protection Act would address this gap in Federal law and give authorities the tools they need to investigate and prosecute these acts. Only two States, California and New Jersey, currently have laws prohibiting this practice. This bill would amend the Federal Anti-Tampering Act by making it a crime for a person to place any writing, either on the outside of a package or the inside, prior to its sale to a consumer. There are exceptions in this bill for promotional and sales purposes if allowed by the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer. To address some concerns about the appropriateness of punishments, the committee and subcommittee modified the original legislation to make the crime a misdemeanor instead of a felony. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill and strongly urge the House to pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dave Zweifel's 40th anniversary working at the Capital Times newspaper in Madison, WI. Dave grew up in New Glarus, WI, and entered the University of Wisconsin in 1958. The day after Dave graduated with his degree in journalism, he went to work at the Capital Times. Except for 2 years serving his country in the U.S. Army as a field artillery officer, Dave has dedicated his journalism career to the Capital Times. But the 40th anniversary of Dave at the Capital Times is only part of the story. Dave's story is much more than that. It is the story of a young boy having a dream and seeking out that dream through relentless dedication and hard work. As a boy growing up in the New Glarus area, Dave dreamed of becoming the editor of the Capital Times. As a high school student and the editor of a local paper, Dave went to meet with the editor of the Capital Times. That editor promised Dave that if he continued his hard work, and got a college education, he would have a job waiting for him at the Capital Times. Several years later, Dave showed up at the editor's door, diploma in hand, and the editor gave Dave that much sought after job as a cub reporter. Dave worked his way up at the Capital Times as a reporter covering everything from agricultural issues to the political beat. In 1971 Dave's hard work paid off when he landed the city editor slot. Further dedication was rewarded when he became managing editor in 1978 and editor in 1983. Dave's dedication to his newspaper is evident in every edition of the Capital Times. Everyday at 4:30 a.m. Dave arrives at his desk to go over that afternoon's paper and to ensure that the paper embodies the unique ideals of Wisconsin's Progressive movement. In today's world of mega-media mergers it is refreshing to know that everyday, Dave Zweifel works to ensure that the Capital Times remains true not just to the ideals of journalism, but true to Wisconsin, the traditions of the Badger State, and the independent voice that Wisconsinites have depended upon since 1917.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, which will reauthorize the National Science Foundation for the next three years. This bill is of the highest priority to me and to many colleges and universities in my district. I've already heard from students, professors and administrators from the University of Wisconsin who have told me that a lack of serious commitment to science funding and research would not only stunt the growth and education of many qualified students, but would also seriously cripple some of their most critical research efforts. This is why I'm delighted with the commitment in this legislation to increase NSF funding by 15 percent each year for the next three years. This commitment is similar to the highly successfully funding commitment that doubled the National Institutes of Health budget over the past five years. The NSF funds 25% of the basic research conducted in universities across the nation, and a considerably higher percentage in selected fields. The NSF funds 425 grants for well over $60 million at the University of Wisconsin-Madison alone, helping to make UW-Madison one of the top research universities in the country. NSF grants and fellowships also help train over 24,000 graduate students each year, many of whom go on to make major contributions in academia and industry. University research funded by the NSF trains new generations of scientists and engineers, but without the type of funding increase outlined in this legislation, universities will be forced to limit the number of graduate students that they are able to admit to these programs. One example of a thriving NSF project in my district is the IceCube Neutrino telescope, which is headed by UW-Madison. When completed, this groundbreaking new telescope will look deep into our universe in ways that traditional telescopes cannot. It is truly on the cutting edge of astronomical research and will allow us to view the universe in an entirely new and innovative manner. Furthermore, IceCube has been subjected to exhaustive peer review and is one of many shining examples of the sound science and basic research that the NSF successfully fosters. It is my sincere hope that funding levels outlined in this legislation are met when it comes time to fund the NSF. Science funding for research should be and often is a result of bipartisanship. I am pleased that this is the case today. In that spirit, I urge a yes vote on this legislation and urge appropriators to fully fund the NSF at these new levels.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the appalling strategy the Majority Party is using to raise our nation's debt limit and raid the Social Security Trust Fund. Our nation's families must make hard decisions to balance their budgets. We, in Congress, must do the same. It is shameful that the Republican Majority seeks to raise our nation's debt limit by \3/4\ of a trillion dollars by sneaking it through without a debate and without a vote. Especially when the bill before us addresses critical emergency needs. Some may ask how the average American is affected by this Republican trick. They may ask why we as Democrats are fighting against this so hard and with such passion. It is because, by raising the debt limit, the Republicans are clearing the way to dip into the Social Security Trust Fund. I've been listening carefully as my Democratic colleagues have spoken about the impact of this shameful move on our nation's senior citizens and the baby boom generation as it's members approach their retirement years. I want to address the way in which this affects our nation's younger adults and our nation's children. Many of our nation's younger adults are in what has been called the ``sandwich'' generation . . . balancing the care of their parents (or grandparents) with a new career or a new family of their own. Until she passed away last year at age 94, I was the primary caregiver for my grandmother. I helped her in a variety of ways and one was helping her with her budget, paying her bills and balancing her checkbook. I know how much of a difference her Social Security income made for her. But the independence that Social Security helped my grandmother maintain, didn't only help her, it helped me too. Protecting Social Security is a commitment we made to our seniors, but it is also a commitment we made to families. Who among us would turn our backs on our parents or grandparents? It is just as important to young people that we have Social Security and Medicare as it is to our seniors because it keeps our families and communities strong! We talk so much about protecting Social Security in the near-term. But what about the youngest generation? I have two young cousins, Jennifer and David. Jennifer is five years old and David is three. Jennifer will retire in the year 2062 and David will retire in 2064. What will the world look like then? None of us know. But I do know that in Congress, I want to leave a legacy for Jennifer and David, and all the boys and girls of their generation. In addition to wanting Jennifer and David to have the best education, great health care, and a good job, I want them to have a secure retirement that includes Social Security. The back-handed actions the Majority takes today to raise the debt limit hurts this nation's young children and young adults in yet another way. You've heard the Majority throw around the phrase ``tax and spend,'' often aiming their words at the Minority. Well what we are seeing today is ``borrow and spend.'' Borrow from Social Security and Medicare so you can give big tax breaks to American millionaires and wealthy corporations and don't sweat it . . . because when you borrow, you can leave it to the next generation to pay. It is not fair to young Americans that they will have to suffer and struggle with the consequences of today's actions. I believe that together we can achieve the goal of preserving the integrity of Social Security for future generations. But we cannot do it together if the Republican party insists on using surreptitious ways to increase the debt limit by $750 billion without any public debate and without even a straight-forward vote. We need to work out a bipartisan plan to protect Social Security and responsibly address the debt limit. We need to keep our commitment to all hard-working families to safeguard Social Security. We owe it to our grandparents to protect Social Security. We owe it to our parents to be fiscally responsible. We owe it to our own generation to keep within our means. And we owe it to our children to fulfill the legacy of a secure retirement. If we accept this language on our country's debt limit today without a fair debate and vote, we will owe more than money to future generations--we will owe them an apology for having broken their trust and broken our promises. I yield back.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I believe that the test of success of welfare reform is its capacity to lift families (especially children) out of poverty. This bill fails that test. I recently attended a listening session at the Vera Court Neighborhood Center in Madison, Wisconsin to hear from people in my district who are affected by the changes being proposed in this TANF reauthorization. The personal stories of those who came to this listening session were powerful, and they made it clear how important child care and education are to enabling people to break the cycle of poverty. H.R. 4737 would limit opportunities for education and training to 16 hours per week, at the most, and participants would have to be working at least 24 hours per week at the same time--a difficult task for parents caring for infants and young children. For parents to even think about expanding their work hours they need affordable, reliable and safe child care. Unfortunately, the increase in child care funding over the next 5 years in this bill is barely enough to keep up with inflation let alone the expanded work requirements in this bill. It is estimated that in order to implement this bill, it would cost Wisconsin about $44.5 million over 5 years in additional child care funding. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is suffering from a deficit of $1.1 billion. We cannot shift this burden to the states and, more importantly, we cannot let our children be the ones who suffer because of this policy. As many of my colleagues know, Wisconsin was at the forefront of the welfare reform debate 5 years ago. Today, Wisconsin parents are making a good-faith effort to support their families through work but are not succeeding in raising their families standard of living--even to the poverty level. A Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau Report found that of those who left the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program in the first quarter of 1998 (a period when the economy continued to expand), more than two-thirds reported having incomes below the federal poverty level. An even sadder statistic is that one-third of those who left W-2 had no reported earnings at all. H.R. 4737 would discourage efforts in Wisconsin to change W-2 in order to serve low-income families better. The audit bureau report recommended that legislators, in order to ensure the future success of W-2, focus on increasing former W-2 participants income above the poverty level, addressing the needs of returning participants, and responding to a possible downturn in the economy. We should be helping Wisconsin implement these recommendations by increasing education and training opportunities, not by cutting back on them as this bill does. Martha Garel could benefit from these educational opportunities. Martha lives in Madison and has received W-2 payments for 3 years. When she first applied in 1999, she had recently left an extremely abusive husband. Martha does not have a college degree, but she would like to obtain a degree in social work. Two of her three children living at home have disabilities. Her 10-year-old son has a disorder that requires him to take medication, and during the summer, Martha cannot find a child care provider who will watch him. Her oldest daughter receives Supplemental Security Income due to brain damage she received at birth. Martha has been avidly searching for a job and interviewing since last fall, but nothing has come through. The only jobs Martha appears to be qualified for pay only minimum wage, and she knows that a minimum wage job will not meet the needs of her family. The medications her family requires run over $1,000 per month. It is clear that we need to expand the educational and job-training opportunities for people like Martha. I urge my colleagues to help families escape poverty by giving them the support they need to secure jobs that can support a family. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4737.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, today the House will vote on H. Res. 87, which will allow the Department of Energy to move forward in the process of licensing Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear waste. Although I realize we must find an answer for storing all of the Nation's nuclear waste, including that in Wisconsin, I oppose this resolution for several reasons. Over the last two decades, there have been thousands of shipments of nuclear waste on the highways and railways that crisscross America. If Yucca Mountain is granted a license to receive nuclear waste, the number of shipments could increase exponentially. This is particularly troubling because the proposed routes will pass through 44 states and over 700 counties--passing near our schools, churches, and homes, including possibly in my district. While there have been few accidents when moving waste through the U.S. to date, increasing shipments by the thousands will only increase the probability of a devastating catastrophe. The events on September 11 have shown that anything is possible, and that common mishaps are not the only aspects we should take into account when examining safety and security concerns. Throughout the debate over Yucca Mountain, numerous questions have been raised about the lack of sound science that went in to deeming the site safe. Very early in the testing process, the DOE retroactively changed the rules for site eligibility after it became apparent that the original rules could not be met for Yucca Mountain. Ever since, the credibility of the scientific standards and evidence has gotten progressively worse. Three federal agencies have released reports about Yucca Mountain--all three reports have expressed doubts and grave concerns about the suitability of the site. The General Accounting Office (GAO), which is the investigative office of the federal government, indicated there are more than 293 unresolved technical issues with Yucca Mountain, including how quickly the containers will leak radioactive waste, the amount and speed of water flowing through the waste area, and the likelihood of volcanic activity. The GAO has yet to get answers to the majority of these questions. I believe we have no choice but to make certain we base this decision on sound science. Nuclear waste is the most dangerous substance we have ever created and will be deadly for thousands of years. Future generations depend on us being absolutely sure Yucca Mountain is safe, and science has not concluded that as yet. Despite the scientific uncertainties of storing and shipping nuclear waste, there has been a sense of urgency to move forward with a decision on Yucca Mountain. Unfortunately, I believe this urgency has been fueled by politics--not by policy concerns regarding nuclear waste. The Nuclear Policy Act amendments of 1987 eliminated alternative sites, and billions of dollars have been devoted to Yucca Mountain. I believe some legislators may feel there is no turning back because of the tremendous federal resources that have already been invested in the project. Money concerns should not come before any policy that could threaten public safety. Furthermore, DOE Secretary, Spencer Abraham, has also said that a permanent site for nuclear waste will promote energy security by removing a roadblock to expanding nuclear power. This also leads me to believe that the sense of urgency is not driven by an understanding of the properties of the Yucca Mountain site, but rather larger-scale issues regarding America's overall energy policies. Approving Yucca Mountain could lead to an unfettered expansion of nuclear power at a time when I believe we can be promoting other energy sources--like renewable and alternative energy technologies--that do not have harmful bi-products and the potential for devastating long-term effects on the health of our environment and on our families. Overall, I believe Congress is rushing to make this decision regarding Yucca Mountain a decision that our future generations may have to live with for thousands of years. It is inevitable that storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain will continue to be a contentious issue over the next several years as technical details are sorted out. It is my hope that an expanded national debate on this issue will eventually lead to a final decision based on the merits of sound science, rather than on political arguments or larger-scale energy policy issues.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the DeGette motion to strengthen the independence of the Violence Against Women Office within the Department of Justice. As we all know, violence against women continues to be a significant problem in our Nation. Domestic violence and sexual assault are still scourges on our Nation. The statistics are chilling. Nearly 1 in 3 women experience physical assault by a partner. These horrible crimes damage lives and tear families apart. The Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA for short, is a proven part of the solution to these problems. There is much evidence of the success of VAWA. For example, in my State of Wisconsin, before the availability of VAWA grants there were only 15 nurses in the entire State who knew how to work with victims of sexual assault, collect forensic evidence, and work with law enforcement. Now there are over 150 nurses in Wisconsin who are trained to help victims. This training not only helps put the victim more at ease under the circumstances, but also increases the likelihood that prosecutions will be successful. What was not included when VAWA was reauthorized last session was a permanent and statutorily authorized VAWA office within the Department of Justice. The VAWA office has been key to raising awareness within the Federal Government and the Nation about the impact of sexual assault and domestic violence. It is well-recognized for its distribution of $270 million in annual grants to local communities to fight violence against women. But the office does far more. The office also works with U.S. Attorneys to enforce Federal criminal statutes. It provides technical assistance to local prosecutors, health care professionals, shelter staff, and domestic and sexual assault organizations. Under the previous administration, the VAWO director was visibly and actively involved in the every-day work of the Justice Department. She participated in the daily meetings of the executive leadership with the Attorney General. She was a major international voice on violence against women issues, and consulted extensively with the various divisions within the department about violence against women issues. VAWA requires work with the FBI, the INS, and the civil and criminal divisions of the Department of Justice. Mr. Speaker, while I understand the management concerns that lead some Members of Congress and the Department of Justice to want to locate the Violence Against Women Office within the Office of Justice Programs, I believe the mission of the Violence Against Women Office is much larger than just a grant administration organization. There are also limits on the Office of Justice Program's statutory authority to engage in policy work. Under the current structure this has been a serious impediment to the work against the Violence Against Women Office. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record testimony of Lynn Rosenthal, executive director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, that was given before the Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs in the other body. Her testimony provides numerous examples of why we need an independent Violence Against Women Office. Testimony of Lynn Rosenthal, Executive Director, National Network to End Domestic Violence Before the U.S. Senate, Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, thank you for providing the opportunity for me to share with you our views on the critical role of the Violence Against Women Office. The National Network is a network of statewide domestic violence coalitions around the country, who in turn represent more than 2,000 local domestic violence shelters and programs, and hundreds of thousands of battered women and their children. In particular, I want to thank you, Senator Biden, for your landmark report ``Violence Against Women: A Week in the Life of American Women'' prepared by the Senate Judiciary in October of 1992. This report, a snapshot of the lives of women across the country, graphically described 200 incidents of domestic and sexual violence that occurred in just one week of one year. This report had a profound impact on my personal commitment to end violence against women, and many times over the past ten years I have returned to this report when I have needed inspiration and guidance to continue this important and often difficult work. It is this report that I begin with today. September 1, 1992 12:45 a.m.: Rural California- ``A woman with five children is physically abused by her husband. He punches her in the head with his fist. She sustains bruises. She escapes and runs to a friend's house for the night. She reports that she is afraid to call the sheriff because her husband threatens to take their 11-month old baby.'' September 1, 1992 late afternoon: Maine- ``A woman in her early twenties is thrown out of her trailer home by her boyfriend as her two sons, ages two and three, watch. Bruised and cut she attempts to leave with her sons. The two-year old child is taken from her by her boyfriend and she is ordered to leave and threatened with further violence. She departs her home with one of her children, but does not contact the police.'' What might be different today for these women and countless like them because of the Violence Against Women Act? Because of VAWA, hundreds of police officers have been trained in the dynamics that keep these women trapped in violence relationships, and now play leadership roles in their communities. Because of VAWA, legal assistance is available for women facing the devastating fear of losing their children to perpetrators. Because of VAWA, more women reach out for help, seek shelter, obtain protective orders and are treated with dignity and respect by law enforcement officers. It was VAWA's critical focus on victim safety and offender accountability that brought about these important changes in our culture. In retrospect, Congress conceived a brilliant formula for successful implementation of VAWA. Congress provided the states with critical funds and policy direction through the state formula grants and discretionary programs such as the pro arrest grants, rural, tribal, legal assistance to victims, research and training and technical assistance programs that collectively comprise the Violence Against Women Act. But there is another partner to thank in this work, a partner who often works quietly but tirelessly to ensure that Congress' intent and the needs of the field are never forgotten as the day-to-day work in the field continues. That partner is the Violence Against Women Office. First established as a high-level Office in Main Justice with full access to the policy-making and implementation functions of the Department, VAWO and its expert staff created a national awareness about the impact of violence against women that had never existed before. Within weeks of being appointed as the first director of VAWO, Bonnie Campbell was inundated with requests for help and technical expertise from the national and international leaders. Governors called, asking VAWO to help them plan statewide strategies for addressing domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Leaders in government from other countries asked VAWO to share the U.S.'s groundbreaking legislation and methods with them. The Director of VAWO was a leader of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. World Conference on Women in Beijing. These images of leadership greatly inspired the work of those of us on the frontlines, many of whom had been struggling for many years with limited resources and lack of public attention to the bruised and bleeding women we were seeking in our programs every day. The vision of a Presidentially-appointed, highly placed spokesperson galvanized the work at the state and local level. State and local legislators and policy makers were impressed with the strong commitment shown by the Department of Justice to ending violence against women, and became inspired to become leaders themselves in this battle. The work of advocates at the state and local level was made easier and more effective because VAWO took on the equally important challenge of coordinating the interagency work that VAWA mandated. Your vision for ending violence against women was broad. VAWA created numerous grant programs in DOJ that required coordination with the grant programs in HHS, created new federal crimes, established new federal immigration rights, required states to honor each other's protection orders, established standards for the local issuance of protection orders and arrests of perpetrators of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and required state and local communities to come together in multidisciplinary efforts to develop policy and strategies for dealing with violence against women. The number of agencies and offices required to carry out these substantive responsibilities is stunning. VAWA's mandates impact the U.S. Attorney's Offices, the INS, the FBI, HHS, the Civil and Criminal Divisions of DOJ, even parts of HUD, Labor, and DoD. Leadership was needed to coordinate these far-reaching implementation efforts--and VAWO stepped ably into that role, convening the National Advisory Council (an unprecedented public and private partnership of business, government, and public service sectors) and working with the various federal entities charged with the work of implementing VAWA. If VAWO had not been there, it is hard to imagine how the demand for federal and state coordination, leadership, and policy guidance could have been met. When VAWO was housed in Main Justice, the director and her staff were able to work with other components of DOJ and other federal agencies to develop comprehensive policies regarding the implementation of VAWA. For example, the Full Faith and Credit Provision of VAWA 1994 simply said that states shall honor sister jurisdictions protective orders. The plan language of this provision did not explain how a state would know another state's protective order is valid, nor did it say whether or not a state must establish a protective order registry to implement this law. These are the practical concerns of turning a visionary law into a reality. VAWO led a collaborative effort that included the DOJ Office of Policy Development and the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys to develop practical policy guidelines that make it possible for all states, territories and tribes to make good use of the Full Faith and Credit Provision of VAWA. When VAWO moved to the Office of Justice Programs, the responsibilities of the Office became more focused on the technical aspects of grant making and less on the policy issues that emerge in building programs that address victim safety and offender accountability--the cornerstones of VAWA. This trend seems to have continued under the new administration, and is cause for great concern. Although we have made great strides in some ways, in others our work is just beginning. Our need for a vigorous, proactive Violence Against Women Office has not diminished. The tremendous needs and gaps uncovered by VAWA in 1994 led to its reauthorization in 2000, and the work at the state and local level has become more, not less, complex. VAWA requires the criminal and civil justice systems to work together with community services. VAWA funds prosecutors, courts, law enforcement, victim services, community-based assistance programs, tribal governments, and state coalitions. This broad range of professionals in turn serves victims and survivors living in rural towns and large urban cities, as well as immigrant, disabled, and older victims of abuse. VAWA grants provide needed services in communities of color and communities of faith. And all of these services are provided in the context of a complex system of federal, state, local, and tribal laws. Addressing all of these mandates, understanding all of these laws, and reaching all of these communities is a tough challenge on the state and local level. Now more than even, we need an active, high-profile Violence Against Women Office to help establish baseline standards for this increasingly complex work, and to provide consistent interpretations as to how the mandates of VAWA are to be met. We need an Office staffed with program managers and policy analysts that have subject matter expertise, not just grant- making skills. Three examples of VAWA programs speak vividly to this need for the combined functions of grant-making and policy analysis within the same office. First, the Legal Assistance for Victims Program grantees might well call VAWO to ask for assistance in developing appropriate screening and conflicts protocol, or for help in developing policies to implement the new funding mandate that civil legal assistance be provided to sexual assault survivors. This new area of law requires guidance not simply on allowable expenses of a grant, but on what the civil legal needs are of such victims, and what challenges to expect in crafting these new programs. It takes a policy analyst familiar with these complicated issues to give the right answers or know how to find them. The lives of sexual assault survivors all across the country will be dramatically impacted by the answers to these questions. Second, jurisdictions receiving Grants to Encourage Arrest funding needs to know how the VAWA 2000 amendments to the Full Faith and Credit mandate of VAWA 1994 will impact their program practices. For example, states must certify that its laws, policies and practices do not require victims to bear costs associated with prosecution, filing, registration or service of a protective order. This requires not just grant managers who know the paperwork needed to meet the certification requirements, but policy experts who know how to craft changes in state law and policies to come into compliance with this new requirement. Grantees of the Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Protection Orders Program must also certify that their jurisdictions do not allow the issuance of mutual protection orders. If there is no legislative opportunity to satisfy this funding condition, grantees will turn to VAWO for expert guidance on alternative ways to meet this funding condition. A policy analyst must be available to speak to the various ways this requirement can be met, whether through changes in court rules or administrative memorandums. What may seem a technical certification requirement is so much more than a check on a grant application. Requiring states to prohibit the issuance of mutual protective orders as a condition of funding is about fulfilling the intent of VAWA to make systemic changes in the way states respond to critical issues of victim safety. We need look no farther than the recent highly publicized protective order case in Kentucky to know the importance of such requirements. Finally, the new immigration rights and procedures created by VAWA are numerous and complex; grantees of all the VAWA programs need technical assistance to help them understand when critical immigration issues arise and how grantees can best help immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and staking. This work must be done very carefully. The lives of whole families are in danger--this really is a matter of life and death. It is more important than ever that The Department of Justice provides leadership and guidance, inspiration, and policy support for the local and state work on domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Now, more than ever, states need a strong Violence Against Women Office. It is only through this leadership that we one day we will know for certain that a week in the life of American women is no longer a week filled with violence. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the recent actions on the part of the administration that clearly indicate that the Violence Against Women Office is not a high priority. The policy staff of the office is woefully understaffed. In addition, the pending reorganization of OJP threatens to dismantle the expertise the Violence Against Women Office provides to local grantees. The language added by the other body that this motion asks the House to endorse would statutorily authorize an independent Violence Against Women Office within the Department of Justice. I believe this recognizes the importance of the office. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to instruct.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Welcome.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to hear of the support from my fellow members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. I wanted to just explain briefly further that when the INS or the Justice Department takes unaccompanied alien children into custody, our legal system treats them unlike any citizen and unlike any adult noncitizen. They are provided legal counsel who are charged not only with deporting them as mandated by law but also with representing their best interests, which is also mandated by law. It has become increasingly clear that these dueling responsibilities cannot coexist effectively. The stories are alarming. Unaccompanied alien children are sometimes being left alone to fill out complex legal forms that determine their future, not only here in America but also their future lives in general. Almost one-third of the children will be forced to eat, sleep and live next to juvenile offenders in restrictive juvenile detention centers. Some will languish in these detention centers for years because they lack adequate legal counsel. Some will be moved to other detention centers without being told why and unable to notify relatives in their home countries where they are going. During this debate, we have heard a lot about why the INS has been unable to do its job in the way that the American people expect and deserve. I am pleased that today we are spending at least this brief time talking about the children who are affected by the shortcomings of the INS. These conflicts of interest and dueling responsibilities not only frustrate the overall mission of the INS but cause disproportionate harm to these unaccompanied alien children. This amendment begins to address the serious issue of unaccompanied alien children receiving legal counsel that is rife with conflicts of interest. I would point out that this amendment states that any plan developed by the new Office of Children's Affairs will be brought back before Congress for careful examination. It is essential that Congress be able to give suggestions and ask questions about how we can best protect these children's interests. In closing, I would like to make this point very clearly: Most of the unaccompanied alien children are here for reasons beyond their control. In reforming and restructuring the INS, we hope to more effectively separate those people who want to tear our country down, from those who want to build it up. By passing this amendment, we have a great chance of making these children want to do the latter. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is simple. It would require the Office of Children's Affairs within the newly created Agency of Immigration Affairs to develop a plan on how to provide unaccompanied alien children with independent legal counsel. Think back to when you were 8 years old. For many, our biggest concern might have been Friday's spelling bee. Now imagine that you were forced against your will to go to another country, alone, without knowing why, without knowing for how long, and often without knowing the language. You would definitely have a lot more to worry about. Remarkably, this happens to nearly 5,000 children every year in the United States. These unaccompanied alien children are brought to America from other countries for various reasons.

Ms. BALDWIN. No.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment. During the committee markup there were several issues that were contentious at the time. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers agreed to work with other Judiciary Committee members and members of the Committee on Government Reform to reach bipartisan agreement. They were successful in reaching an accord on most of these issues. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield that 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the first annual National Healthcare Volunteer Day, which occurred on Monday, April 22, 2002, during National Volunteer Week. This day was created to recognize the time and effort that many volunteers contribute in healthcare settings and was initiated and supported by the American Society of Directors of Volunteer Services, a national association of managers of healthcare volunteers, and the American Hospital Association. The hope for this celebration is that through an annual recognition, the accomplishments of volunteers serving the needs of patients, residents, families, visitors, physicians, and staff may be publicized and commended. I am proud to say that Reedsburg Area Medical Center, located in my district, was an enthusiastic participant in kicking off the annual National Healthcare Volunteers celebration! I congratulate Reedsburg Area Medical Center on its participation in this day as well as the celebration of its 100th anniversary. I am proud to recognize both this medical center and the first annual National Healthcare Volunteer Day!

Mr. BALDWIN

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill would make the tragic situation of teen pregnancy even worse. I believe that adolescents should be encouraged to seek their parent's advice when facing difficult circumstances. And when young people do go to their parents in trying times, most often their parents offer love, support, direction and compassion. Most young women do turn to their parents--even when faced with something as emotional and private as pregnancy. Even in States without ``parental consent'' laws, the majority of pregnant teenagers do tell their parents. Unfortunately, though, there are times when a pregnant teenager cannot go to her parents. This is precisely the time when they most need the involvement of a trusted adult. But, under this bill, if an adult assists a young woman by traveling with her across states lines to seek an abortion, the adult becomes a criminal. It does not matter if the adult is her sister, brother, grandmother, or minister--they would still be criminals in the eyes of federal prosecutors. In my home State of Wisconsin, we take into account the fact that young people sometimes cannot turn to a parent and must turn to other trusted adults in trying times--in Wisconsin young women may obtain consent from grandparents, adult siblings, or another ``trusted adult.'' Crossing State lines to obtain an abortion is not uncommon. Women usually seek care in the medical facility that is closest to their home, but, due to lack of facilities in many areas, the closest facility may be across a State border. In Wisconsin, 93 percent of counties do not have an abortion provider, so the nearest facility for women in these counties may be in Minnesota or Illinois. Congress has not made it illegal to cross state lines to buy guns, or gamble, or participate in any other legal activity, why should we make an exception here? What if the teenager has been subject to physical or sexual abuse by one of her parents? What if the pregnancy is the result of incest? There is no exception in this bill for minors who have experienced physical or sexual abuse in their home. Nor is there an exception for a young women who might be subject to grave physical abuse if she confided to her parent or parents. Mr. Speaker, we all want children to confide in their parents, we all want a society with strong families. But let us not forget those children in our society who are victims of incest or physical abuse. Let us encourage them to reach out to an adult rather than deal with a crisis pregnancy alone.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection was created to help farmers in crisis keep their family farms. The farm bill includes a provision added by the other body to make Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code permanent. By accepting this Senate provision, we can finally ensure that our farmers have this important protection permanently in place. Bankruptcy generally requires liquidation of real property rather than reorganization if debtors have significant assets. Of course, for family farmers, this means that their farm equipment and other assets often disqualify them for reorganization under Chapter 11 or 13, and they are forced into Chapter 7 liquidation. Chapter 12 allows these family farmers to keep essential farm assets and reorganize their debts. With planting season just beginning, farmers need to know how now that they can reorganize and keep their farms. Farmers in Wisconsin and around the Nation are in stress, duress, and crisis. A dairy farmer from Belleville in my district called me about this issue just the other day. He has been in farming, like his dad before him, most of his life. He milks 70 cows to make his living. Milk prices have remained low for most of the time he has been in farming, and now milk prices are reaching historic lows again. He simply cannot stay in business because he is losing money. He is scared he is going to lose his farm to his creditors and let his family down. Chapter 12 would allow this gentleman another chance to reorganize his debts and keep the farm in his family. Permanent Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection will provide the security family farmers in crisis need to decide whether to stay in business as they make their way through financial difficulty. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has pointed out comprehensive bankruptcy reform legislation, H.R. 333, is currently under consideration in a conference committee. The gentleman is correct. Although I appreciate his optimism about a quick completion to the H.R. 333 conference, significant issues remain unresolved in that conference. While waiting for this comprehensive bankruptcy reform legislation over the past 5 years, Chapter 12 has expired six times and it has been expired since last September. During this current Congress we have been forced to pass two extensions of Chapter 12. The farm bill provides an excellent opportunity to ensure that Chapter 12 is made permanent this year. I understand the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) firmly believes in keeping all H.R. 333 provisions from being considered separately by this House. But Chapter 12 bankruptcy is an important protection that our family farmers need right now. And I am confident that the distinguished gentleman will be able to fight off other attempts to pass individual provisions of the bankruptcy reform bill should they come before this House separately. Chapter 12 is the only provision in the bankruptcy bill that is currently expired. It is time to act to ensure our farmers that this additional protection will allow them to keep their farms. I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct and urge the other conferees to recede to the Senate position.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an event that is on its way to the world's history books an event that, last month, changed the lives of girls and women in Afghanistan forever. On March 23rd, Afghan schools went back into session, meaning that, for the first time in five years, girls began to attend school legally. During the reign of the Taliban regime, women all over Afghanistan refused to give up their right to be educated. Some set up illegal schools in their homes at risk of being severely beaten. Others hid books and pencils under their clothing in fear of being killed if they were found out. But even during these horrific times, Afghan girls remained resolute. ``We want to go to school even more,'' they said. For many Afghan girls, this is the first time they can walk down the street with a book, without the risk of being killed. The Taliban regime was the most repressive regime in the world with regard to the status of women. The systematic exclusion of women from all positions of status in all aspects of government and society not only marginalized women, but it undermined Afghanistan's entire civic society. Prior to Taliban rule, 40% of Afghanistan's doctors, over half the university students, and two-thirds of Afghanistan's teachers were women, It is clear that for the rebuilding of Afghanistan to be successful, there must be educated and informed women in all walks of life. I would like to commend the United States Children Fund for their extremely hard work and aid in helping with the ``Back to School'' campaign. In cooperation with the Afghan Interim government, UNICEF has a goal of bringing more than 1.5 million Afghan children into a safe learning environment. In a country where the literacy rate is just four percent--the lowest in the world--UNICEF has dedicated countless hours to ensuring that each child has access to basic school supplies. The kind of dedication to humanitarian relief that UNICEF has shown in Afghanistan is essential not only to the future of Afghanistan, but to women and children around the world. I wholeheartedly thank UNICEF for their support of Afghan children. I commend the Interim Afghan government for making education a key priority. Most of all, I thank the teachers and children of Afghanistan who have had the courage and the will to educate and be educated after years of fear, insecurity and oppression.