Tammy Baldwin

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman's concerns relating to the language adopted in title X by the other body. As I read the definition of family fisherman, I feel quite confident that this is limited to commercial fishing enterprises and operations and that the gentleman's concern of individuals trying to protect yachts and other luxury boats not used in a commercial fishing venture would not be covered under this. I am wondering whether the gentleman is supportive of the entire motion or whether he might want to read and satisfy himself that this is indeed protecting only commercial fishing operations.

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

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Conyers- McKinney-Schakowsky Amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. Last year, this House approved funding for Plan Colombia, ostensibly to fight the drug war in Colombia. Now repackaged as the Andean Initiative, it is the same failed policy that we have been pursuing for the past decade. It will not work because it ignores the fundamental realities of the region. It is impossible to stem the flow of illegal drugs from Colombia without addressing the civil war, paramilitary violence, unequal distribution of wealth and the breakdown of civil society. Continuing to fund the Andean Initiative will result in more violence in Colombia. It will increase the number of displaced people. It will allow paramilitary violence to continue. Already this year paramilitaries have killed 529 people. It will continue a civil war that all military experts agree is hopelessly stalemated. And to the degree that it has any impact on eliminating coca production in Southern Colombia, it will simply shift that production to other parts of Colombia or neighboring countries. Crop substitution and alternative development projects, already underfunded in Plan Colombia, have not even begun. Because of U.S. funding, fumigation of coca fields has begun, leaving these farmers without any source of income. Imagine you were a poor farmer in Colombia, what would you do to provide income for your family? Aerial fumigation may successfully kill coca plants, but it also contaminates other food sources. And it certainly creates fear and suspicion among the people in eradication areas. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can reduce coca production in Colombia and the Andean region. However, military helicopters and aerial fumigation are never going to solve the problem. These tactics merely escalate the conflict and undermine the peace process in Colombia. Until we can move beyond the military strategy of Plan Colombia, we will never solve the drug problem, nor will we bring peace to Colombia.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the fundamental relationship between a democratic government and religious institutions. The first amendment has two purposes. First, it is designed to prevent the government from using its power to promote a particular religion. Second, it is designed to protect religious institutions from unwarranted intrusions of government. I believe H.R. 7 endangers both of these purposes. This bill expands the religious exemption under Title VII to clearly nonreligious activities, and it preempts State and all other local nondiscrimination laws. For the first time, Federal dollars, public funds, will be used to discriminate; or put another way, Americans can be barred from taxpayer-funded employment on the basis of their religion or other factors. Civil rights and religious freedom go hand-in-hand. Undermine one and we undermine the other. Mr. Speaker, it is a mistake for government and religion to become entangled. I urge my colleagues to reaffirm our commitment to separation of church and State by defeating H.R. 7. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 7. Let me begin by saying that I very much value the traditional role of religions institutions in providing social services. Our country has been made stronger through the good works of people of faith in helping those in need. Religious institutions have long fed the hungry, clothed the poor, given shelter to the homeless, and helped heal the sick. These contributions have been absolutely essential for millions of Americans throughout the history of our great nation. But this debate is not whether or not religious institutions should do good works. We all agree that they do and they should. This debate is about the fundamental relationship between a democratic government and religious institutions. The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution sets forth the fundamental principles upon which our democracy is based--freedom of speech, freedom of expression, right to trial by jury, limitations on searches an seizures, the right to bear arms. One of the most fundamental protections in our Constitution is freedom of religion. The First Amendment states: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' This Constitutional principle has two purposes. First, it is designed to prevent the government from using its power to promote a particular religion. Our Founding Fathers rightly saw that true freedom of worship was impossible if the state advantaged one religion over others. The second purpose is to protect religious institutions from the unwarranted intrusion of government. The independence of religious institutions from the hand of government is fundamental to the free exercise of religion. I believe H.R. 7 endangers both of these purposes and therefore undermines our nation's commitment to the free exercise of religion. This bill will allow religious institutions to accept direct government funding of social service programs. While it purports to ban proselytizing using tax dollars, it still permits the mingling of religion and government as never before seen in our country. It extends the reach of government into the private religious sphere. And I believe it is unconstitutional. It is not in the best interest of our religious institutions to have government agencies pick and choose which church or synagogue or mosque should get taxpayer dollars. As my colleague Mr. Schiff of California said in the Judiciary Committee, ``would it be appropriate for Members of Congress to write letters in support of one church's grant application or against another?'' Would it? Is that a good idea? What future rules will we apply to these funds? Will the Bishop or the Rabbi come by to lobby for funding? If a church violates the rules or is suspected of fraud, do we really want the government digging into their books? Our Founding Fathers created the Establishment Clause as an answer to this dilemma. Their answer was no. In a letter written in 1832, James Madison wrote, ``it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatsoever?'' We have recently seen the impact of entangling government and religion in the case of the White House and the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army, a religious charity, has lobbied and been lobbied by the White House to promote this legislation. According to newspaper accounts, the Salvation Army was prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to advance this bill in exchange for the right to discriminate in hiring. The White House now says they've backed off. But the very right to discriminate in hiring that the Salvation Army wanted is contained in this bill! This bill expands the religious exemption under Title VII to clearly non-religious activities and preempts all other state and local non-discrimination laws. For the first time, public funds will be used to discriminate in employment. Or put another way, Americans can be barred from taxpayer funded employment on the basis of their religion. Under this bill, a Protestant church could refuse to hire a person who is Jewish to work in their day care or a Muslim soup kitchen could refuse to hire a Catholic to serve meals to the hungry. But not only that, a church could refuse to hire a person who is divorced if divorce is against that church's tenets and teachings, even though the position is involved only in a secular activity. Expanding a religious institution's ability to discriminate in employment to include secular enterprises is just the start of the discrimination in this bill. The bill also preempts all state and local laws against discrimination. Thus, if a state protects its citizens from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, real or perceived gender, marital status, student status, or other bases the moment federal funds are commingled, religious institutions are allowed to discriminate. We hear a great deal about local control, but this bill eviscerates these state and local non-discrimination laws. That is why the Gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, and I proposed an amendment in the Rules Committee. It is very simple, just one line. ``Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this section, nothing in this section shall preempt or supersede State or local civil rights laws.'' Unfortunately, the Rules Committee refused to make our amendment in order, denying the House the opportunity to have an up or down vote on this critical issue. The House still has an opportunity to correct this major problem with the bill. The Democratic Substitute maintains non-discrimination protections in current Federal, State and local law. I urge all of my colleagues to support the substitute. It is very distressing that the proponents of this bill desire to chip away at our civil rights and non-discrimination laws. And it is even more distressing that they are using religion as a cover. Civil rights and religious freedom go hand in hand. Undermine one and you undermine the other. In the Federalist Papers Number 51, James Madison noted this interrelationship: ``In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects.'' Mr. Speaker, it is a mistake for government and religion to become entangled. I urge my colleagues to reaffirm our commitment to the separation of church and state by defeating this misguided legislation.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend congratulations to Dr. David W. Nelson from Middleton, Wisconsin. On June 30, 2001, Dr. Nelson will be inducted as the 80th president of the American Optometric Association at its 104th Annual Congress in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Nelson's commitment and contributions to his profession have earned him this prestigious recognition. Dr. Nelson has an impressive record of service at the local, state, and national level showing his dedication and leadership in the field of optometry. He was first elected to the American Optometric Association Board in 1994 and held the elective offices of Secretary- Treasurer and Vice President. He also served as chair of the Membership Development Committee and Computer Network Task Force. Dr. Nelson is also past president of the Wisconsin Optometric Association (WOA) and the Madison Area Optometric Society. His professional leadership began during his optometric doctorate studies as president of the American Optometric Student Association, a national organization of 5,200 members representing optometry students' interest in their four-year post-graduate programs. Dr. Nelson has been recognized with the Optometric Recognition Award in 1989 and the Legislative Achievement Award in 1989, 1990, and 1994. He also was named Wisconsin Young Optometrist of the Year in 1995. In looking at Dr. Nelson's past achievements, it is apparent that his devotion and motivation will meet the leadership demands of the American Optometric Association. I join his many friends and professional colleagues in congratulating him and wishing him well as the new president of the American Optometric Assocation.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Tom Hamilton, who has been with the Forest Service for the past 37 years. Mr. Hamilton is retiring from federal service after serving as the Director of the Forest Products Laboratory, the nation's leading wood research institute located in Madison, Wisconsin. Tom has led the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) in its dedication to solving societal problems related to the forest and its products by using the best scientific resources available. While some may not be aware, FPL is the public side of the public-private partnership needed to create technology for the long-terrn sustainability of our forests. Originally from Westfield, Wisconsin, Tom later graduated from UW- Madison, with a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. from the UW's Department of Agricultural Economics. He spent much of his career with the Forest Service at various forest research stations, and later with the Forest Service Washington Office. In 1994, Tom was appointed Director of FPL. As Director, Tom has led more than 250 scientists and support staff conduct research on expanded and diverse aspects of wood use, including pulp and paper products, housing and structural uses of wood, wood preservation, wood and fungi identification, and finishing and restoration of wood products. In addition to traditional lines of research, Under Tom's leadership, the Forest Products Laboratory has responded to environmental pressures on forest resources by using cutting-edge techniques to study recycling, developing environmentally friendly technology, and broadening the nation's understanding of ecosystem-based forest management. Through Tom's initiative, work is now ongoing at FPL towards new recycling technology, creating a new fiber resource, and reducing pressure on our precious forests. Tom's leadership of this important research resource has been a national treasure, and his many years of service with FPL and the Forest Service are commendable. As he transitions to a new phase of life following his retirement from public service, he will truly be missed.

Ms. BALDWIN

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

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again, we are here today to renew chapter 12 bankruptcy protection for our Nation's family farmers. The bipartisan legislation before us today, H.R. 1914, which I am happy to cosponsor with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), would allow chapter 12 bankruptcy filings to continue through the end of this fiscal year. Bankruptcy often 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 from reorganization under chapters 11 or 13, and they are forced into chapter 7 liquidation. Chapter 12 is specifically tailored for family farmers, and it allows these family farmers to keep essential farm assets and reorganize their debts. In February, the House passed H.R. 256, also sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) and myself, which retroactively extended chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code through May 31 of 2001. That legislation was signed by President Bush on May 11. However, the chapter 12 authorization has now expired once again, and this legislation will extend chapter 12 protection until September 30, 2001. The bankruptcy reform bill which has passed both Houses of Congress, H.R. 333, includes a permanent reauthorization of chapter 12; but since the current authorization has expired, our farmers need immediate relief. With the current year's crops in the ground, farmers need to know that they can reorganize and keep their farms. Our bill will provide the security that those family farmers who are in crisis will need to decide whether to stay in business for one more year. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Roth Kase USA as it celebrates its 10th anniversary in the specialty cheese business. Roth Kase is located in Monroe, Wisconsin. Although the company's background goes back 125 years, Roth Kase came to Wisconsin ten years ago, and began business with 25 employees. Today, more than 80 employees produce some of the greatest cheeses in the world. In fact, Roth Kase has been recognized with approximately 55 national and regional awards over the past decade, including winning the World Championship in 2000 for its Gruyere cheese. Their most recent award was winning first place in the semi-soft open class category at the U.S. Championship Cheese contest this past March. Roth Kase's commitment to quality and taste is evident in every product they make. I congratulate the employees of Roth Kase on their dedication and hard work. They created a decade of success, and they have my best wishes for many more successful decades in the future.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, for more than 30 years, the United States has led an international effort to reduce the toll of maternal deaths, unwanted pregnancies, and abortion in developing countries by providing money and technical assistance for family planning programs. The Hyde- Smith amendment would severely limit our efforts to reduce abortions worldwide because it would reinstate the global gag rule, a policy that prohibits foreign, non-governmental organizations that receive U.S. Federal funds from promoting and providing comprehensive family planning services. By reducing funding to reproductive health care providers in underserved areas, this amendment will decrease women's ability to access pregnancy-related care, family planning and services for HIV/ AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Our efforts to reduce the number of abortions worldwide through greater access to family planning services will be hindered. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hyde-Smith amendment.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Sauk Prairie Memorial Hospital and Clinics of Praire due Sac, Wisconsin, being selected as one of the 100 Top Hospitals in the nation by the 100 Top HospitalsTM: Benchmarks for Success study. This outstanding achievement is marked by the Sauk Prairie Memorial Hospital's excellent quality of care, efficiency of operations, and sustainability of overall performance. The extraordinary dedication of hospital staff and the superior performance of the management team have earned Sauk Prairie Memorial Hospital this first-time award. In a time when rural hospitals are facing special challenges, this achievement is particularly noteworthy. The hospital's ability to perform well under adverse conditions and to face trials in the health care system today do indeed set a benchmark for success. The quality health care that Sauk Prairie Memorial Hospital provides can be attributed not only to its doctors and nurses, but to all of the employees, board members, volunteers and medical staff. Without the generosity of those who have worked countless hours and donated hard- earned dollars, this accomplishment may not have been possible. I applaud the Sauk Prairie Memorial Hospital for this truly prestigious award and I look forward to hearing about future accomplishments.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to our WWII veterans of Asian and Pacific Island ancestry. Half a century ago, these young members of the Greatest Generation answered this country's call to fight in Europe, North Africa and Asia, on the Atlantic and the Pacific. They selflessly served in support of a greater cause, and all too often were called upon to give the greatest sacrifice of all--their own lives. The willingness of these young service members to serve and die in support of the war effort is made even more poignant by the racial inequalities experienced by their families at home in the United States. Many of these Asian and Pacific Islander WWII veterans went into service while their families were simultaneously being forcibly relocated to internment camps across the country, solely because of their ethnic origins. The generous service of these WWII veterans is truly remarkable. It is a privilege to recognize their contributions to this country on the House floor today, in celebration of ``Asian and Pacific American Veterans of WWII Day.'' I wish to also commend the Asian American Student Union of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This group of committed students has worked diligently to ensure that the memory of these veterans' sacrifices, selfless service, and patriotism is never forgotten, and they have helped to make this day of recognition a reality in Wisconsin.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. I ask my colleagues to look at this legislation for what it is, not for what it claims to be. On its face this bill could seem as an attempt to provide protections for pregnant women from assault and to provide prosecutors with another tool to punish those who cause the non-consensual termination of a pregnancy. However, on closer examination, this bill sets the stage for a legislative assault on Roe v. Wade by treating a fetus from the moment of conception as an individual with extensive legal rights, distinct from the mother. Every time a criminal causes injury or death through violence, it is a tragedy. But we must all 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. I have heard some Members debating talk about stories of people they have met. I remember in the Wisconsin legislature hearing the personal story of a woman who was beaten 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 pregnancy. If we had tough enough laws against violence against women, it would not have created that result. I am a cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act which expands protections for women against 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 legal framework to protect fetal rights. By switching the focus of the crime, we are diverting attention from the victimized women. I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill and support the Lofgren amendment.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, during the week of March 26, 2001, I was absent from the House due to a death in my family. Although I received the appropriate leave of absence from the House, I want my colleagues and constituents of the 2nd District of Wisconsin to know how I intended to vote on the rollcall votes that I missed. Rollcall vote 62: I would have voted ``No''. Rollcall vote 63: I would have voted ``Aye''. Rollcall vote 64: I would have voted ``Aye''. Rollcall vote 65: I would have voted ``No''. Rollcall vote 66: I would have voted ``Aye''. Rollcall vote 67: I would have voted ``Aye''. Rollcall vote 68: I would have voted ``No''. Rollcall vote 69: I would have voted ``Aye''. Rollcall vote 70: I would have voted ``No''. Rollcall vote 71: I would have voted ``No''. Rollcall vote 72: I would have voted ``Aye''. Rollcall vote 73: I would have voted ``Aye'' Rollcall vote 74: I would have voted ``Aye''. Rollcall vote 75: I would have voted ``No''.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the founding of a unique institution in Madison, Wisconsin, our weekly newspaper, Isthmus. Conceived as an alternative source of news and information, nurtured by the hard work and big dreams of its founders, Vince O'Hern and Fred Milverstedt, Isthmus' growth and success over 25 years have mirrored Madison's. Those of us who live in, and work in, and love Madison consider our weekly copy of Isthmus as much a part of our city's life and character as our renowned farmers' market or the statue atop our State Capitol's dome. Isthmus has been described as a hybrid that, like the community it serves, defies easy labeling or simple description. It provides a weekly accounting of our lives with astute analyses, groundbreaking investigative reporting, and commentary of all stripes on who we are and who we want to be. Isthmus' influence has spread beyond the pages of the paper. The Isthmus Annual Manual has become our guidebook to all that is good and helpful in our community; while the yearly Isthmus Jazz Festival has become a treasured weekend of good music and great moments. On this 25th anniversary of Isthmus' founding, I applaud its talented and industrious staff, faithful advertisers, and devoted readers who have nurtured and supported this indispensable chronicle of our lives the past 25 years and we look forward to the next 25!

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act. While I support reform of the estate tax, full repeal provides benefits only to the wealthiest in our society. The vast majority of the people I represent will receive no benefit from this tax cut at all. According to the bi-partisan congressional Joint Tax Committee, fewer than two percent of all estates (about 48,000) pay the estate tax. In Wisconsin, only 828 estates had any estate tax liability in 1998. I strongly believe it is time to deliver estate tax relief to Wisconsin family farms and small businesses. However, H.R. 8 isn't the way to do it. H.R. 8 would repeal the estate tax gradually over ten years at a cost of $192 billion. This legislation reduces the rates on the largest estates first while providing no tax relief to the majority of smaller estates. Estates of less than $2.5 million get no relief until 2004. I support the Democratic alternative that provides estate tax relief targeted to family farms and small businesses. This alternative would cost a reasonable $40 billion over ten years, and includes an immediate $2 million exclusion from estate taxes ($4 million per couple) increasing to $2.5 million by 2010 ($5 million per couple). Two-thirds of all estates that pay tax under current law would be exempt, and 99.4 percent of all farms would also be exempt. H.R. 8 makes small businesses and family farmers wait for ten years. I support this fiscally sensible alternative that targets relief to farmers and small businesspeople while protecting our ability to pay down the debt and shore up the long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I must oppose H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Elimination Act of 2001. The marriage penalty is an unfair burden on many working families and I strongly support legislation to eliminate it. However, the Republican bill that is on the House floor today costs far too much and does far too little for Wisconsin families. Half of the relief from the legislation would benefit tax filers that currently pay no marriage penalty. Also concerning is that families that need relief the most . . . families making less than $27,000 . . . would not benefit from the changes to the refundable child tax credit. The relief promised by the bill will not arrive for several years, providing no stimulus to the economy. Fully 70 percent of the bill would not take effect until after 2006. Finally, this bill will cost $400 billion over the next 10 years. Combined with the tax cut passed in the House earlier this month, the total cost for these tax cuts is already at $1.8 trillion, including interest. The overall size of these tax cuts jeopardizes the fiscal health of this nation. I was absent from the House today due to a death in my family. However, had I been in Washington, I would have supported the Democratic substitute. I believe this substitute targets immediate tax relief to average working families and individuals in Wisconsin in a fiscally responsible way. This substitute would create a 12 percent tax bracket for the first $20,000 of taxable income for married couples and $10,000 for single people. This bracket is phased in beginning in 2001 and is fully effective in 2003, offering immediate relief to those who need it most. Also, the substitute would increase the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly to twice the standard education for single filers. This provision would take effect beginning with the 2001 tax year. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 6 and support responsible tax relief for working families provided in the Democratic substitute.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, today I will introduce the bipartisan Quality Cheese Act of 2001, a bill that will prohibit the use of dry ultra-filtered milk, of cassein, and milk-protein concentrates in the making of standardized cheese. The plight of our Nation's dairy farmers continues to worsen. In Wisconsin alone, dairy farmers lost $500 million last year because prices reached a 20-year low. My dairy farmers simply cannot stay in business with prices at these levels. Dry ultra-filtered milk and its derivatives such as milk protein concentrates, MPCs, are allowed into our country basically duty free. In many countries, the costs of its production is subsidized, placing our dairy producers at a competitive disadvantage. I do not want a cheap, subsidized import to take the place of our dairy farmers' wholesome milk in cheese vats in this country. Please join me in supporting the Quality Cheese Act of 2001.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that 19 percent of women in the United States lack health insurance coverage. Women and their children are disproportionately represented among the Nation's uninsured population, primarily due to the number of women in service jobs and retail jobs which have low rates of employer-provided insurance and lower wages. Many working women have part-time jobs where health benefits are not offered by the employer or cannot afford the premiums to purchase the insurance. Women who are insured through their spouse's employment are often more susceptible to disruptions in health care coverage. Divorce, death of a spouse, change in job status of a spouse or a change in the dependent coverage through an employer could result in a woman and her children losing health insurance. We also know that women are living longer, yet the quality of their lives is not always better. Women are more likely to be uninsured than men, and this lack of health insurance is a public health risk. Studies show that people without health insurance are less likely to receive care and more likely to delay seeking care for acute medical problems. This ultimately adds to the cost because in many cases their medical conditions become more serious producing adverse outcomes that will need extensive follow-up care. Uninsured individuals are less likely to receive primary care or preventive services, which would keep medical conditions from becoming worse. We all know that women who are diagnosed with breast or gynecological cancers at a later stage are more likely to die from those conditions and diseases than those who detect it early. This is an even greater health risk because we know women disproportionately take care of the family. And as caretakers, women simply do not have the time to be sick. That is why education and prevention and proper health insurance is so vital. Working women deserve health insurance coverage for themselves and for their children. I am optimistic that we can begin to address the problem of the 43 million people in America who are uninsured and the many more who are underinsured, so that no man, woman or child in this country has health care needs that are not being addressed. No one should be left behind.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act. This $958 billion tax cut, which is part of a larger $1.6 trillion tax cut package, does not focus relief on those who need our help the most. I support responsible tax cuts for working families, which is why I am voting for the substitute being offered on the floor today. The substitute offers marriage penalty tax relief, and provides larger refunds to low and middle-income families with children. Two weeks ago I held listening sessions across the Second District of Wisconsin. I heard from many who are struggling to pay their bills. Some showed me their prescription drug receipts as evidence for the increasing costs they must pay. Others told me about the tremendous increases in their home heating bills, which have jumped dramatically due to the recent increases in the price of natural gas and other energy sources. Many of the families I heard from during my listening tour do not make enough money to benefit substantially from this tax cut plan. Some have incomes so low they do not owe federal income taxes. Those families would receive nothing from the tax cut proposed in H.R. 3. Other middle income families will receive very small tax cuts that pale in comparison to their increased expenses. In addition to the fact that many middle and lower income families would not benefit substantially from this legislation, the magnitude of this tax cut would limit resources that could go to programs to address their very real needs. I believe a tax cut this large puts at jeopardy the funds needed to add a Medicare prescription drug benefit. This means that the seniors I represent will not see adequate relief in addressing their health care needs. If this tax cut is passed, the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) could face a freeze on its level of funding, or even worse, a cut. This would be devastating for people with low incomes in my district who are confronting enormous heating bills during this frigid Wisconsin winter. Today's tax-cut legislation does not address the needs of families struggling to pay their increasing bills every month. Those who genuinely need relief will not receive the real fruits of this legislation. We must place a higher priority on a tax cut that provides relief to those who need it most. We must pass a responsible tax cut that does not jeopardize the fiscal health of this nation.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 40th anniversary of the Peace Corps. Since 1961, over 161,000 Americans have offered their energy to improving conditions in over 134 nations around the world. Reflecting the rich diversity of the United States, Peace Corps volunteers share a common spirit of service, dedication, and idealism. Peace Corps volunteers must participate in intensive language and cross-cultural training to help them better adapt to their new communities. In addition to learning the local language and adapting to new cultures, volunteers also help improve their surroundings. Corps volunteers work to bring clean water to underdeveloped communities, teach children, start new small businesses, and stop the spread of AIDS. The Peace Corps always goes about its mission with the knowledge that, with assistance, developing nations can take control of their own destiny. Because the University of Wisconsin-Madison has been a leading producer of Peace Corps volunteers for over a decade, the Peace Corps has chosen to commemorate their 40th Anniversary at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Many of the first to serve in the Peace Corps were alumni of the UW-Madison. Since 1961, more than 2,500 alumni have dedicated a minimum of two years of their lives to help developing countries around the world. Almost 200 current graduate students, faculty, and staff have served in the Peace Corps. The Returned Peace Corps Volunteers (RPCVS) are an extremely active group in the 2nd Congressional District and a vital force in the Peace Corps community. Forty years later, the Peace Corps continues to fulfill its promise by sharing one of our most precious resources: its citizens. The work of these volunteers has helped engender positive changes around the world. We, as citizens of the world, should honor the commitment of such an important organization.

Ms. BALDWIN

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

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan legislation before us, H.R. 256, which I am sponsoring with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) would restore needed bankruptcy protection for family farmers. Last June the authorization for chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code expired. Since that time, family farmers who must turn to the Bankruptcy Code have faced almost certain liquidation of their assets and an end to their family farms and their way of life. Our legislation, H.R. 256, would restore chapter 12 to the Bankruptcy Code through May 31, 2001. The bankruptcy reform bill which is scheduled for floor action tomorrow, that is H.R. 333, includes a permanent reauthorization of chapter 12. But since the current authorization has expired, farmers need immediate relief. With planting season just about to begin, farmers need to know that they can reorganize and keep their farms. With milk at lowest prices in decades, far below the break-even point, dairy farmers need to know that they have this option, too. Our bill would provide security for family farmers in crisis; the security that they need to decide whether they can stay in business during these incredibly difficult times. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.