Tammy Baldwin

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on the 10th Anniversary of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War, to recognize those who served in our country's military during this conflict. Across this nation families and friends will honor the many who served and sacrificed for our nation. I'm deeply honored to observe this day and I salute all those who served in our nation's military during this time of war, of containment, and of peace-making, and peace-keeping. I believe that we must take every opportunity possible to honor our service members, veterans, and their families. We must honor them for giving their time and energies and, too often, their lives in the service of our nation. In addition to honoring them through words, we must also honor them through action. Too many Gulf War service members and their families have been forgotten in the years that have followed the War. They have been left on their own to discover why their lives have changed forever because of fatigue and sickness that cannot be explained. Today, I ask that we all commit ourselves to honoring those who served in the Gulf War by doing everything within our power to solve this ongoing mystery. We must do everything within our power to assure that the men and women who have served our nation in its time of need are being served in their time of need. To all who served in our nation's military and their loved ones who waited and worried at home, we honor your service and your sacrifices. Not just today, but every day.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sam Day, Jr., a tireless advocate for peace and justice. Sam Day's efforts to preserve our planet from nuclear destruction have been recognized not only in our home community of Madison, Wisconsin, but across the country and around the world. I first heard of Sam Day long before I ever had the honor of meeting him. It was back in the late 70s. In high school, I studied Sam's legal, ethical, and moral case against the U.S. government and his steadfast support for the First Amendment; his unyielding respect for our Constitution. As editor of ``The Progressive'' Magazine, Sam Day agreed to publish ``The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It, Why We're Telling It.'' The federal government tried to prevent publication of that article, bringing suit against the magazine in a case that upheld our right to free speech. By publishing that article, Sam taught us much more than how to build a bomb. His efforts taught us about the right of a citizen to question his or her government . . . a radical notion whether you're seventeen or seventy. And he taught us the obligation of every human being to actively oppose nuclear annihilation, no matter what the personal toll. These are lessons that I carry with me every day into the Halls of Congress. Sam's commitment to social change was unwavering; his mission the same whether challenging the government of the United States on its nuclear policies or challenging our local bus company on policies that adversely affected people with disabilities--to protect and preserve humanity in the face of everything from outright aggression to insensitive indifference. He remained, until the very end, a self- proclaimed, ``Old Codger for Peace.'' Our nation has lost a powerful voice of conscience. I ask the Congress today to recognize the life of Sam Day, Jr., an indefatigable fighter for peace, and to continue, through our own words and deeds, his lifelong pursuit of justice.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Chancellor David Ward of the University of Wisconsin-Madison for his dedicated service to the students and faculty of this prestigious institution. Originally from England, Chancellor Ward earned a Fulbright award to study in the United States in 1960 and received a doctorate from UW- Madison in 1963. His faculty career at the University spans more than thirty years, including serving as chair of the geography department from 1974 to 1977 and associate dean of the Graduate School from 1980 to 1987. David Ward was vice chancellor for academic affairs from 1989 to 1991, and served as provost, chief deputy to the chancellor, from 1991 to 1993. He became interim chancellor in January 1993, and was named chancellor in June 1993. Recognized as an authority in historical urban geography, David Ward holds the Andrew Hill Clark Professorship of Geography, to which he will return after his sabbatical during 2001. He is a past president of the Association of American Geographers and initiated research on the rapid growth of English and American cities in the 19th and early 20th centuries. As the University's chief executive, David Ward has greatly improved the quality of undergraduate education. He has increased opportunities for undergraduate research, enhanced student advising, and expanded access to courses. He funded the Undergraduate Research Scholars (URS) Program as part of his on-going effort to strengthen campus programs that offer academic enrichment for all students, especially those from underrepresented populations. Under his leadership, UW-Madison issued ``A Vision for the Future: Priorities for UW-Madison in the Next Decade.'' This document outlined the University's mission, vision and priorities, and provided a foundation for some of the most comprehensive initiatives in the history of the campus. Through his work, Chancellor Ward has also strengthened the Wisconsin Idea, which has long promoted a collaborative and integrated relationship between the University and the state. As a land grant institution, public service is a natural part of the University's existence. Hands-on work by students outside of the classroom as a means for gaining knowledge and for enhancing Wisconsin's communities has been encouraged by Chancellor Ward during his tenure. This encouragement has empowered students to gain knowledge in ways that are not possible in a classroom or a laboratory. I am grateful for Chancellor Ward's commitment to undergraduate education and for his contributions to the University of Wisconsin- Madison.

Ms. BALDWIN

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

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5540, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), would extend chapter 12 of the bankruptcy code for an additional 11 months. Chapter 12 is the safety net of last resort for our farmers. It expired 4 months ago, on July 1, 2000. That means that if in the last 4 months a family farmer in my State of Wisconsin, or anywhere else in the United States, has needed the protection of chapter 12, they have not had it. Farmers in the most dire of economic circumstances do not have that protection today. Fortunately, this bill takes effect retroactively. I am pleased that the House earlier passed a permanent and expanded chapter 12 bankruptcy provision as part of H.R. 2415. However, it appears unlikely that the bill will pass into law this session. Therefore, temporary extension of chapter 12 is needed to ensure that farmers are given the economic security that they need. Chapter 12 is tailored to meet the unique economic realities of family farming during times of severe economic crisis. With chapter 12, Congress created a chapter of the bankruptcy code that provides a framework to prevent family farms from going out of business. At the time of its enactment in 1986, Congress was unable to foresee whether chapter 12 would be needed by America's family farmers indefinitely. Congress has extended chapter 12 four times since then. The law expired, as I said, on July 1, 2000. We must extend this law and ultimately make it permanent. The family farm is the backbone of the rural economy in Wisconsin and all over the Nation. Without chapter 12 protection, a family farmer has little choice but to liquidate all assets, sell the land, equipment, crops and herd to pay off creditors if an economic crisis hits. This means losing the farm. Losing a farm means losing a supplier of food and a way of life. When a family decides it can no longer afford to farm, many times that farm is lost forever to development or sprawl. With chapter 12 in place when an economic disaster hits America's farmers, a family's farmland and other farm-related resources cannot be seized by creditors. A bankruptcy judge for the Western District of Wisconsin notes that chapter 12 has been used in his jurisdiction more than 50 times over the past year. Obviously, in this time of severe economic farm crisis, chapter 12 is needed. Our farmers must have the assurance that if they must reorganize their farm in order to keep their farm, they can do so. Chapter 12 must be there for them. Chapter 12 must also be there for us. In order to protect America's food supply, it is in our country's best interest to protect family farms from foreclosure. Mr. Speaker, family farmers in Wisconsin are having a tough time. Wisconsin dairy farmers continue to be at the same price disadvantage they have been subject to for over 60 years. Wisconsin pork producers, like pork producers everywhere, are losing thousands of dollars every month. Soybean prices are at record lows and have seen a 36 percent decline in 3 years. In the past 6 years alone, Wisconsin has lost over 7,000 family farms at a rate equivalent to five per day. The picture is similar nationally. In 1950, there were 5.6 million farms averaging 213 acres each in the country. In 1998, there were only 2.2 million farms averaging 432 acres each. Our families must have the assurance that if they are to reorganize their farms to keep their farms, they can do so. Farmers, like all of us, should be able to plan for their futures. I support the passage of H.R. 5540 and hope that it becomes law quickly. I also look forward to assuring that chapter 12 becomes a permanent protection so that family farmers do not again face expiration of bankruptcy protection. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question in order that we may bring up a clean minimum wage increase bill and a clean Medicare giveback bill. The resolution that we have before us today does not give us the opportunity to focus on what is one of the most important pieces of legislation before this Congress. For 2 years, we have been hearing from constituents in the health care community about the dire need to restore funding cuts made in the Medicare program in 1997. The Medicare funding is vital to rural and teaching hospitals, home health agencies and others who were put in financial distress by those Medicare cuts of 1997 and literally could mean the difference between staying open and having to shut their doors. In my southern Wisconsin district, the additional payments are badly needed for providers like St. Clare Hospital in Baraboo and the Monroe Hospital and Clinics. It is time to stop playing politics with these vital issues that so strongly impact the lives and health of the people that we represent.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of H.R. 2614. I am deeply disturbed that this legislation was assembled by the Republican leadership without consultation with either the President or the Democrats in Congress. It is a partisan package of tax breaks for a variety of special interests. It ignores the needs of middle-class families and does not appropriately deal with the struggles of rural and teaching hospitals under the Medicare program. This legislation does not contain the bipartisan school construction tax credit bond provision that would provide $25 billion in interest- free school construction bonds to help our crumbling schools. Instead it provides far less help to school districts, while giving the greatest tax cuts to wealthy bondholders, not average taxpayers. This bill also fails to address the marriage penalty and reform of the estate tax to protect small businesses and family farms. Both are tax cut priorities around which there is broad bipartisan agreement. H.R. 2614 does not provide an adequate tax solution for people who lack health insurance. Instead, it offers a sham deduction that could lead to many families paying more for the health insurance that they already have. According to the Joint Tax Committee, the deduction for buying health insurance will only succeed in helping about 5 percent of the 43 million uninsured purchase health insurance. Furthermore, this provision could lead employers to either cut back their contribution to health insurance premiums or drop coverage completely for many employees. In short, this tax deduction is very costly at $10 billion per year, yet has very little positive impact. While this bill would increase the minimum wage 50 cents in 2001 and another 50 cents in 2002, all other provisions to help workers by altering overtime and other protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act have been dropped. Instead, the bill contains numerous small business and special interest tax breaks--such as $25 billion for an increase in the business meals deduction, repeal of 4.3 cents of the diesel fuel excise tax for railroads at a cost of $1.58 billion and a $250 million tax break for timber companies. Instead of providing relief for those health care providers who really suffered harm from the 1997 Balanced Budget cuts this legislation would pass along 41 percent of the increase in Medicare spending to HMOs. This money could otherwise be directed toward beneficiary and health care providers needs. There is not even a guarantee that HMOs will stay in the communities they now serve. Each dollar that goes to the HMO industry in this bill is a dollar that won't go to improve coverage for a Medicare beneficiary or go to help a rural hospital remain open. I cannot support this inappropriate use of increased Medicare dollars. I support meaningful assistance to health care providers and targeted managed care payment increases to low-reimbursement counties, like many in Wisconsin, in exchange for their commitment to remain in the communities they serve for at least three years and not abandon seniors like so many have. This Congress has failed to pass any meaningful health reform, such as the Patients' Bill of Rights or a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and instead has chosen to provide tax breaks for special interests and millions of dollars in Medicare spending to HMOs. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the FY 2001 National Defense Authorization Act, and wish to clarify the rationale for my position. I feel it is very important to make my position clear; because, while I oppose this legislation, there are a number of important provisions within the larger bill that I strongly support. In its totality though, I could not support a bill that emphasizes procurement disproportionately over the long-term needs of our servicemen, women, and military retirees. While I understand why many support this bill, because it includes several provisions that are the result of hard-fought efforts to improve the living standards of our military personnel; I cannot support the indisputable fact that this bill continues a trend of prioritizing weapons systems and keeping this nation's defense policy on an unwise course. I strongly support Military Retiree Health care benefits, which would grant lifetime health care for retirees and their families. At a time in our country when 44 million people are uninsured, it is our responsibility to assure that the men and women who have served our country are guaranteed health care benefits. I also support pharmacy access to all Medicare-eligible military retirees that was included in this legislation. Additionally, I am an ardent supporter of a pay raise for our service members who work extremely hard and demonstrate their dedication to our nation through their work in deployments throughout the world. Unfortunately, the FY2001 National Defense Authorization Act includes excessive spending on military hardware and has led me to oppose the overall bill. This measure includes $4.8 billion for ballistic missile defense programs. The continuation and expansion of this program not only threatens our treaty obligations with other nations, it has the potential of sinking billions of more dollars into untested and unreliable technology. Neither this legislative body, nor the nation, has had the type of extensive debate demanded by such a major shift in defense policy. How can we continue to go down a path that will lead to a radical shift in our defense posture without a clear debate? Moreover, this bill continues a disturbing trend of spending huge sums of money on defense programs, while ignoring the needs of families in the U.S. This measure, totaling $309.9 billion, represents about one-half of total discretionary spending. At a time when no one is presenting a significant military threat against our shores, is this the time to invest in massive new weapons systems? This bill includes $2.5 billion for the F-22 fighter; $689 million for the Joint Strike Fighter; and $2.9 billion for the next generation F-18 E/F. I ask my colleagues, is this justified given the current or future climate in international affairs? Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the House is recognizing the important service of the men and women in uniform, as well as veterans, and providing them the benefits they need and deserve. I am heartened that we have finally shifted at least some of our attention to the people who serve our country. It is my hope that in future years, we will continue to recognize the value of the service men and women, while also recognizing that we should not pour unlimited amounts of money into military hardware that we do not need.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, as we near the end of the 106th Congress, there are a few bills that Congress must pass before we go home. To me, one of those ``must pass'' bills is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The House passed VAWA, but the other body has not yet acted on the bill. There is no more time to waste. This law must be reauthorized this year. The program has done so much. Over the past 6 years, VAWA has helped millions of women, children, and families who have been victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. This bill is not controversial. The leaders in the other body have a choice: they can continue to assist victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, or they can turn their backs on them. To turn their backs when they know that VAWA is working would be unconscionable. VAWA must reach the President's desk before Congress adjourns.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, the Bureau of Justice statistics recently released a report that contains encouraging news. Overall violence against women has declined in recent years. I credit the Violence Against Women Act and local and State programs that it has supported over the last 6 years. But our work is far from done. Domestic violence and sexual assault are still a scourge on our Nation. The statistics are chilling. Nearly one in three women will experience physical or sexual assault during their lifetimes. These horrible crimes damage lives and tear families apart. We must do all we can to stop the cycle of violence in our country. VAWA is a proven part of that solution. Mr. Speaker, I have worked towards this day and this vote for many months with the author of this bill, the distinguished members of the Committee on the Judiciary, and committed activists from across the country. Now we must move the reauthorization of VAWA through the last steps and ensure that it is passed into law this session.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, our nation was built on the dreams of immigrants who came here to create a better life for themselves and their families. The ethnic diversity of the American patchwork quilt makes this nation strong and has helped our nation become the envy of much of the world. I am proud to be from a state whose ethnic heritage can be seen in our faces, our foods and families. Wisconsin is a state made up of settlers who came from the far corners of the world to build their businesses, raise their families and stake their claims for a piece of the American Dream. There is an exciting new project underway in my congressional district that has national and international implications. The Swiss Center of North America is proposed to be located in New Glarus, Wisconsin. This new center will facilitate historical research, cultural exchanges and business partnerships extending beyond the beautiful rolling countryside of America's Dairyland. Like many ethnic groups, the Swiss came to North America in large numbers in the 19th Century, settling in each state of this Union and every province of Canada. They brought their traditions, culture, languages, foods and a rich heritage that have made a lasting impact throughout this continent. The Swiss government helped these new immigrants by setting up colonies for their countrymen and women on this side of the Atlantic to ease the transition into the New World. One such colony remains largely intact, located in New Glarus, Wisconsin. This community, which I am honored to represent in Congress, continues to celebrate its Swiss heritage, attracting Swiss immigrants and welcome visitors from around the world. Many in North America are not aware of the accomplishments of their Swiss-American neighbors. The Swiss have brought a multi-cultural background encompassing elements from German, French, Italian and Roman heritages. Many thing of Switzerland as a land of Alpine meadows, decorated cowbells and colorful window boxes. Yet this fails to fully recognize the very modern, multilingual and multi-cultural aspects of this small, yet diverse, nation. Those of Swiss descent in North America are very proud of their heritage, as Switzerland has made many important contributions to the world. Yet, unlike many other nationalities, there is The Swiss Center of North America aims to be a state-of-the-art facility located in New Glarus, Wisconsin. It will highlight the contributions of the Swiss of yesterday, today and tomorrow. With historical exhibits, modern interactive displays, genealogical research facilities and premiere meeting space, the Swiss Center will help spread the word that Swiss living in the United States, Canada and Mexico continue to offer much to the North American melting pot. The State of Wisconsin has already committed $2 million to this project and an international fund-raising drive is now well underway. I support the Swiss Center of North America not just because it will be located in my district. I support it because those of Swiss heritage need a place to house their artifacts and tell their story. This is a valuable project, in part, because learning more about where we come from helps guide us to where we are going. The more future generations learn about this nation, the more they understand about our rich diversity. The Swiss Center of North America will help foster a better understanding between cultures and will offer us the promise of a broader appreciation of the heritage of our international ancestors.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), for his incredible leadership on the issue of reimportation and getting a fair price for our seniors for prescription drugs; all people frankly. I wanted to come down to the floor today on behalf of my constituents, my constituents in Portage, Monroe, and Stoughton, Wisconsin and, all the other cities and towns and rural areas in my district who demand and need affordable, comprehensive prescription drug coverage. Mr. Speaker, we are playing election-year politics with the health of our grandparents, our parents, aunts and uncles. We are ignoring the voice of the many constituents who have written us, me and all of my colleagues showing us in vivid detail their outrageously high prescription drug bills. Our seniors need prescription drug coverage now. They need the passage of the bill of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley). They need affordable drug coverage now. So no matter who you are, where you are or how sick you are, you will have the health care you need.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion. This provision would strengthen a Federal hate crimes statute that has been on the books for over 30 years. The 1968 law already covers hate crimes committed on the basis of race, religion, color, or national origin. This provision would add coverage for victims targeted for violence by virtue of their sexual orientation, gender, or disability. We hear from opponents that every crime is a hate crime; that every act of violence is an act of hate, but since the founding of our country our judiciary system has weighed the element of intent in evaluating the severity of crime. The thing that distinguishes hate crimes from other crimes is that hate crimes are intended to terrorize both the crime victim and the entire community that each victim represents. Wyoming is a long way from Wisconsin. Yet in the days and months that followed the murder of Matthew Shepard, I looked into many fear-filled faces and tear-filled eyes in my own community. These crimes do strike terror throughout the Nation. Yesterday, I met Commander David O'Malley. He was the investigator in Laramie, Wyoming, and he came to Washington to support our passage of this motion. He said two things: one is that in starting out the investigation he really did not believe that hate crimes existed but, boy, did he learn during the course of his investigation that these are specific crimes, and he urged us to pass this motion.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that most of the Members of this institution want to provide help to seniors who receive Medicare and Social Security benefits. There are two proposals that we are considering today which purport to help those seniors. One bill will provide seniors with a tax cut, including the wealthiest in our society . . . which is virtually guaranteed to deplete the Medicare Trust Fund and jeopardize the future of this vital program. This legislation to repeal the 1993 tax provision will make it more difficult for the government to finance adequate Medicare prescription drug coverage, as well as other improvements that ultimately should be included in the Medicare benefit package, such as catastrophic costs and long-term care. This legislation is a hundred billion dollar raid on the Medicare Trust Fund and replaces the money with an IOU. Although we are currently in the era of surpluses, we should not forget that Medicare's fiscal future is troubled. After several years of deficits in the 1990s, the Part A trust fund is now running a small cash surplus. This is only temporary, however--Part A will begin running cash deficits again by 2010, according to the most recent Medicare Trust Fund trustees report. Beyond 2010, its cash deficits will grow larger, totaling nearly $7 trillion in the next 40 years. Despite these looming deficits, this legislation would weaken, rather than strengthen Medicare financing by depriving the program of roughly $100 billion in dedicated revenue over the next ten years and nearly half a trillion dollars in the next 25 years. Without this income, Medicare Part A will go into the red again five years earlier than under current law. This will not only threaten the viability of the Medicare program for future generations, but it will force an even greater squeeze on hospitals and other health care providers dependent on Medicare payments. This revenue loss will be permanent, while the projected budget surpluses are temporary. Fortunately, we have a more fiscally responsible alternative. The substitute measure also cuts taxes for 95 percent of Social Security beneficiaries. Seniors living alone who make less than $80,000 a year and couples with a joint income of less than $100,000 a year would be eligible for the tax cut. In addition, the alternative maintains the financial integrity of the Medicare program by forcing the Treasury Secretary to guarantee that the funds will be available, before depleting the Trust Fund and providing the tax cut. Mr. Chairman, if we really care about seniors, we must ensure we maintain the financial stability of Social Security and Medicare, while providing responsible tax cuts. The alternative we are considering today does both and I urge its adoption.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment to prohibit the District of Columbia from using any funds, Federal or local, for a needle exchange program. The positive effects of needle exchange are proven. In communities across the country, needle exchange programs have been established and are contributing to the reduction of HIV transmission among IV drug users. In my hometown of Madison, Wisconsin, as well as in other Wisconsin communities, outreach workers and volunteers go into the community and provide drug users with risk-reduction education and referrals to drug counseling treatment and other medical services. Yet Congress continues to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence showing that needle exchange is an effective HIV prevention tool. I want to end with a personal note on this issue. When outreach workers in my community and in other Wisconsin communities go out to drug abusers and say, I care about whether you live or die, it brings them into treatment and takes them off their dependency.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague's amendment, and I thank her for her leadership on these issues. I want to address just one provision in the gentlewoman's democracy amendment, the domestic partnership health benefits. At a time when 44 million people in our country lack health care coverage, this House has decided that it will erect new barriers for certain citizens of our capital city to obtain health care insurance. They have decided to prohibit the implementation of the District's plan to extend health care coverage to domestic partners of city employees, and I must ask why. Congress stands as the only barrier between affordable health care for countless families of city employees. This stand could mean the difference between having a sensible health care plan or no plan at all; it could mean the difference between wellness and illness, and in some cases, life and death. As a proponent for health care for all, I am extremely disturbed by this underlying provision. The employees of this city want nothing more and nothing less than fairness and equality in the workplace. Allowing access to the most basic of benefits, health care, does just that.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4811, the Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. There are many good things in this bill. For example, the aid to Israel included in the bill is an important step in maintaining Israel's security in a particularly unstable part of the world. It is paramount that we continue to stand by Israel, especially as historic peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians are simultaneously taking place just a few miles from this Capitol at Camp David. Unfortunately, aid in the bill does not go far enough for other countries desperately in need, especially in the continents of Africa and Latin America. The bill contains only $82 million of the $472 million requested for debt relief. It will not even provide enough resources to enable two countries, Bolivia and Mozambique, who have met all necessary conditions to obtain debt relief, to procure it. If we are to have a stable world, we must help those countries that need it most. To do otherwise only invites conflict. Of particular concern to me is the lack of adequate funding to fight the AIDS epidemic that is currently devastating the continent of Africa, as well as other regions of the world. The bill only allocates $202 million of the $244 requested by the President to fight this horrible disease. We have turned out back on Africa for too long, and AIDS will not wait for us to find our consciences. Finally, the bill includes a modified version of the anti-choice ``Mexico City'' policy, which prohibits funding of any private foreign non-governmental and multilateral organizations that perform abortions or lobby to change abortion laws in foreign counties. For these reasons, and the fact that the bill is simply too underfunded, I oppose this bill.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, recently I introduced H.R. 4652, the Quality Cheese Act of 2000. This bipartisan bill would prohibit the FDA from allowing the use of dry ultrafiltered milk in the making of natural cheese. My reason for introducing the bill was simple. Dry ultrafiltered milk, which is a milk derivative, can come in the United States virtually duty-free. It can take the place of domestically produced milk in cheese vats and the consumer cannot tell the difference. Using imported dry ultrafiltered milk would also undercut our domestic dairy farmers' market for their milk. My Wisconsin dairy farmers are already receiving the lowest price for their milk in over 20 years. We cannot allow their market to be further eroded. There have been reports in farm publications that there are large volumes of dry ultrafiltered milk currently being imported. That is perfectly legal, but we do not know what the dry ultrafiltered milk is being used for. If this dry ultrafiltered milk is being used in natural cheese-making, it is being used illegally, to the detriment of consumers and the dairy farmers I represent. It is my hope that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, will work with myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to find an answer to this important question.

Ms. BALDWIN. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

Ms. BALDWIN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor on behalf of the seniors in my district who demand affordable, comprehensive, prescription drug coverage to ask what are you afraid of. Instead of debating this very serious issue, we are playing election-year politics with the health of our parents and grandparents, like my 94-year-old grandmother. What are my colleagues afraid of? The only plan we will consider today throws money at special interests. It is a plan that subsidizes the very same private insurance companies that have fought our efforts to hold them accountable, and allows for pharmaceutical companies to continue their current price gauging. What are my colleagues afraid of? My constituents demand an answer.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to pay tribute to Juneteenth Independence Day. June 19, 1865 is the date that the news of freedom reached slaves in Texas; two and a half years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This holiday is now celebrated throughout our country as a time of joy, remembrance, and reflection. It is my sincere hope that all Americans recognize this as a day of freedom . . . freedom to learn one's history . . . freedom to shape one's own identity . . . freedom to control one's own life. In Wisconsin's Second Congressional District, Juneteenth will be recognized with a wonderful celebration organized by the Nehemiah Community Development Corporation. This annual celebration includes beautiful cultural exhibits, colorful dancing, delicious food, exciting entertainment, music and much more! I want to commend the organizers of this and other important celebrations taking place in Wisconsin and throughout the United States. Former U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan captured the aspirations of many who recognize the important symbolism of this day. She said, ``What the people want is simple. They want an American as good as its promise.'' How true her words are. Locally and nationally, the struggle for equality continues, but this holiday offers hope for a better future.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the fiscal year 2001 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Studies show that smaller class sizes help teachers provide more personal attention to students. Teachers are then able to spend less time on discipline, more on instruction for the students that they serve. This helps students receive a stronger foundation in basic skills, skills that will help them succeed in the 21st century economy. The economic function of education must not be overlooked if today's students are to compete in our rapidly growing global economy. I believe that we must ensure that young children have the kind of one- on-one contact with teachers that smaller class sizes will permit. This bill does not include funding to hire new teachers to reduce class sizes. Let us stop talking about improving education and put our resources into the classrooms. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, on this 2-year anniversary of the brutal dragging death of James Byrd, I rise to ask congressional leaders to let us vote on the Hate Crimes Prevention Act before we adjourn this year. Hate crimes are meant to instill fear and that fear is not only targeted at the immediate victim of the crime, the fear is experienced by all members of the group. Hate crimes are different from other violent crimes because they seek to terrorize an entire community. This sort of domestic terrorism demands a strong Federal response, because this country was founded on the premise that a person should be free to be who they are without fear of violence. I know that hate crime bills cannot cure the hate that still resides within some in our country. But this legislation can provide more protection for victims and send an important message that hate crimes against any group are a serious national problem. Let us pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act this year.