Tammy Baldwin

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss one of the most pressing foreign policy issues facing our great Nation. That is, the situation in Colombia, South America. Tonight my colleague and I want to speak about the many challenges that are faced in Colombia. We will discuss the civil war, the inequalities of wealth, the drug problem, the failure of the judicial system there, and the problem created by large numbers of displaced persons. As we begin this discussion on Colombia, I guess I want to state from the outset that I would like this discussion to deal broadly with Colombia's problems and challenges. This body has all too frequently focused on Colombia, and in fact our Nation usually narrowly focuses on the issue of illegal drug production and trafficking. I strongly believe, however, that without addressing directly the broader problems that are faced in Colombia that we will not make significant progress in addressing the drug trafficking problem, because these problems are so interrelated. I think we all must agree that drug addiction and abuse must be addressed by our government, that too many Americans and frankly people all over the world are addicted to illegal and sometimes legal drugs. We know that this is a problem that must be addressed. I think we can do so respectfully, agreeing that this is a problem that we are all committed to, but agreeing that we may have some different approaches and different perspectives on how to do that. Colombia presents an important case study in this regard. It is a country that must be viewed comprehensively, not simply as a drug- producing Nation. The flow of drugs will not stop unless Colombia can achieve peace and economic security. I wanted to start by sharing a little bit about how I first became interested in the policy in Colombia, U.S. policy towards Colombia, interested in the problems faced by the people of Colombia. I, too, used to view Colombia as a Nation, mostly by what I read about the drug production there, until I had the opportunity as a local elected official on my county board to become involved in a sister community project. Our county essentially adopted a community in Colombia; in fact, a community in one of the most violent and war-torn parts of Colombia. Through this sister community, we got to experience exchanges. We had people come up, religious leaders, labor leaders, those interested in impacting poverty and fighting human rights abuses in Colombia. They came to our community and discussed the problems. In turn, people from my community got to travel to Colombia, as I did in 1993, to meet people there, to ask firsthand what was happening. Perhaps learning about Colombia in this way stands in stark contrast to how many of our colleagues first discover the issues and the challenges faced by the people of Colombia, through high-level briefings, perhaps, meeting with generals, ambassadors, presidents, Members of Congress. I started by meeting with people in agriculture, human rights leaders, people trying to organize collectives and cooperatives. It was a fascinating way to learn about Colombia. I met environmentalists who were engaged in the task of trying to protect the rainforests. I met people engaged in social work, trying to help address poverty in the big cities in Colombia, trying to help former gang members find another way of life. It was eye-opening for me. One of the things I remember very vividly about my 1993 trip to Colombia was learning about the human rights situation there. Years of civil war and state-sanctioned repression have resulted in nearly 1 million displaced persons, sort of internal refugees, many of them young people, children. There are problems with paramilitary death squads, with revolutionary guerillas, and these have led to an escalating level of violence in the past decade. In the last year alone, over 300,000 people have fled their homes and have become newly displaced persons in Colombia. These are people who we do not always hear about. As I mentioned, I traveled to Colombia in 1993 to see the situation firsthand. One of the shocking and sort of striking memories I have was understanding that some of the aid that we sent to Colombia as military aid, aid intended to help fight the war on drugs, was ending up being misused perhaps by corrupt officials, but was ending up being used in a way to repress the people, those who might be organizing labor unions, those who might be organizing collectives for the farmers, those who might be fighting for human rights. The U.S. now provides almost $300 million annually in military aid, making Colombia the third largest recipient of aid after Israel and Egypt. I must add, though, that things have improved in Colombia, very much so since the time that I was able to travel there. The military is beginning to address within their own ranks some of the issues of human rights abuses. The leadership, the President of Colombia, the Congress, has begun to act. We have a number of policy options before us right now in the United States. There is a call for providing almost $1 billion or perhaps a lot more than $1 billion in new aid to Colombia. I think it is an important debate on how we allocate that money, how we approach this issue, how we look at the future of a war on drugs, how we look at making an impact in a country that is dealing with civil war, is dealing with human rights abuses, is dealing with poverty and economic downturn and struggling with a lot of things to put its country back together. Before I go on to details about what policy options are facing the United States right now, I want to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has been also very well acquainted with the people of Colombia, the issues that Colombians face, perhaps from a different perspective than my own. But I would love the gentleman to share his wisdom with us.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And one of the similarities I think of our approach to this is that each of us comes from a background of getting a real opportunity to meet and exchange with the people of the country of Colombia. Not so much their advisors and their elected officials, perhaps local elected officials, but we really got a chance to interchange and understand what a person who is living in the rural areas or a person who is living in the cities experiences living there and the struggles that they face due to some of the economic challenges. The gentleman was very right to note the success economically that Colombia has enjoyed. I always observed that while on the macro-level that country was observing great prosperity and growing, although now there is certainly an economic downturn, there is now 23 percent unemployment in some of the major cities, about an average of 20 percent unemployment nationwide. But one of the nuances of Colombia is that there is a concentration of wealth in the hands of few. That is particularly exaggerated in the case of landownership. Mr. Speaker, about the top 3 percent of Colombia's landed elite own about 70-plus percent of all the agricultural land, while 57 percent of the poorest farmers subsist on about 2.8 percent of the land. Those sort of challenges internal to Colombia, I think, play a big role in what we see happening there and the concerns that we have there right now. I look at it as a country struggling with civil war, struggling beyond that with a justice system that is in some ways broken down and for that reason people take justice into their own hands. And, of course, that creates in some parts, even though it is a wonderful democracy nationally, in some localities there is almost anarchy existing. It is very violent in certain regions. But I want to be helpful this evening. I had the opportunity today to meet with a wonderful activist who is visiting the United States from Colombia. What he was doing was describing a program that he is working with in the central part of the country that has been operational for about 4 years now that is bringing a diverse array of parties together to the table to talk, to be engaged in dialogue, and to tackle drug issues, to tackle issues of the unstable economy right now, to tackle issues of violence and large numbers of refugees in a dialogue with people at the regional level. This individual told us a very hopeful story of a program that is working because, rather than sending merely military equipment to respond to a problem, they are talking about alternative crops. They are giving peasants who would otherwise possibly be lured into production of coca and giving them options that are viable, that allow them to support their families, that allow them to have a hopeful future. It is this sort of balanced approach that I think is the hope for the future. Now, one thing that we were delighted to see and will hopefully serve as a basis of our conversation as we move forward about how to really and truly tackle drug problems here and in producer countries is the Plan Colombia that President Pastrana and his government have put together. What we see is a plan that has been offered to an international community that does not just focus on one component of the struggles that Colombia faces, but really is a multifaceted program that I think we can take heart in. What they recognize is how unstable the Nation has been and the fact that in this plan they need to really consolidate in the State of Colombia, make sure that the State is the entity responsible for protection of the public interest, for promoting democracy, the rule of law, to make sure that it is the monopoly in the application of justice and that it plays a stronger role in full employment, in respect for human rights. They look at building peace as a building process. Not something that will happen, but things that will take years to accomplish. As the plan says, peace is not simply a matter of will; it has to be built. And central to their strategy is, of course, a partnership with other countries to look at not only production of illegal drugs, but consumption and recognizing that there are principles of reciprocity and equality that need to occur in order for countries to move forward together in a partnership to confront mutual problems. Mr. Speaker, Colombia is in an economic crisis right now, and we have got to tackle that in part also to respond to the larger problems.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, seniors everywhere are concerned about the future of Social Security, not out of selfishness, they know it will be there for them, but out of concern for future generations. Social Security is not just a commitment we made to our seniors, it is a commitment we made to families. It allowed so many seniors to remain financially independent long after retirement, ensuring that they would not become a financial strain for their children. We want future generations to have every opportunity. The best education, quality health care and a good job, and we want them to know that programs like Social Security will be there when they retire. And yet after all the rhetoric we have heard about protecting Social Security, the Republican Congress has failed to enact legislation to extend Social Security by even one day. I know that there are many grandmothers like my own who are looking to us right now. Let us work together to make it happen.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Clarence Kailin of Madison, and the brave men and women who volunteered to serve in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade during the Spanish Civil War, especially those courageous volunteers from my home state of Wisconsin. They, along with 45,000 volunteers from over 50 different countries, fought side by side during the early struggle against fascism. Their foresight in recognizing the rising tyranny of fascism was a call to arms that went unheeded by the free world, and resulted in the long and bloody conflict that became World War II. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to these men and women who helped to defend the democratic Spanish Republic from fascist aggression, at a time when the fate of democracy in Europe was being threatened by all sides of the political spectrum. On October 31st, in James Madison Park, in the state capitol of Wisconsin, a memorial will be dedicated to those sons and daughters of the ``Badger State'' that joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. A volunteer unit comprised of American citizens from all ethnic and religious backgrounds and walks of life, were all equal in their resolve to stem the tide of fascism. Our country's reluctance to aid the Spanish Republican government did not deter these brave people who understood what the consequences were if a legitimately elected government were to fall. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in our country's long history of isolationism, United State's citizens were reacting to threats to liberty and freedom on the international level more passionately than ever before. Mr. Kailin was one of those citizens, had it not been for him and other brave volunteers in the Lincoln Brigade, the tide of fascism would have swept over Europe unchecked. The corps of international volunteers who came together in Spain would be the same volunteers to comprise the victorious armies of the allied forces that triumphed over the fascists dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to honor these dedicated men and women in the same rightful fashion as my state. The strength of character of Clarence Kailin and others from Wisconsin who volunteered in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade are the qualities which we all can take pride in and celebrate in this Congress.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2303--The History Of The House Awareness And Preservation Act. I wish to commend my colleague from Connecticut for introducing this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, we all know how easy it is to forget our history. In the hectic days and weeks that make up our lives on Capitol Hill, many of us rush from meeting to meeting through this magnificent building, often not even glancing at the beautiful artwork that adorns its walls, or to consider the awesome achievements of the men and women who preceded us. As a freshman legislator, I am still struck with a sense of awe when I walk in this chamber to cast a vote, representing more than 600,000 Americans in their national legislature. As I walk in Statuary Hall, I am still halted by the serene statue of Wisconsin's Fighting Bob LaFollette, a progressive champion who represented my district nearly a hundred years ago. What I think is great about this institution, and why it is valuable to record its history, is that members who have been here for decades still get those feelings too. This legislation will help us all take a moment to reflect on the importance of what has been decided here and its context in history. By having the Library of Congress create the first history of the House of Representatives, the Nation will have a resource to remind us of the how and why the 13 colonies came together in something called a Congress. Mr. Speaker, I know it is not fashionable to praise this body. I know that pundits and critics make healthy livings denigrating Congress and the work we do here. This legislation, this history, may give them pause to consider the underpinnings of this institution, and realize that the nobler calling of the Founding Fathers are still with us, and that all of us--Republican and Democrat--are still trying to do our best to live up to those high standards established more than two centuries ago.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Work Incentives Improvement Act, this important legislation that removes the disincentives that people with disabilities face when entering or reentering the workforce. I also rise in strong tribute to my friend Charlie. I want to say a little bit about my friend Charlie. I met him one day on the campaign trail as I was running for Congress. I walked into my headquarters, and there he was working incredibly hard early in the morning. I left for a variety of appointments and came back in the afternoon and Charlie was still there working very diligently. I left for further appointments and I came back, and into the evening hours Charlie was still working. At the end of this long day, I walked up to Charlie, and I said, ``Thank you so much for all you are doing to help me.'' Charlie corrected me very quickly. He said, ``I am not doing this to help you. I am doing this to help myself.'' Charlie has a very significant disability. He also has a simple dream. His dream is to finish up school and to get a job, but he can't afford to risk losing the benefits for health care and other things that make a difference in his life. Charlie and the many that he symbolizes have so much talent and energy to give our economy and our country. This legislation is also going to help Wisconsin's newly developed Pathways to Independence program. Pathways has already demonstrated that people with disabilities can work with the right support and assistance and encouragement. It is time to pass this legislation and, I might add, provide the appropriate funding to remove the barriers that keep people with disabilities from becoming fully contributing members to our communities.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor an amazing woman, one who has bettered the lives of many people over the years, Ms. Clara Daveler. As the manager at a senior nutrition site, Ms. Daveler has been filling a real need in the community by providing nutritious, appetizing hot lunches to seniors at the Bashford Methodist Church for over 15 years. Not only does she serve, prepare, and tidy up after the meals, she does so with a smile and kind words, as the regulars, the delivery man, and her co-workers can attest. Ms. Daveler, a 76-year-old dynamo, still works 20 hours per week, and when asked about her job, says, ``We always have a good time.'' This October is the 25th anniversary of the Bashford Methodist Church's senior nutrition site, and to commemorate this special time, Clara's co-workers wanted to honor the one woman without whom it couldn't have happened. I commend Clara Daveler for her great contributions, and I wish her many more happy years with her friends and colleagues at the Bashford Methodist Church.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer my congratulations to the staff and board of directors of the newly merged PICADA and Dane County Youth Connection. This recent collaboration has been positively received by members of the community and civic leaders, who recognize the importance of high profile prevention and early intervention strategies. Such work is far reaching and immeasurable. The practice of making healthy choices is crucial for individuals and families in Dane County. I invite my colleagues to proudly join me in commending the union of these two exemplary organizations.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1082, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. In August, the House Committee on the Judiciary, on which I sit, held a hearing on hate crimes. We heard testimony from Carole Carrington. I am sure my colleagues are familiar with her story. Her daughter, granddaughter, and a dear family friend were murdered in Yosemite National Park last February. The murderer was finally captured a few months later after brutally murdering another woman near Yosemite. Why did this man kill these four women? Because they were women. He claims to have fantasized about killing women for the last 30 years. He did not know any of his victims. He targeted them simply because they were women. Mr. Speaker, this great Nation was founded on the desire for freedom, freedom from oppression, freedom from religious persecution, freedom to participate as full citizens. Our Nation's founding principles revolve around the concept of individual liberties and the freedom to live our lives in a free and open society. We have long recognized that personal safety and security are essential for a person to exercise the rights and obligations of citizenship. Governments are created by men and women in part to protect and defend citizens from violence to ensure that they are able to exercise their personal liberties. Hate crimes are intended to intimidate the victim and to limit those freedoms. Hate crimes are designed by the perpetrators to create fear in the victim. The woman who was attacked on a dark street lives in fear of another attack. The African-American family that has a cross burned on their lawn remembers that threat far after the scorch marks on the grass have been washed away. The gay teenager who is beaten by classmates may never feel safe in school again. Hate crimes are meant to instill fear. And the fear that hate crimes instill is not simply targeted at the immediate victim. The fear is aimed at members of the group. Hate crimes are different than any other violent crime because they seek to terrorize an entire community, be it burning a cross in someone's yard, the burning of a synagogue, or a rash of gay bashings. 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. A member of the other body, the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, said, ``A crime committed not just to harm an individual but out of a motive of sending a message of hatred to an entire community is appropriately punished more harshly, or in a different manner, than other crimes.'' I do not know for sure what causes hate. I am sure the expert have some ideas. But fear of the unknown combined with stereotyping of groups that reinforces that fear probably has something to do with it. I know that hate crime legislation cannot cure the hate that still resides among some in our country, but this legislation can provide more protections for groups who are targeted and send an important message that Congress believes that hate crimes against any group are a serious national problem that deserves to be addressed. One year ago, a young University of Wyoming student, Matthew Shepard, was brutally murdered because he was gay. We all know the story. But Matthew's murder had a profound personal impact on me. It reminded me that I could be targeted simply because of who I am. It was at the height of my campaign when they found Matthew's body. The word spread quickly among my many university student volunteers, and I could see the hurt and fear in their eyes as they talked about what happened to this young university student, a person their age. A number of my volunteers were gay or lesbian and they were in shock. It affected so many of us profoundly and personally. Hate crimes are an attack on society, an attack on tolerance, an attack on freedom. This Congress ought to act swiftly to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for organizing this special order. Time and time again we hear how the United States has the best health care in the world, but that does not matter if a health plan denies meaningful access to the health care system when individuals are sick. Managed care was designed to provide the best health care available at a lower cost. But what does it matter if in addition to our health insurance premium we still have to pay sizable, sometimes enormous out- of-pocket costs for needed tests or treatments that our health plan will not cover. There was a time when we paid our health insurance premiums trusting that when we got sick our doctors would make his or her recommendations for treatment and that our health insurance would pay for that treatment. This just does not seem to be the case any more. We no longer trust that the best medical decisions are being made in this system, and too many people with health care coverage are being driven into debt because necessary treatment is not being covered by their managed care company. As my colleagues know, families in my community in Wisconsin feel very anxious about the state of health care in America. They are increasingly concerned that medical decisions are being made by accountants, by managers, by other insurance company employees instead of the doctors and the patients making the decisions; and too often profit is taking a priority over a sick patient in need. Patients are losing faith that they can count on their health insurance plans to provide the care that they were promised when they enrolled and faithfully paid their premiums. We have all read the stories, and those of us who have the privilege of serving here have often heard painful firsthand accounts from families and individuals who sent us here to fight for them, to represent them, people who were denied care or services by managed care providers. I recall reading an article last winter in Wisconsin about a young man struggling with known Hodgkin's lymphoma. He was told by his doctor that the most promising and potential cure, a bone marrow transplant, was not going to be covered by his plan. Chemotherapy in his case would only slow down the disease. The prognosis they gave him was up to 10 years to live, and according to this prognosis 5 of those years his cancer with chemotherapy would likely to be in some sort of remission. However it would likely come back sometime within the second 5 years and get steadily worse. He underwent a round of chemotherapy because that is what his insurance company would cover. In his case his earlier prognosis was not accurate. It did not even give him 5 years of remission. Instead the cancer re-appeared in only 8 months. Now this was a highly publicized case in my State, and because of the negative publicity and the public outcry, his insurance company relented and permitted the bone marrow transplant admitting belatedly. According to the medical literature, this was not a treatment that was regarded in the medical literature as experimental. Unfortunately, it was too late for this 41-year-old young man, and he passed away earlier this year. But people should not have to wage publicity campaigns to shame their health care plans into covering medically necessary procedures. They should have appeals processes, not publicity campaigns. I was deeply disturbed when I heard of another poignant case in my district. This is a story of a man who is in the hospital. He was recovering from a procedure, and he received a phone call from the representative of his HMO in his room saying that if he stayed in the hospital room past midnight, his insurance company was not going to cover it. Now this gentleman had just gotten out of intensive care, and it was all he could do practically to reach over and pick up the phone, and I just think how frightening this experience must be for the patient, for the family and for those who hear of it and wonder whether their insurance, their health care plans, their managed care plans are really going to cover them. As my colleagues know, having a recourse when something goes wrong is so vital, and health plans should not be allowed to escape responsibility for their actions when their decisions kill or injure patients. Six years ago we were promised reform that would guarantee every American the health care they needed. That vision was not realized. In this time of economic prosperity, in this time of rapidly changing medicine, in this time of political opportunity, I think it is time that we renew our commitment to the health care security for all; and when I think about what that means, I believe that health care security for all encompasses both the notion that we must cover the uninsured and the effort to fully protect those who already have health care coverage but find that is not the security blanket that they thought they had purchased. Many States have taken steps to establish some of these patient protections. We heard about Texas and California earlier this hour. Unfortunately, most States have only passed a few of the protections contained in this bill before us, and there are many gaps that remain to be filled. Even States with strong consumer protection laws cannot cover a large number of their residents, the 50 million Americans who receive their insurance from a self-insured employer plan under ERISA and are not protected under State law. We need comprehensive Federal legislation that provides a minimum standard of patient protections for all Americans. The Norwood-Dingell bill will do just that, and I hope tomorrow that this Congress rises to the occasion to pass this vital legislation.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it feels like deja vu all over again. Just 1 week ago, I was on the floor reluctantly supporting a 3-month extension of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy title for family farmers. I did not particularly like last week's bill because it would have allowed Chapter 12 to expire so soon, on January 1, the year 2000. I knew that Congress would have to come back again this session before we adjourned for the year to ensure that the bankruptcy protection in the form of Chapter 12 was continued. But I supported it because, otherwise, Chapter 12 would have expired on October 1, last Friday. Well, guess what? Chapter 12 did expire last Friday. That means that, if a family farmer in my State of Wisconsin or, for that matter, anywhere in the United States needs the protection of Chapter 12 today, they do not have it. The law has expired. The other body realized that a 3-month extension that this House approved was not prudent and passed a 9-month extension that we have before us today. So once again, I come to the floor wishing we were doing a little more to provide a safety net for our family farmers. While this bill provides a 9-month extension of Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection for family farmers, it still does not give our family farmers a permanent law on which they can rely to protect their farm in the most dire economic circumstances. I ask the Republican leadership to stop holding family farmers hostage to negotiations with the other body on other matters. The family farmers I represent need the help of this Congress more than the bankers and the credit card corporations on whose behalf we delay making Chapter 12 a permanent part of our Federal code.

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

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the Tierney amendment is a worthwhile step toward what must be a larger goal. As we approach the new millennium, Mr. Chairman, the United States is still the only country in the industrialized world that does not offer comprehensive affordable health care to all of its citizens. This, Mr. Chairman, is unconscionable, it is untenable, and it is wrong. As we reach the closing days of the 20th century, 43 million Americans have no health care coverage at all. In this wondrous century, we have put astronauts on the moon, we have created a global village united by computer technology, we have perfected travel from one end of the world to the other in mere hours, and yet 43 million of us cannot afford or cannot get health care insurance. Most of those people have jobs. But increasingly they work in small businesses or in the service sectors that either do not cover employees or require them to pay so much for health insurance that they simply cannot afford it. There are millions more Americans who are under-insured who have health insurance but would be at risk of having to spend more than 10 percent of their income on health care bills in the event of a catastrophic illness. And there are tens of millions of Americans who have lost faith in the system, lost faith that comprehensive quality health care will be available to them without a struggle when they need it, where they need it, and from whom they want it. And these numbers continue to rise. The National Coalition on Health Care, a bipartisan group headed by former Presidents Bush, Carter, and Ford, put out its latest report on the erosion of health insurance coverage in the United States, which found that even if the rosy economic conditions prevalent since 1992 prevail for another decade, one in five Americans will be uninsured in 2009. Should a recession occur, that number is likely to jump as far as one in four. Mr. Chairman, it is time to put health care for all at the top of our national agenda. Many people have called for it. Many more believe it should happen. Mr. Chairman, universal health care will never happen until we create the national will to make it so. Let us begin. American medicine is the best in the world. Of that there is no doubt. And yet our nursing teams are understaffed, underpaid, and overworked. Our health care costs continue to rise at twice the rate of inflation. Today's one-trillion-dollar system will double in cost to $2 trillion in the next decade. This will adversely affect our economy, the deficit, the Nation's small businesses, and the middle class's standard of living. Universal health care will actually lower health costs by providing less expensive preventative health care and treating illnesses before they become more complex and costly. It was just a year ago that I traveled around my district telling the voters of Wisconsin's second district that I wanted to go to Congress to re-ignite the national debate on health care. One reporter even called me from a prominent paper on the East Coast to talk about the campaign. I asked, Why are you interested in a race so far away? He said, Because you are one of the few candidates anywhere who is willing to talk about health care for all. It is a hot potato that no one wants to touch. Well, my constituents did not just touch it, Mr. Chairman. They embraced it. The voters in my district are tired of hearing, we cannot. The voters in my district reject the cynicism, the naysayers, the keepers of the status quo. The voters in my district posed the same question to this Congress that I posed during my campaign: If you are not for health care for all, then who would you leave behind? And if you agree that everyone should have access to affordable quality health care, then let us talk about the best way to achieve it. It is time to begin.

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, I rise in somewhat reluctant support of H.R. 2942. This bill would extend Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code for only 3 months. Under current law, this section of the Bankruptcy Code will expire on October 1. This bill will extend the section until January 1 of the year 2000. Although I am hopeful that Congress will permanently extend this very needed section of the Bankruptcy Code, I realize that this extension is needed now. The reason for my reluctance is that this bill was modified at the very last minute from 6 months to 3 months. Six months would have allowed Congress the time to work out our differences on the larger bankruptcy overhaul bill in which Chapter 12 is permanently extended. Now, however, this bill has been amended to be only a 3-month extension. I think that is a little shortsighted. But, without this bill, Chapter 12 will expire by the end of this week, so I reluctantly support this bill. Chapter 12 is similar to Chapter 11 and Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Chapter 12 is the part of the Bankruptcy Code that is tailored to meet the unique economic realities of family farming, especially during times of severe economic crisis. With Chapter 12, Congress sought to create a chapter of the Bankruptcy Code that provided the framework to prevent family farms from going out of business completely. At the time of its first enactment in 1986 during a severe farm crisis, Congress was unable to foresee whether Chapter 12 would be needed indefinitely by America's farmers. Congress has extended Chapter 12 now three times. Chapter 12 is the safety net of last resort for our farmers, and we must extend it and ultimately make it permanent. The family farm is the backbone of the rural economy in Wisconsin and all over this Nation. Without Chapter 12, if economic crisis hits a family farm, that family has no choice but to liquidate the land, the equipment, the crops and the herd to pay off creditors. This means losing the farm, 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 and sprawl. With Chapter 12 in place, when an economic crisis 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 to keep their farm, that they can do so. Chapter 12 must be there for them and for us to protect America's supply of food. It is in our country's best interest to protect family farms from foreclosure. Mr. Speaker, family farmers in Wisconsin have been facing a tough time. If the dairy bill that this House passed last week becomes law, Wisconsin dairy farmers will continue to be at the same price disadvantage that they have been subject to for over 60 years. If dairy compacts are extended and expanded, my farmers will continue to have to compete against artificially inflated prices in other regions of the country. In the past 6 years alone, Wisconsin has lost over 7,000 family farms. I was successful in committee earlier this year in extending Chapter 12 until this period of time. I believe that it needs to be permanently extended. It is frustrating to me that we must come to the floor every few months to extend this important protection for farmers. Individuals in this country and businesses in this country who must consider filing for bankruptcy under Chapters 7, 11 or 13 do not have to worry about whether that part of the Bankruptcy Code will still be there, because it is permanent. I believe we should do no less for our family farmers, and make Chapter 12 permanent. I believe farmers, like all of us, should be able to plan for their futures. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, the Kind amendment could end the regional fighting that we have endured for too long in dairy pricing. It would help every dairy farmer in every region of the country equally. The amendment is simple. It would take all of the different prices that dairy farmers receive for their milk, depending on how far away they are from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and combine those different prices into a pool. That pool would then be divided in equal parts and provided to each dairy farmer who participates in milk marketing orders. Debate on this underlying bill has been painful. Every Member is trying to do what is right for the dairy farmers that they represent. I certainly respect that. We are pitted region against region in what could be called a dairy Civil War. I sympathize with my colleagues whose States have seen their dairy farmers go out of business. My farmers are no different. In Wisconsin, we have lost 7,000 dairy farms in the last 6 years. I have strong interest in assisting those from the Northeast, those in the South, fighting for the survival of the family dairy farm, but this underlying bill helps their farmers and harms mine, and that is simply wrong. The Kind amendment would end the unfairness of the underlying bill, allowing all dairy farmers, no matter where they live, to benefit equally in the Federal milk market order program. We are the United States. We should not be the divided States when it comes to dairy policy. I urge support of the Kind amendment.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehner-Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues can see from this chart, eliminating milk market orders, which is what the Boehner-Obey amendment would do, would save approximately $80 million every year. The current, yet antiquated, milk marketing system, which would in essence remain in place under 1402, gives dairy farmers more money the farther away they are from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. This was a wise policy back in the 1930s because there were not refrigerated vehicles and there were no interstate transportation systems to ensure that all areas of the country received an adequate supply of milk. In the 1930s, it was proper to provide incentives to farmers to milk in traditionally nondairy areas. But as we approach the new millennium, taxpayers should no longer prop up an unfair system that compensates farmers depending on where they live. It is wasteful and it makes no sense to taxpayers and consumers. Now, let us be clear. Under H.R. 1402, more taxes would be needed to keep very important nutrition programs from having to cut needy families off their rolls. Take the WIC program for example. The Consumer Federation of America estimates that under 1402, unless additional taxes are provided, 3,700 women, infants and children could be kicked off the WIC rolls every year and more federal dollars would be needed to keep the food stamp program, the school lunch and breakfast program, and nutrition programs for the elderly at their current assistance levels. Mr. Chairman, why should consumers and taxpayers subsidize dairy farmers based solely on where they milk their cows? I urge support of the Boehner-Obey amendment.

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Ryan amendment. This amendment would cap milk market differentials at $2.27. That means that the maximum that any dairy farmer in any region of the country could receive under market orders would be $2.27 above the basic formula price for milk. This amendment may not increase the differential for the upper Midwest dairy farmers who receive the lowest price for their milk compared to every other region of the country. But the amendment would bring more fairness to a very unfair bill. For example, under current milk marketing orders, dairy farmers near Miami, Florida receive $4.18 per hundred-weight of milk above the basic formula price. In comparison, the dairy farmers I represent in Wisconsin only receive $1.20 per hundred-weight of milk above the basic formula price. That means, for every 8 gallons of milk, my dairy farmers receive nearly $3 less than dairy farmers near Miami, Florida. The Ryan amendment would make this foolish system a little less foolish. Instead of giving dairy farmers that live the farthest away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the most money for their milk, the amendment would take the average of all differing orders, milk marketing orders, $2.27, and cap the maximum at that. Although this would still allow some differences in regional milk prices, it would greatly improve a very flawed system. Mr. Chairman, I know that my dairy farmers do not want to hurt other dairy farmers in this country. But for over 60 years they have been receiving less for their milk than any other farmers in the Nation. They just want fairness, and this amendment brings us one step closer to fairness.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, for nearly 6 decades Wisconsin dairy farmers have been victims of a discriminatory pricing system that devalues their product, destroys their economic well-being, and threatens their very way of life. There are literally thousands of dairy farmers that I could tell Members about, but I would like to tell Members a little bit about one family farm, Dwayne and Janet. Dwayne and Janet operate a family farm in northern Green County in my congressional district. Dwayne's family has operated a dairy farm for four generations, over 100 years. Dwayne, Janet, and their sons work hard to manage their herd of 45 cows. They work between 90 and 100 hours per week. They do not take vacations. They are very worried about their future. Dwayne and Janet have watched farming decline in their township for the last 20 years. The number of dairy farmers in their township has declined from 55 to now 29. All Dwayne and Janet want is a level playing field. Dwayne and Janet know that other dairy farmers in other parts of the Nation are getting more for their milk simply by virtue of how far they live from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Dwayne and Janet still count themselves as lucky so far, but because they have seen their neighbors go out of business, they wonder if they are next. H.R. 1402 is bad for Dwayne and Janet and all other Wisconsin dairy farmers. The Department of Agriculture has offered a fair reform plan. It is not everything we want, but it is a step in the right direction toward a more fair system, a system which can offer some hope for family farms and to people like Dwayne and Janet.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, while this rule makes in order several amendments, it does not make in order any amendments that focus on the negative impact that the underlying bill has on taxpayers and consumers, especially low-income families. This bill would scrap the very modest market-oriented reforms put forward by the Department of Agriculture. In fact, instead of just leaving the current pricing scheme in place, which is still terribly unfair to upper Midwestern dairy farmers, the bill actually raises prices of milk beyond the current pricing structure in some locations. The increase in milk prices given to some dairy farmers will be passed on to consumers. It is an economic reality. Low-income families will be hurt most because they spend a higher proportion of their income on food. For example, the Women, Infants, and Children program, commonly known as WIC, provides assistance to low-income families to buy nutritious food. But under this bill, because of the increased cost of purchasing milk, a nutritious staple food, the WIC program will be short over $10 million per year. The WIC program is not an entitlement. So without additional tax dollars put into this program, H.R. 1402 could squeeze about 3,700 women, infants, and children out of the program every year. Madam Speaker, this bill is unfair to Midwestern dairy farmers, to taxpayers, to consumers. I am sorry that the rule did not permit consideration of an amendment to protect consumers and taxpayers from the effects of H.R. 1402. I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, we are living in a day and age when there is a tremendous amount of cynicism about electoral politics and involvement in democracy. The perception that candidates are being bought, that elections are more like auctions, has resulted in a widely held sentiment that a person's vote does not count any more. I believe that the Shays-Meehan bill is an important step in the right direction to regain the trust of the American people and to reclaim our democracy. Mr. Chairman, the Shays-Meehan bill is the only comprehensive campaign finance reform package before us today. It bans all contributions of soft money and shines a spotlight on the way special interest groups have been able to influence the outcomes of elections. The Doolittle substitute by contrast does nothing to limit contributions or to reign in sham issue advocacy ads. By removing all contribution limits, the Doolittle substitute would allow individuals and PACs to make unlimited contributions to candidates and parties. I fear that alone would further erode the public confidence in our democratic process. But the substitute does more harm by failing to require disclosure of special interest money used in certain campaign ads. These ads have avoided disclosure requirements by posing as issue advocacy. I believe that Americans have the right to know who is influencing the outcome of our elections.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2684, the fiscal year 2000 VA-HUD-Independent agencies appropriations bill. American's students and America's Members of Congress just returned from summer vacation refreshed and renewed and ready to hit the books. Unfortunately in the first week back in class, the House is ready to earn its first grade of F. If we look at the details of the VA-HUD report card, we can see how bad this bill is. This bill gets an F for housing programs. It cuts community development block grants (CDBG) by $250 million. These funds are critical in addressing local housing priorities. I'm usually skeptical of block grants, but here is one that has worked wonders to empower local communities to address critical housing needs. We need more CDBG funds, not less. The bill also fails to provide sufficient funds for section 8 vouchers. Although funding increases slightly, there is a desperate need for new vouchers to provide more Americans with the help they need to house their families. Not only will new families fail to get additional help in paying for housing, homeless families will see $970 million less in homeless assistance grants. The bill gets an F for science funding. It cuts National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) funding by over $1 billion. Since the space shuttle and International Space Station take up the majority of funding, these cuts fall disproportionally on science, aeronautics and technology. The bill also cuts $24 million in National Science Foundation (NSF) funding, and fails to include the administration's proposed increase of $245 million. These cuts to basic science research are shortsighted and ill-advised. Our nation's investment in basic research and technology has driven our economic development. This will be even more true in the future, unless we continue to cut these funds, as this bill does. The NSF and NASA have been incredibly valuable and successful and need more support, not less. This bill gets an F for environmental protection. It cuts the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by $278 million from fiscal year 1999. It cuts environmental research by $15 million. It cuts clean water and air funding, so critical for protecting our nation's resources for future generations, by $208 million. We know that once a natural resource is destroyed, it is expensive, or impossible, to recover. We must invest today, for a clean environment tomorrow. It is just that simple. The bill gets an F for community service. It eliminates funding for the AmeriCorps program which encourages young people to become involved in their communities. AmeriCorps has been incredibly successful in providing financial assistance to allow young people to engage in community service all over our nation. More than 100,000 AmeriCorps volunteers have helped to address crime, poverty, and illiteracy. AmeriCorps members have taught, tutored or mentored 2.6 million children, rehabilitated 25,000 homes, immunized 419,000 people, and helped 2.4 million homeless people. This is a program that works. The bill gets a C- for veterans benefits. This is the only passing grade since keeping our commitment to our veterans was prioritized in this bill. The $1.5 billion increase over last year's appropriations is a good step forward in fulfilling our promises to our veterans. But it is not enough. Our veterans are worried and frustrated, and they have every right to be. The VA health care system desperately needs more funding to provide adequate medical care to our nation's veterans, who have earned it. For too long this Congress has failed to adequately fund veteran's program and benefits, and now the situation is a crisis. Congress must do better for our veterans. Final grade: F. This bill is a failure. If University of Wisconsin students earned this type of report card, they'd have to retake the test. And that's exactly what the Congress is going to have to do, if this bill passes. We can do better, and we must do better. This bill falls far short of the needs of our great nation. To shortchange our citizens while we increase defense spending is not the way a great nation ought to behave. I look forward to a day later this year when I can vote for a VA-HUD appropriations bill that can earn a passing grade, or maybe even an A. Today, I must give it the grade it deserves and vote ``no.''

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to applaud the VA-HUD Appropriations Committee in its efforts to provide proper funding levels for our nation's Veterans. H.R. 2684, the VA-HUD--Independent Agencies Appropriation for Fiscal Year 2000, places the concerns of veterans at the front of the line. The promises our country has made to those who put themselves in harm's way for our nation are promises that must be kept. This legislation takes a good step forward in fulfilling those promises. This bill provides a total of $44.1 billion for VA programs and benefits, an increase of $1.5 billion over last year's bill. The monies secured in this legislation will go to programs that are becoming increasingly essential to our aging veterans. Our World War II and Korean War era veterans are more reliant than ever on the medical services provided for by the VA for service connected disabilities. This legislation appropriates a total of $19 billion for medical care and treatment, an increase of $1.7 billion in funds with an additional $608 million to be collected from the Medical Care Collections Fund, totaling $19.6 billion. The funding increased in this legislation is a sign of this Congress' commitment to keep its word. Mr. Chairman, while we must honor our promises to veterans, we must also keep those promises we have made to all Americans. This legislation may keep its word to veterans but it breaks it promise to many more Americans: education, science, housing and environmental protection programs are being stripped of the funds necessary to assure domestic security. This legislation fails to meet the request for housing programs by $982 million and severely limits the ability of HUD to provide assistance to homeless families. This legislation reduces Community Development Block Grants by 6% and cuts ``Brownfields'' clean up by 20%. These are programs that are necessary for the health and welfare of our communities. This bill also eliminates Americorps, reduces funding for the National Science Foundation and cuts the NASA funding level by 7%. Mr. Chairman, while I am encouraged by the renewed commitment this bill makes to our nation's former servicemen and women, I cannot vote for a bill which breaks our commitment to so many others.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, during the week of July 12th through July 16th, 1999, I was absent form the House due to an illness in my family that required me to be back in Wisconsin. Although I received the appropriated leave of absence from the House, I want my colleagues and the constituents of the 2nd District of Wisconsin to know how I intended to vote on the rollcall votes that I missed. Roll Call Vote 277: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 278: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 279: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 280: I did vote, and voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 281: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 282: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 283: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 284: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 285: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 286: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 287: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 288: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 289: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 290: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 291: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 292: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 293: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 294: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 295: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 296: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 297: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 298: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 299: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 300: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 301: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 302: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 303: I would have voted Aye. Roll Call Vote 304: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 305: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 306: I would have voted No. Roll Call Vote 307: I would have voted No.

Ms. BALDWIN

Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear: If this amendment becomes law, children who are being raised by unmarried couples will still have two parents. They will still receive love, protection and understanding from both parents. And thankfully this amendment cannot stop that. But what the Largent amendment will do is end up not harming the parents but the children, by not allowing two legal parents to care for the child. There are so many reasons for a child to have a legal relationship with two parents. Legal rights, obligations and responsibilities flow from the recognition of parenthood. Some of them include the guarantee that both parents continue to have an ongoing financial relationship to the child. It assures legal access to and support from both parents in the event of a separation. It allows both parents to obtain health care and other employment-related benefits for the child which is especially important if one parent stays at home to raise the child. It protects the child in the event that one parent were to die without a will. These are vital, vital legal responsibilities. This amendment would destabilize and on occasion rip families apart. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Largent amendment. Let me be clear: if this amendment becomes law, children who are raised by unmarried couples will still have two parents. They will still receive love, protection and understanding from both parents, and thankfully this amendment cannot stop that. But what the Largent amendment will do is end up harming not the parents, but the children, by not allowing two legal parents to care for the child. There are so many reasons for a child to have a legal relationship with two parents. Let me list just some of the benefits to children to have two legally recognized parents: It guarantees that both parents continue to have ongoing financial responsibility for the child; It assures legal access to and support from both parents in the event of a separation; It allows' both parents to obtain health and other employment-related benefits for the child, which is especially important if one parent does not work; It protects the child in the event that one parent were to die without a will (the child would be entitled to inherit under the laws of intestate succession;) It allows the children to inherit from the parent's relatives, without costly legal battles; It allows the child to be eligible for benefits such as a worker's compensation or Social Security upon the parents unemployment, disability, or death; It allows a parent presumptive guardianship of the child if the other parent dies, thus keeping the family unit intact. Otherwise, the child could potentially lose both parents, and may be forced to live in foster care. One such tragedy occurred here in the District of Columbia and were it not for the courts here, recognizing the best interests of children, the children would have not have only lost one parent to a tragic death * * * they would have lost a second to a travesty of justice. If Congress truly cares about kids we should be acting in their best interests. That a member of this body would offer an amendment that will result in destabilizing families, on occasion ripping families apart, is wrong.