Mark Green

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, first, in response to the previous speaker, he complains that Secretary Glickman's reform might put some farmers out of business. Again, we have heard it over and over again: by this time tomorrow, five farmers in Wisconsin will be put out of business by the system that this legislation would reimpose. He says it would be a terrible thing if one region of the Nation might produce most of the milk. I hope he will support me in my legislation to create a mandated government-supported citrus industry in northern Wisconsin. After all, we should not have citrus all coming from one or two regions. Let me boil things down here. I am not going to tell my colleagues that this bill or the Secretary's reforms are going to make a huge difference to the dairy farmers in any region of the Nation because they will not, and those who would suggest that I think are probably misreading this. Our farmers are not expecting favoritism. They are hard working. They have an uphill battle. They face Wisconsin winters. They face losing football seasons. They are a tough lot, absolutely. They are not looking for favoritism. But my farmers look at this; and they say that, if they cannot get the very, very modest reforms that are shown by Secretary Glickman, then perhaps they will lose all hope. Maybe that is why the Ag commissioner from Minnesota, when testifying before the Committee on Agriculture, said recently that people of Minnesota have given up hope on Congress. They have said that they actually have considered trying to physically relocate the city of Eau Claire to the West Coast, because it might be easier to do than to get a reform done here in Congress. Well, we will see today. They may well be right.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding this time to me. I would like to just briefly shift our focus away from the family dairy farm. If this were merely a debate between dairy interests, it would not be as bitter as it is, and it would not be as important as it is. Make no mistake. It is important because it affects nearly every aspect of our economy. A quick reality check looking outside the Beltway. Heard a lot about the support for 1402 in this House, but when we go outside this House, and we turn to beyond the Beltway, the coalition against 1402 and the pricing scheme, it has ranged from the National Restaurant Association to the Teamsters; yes, the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Tax Reform, the Snack Food Association, the AFL-CIO. There is very little that could unite such a group. They are united in their opposition to 1402 and to this outdated pricing scheme. They view it as a tax on milk. It artificially increases the price of milk to consumers. Not only a tax, but a regressive tax because it hits those who can least afford it; and if we know anything about principles of taxation, we know this regressive tax will drive down the consumption of milk. Can we afford that as a Nation? No. We want to increase consumption of milk and healthy products. Finally, this will also hurt many of our antipoverty programs. The WIC dollars will not go as far, food stamps will not buy as much, all caused by this outdated pricing scheme, the very pricing scheme that 1402 seeks to reimpose. End this. End the tax on milk. Introduce market forces. Free up dairy farmers to produce and to compete. Support the Boehner amendment and oppose 1402.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. This amendment points to, I think, a broader question, and I ask this question only somewhat seriously. Do not Members of this institution feel at least a little hypocritical here today? At the very time that we are urging, no, insisting that nations around the world open up their economies and tear down trade barriers, at the very time we do that, we seek to reimpose and reinforce those very trade barriers between the States in this country. We are holding press conferences, special orders, we are even holding strikes when nations try to do precisely what 1402 seeks to do. We send trade missions all around the world. We send representatives from the IMF, from the World Bank, all over as missionaries of trade and capitalism, yet in this House we practice a very different religion. Maybe we should put together a letter directing the U.S. Trade Representative to come back home, to come to Congress, the flat Earth society, to come back here and try to preach the gospel of capitalism and trade. Some time ago, I reluctantly voted for NTR for China. I was very reluctant; had some misgivings about it. But I voted for it, because I believed at the very time that we are trying to tell our farmers to move to market-based, to management-style policies that we cannot deny them potentially the largest market in the world. Yet, I am ashamed to say that today a majority is going to go one step further and close off some markets here at home. Today, much of the logic behind NTR comes crashing down as far as I am concerned. Let me plead with my colleagues from around the Nation. Do not be afraid to compete. Do not be afraid to compete with the dairy farmers of the upper Midwest or anywhere. Do not be afraid to compete. Do not reerect trade barriers because of the large co-ops and trade organizations. Do not. This is a defining moment. We are either going to be a pro-trade Congress or we are not. Up to now, I thought we were a pro-trade Congress. I was wrong. At least I believe that I will be shown wrong later on today.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pombo amendment and in favor of the Dooley amendment. I believe that my dairy farmers should have the right to forward contracting with the processors. I believe that they have to have this tool to manage the risks of fluctuating prices. Those who support this amendment seek to, as my colleague just alluded to, reverse the results of the Committee on Agriculture. Secondly, I find it interesting that those who are supporting the Pombo amendment say that farmers are vulnerable with respect to processors. That is interesting because farmers in Classes II, III, and IV can already engage in forward contracting. Apparently they are not vulnerable but somehow those in Class I are. It is also interesting that farmers are suddenly vulnerable with respect to the processors, but they are not vulnerable with respect to the co-ops. We heard in the debate on the previous amendment that they were not vulnerable with the co-ops; they had strengths with the co-ops in their bargaining. Suddenly they are vulnerable. Quite frankly, in response to the previous speaker, I am not worried about the large co-ops. I think the votes today prove that the large co-ops can take care of themselves very well. They do not need our protection. Our dairy farmers do. I think the ones who are really vulnerable today are the dairy farmers, not vulnerable with respect to the co-ops, not vulnerable with respect to the processors, but vulnerable with respect to us here inside the beltway as we seem poised to overturn the results of the August referendum and reimpose a Soviet-style system.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for generously yielding me additional time. Madam Speaker, I want to make an important point here. We have heard a lot this evening about how dairy farms all across America are hurting. And that is true. I agree with the speakers who have made that point. But let me direct everyone's attention to our situation in the upper Midwest. In the State of Wisconsin, by the time this bill comes up for a vote tomorrow, we will have lost five more dairy farms. We are losing five farms a day. In the last 10 years, we have lost more dairy farms than nearly every other State ever had. So when we are talking about alleviating the pain and suffering of our dairy farmers, clearly 1402 is not the answer. Understand that as each of us gets up here and talks about the pain that our farmers are facing, 1402 is the current system. We should not be here voting on 1402.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I would agree with my colleague that the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I think, did a good job in trying to balance the opportunities for Members to make comment. But I think the larger issue is that we should not even be here today. We should not be here in this House today taking up this rule or taking up H.R. 1402 tomorrow. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), I think, has eloquently talked about the institutional history here about the fact that bringing this bill up breaks a deal that was struck across the Nation some years ago when this institution was floundering over dairy reform, unable to reach a consensus. So it was agreed to refer this to an outside observer. Now that that outside observer, the USDA, has come forward, it seems as though a number of Members want to take their marbles and go home. Also, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has said, consideration of this bill contradicts our work in the international community. At the very time that we are preaching the gospel of free trade, forcing nations all across the world to break down barriers, to lower tariffs, we are poised in this House to reinforce and reimpose those very trade barriers between the States. Late last week, USDA Secretary Glickman has disclosed or did disclose that he was recommending a Presidential veto. So why are we taking this bill up? Why are we taking on another fight with the White House at the very time that our constituents want us to get down to work and do the people's business, tax cuts, saving Social Security, not to get once again bogged down in these regional interests? Finally, let us not forget who opposes H.R. 1402. A coalition ranging from Americans for Tax Reform to the AFL-CIO, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Teamsters, group after group is telling us this is the wrong thing to do, and, yet, this House wants to move forward. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, September 17, 1999, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21, 1999 for morning hour debates.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 424, I was unavoidably detained on House business of critical importance to Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, what do the following groups have in common: The National Taxpayers Union and the Teamsters? The Consumer Federation of America and the AFL-CIO? Citizens Against Government Waste and the Snack Food Association? Newspapers from the New York Times and USA Today to the Washington Post to the Houston Chronicle? Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. All of these groups oppose the outdated milk pricing system currently in effect. And yet soon, Mr. Speaker, this House will take up legislation that will raise milk prices for consumers and will reimpose a Soviet-style dairy policy. Now, the antireform dairy folks, those who are supporting this legislation, House Resolution 1402, I believe should be ashamed of themselves. Now, there is one thing that we agree upon, myself and those who support H.R. 1402. We agree that our dairy farmers are hurting. No one understands the plight of dairy farmers better than I, better than any of us who come from States like Minnesota and Wisconsin. In the last 10 years, my State of Wisconsin has lost more dairy farms than most States ever had. Mr. Speaker, to drive the point home in a very real way, please realize this: that by this time tomorrow, by this time tomorrow, Wisconsin will have lost five more dairy farms. But despite that fact, the fact that we do need to do something, H.R. 1402 is the wrong way to go. It is the wrong way to go because it pits farmer against farmer, region against region, State versus State, through an outdated pricing policy that gives producers more money for their fluid milk based upon their proximity to the City of Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Second, H.R. 1402 is the wrong way to go because it is based on typewriter era technology. This system was created over 60 years ago, 60 years ago when we did not have the interstate transportation system, when we did not have refrigerated trucks. It is an outdated policy. The third reason is if, as if we needed more reasons, the third reason to reject H.R. 1402, quite frankly, it is a tax on milk to consumers. As a result of H.R. 1402 and the system it seeks to reinforce and reimpose, our consumers, consumers all across America, working families, will pay more for their milk to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year. We should oppose H.R. 1402 because it is antitrade, antifree-market, anticompetitive. At the very time when we are pushing nations all around the world to open up their markets, to become more entrepreneurial, more free-market based, here in this country, this bill would reimpose and reinforce trade barriers. It would block the flow of dairy products between the States. That is wrong-headed. Finally, we should oppose H.R. 1402 and the system it seems to reimpose because it is absurd. Can my colleagues imagine if we priced oranges based upon the proximity, their proximity of production to the city of Miami, or if we paid more for computer software based upon how far it was located and produced from the city of Seattle, or chocolate from Hershey, Pennsylvania. No, we cannot, because we would never have such an absurd system, and yet, that is exactly, that is precisely what we do for fluid milk. Producers get more for more fluid milk based upon how close they are to the City of Eau Claire. It is time for reform; it is time to move into the 21st century using new technologies and market-based forces; it is the time now to reject H.R. 1402, to allow Secretary Glickman's reforms to go into effect.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, September 17, 1999.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would just thank the Chair and thank the chairman of the subcommittee once again for his hard work, not just his pledge of support to work with me with respect to the VA medical facility, but on this bill, the largest increase in history for veterans health care. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this amendment after entering into a brief colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee, regarding the Iron Mountain VA Medical Center in Iron Mountain, Michigan. I have drafted this amendment because I am greatly concerned that the VA considered and is considering closing and reducing this facility and service to the point where veterans will not be able to receive the care they need or so richly deserve. There are currently 72,000 veterans in northern Wisconsin and the upper peninsula of Michigan who are eligible for care at this facility. This facility provides important and unique services to the veterans throughout this region. Earlier this year, the VA announced efforts to develop a, quote, conceptualized plan to reengineer health services in VISN 12. There has been talk that part of this reengineering strategy would involve the reduction in the number of acute care beds in Iron Mountain from 17 to 8, and taking those 8 remaining beds and using them merely for stabilization, where patients would be stabilized and then transferred via ambulance to Milwaukee. As one might imagine, the veterans in this region are worried and with good reason. Currently, nearly 14,000 veterans are enrolled in the Iron Mountain facility. This represents a 20 percent increase over last year. In 1998, there were a total of 1,066 admissions, 1,066 admissions for only 17 beds. It is obvious that these beds are badly needed and overutilized. Unfortunately, if veterans are not treated at Iron Mountain, they will be forced to make an ambulance ride of over 200 miles to receive acute care in Milwaukee. It has been estimated that 770 veterans a year would have to make that ambulance trip at a cost of nearly $2,000 per ride to receive care. We are asking the sickest, those who are in the greatest need, to travel hundreds of miles to receive care, and that their family members make a similar trip. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) what can be done to ensure that VISN 12 will continue to maintain their inpatient services at the Iron Mountain VA Medical Center in the future? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the committee for their hard work this year to ensure that the VA will continue to provide quality health care to the veterans in my district and all across America. I also ask the chairman for his help in working against efforts in the future to reduce health services at the Iron Mountain facility.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of S. 606. Among other matters already discussed, S. 606 authorizes the U.S. government to finally make good on a $32 million court settlement with the Menominee Indian Tribe in my district. The history of this settlement can be traced to 1954, when the federal government terminated the tribe's federal trust status and the Bureau of Indian Affairs grossly mismanaged many of the tribe's assets. In 1967, the tribe filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging this termination and seeking damages. After decades of litigation, in 1993 Congress passed a congressional reference directing the U.S. Claims Court to determine what damages, if any, were owed to the tribe. In August of last year, more than three decades after the initial suit was filed, the tribe finally settled its claim against the federal government for $32 million. As the members of this House are aware, Congress must authorize the payment of this court settlement before any U.S. funds can be released. The court has done its job and the tribe has waited long enough Now it is time for Congress to do its job and agree to this settlement. S. 606 passed the Senate by unanimous consent and I am not aware of any opposition to this measure in this House. I would like to thank Mr. McCollum for his help and leadership on moving this legislation forward. I also applaud Senator Kohl for his many years of work on this issue. I have enjoyed the opportunity to partner with him to bring this matter to a close. Finally, I would also like to thank Menominee Chairman Apesanahkwat for his willingness to work with me to ensure these funds won't be used to take any land off the tax rolls. These dollars will only be used to improve education, health care and economic opportunities for the tribe and the areas surrounding the reservation. Again, I encourage all of my colleagues to help me bring to an end a decades-long legal struggle and also provide much-needed financial assistance to one of the most impoverished areas of my Congressional District.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am reluctantly voting today to affirm the Administration's renewal of Normal Trade Relations (NTR) status with the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the coming year. At the same time, I also want to reaffirm my current opposition to the extension of permanent NTR status to China. I strongly believe the United States should preserve the annual option of suspending NTR open as a potential instrument of policy, and trust China is aware that it continues to edge ever closer to a suspension of its NTR status with the United States. I hold grave reservations over current U.S.-China relations. Among other things, the PRC's theft of U.S. nuclear and computer technology secrets, its continued opposition to U.S. policies abroad, and its long-term history of human rights violations all raise serious concerns. I have already taken public steps this session to toughen U.S. policy on the PRC by speaking out against religious persecution in China on the House floor, voting to limit satellite exports to China, voting to prohibit military-to-military exchanges with the People's Liberation Army, and implementing the recommendations of the Cox Report. Nevertheless, as someone who represents a state where the agricultural sector is vitally important to both our culture and our economy, I believe the expansion of markets within China for agricultural products is crucial. Our farmers face a crisis today. Commodity prices are at extraordinarily low levels as demand continues to lag behind supply worldwide. At the same time, Congress is encouraging our farmers to rely more and more on market forces, and less and less on old-style bureaucratic programs. A huge part of these market forces is dependent upon growth in our farm exports. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that 37 percent of the growth in our nation's farm exports could go to China by 2003. In other words, to restrict trade by suspending China's NTR status would take a key market away from our struggling farmers at an unfortunate time, likely driving agriculture prices even lower. In recent months, the U.S. Trade Representative has negotiated conditional agreements with China that would, among other things, dramatically reduce Chinese tariffs on U.S. cheese and ice cream exports. If NTR fails, these agreements are finished--giving Wisconsin farmers bad news at a time when bad news seems to be the order of the day. This has been a tough decision, one I have weighed for some time. There are valid and persuasive arguments on both sides of the NTR debate, and I can truly say this has been one of the most difficult issues I have faced since taking office. In the end, however, the issue's potential impact on agriculture tipped the scales in favor of renewing China's NTR status for another year.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, last week I was proud to support the largest tax cut in a decade. It is one of the things that I was sent here to Congress to do. But as my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, paging through this bill, all 500 pages of it, I was reminded again of how tax relief is not enough. Congress must do more. Congress must deliver tax reform and do it now. Earlier this year I caught another glimpse of that need when a constituent of mine sent me some letters, a case that he is working on with the IRS. In his letters, he has letters from the IRS promising to get back to him on April 19, May 19, June 18, July 16, and most recently, August 16. It is time to stop this bureaucratic run-around. It is time that we scrapped the IRS code and replaced it with a simpler, fairer code and a tax code that works for taxpayers, not the other way around.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, 19 Republican freshmen stood shoulder to shoulder on the front lawn outside this very building. We did so to launch our class-wide project that we are calling Beyond the Beltway. The Republican freshmen are a diverse group coming from diverse backgrounds and representing equally diverse parts of America. But despite that diversity, we are all excited by some of the innovative reforms that we are seeing take place in State capitals throughout the land. Governors and legislative leaders, Republicans and Democrats from States from California to New York, are meeting their policy challenges in exciting, innovative ways. With our Beyond the Beltway project, we are hoping as freshmen to open new doors for these leaders. We know that, for far too long, Federal rules and bureaucracies have held them back and smothered their efforts through unnecessary burdens and restrictions. Now the freshmen are reaching out to leaders like my own Governor, Governor Tommy Thompson, in an effort to help them unleash a whole new wave of creativity and innovation in State after State. It is the freshmen who are initiating this project because, even though we are Members of Congress, we are very much still State legislators, local officials, and private sector small business persons at heart. Here specifically is what the beyond the Beltway project will do. The freshman class, as a group, have asked our governors, legislative leaders, directly and through the various associations to help us identify some of those Federal rules and restrictions that are holding them back. We want to turn these suggestions into an ongoing action agenda. Member by member and issue by issue, we want to provide relief. We are coming forward now with the Beyond the Beltway initiative because we have also introduced the first measure result from this new dialogue. This legislation would direct each Federal agency to develop an expedited review process for waiver requests. Mr. Speaker, as we know, oftentimes States need Federal approval or waivers to initiate their State programs if those plans deviate from the details of Federal programs. The idea of this legislation is that where a State has been granted a waiver on a particular program, if another State seeks a similar waiver, we believe that they should only have to go through a streamlined or expedited waiver review process. We want to encourage the laboratories of democracy. We want to encourage modeling. We want to encourage benchmarking. We want to encourage borrowing of ideas. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that my colleagues would join us in this expedited review bill and, more importantly, join the Republican freshmen in developing beyond-the-Beltway ideas. This is more than a short-term project. We hope it is the beginning of a new, longer, more open relationship between Congress and the States. Instead of the governors coming to us on bended knee, we are hoping to go to them for ideas and suggestions. We want to turn them loose. We believe that there is no telling how many of our major social, political challenges can be met if only we will move power and authority out of Washington and beyond the Beltway.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time and I wish to add my voice of congratulations to the others for the good work of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen). Mr. Speaker, there are lots of reasons to support this legislation. Let me focus on just two. Number one, it reinforces existing State laws; number two, it helps parents play a more active role in their children's lives. More than 20 States have laws requiring the consent of one parent before a minor can have an abortion. Nonetheless, too many organizations and too many businesses seek to avoid those laws. Now, each speaker today has been talking about his or her own experience back in their home State. Every one of those speakers should support this bill because this bill reinforces the laws back in their home State. Let us also be very clear about something. This bill does not punish a grandparent or an aunt if a pregnant child turns to them for counseling or support. It does, it does, when that adult seeks to evade the existing law of their home State. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all understand how great the need is for the other goal of this bill, helping parents to be more actively involved in their children's lives. This bill does so by reinforcing State requirements of parental consent. And I know my colleagues have heard it before, but it is worth repeating. Under current law it is easier for a child to get an abortion than it is for that child to get an aspirin. Today, children need a parental consent waiver to attend a field trip, to join the basketball team or to get an aspirin. For goodness sakes, why should a child not be required to receive parental consent before they undergo major surgery for abortion? Once again I want to congratulate and thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her work. We need to allow parents to have this opportunity to parent their children.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding my the time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 33. First I would like to agree with my colleague the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) that what we should hear today and I believe what we are going to hear today is a series of speakers on both sides talking about their personal experiences and what all of the issues arising from this mean to us. I think that is appropriate. That is a good debate for us all to have. We have heard from my good friend and colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) about how much this means to him and to his family. My story is more brief but I think sheds light on my own view. I am the first native born American in my family. My parents were immigrants. They came to this country as so many other immigrants do, even today, because they want for their children the freedoms and opportunities that this country offers, more importantly what this country should offer. My parents were not born American. That means that they had to affirmatively choose to take up the values and the principles and the ideals that are the foundation of our citizenship. They did so gladly and they did so naturally. I sometimes think that those Americans who had to choose to be American, that had to take that affirmative step, perhaps they have a greater appreciation for what this country offers. At an early age, my parents taught me respect for our Nation, her leaders, and her most distinct symbol, Old Glory. I learned that from an early age. But I have to admit, Madam Speaker, I never really appreciated just how important the flag was as a symbol until I left this country, until I lived and worked overseas in a land where there was no Declaration of Independence, there was no Bill of Rights, the sort of wonderful document that we are all talking about and debating and interpreting today. As my wife Sue and I traveled around East Africa is where we were, every time we saw Old Glory, whether it be at embassies or at private homes, our spirits were lifted by what it symbolized not just for us but for the rest of the world, nations and people struggling to be free. If we fail to protect the flag, that symbol both here and abroad is tarnished. And I submit to my colleagues, each time the flag suffers physically, our stature in the eyes of the world suffers just as clearly. If we fail to protect the flag, people around the world may believe that we do not care, that we have become tired or complacent or self- doubting. The flag is a symbol. But in a time where the eyes of the world are upon us, symbols matter; and no symbol matters more than our flag. Our constituents are not complacent. Our constituents care. Every survey ever done tells us that. They want to protect the flag. So should we. Finally, I think part of the debate is going to be what the First Amendment means today. And I think it is easy to draw lines between action and thought and expression. We have done so in the past. We have created hate crime laws. We do have laws for destruction of symbols like gravestones and synagogues and churches. We have done that. I urge us all today, as we go through this debate, to follow the principles and respect what my colleague has suggested and support this House resolution.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 204 (H.R. 1000), I was unavoidably detained during travel from my district to Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the information that I just gave the gentleman, the information I have on the sentences reaches those crimes.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just briefly summarize. I appreciate gentleman's concerns about the lack of a hearing. I did not choose the pace with which this moved. But let me say this, today we are taking or seizing upon a historic opportunity to not only punish young offenders, but hopefully create protections for young victims. That is obviously what this is all about. This is a commonsense measure, not a radical departure from law. We have a two strikes and you are out for some sexual offenses, for one type of sex crime we have a three strikes law. This is a commonsense proposal. It says that for a narrow class of criminals, those who repeatedly prey upon young people, we cannot wait around for three strikes. Three strikes is too many: Too many criminals, too many victims. This bill says if we find someone who has done it a second time, they are a self-defined repeat offender and we must remove them for the sake of our children, our families, and our communities. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.