Mark Green

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, needless to say, Americans are concerned with lots of issues these days, including the issue that my good friend on the other side of the aisle just raised. Mr. Speaker, I take to the floor to raise an issue that I think in calmer times would be front page news. Mr. Speaker, what if I told the Members there was a complex and infectious agent out there that was so little understood that science is not quite sure how to categorize it? And if I told Members that this agent, called a preon, is very hard to kill: not killed by burying, not killed by heating, not killed by disinfectant? What if I told the Members further that the disease it carries is 100 percent fatal to the deer and elk that it attacks? There is no cure, there is no treatment. We do not know how it is spread, and we do know it is a cousin to mad cow disease. Well, Mr. Speaker, if there was not so much going on, it would, indeed, be front page news. This disease, called chronic wasting disease, has now been found in nine States. It has now been found in Canada, and it is spreading. It could have a devastating impact on the culture, on the environment, and on the economy of so many States. If there is good news to report this morning, it is, first, that Congress has recently secured more funds to help in this battle. For example, last week in a colloquy that I held with the chairman of the Subcommittee of the Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, that chairman pledged to me that he would help us get another $4 million to help us all in this battle against chronic wasting disease. Secondly, guided by legislation that I authored with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), and supported by most Members, Republican and Democrat, from Wisconsin, the administration has now developed a comprehensive plan to fight chronic wasting disease over the long haul. That plan will mean more research and more money to the States. But Mr. Speaker, there is one area in which we have made painfully little progress. That is providing enough testing resources for chronic waste disease. Research is good, study is good, but what our hunters will really want, what they really need, are enough testing facilities to tell them whether their deer are safe. It is that simple, Mr. Speaker. We are falling short. Federal officials have decided against allowing private labs to test for chronic waste disease, only State and Federal labs. But that raises real problems. For example, the State lab in Wisconsin will only be able to handle 15,000 to 30,000 cases per year. If all goes well, by September there may be as many as 11 State labs throughout the entire country, and if all goes well, their capacity for testing may be perhaps 500,000 per year. But Mr. Speaker, each year in Wisconsin alone some 600,000 deer hunters will take to the woods. They will bag in a good year as many as 400,000 deer in Wisconsin alone. That means our testing capacity will be dangerously short. We need more testing to reassure our hunters. We need more testing to diagnose the extent of the epidemic. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced this is a health crisis, it is an environmental crisis, and I know it is an economic crisis for States like mine, States like Wisconsin. This morning, I call on the administration to do everything possible to increase testing capacity now. That means increasing the number of public labs that do testing. That means reconsidering its decision not to work with private labs. We must leave no stone unturned, because the consequences of inaction are simply too high. Mr. Speaker, as I began, I said that Members probably have not heard much about chronic wasting disease because of everything else that is going on. I fear that Members will hear an awful lot about it in the years ahead. We have to act now. We have to increase testing. It is the right thing to do. It is the safe thing to do.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a statement, and then to engage in a colloquy with the chairman or his representative. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about a crisis in my home State of Wisconsin, something that folks around here may not have heard much about, but I fear that they will. The subject is chronic wasting disease, which is a disease that afflicts elk and deer. There is no cure. There is no treatment. In fact, we are not even sure, quite frankly, how it is spread. It was first recognized in the State of Colorado back in 1967. Now, sadly, some nine States, including my home State of Wisconsin, have been afflicted by it. It is a health challenge because we do not understand how this disease is spread, and we want to make certain that it cannot spread into other species. It is obviously an environmental challenge, and it is also a cultural challenge, because deer hunting and wildlife management is a critical part of the culture in my home State and some other States. It is certainly an economic challenge, because there are 1.6 million deer in Wisconsin, 600,000 hunters, and the deer harvest each year is approximately 300,000 animals. The sad news, Mr. Chairman, is that we are short on research, and we are just as short on testing capacity. I came here today with an amendment which would have provided money to relevant agencies to try to implement part of a comprehensive plan, but in discussing this matter with the chairman in his office, I am confident that we can reach that goal without an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), or his representative.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. As part of the new Federal task force on chronic wasting disease, the U.S. Geologic Survey needs additional funding. The current estimated total dollar funding need for the USGS for chronic wasting disease activity is about $6.6 million for fiscal year 2003 alone. Keeping in mind that my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has already secured $2.7 million for the needs in the bill before us today, we are left with a need of an additional $3.9 million which is required to meet the funding goal. That is why I was going to offer this amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the chairman very much, and my colleagues from Wisconsin, for their cooperation and hard work, and I look forward to working together with them and with the chairman in the future on this issue that affects our home State. I will not offer my amendment, but I thank the gentleman for engaging me in a colloquy.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this weekend marks the 30th anniversary of the Iola Old Car Show. Iola is a village in my northeastern Wisconsin district filled with great people. For a few days each summer it is filled with even more terrific folks, who bring their truly extraordinary historic cars for this event. This year, the Iola Car Show will focus on ``Ford's Fabulous Model A,'' and will have more than 200 Ford Model A's on display. But that's just a fraction of the more than 2,500 cars built between 1900 and 1975 that will be there. There are few things more distinctly American than our adoration for the automobile, and the Iola Old Car Show celebrates that love. It also showcases who we are and who we've been--retelling nearly a century of American history through the automobile. This year's Ford Model A exhibition is a perfect example of that expression of our history. The car show has come a long way from its humble beginnings in 1972, when Chet Krause invited some of his buddies who happened to own old cars to the Iola Lions Chicken Roast. Today, it's grown into one of the largest car shows in the nation. It's an event that I'm very proud to host in my district, and I wish them all the best this year for a great show and a happy 30th anniversary.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today before this House I recognize and honor the Town of Freedom, a Wisconsin community that exemplifies the American dream in its past, present and future. On June 5, Freedom celebrates the 15th anniversary of its founding. Freedom has a rich history. Its first inhabitants were Indians that called the area Sagola, which means ``good morning.'' Some of Freedom's first settlers were James Jackson, an ex-slave, and his Native American wife. In recognition of his release from slavery, Jackson named the place ``Freedom'' In the years that followed, the demand for lumber from northeastern Wisconsin brought a number of Irish, German and Dutch immigrants to Freedom. In 1848, Wisconsin gained statehood, putting Freedom one step closer to its formal foundation. In June of 1852, Ethan Powers, Albert Cook, and James Taylor met for the first time as the town's Board of Supervisors, marking Freedom's beginning that we celebrate this year. Throughout the 19th Century, Freedom continued to build and prosper, growing along with the area's burgeoning timber industry. As the 20th Century arrived, and agriculture began to replace logging, the citizens of Freedom also began to change with the times. Like its Indian name, Sagola, meaning ``good morning,'' today the citizens of Freedom have woken to the glory of a new day and continue to march forward toward a bright future ahead. On this sesquicentennial anniversary of the inception of Freedom, I offer my congratulations to the town and its residents. Since its founding, Freedom has lived true to its name, welcoming every newcomer and providing all with the liberty and independence to prosper.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3215.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 4737, pursuant to House Resolution 422, the Chair, notwithstanding the order of the previous question, may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker on the legislative day of Thursday May 16, 2002.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I offer these comments for the Record to supplement my vote on House Resolution 392--the resolution in support of Israel in the war against terrorism--which this body approved on May 2. I voted in favor of the resolution because I believe what it said was both substantially accurate and needed to be formally declared by this Congress and this Nation: that there is no acceptable justification for terrorism in general and suicide bombing in particular. No one--no nation, no organization--can ever be perceived as gaining any advantage militarily, diplomatically, or politically from this reprehensible tactic. I offer these comments because I'm afraid the resolution told only part of the story. What the resolution said wasn't nearly as controversial as what it didn't say. Because while it did incorporate some language addressing the humanitarian concerns of the Palestinian people, even the most ardent supporter of the current government in Israel would have to agree that the resolution was not as balanced as it could, or should, have been. That's why I voted against ordering the previous question on the rule for this resolution. To put it simply, I hoped we could open up the debate on the resolution to include additional language. In my opinion, we could have made the resolution more balanced, portrayed a fuller and more exact picture of the situation, and made it more productive in achieving a lasting peace in the region. In a House of 435 Members, there were only 82 who voted with me on this, and only three of those were Republicans. I wish we had more, because I think we would have ended up with a better piece of legislation. In particular, I think the resolution would have been dramatically improved had it specifically mentioned our commitment to a Palestinian State, and the vision for the future most reasonable people share on this issue: two independent states, one Israeli and one Palestinian, living side-by-side in peace.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. With respect to this bill before us today, there is no doubt that the bill is imperfect. One could argue it spends too much. One could argue it should probably do more to reform some of our USDA programs. But let me say this: In the area of dairy, this is a historic win for dairy farmers all across America. In my home area in Wisconsin, we are losing some 3 to 4 dairy farms each and every day. There are 3 reasons why this bill will help. Number 1, it creates a new countercyclical program for dairy; a program I hope never goes into effect. We all hope dairy prices remain strong. But in the event the dairy economy crashes, as it did a few years ago, this will give them a safety net. This is money they can take to the bank. Number 2, this program is national, not regional. For years our policies have pit farmer against farmer, States against State, region against region. And we will still do that in the area of milk marketing orders, but with respect to the new countercyclical program, we break away from that. This is a historic step towards a new national policy. And number 3, this program pays out without regard to end use of milk. Even though the trigger price for this countercyclical program is pegged to Class I, the payouts will go to all classes of milk whether it remains fluid or whether it goes into manufactured milk products. There is more work to be done on the dairy front, to be sure, but this is a great step forwards. I congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest); the chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and all the conferees. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the bill. This is a big win for the dairy farmers in Wisconsin.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I submit this poem for the Record. Written and Dedicated to All the Vietnam Veterans (By Boatswains Mate Robert W. Perry) We were the men sent to Nam We were there to save the day And for protecting these people's freedom We were paid about four bucks a day We walked through these smelly paddies It was always so damn hot My buddies just kept dying In a land that God forgot We trudged through the bush with our sixteens Eating and breathing orange dust We worked like we were on a chain gang And always too tired to cuss All the time them bullets kept coming It was more than we could stand Hell folks we weren't convicts We were defenders for their foreign land So when this life is over And there are no more worries to stand We're gonna do our last parading in the far away Promised Land Once there, St. Peter will greet us and he will yell ``Come on in you men from Nam, you've done your stretch in hell.'' Sadly missed by the American people. We will never forget their plight.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I offer these remarks before the House today to honor the 50-year anniversary of the establishment of Alberts Plastering, Inc., a fine family business in my district. When Morris ``John'' Alberts founded Alberts Plastering 50 years ago in 1952, he set a high standard for his craft that is still maintained by Alberts Plastering today. Over the years, he and his son John worked very hard to build not just their business, but also our communities and our state. Morris ``John'' Alberts passed away 12 years ago, but his legacy is now carried forward by John Alberts and a dedicated and hardworking group of over 100 professionals. A business is only as strong as its people and its ideals. Alberts Plastering has lasted 50 years because it is made up of great folks and is built on a foundation of solid values. I'm confident those people and ideals are strong enough to carry it forward for another 50 years and beyond.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark a tragic anniversary. Three years ago tomorrow, Houa Ly, a Hmong-American constituent of mine, disappeared on the border between Laos and Thailand. Eyewitnesses last saw him with Lao government authorities, a brutal regime infamous for human rights abuses. For 3 years his family has suffered without any real answers. It has been three frustrating years. His family is inspired, however, by the memories they still have of their life together as an American family and of Mr. Ly's incredible service to this country, saving downed U.S. pilots during the Vietnam War. Our Nation will also remember him. The Lao government and its apologists should know for that me and many others, this case is an insurmountable obstacle that should block any effort towards normalizing relations between our two countries. It has been three frustrating years, and for all of our work together with the Ly family, it often feels like we have gotten nowhere. But we will not give up. A U.S. citizen is mission. His family deserves answers, and we will keep fighting until we get them.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I offer the following comments today to mark the retirement of Mr. Ed Wenger. After nearly 30 years of service, Ed retired from the U.S. Forest Service last year. After a stint in the Army, he began his distinguished career with the Forest Service at the Hoosier National Forest in Indiana. Since then, he's served in forests from Illinois to Pennsylvania, and a couple of places in between. But it's Ed's time in Wisconsin that left such a lasting impression on me and lots of other folks in my area. He was instrumental in developing the Florence Natural Resource Center while serving as the Florence District Ranger for the Nicolet Forest. And he did tremendous work while at the Nicolet-Chequamegon National Forest from 1997 to 2001. Wherever he was stationed, Ed quickly became an active and well-known member of the community--both in forest issues and in the general activities and organizations that make our towns and villages such great places to live. I believe that future generations of Forest Service employees could stand to learn much from Ed, and his dedication to maintaining such close ties between the management of our forests and the communities that surround them.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I begin by thanking my friend and colleague from Wisconsin for his work in bringing this bill forward. I appreciate it very, very much. First, let me say that this bill is not new to this House. This House has already passed the bill twice on a voice vote. The State version of this legislation is already the law in Wisconsin, and other States are looking at it. The cosponsorship of this legislation is bipartisan. In fact, it includes the chairman of the Democratic Caucus. The reason this bill has such strong support is that its objective is unassailable, preventing repeat child molesters from continuing to prey upon our young kids. This bill is a very simple one. It does not federalize any crimes. It does not change the terms of underlying criminal laws. This bill is not about sending a message, this bill is not about deterring crime, it is about getting bad guys off the streets so they cannot attack more innocent children. This bill says very simply, If you are arrested and convicted of a serious sex crime against kids, and then after you have done your time and you are released, you do it yet again, that is the end of the line. You are going to go to prison for the rest of your life. No more chances and, Lord willing, no more victims. Now, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), said there are no good studies for this bill. I could not disagree more. Study after study supports this bill. A 1992 study from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found that the average pedophile commits 281 offenses, with an average of 150 victims. One hundred fifty victims. There are other studies that do much more; the numbers are higher. For purposes of the debate today, we have tossed out those high numbers. We have come up with an average of 201. So think about that number as we have the debate today, 201 victims per pedophile. There are other studies, as I said, that put the number higher. Those studies recently caused former Attorney General, Democratic Attorney General, Janet Reno to estimate that the recidivism rate of child molesters is 75 percent. This bill is necessary because, thankfully, the number of attackers is relatively small; but tragically, the number of victims, the number of lives destroyed, innocence stolen, is incredibly and unacceptably high. If someone is arrested and convicted of a serious sex crime against kids, and then after they are released, they do it yet again, they have shown that they are unwilling or unable to help themselves. We must get them off the streets so their reign of terror will end. Congress must stop this tragedy. It is happening in too many places across this country to too many young people, to too many families. I urge our Members to take this measure up. Let us get this done quickly. This is important. This will save lives.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time, and I want to also thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas) for his support for this legislation. The issue just raised by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), about the so-called casual teenage statutory rape scenario, we will talk about a little later on. I think Members will see that is not an applicable scenario to this legislation. But, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do here is focus everyone's attention to this chart. On this chart there are three numbers. These three numbers are important because I believe that this whole debate really comes down to these three numbers. These three numbers say it all: 16, 75, and 511. What do those numbers stand for? Sixteen. Sixteen represents the number of years that a sexual offender commits his crime before he is caught. So when you see a sexual offender on television, of someone being caught, convicted and being tried for their offense, understand that, on average, he has been doing this for 16 years before he gets caught. Sixteen. Think of how much damage and destruction, how many lives he has destroyed. The second number, 75. Seventy-five is the recidivism rate for child molesters as estimated by Attorney General Janet Reno, a Democrat. She wrote this last year in an article that she believes the recidivism rate is about 75 percent. Again, that goes to what we have been saying all along, that these are unusual crimes. This is not run-of-the-mill crime in any sense of the word. And that if we have someone who is arrested and convicted of a serious sex crime against kids and they have done it yet again after they are released, studies tell us, the numbers tell us they are going to do it again and again and again unless we stop them. Five hundred eleven. This is the most troubling number of all. This is a number that I do not make up. This is a number that comes from a study done in the year 2000 by ``Sex Abuse,'' the journal of research and treatment into this area of sexual offenders. Five hundred eleven represents the average number of crimes committed by admitted child molesters; 511 per molester. That number is so large, it is hard for us to even imagine, to even comprehend it. And we cannot comprehend it, because these individuals are sick. They are sick monsters in every sense of the word. But once again, these numbers tell us that if someone is arrested and convicted of a serious sex crime against kids and they serve their time and they are released, if they do it yet again, they are self-identified. They have told the world that they are either unwilling or unable to help themselves. Congress has to step in. This bill is not about sending a message. This bill is not about piling on. This bill is not about deterrence. This bill is very simply, given these numbers, given the recidivism rate, this is simply about taking these sick monsters off the streets, away from schools, away from our children, to protect our children, to protect our families, to try to end the cycle of horrific violence that is every parent's nightmare. That is what this bill is about, these three numbers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let us get this on the Senate's desk. Let us encourage the Senate to act. Let us break the cycle of violence.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My opposition really falls on three grounds. First off, let us remember that this bill, Two Strikes and You're Out, does not change the terms of underlying criminal law. It simply changes the penalties for those who do it over and over again. This section that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) seeks to change, to modify, is current law and one that Congress has always treated seriously. It is already punishable by 15 years in prison and doubled for the second offense. If the gentleman from Virginia wants to change the terms of 2243(a), he should introduce legislation to do so, but that is not this bill. Secondly, those who would be caught up by this 2243(a) and the Two Strikes law are not merely guilty of, quote-unquote, ``teen statutory rape.'' Listen closely, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has pointed out. The victim must be 12 to 15 years old. The attacker must be at least 4 years older. For Two Strikes to apply, the attacker must have committed this crime or an even more serious sex crime against kids, against his teenage girlfriend under the gentleman from Virginia's scenario, been arrested, gone through a trial, been convicted, served his time, come out and do it again, all in the span of 2 years. Well, logically, that is next to impossible. Finally, and I think the most important point here, is to understand that there are other statutes that cover the behavior that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) refers to. We spoke only this morning to a representative of the U.S. attorney's office, and he said that no U.S. attorney in the Nation would charge under 2243(a) for the conduct that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) describes. There is, in fact, another statute which is not part of Two Strikes, 2244(a) and 2244(b), abusive sexual contact. That is the statute which U.S. attorneys can use to charge, if they see fit to charge, for that type of behavior. That is not covered by Two Strikes. Two Strikes deals with a narrow category of seven serious sex crimes against kids, and it says in the event that after someone has done their time, they have done one of these serious offenses, they get out, they do it yet again, then by all the studies we have seen, we know that they are going to do it again and again and again unless Congress steps in and breaks the cycle of violence. That is why this bill exists. The scenario that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) raises is implausible, at best, and also the points the gentleman makes are outside the course of this bill. Let us keep our eye on the ball here. Let us focus on the problem of repeat child molesters. That is what this bill deals with. Let us defeat this amendment and go on to pass this bill.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. For the record, I am proud to have six Indian Tribes in my congressional district. I am proud to represent both Native Americans and non-Native Americans. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is bad public policy because it would send a terrible message to States like Wisconsin. Carving out a reservation from this law would somehow suggest that Native American children are less deserving of protection than non-Native American children. I do not think that is what we want to do. Carving out reservations from this law would, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has said, create the appearance of a safe harbor for child molesters. It says to them, lure your victims to the reservation, take your victims from the reservation, and the penalty will be less. That is wrong-headed. We should not be doing that. Now, the reasoning of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that a high percentage of Federal sex crimes under this bill would occur on Federal Indian reservations, I think that argues for the inclusion of those reservations into this bill. It also raises a self-evident point: Under his logic, Federal homicide laws would have a greater impact on reservations and Native Americans; Federal drug laws would have a greater impact on Native Americans by his logic. I do not believe that we should be exempting from reservations Federal drug laws. There are actually very few cases in which reservation land is exempt from Federal jurisdiction. No tribe has approached me, either this session or last session when we passed this bill twice by a voice vote, no tribe has come to me asking for a carve-out. That is because, I would guess, they do not want to create a safe harbor, either, for child molesters. The last thing they would want to do is say, Come on, we will protect you; you will be safe here on reservation land. They do not want to look the other way when these terrible crimes occur, and we should not look the other way when these terrible crimes occur. We should protect all children, native American children, non- native American children. Wherever they are, we should take steps to protect them from the monsters who would prey on our children over and over again. My colleagues saw the numbers I had up here before: 209 victims per child molester, 511 offenses per child molester. Do we really want to say that that is okay if it occurs on Federal land, or we are not going to treat it as severely? I do not think so. I do not think anyone here seriously wants to do that.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me first say that I believe that the gentlewoman's intentions are honorable and good intentions, and she is pointing out a problem that I think is worth our examining at some point. I think the Committee on the Judiciary, as it has oversight hearings and such, should ask some of these questions. They are important questions. I, unfortunately, believe that this amendment is not drafted in a way that will achieve the result the good gentlewoman intends. I do not think the answer is to say that the more sex offenders we find in a particular area, the softer the law should be, or this tougher law should not apply to other parts of the country. In fact, the answer should be if there are more sexual offenders in a given area, to go to the State legislature in that State and get tougher laws and more enforcement, beef up our resources. Those children in those areas deserve more protection, not less protection. So while I understand the motives and would like to work with the gentlewoman in the future to look at some of these issues, I do not believe this amendment gets to that point.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the gentlewoman, not being the chair of the committee or subcommittee, but I would be happy to. I think she points to an important problem.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill just passed.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I know it is early in what will be a long day; but in many ways, it is already midnight at the costume party. It is time we remove our masks and we see who is who. We need to be very clear where we are right now, and I hope the folks who are watching the debate are very clear on where we are right now. Shays-Meehan, as filed late last night, does not ban soft money. Let me repeat that. Shays-Meehan does not ban soft money. It restricts it, it plays with it, but it does not ban soft money. I notice that my friends on the other side are avoiding a debate on details. Our side talks details; their side talks generalities. Why? Because the details are not favorable to them. As my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), did earlier, I encourage everyone to look at pages 78 and 79 of this bill. Do not take my word for it. Look at the bill yourself. It has a State and local party loophole to soft money that is $60 million nationwide. That is a ban on soft money? It does not ban unlimited contributions from Indian tribes and their general treasury. It contains a special loophole for what we all know is the DNC building fund. On page 78 and 79 you can see it for yourself. Is that a ban on soft money? It even arguably allows soft money to be used as collateral for hard-money loans. They say this amendment is a poison pill. If it is, it is a poison pill that is worth about $40 million to the other side. This is not a swiss cheese soft-money ban, as one of my colleagues referred to it. It is something full of holes and loopholes, but there is not enough cheese here for it to qualify. Mr. Chairman, if you want to ban soft money, there is only one vote today that bans soft money. This is it. Nobody, nobody who votes against this substitute amendment, can say they voted to ban soft money.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3699) to revise certain grants for continuum of care assistance for homeless individual and families.