Mark Green

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained this morning, and missed roll call vote #108. Had I been present I would have voted ``Aye.''

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to everyone whose life was touched by Mr. Henry Atkinson, who passed away earlier this week. Henry Atkinson was one of the most dedicated men I've ever had the pleasure of knowing--dedicated to his friends, dedicated to his community, and dedicated to the students and schools he spent his career serving. Among Henry's many achievements in 20 years on the Green Bay School Board were his oversight of the transition of junior high schools into middle schools and his work to create a drug and alcohol abuse program for the Green Bay Schools. Henry was a small businessman who also served on the Green Bay Water Commission, the Brown County Bicentennial Committee and the Northeast Wisconsin Vocational, Technical and Adult Education District Board. But he is most remembered by the generations of students and educators who witnessed his day-to-day efforts to make Green Bay education a rewarding and memorable experience. Green Bay lost one of its finest community leaders this week, but he will surely live on in the memories of those who gained so much from knowing him.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to introduce my first bill before this house. It's a bill designed to bring some desperately-needed relief to farm families across America and in my home of northeastern Wisconsin. It's a simple proposal, really--and rather than increase government's role in agriculture, it actually eliminates one of the burdens government places upon our family farmers. This bill--the Family Farm Protection Act--will exempt farmers from the Federal capital gains tax when they sell their farm to a family member. This bill removes one of the multitude of burdens our farmers face, and will help to keep family farms within the family. Our farmers are suffering through the toughest farm crisis in 15 years--maybe longer. We used to call farming ``agriculture,'' today, it's more often called ``agribusiness.'' I think there's a reason for that. America used to be an ``argi-culture''--farming was more than a business. It was America's way of life--we were a culture built around an agrarian center. Washington and Jefferson were both farmers. But today, we can see our ``agri-culture'' slipping into history. As more family farms go under, the farming way of life--America's ``agri-culture'' goes with them. We cannot let that happen. While the U.S. economy is booming, farmers face a real crisis--no matter how hard they work. In the past, we in the Congress have had a tendency to get government more involved in the midst of a farm crisis. But this bill--the Family Farm Protection Act--recognizes that government is often a part of the problem, rather than a part of the solution. We have 22 original co-sponsors of this legislation, each of whom I'd like to thank for their help and support in this growing effort to offer real relief to our farm families. This proposal helps protect our family farmers today and is an important first step in a broader movement to maintain America's tradition of ``agri-culture''--a way of life and a set of values that built the America we live in today. I ask my colleagues to join me in this movement and to support the Family Farm Protection Act.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to briefly provide some comments about a great friend of the people of northeastern Wisconsin, and a personal friend of mine--Jim Schuette. This month marks the end of Jim's term as Outagamie County Executive, a position he has held for the last three years. But Jim's history of serving the people goes back a full 45 years-- and we're truly fortunate he decided to dedicate his life to public service. As a young man, Jim joined the U.S. Marine Corps and later went on to serve for 19 years with the U.S. Army Reserves. For most of his working life, Jim delivered letters for the U.S. postal service--and was always a smiling face folks could count on. For the 12 years before he became county executive, he served on the Outagamie County Board, where he earned a reputation for approaching problems with his trademark common sense. I couldn't dream of letting this occasion go by without telling Jim how much his time and hard work have meant to me and to the people of northeastern Wisconsin. So, on behalf of myself and the countless other people whose lives have been made brighter by Jim's efforts, I want to say ``thanks!''

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inject some Midwestern common sense into this debate. The taxpayers of our Nation do not care which party deserves greater blame for tax increases. For them, this issue is not about conservatives versus liberals or Republicans versus Democrats. For them, it is not about parties; it is about pocketbooks. Survey after survey shows that Americans support the proposal before us. Why? Because they know that if we do not take steps to protect them against tax increases now when we have an operating budget surplus, then we never will. They know that if we do not act now when our tax burden is higher than it has been anytime since World War II, then we never will. And they know that if we do not act now when 56 percent of Americans find the Tax Code so confusing, complicated, and complex, that they turn to outside experts for help, then we never will. Working families know that this is precisely the time, the year, and, yes, the date to make this proposal on to protect their pocketbooks, to protect their future. Now, a little earlier I heard so many arguments against the concept of a three-fifths vote, a supermajority requirement, saying that it does injustice to the Constitution. But, of course, the greater injustice is the one done to our working families every year around this time. Now, this is not news. That is why State after State has passed a law like the one before us. Some of these States have had their supermajority requirements, their tax limitation provisions for years. And the evidence shows clearly, unmistakably that these provisions work. And, of course, that is the most important thing to remember. And the critics of this amendment know it very well. Make no mistake, they do not oppose this plan because it will not work. They oppose it because it will work, it will prevent taxes from growing faster than our ability to pay, and it will limit the growth of government. I urge support for this constitutional amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, like so many others here today, I am fresh off a two-week district work period. During that two-week time, I had about a half-a-dozen town hall meetings, all of them on the budget. I had town hall meetings in Green Bay, Sturgeon Bay, Marinette, Appleton. During that time I outlined what is in the budget resolution that we passed in this body last week. The reaction that I got was universal. The reaction was simply, well, it is about time. It is about time that we set aside the social security surplus for social security. I have to pause here for a moment. My friend, my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, said, well, this does not do much for social security. It simply sets aside the surplus belonging to social security. I would agree with him philosophically, but it is something that this institution has failed to do for 30 years, so it is something important. It is something historic. My constituents believe that these principles are long overdue. They believe in setting aside the social security surplus. They believe in paying down the debt. They believe in putting dollars into the programs that this president promised but failed to fund, like valuable money for crop insurance; like important, long overdue money for veterans' health programs. My constituents throughout northeastern Wisconsin want to see these principles implemented as soon as possible. Today we are establishing a conference committee, and there are good arguments we have heard on both sides, arguments presumably we will hear within the conference committee, but today is not the day to let this deteriorate into partisan bickering. Today is not the day to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Today is the day for us to move forward so these principles will be implemented as soon as possible, and on a bipartisan basis, because this is what we have been telling the American people we will do and this is clearly what they want.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be part of this spirited historic debate today, historic because I believe that this plan before us represents the best news to come out of Washington in a very long time. One year ago when I announced my run for Congress, I did so because I saw a bleak situation here in Washington: social security expected to be in the red in only 30 years, the tax burden on our families the highest it has been since World War II, and a national debt long overdue. Today I can proudly tell the folks back home that we are addressing each of those critical challenges. It has also become clear that the minority will do and say anything to obscure these accomplishments. Mr. Chairman, the proposal before us accomplishes what too many people said for too long was impossible. Number one, our plan ensures that social security dollars are locked away, to be used only for social security. On the other hand, the President has proposed spending $52 billion of the social security surplus in the next year alone. Number two, our plan allows working families to keep more of their hard-earned cash, with tax cuts growing only as our surplus grows. On the other hand, the President's budget proposes 80 new tax increases that will raise the tax burden on our families by over $172 billion. Number three, and perhaps most important, this budget works to pay down our public debt, reducing it by some $1.8 trillion. That is $450 billion more than the President. Some weeks back the President challenged this Congress. He challenged this Nation when he unveiled his plan. I want to offer my sincere thanks to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) for his hard work and guidance. The chairman has done well, we have done well, and with this plan, America will do well.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the American people want to hear procedural arguments or partisan jockeying. What they care about is our national security, and that is why I rise today in strong support of this rule and strong support of H.R. 4. I do so for one reason. I believe it must be our policy to deploy a national missile defense. As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, the real surprise today is not the bipartisan support that I believe will emerge in this House later on but that took us so long to get here. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked and saddened when I saw the results of a recent poll conducted by the Center for Security Policy. Their survey of 800 registered voters revealed a number of very troubling public misconceptions. When asked hypothetically about a ballistic missile system and if it were fired at the U.S., 54 percent of those polled believe we could destroy that missile before it caused any damage. Over half of those polled believe we were capable of protecting ourselves from a ballistic missile attack, and of course the sad reality is that we cannot. And when respondents learned this fact that we could not, 19 percent were shocked or angry, 28 percent said they were very surprised, 17 percent said they were somewhat surprised. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I find more troubling, the fact that so many people incorrectly believe that we can protect ourselves from missile attack or the lack of outrage on the part of so many leaders of the fact that we cannot. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming, the threat of attack is increasing. Concerns over Russia's control over its nuclear arsenal continue to grow. China continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. North Korea recently demonstrated that its missiles are capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii. And as we know, Iran and Iraq are working to develop missile technology that will threaten the Middle East and southern Europe. We are no longer in the era of two superpowers kept in check by mutually assured destruction. The threats of today and tomorrow come from rogue states, in some cases nations with arsenals controlled by persons who we have to admit are blind with their hatred of the U.S. The harsh reality is that we are vulnerable. It is time that this Congress and this President got serious and made it the stated policy of our government to deploy a missile defense system. It would be reckless for us to stick our heads in the sand, it would be reckless for us to ignore the threats we face today, and worse yet, the threats we will face tomorrow if we fail to act. Let us make it this country's stated goal that we will deploy a national missile defense system that will protect us from those who seek to do us harm. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, to support H.R. 4.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I came to the House floor today ready to use my vote to help Congress play a constructive role in the public debate over authorizing U.S. ground forces to take part in a NATO peacekeeping operation in Kosovo. I want to thank you for scheduling this debate today because I believe it is time for this body to reclaim its rightful role in the formulation of our nation's foreign policy and military affairs. I certainly did not come to the House floor with a closed mind regarding an active role for the United States in securing a real, lasting peace in this region of the world. I wanted to vote for a responsible resolution that, without micromanaging the actions of our commander-in-chief, established several clear parameters and goals--not only for the deployment of U.S. troops, but also for future U.S. policy in the area. Let me also say that I am not an isolationist, and recognize that as the world's sole remaining superpower, unique demands may be placed upon our military resources. The type of conflict that is the subject of today's debate is the very type that NATO must be prepared to deal with in modern times. As Serb atrocities and retaliation by Kosovar Albanians escalates, Kosovo's civilian population continues to suffer and the region inches ever closer to a larger conflict that threatens to engulf other sections of southeastern Europe. But to involve U.S. troops in this operation without laying out clear guidelines and objectives--both for the peacekeeping forces and for future U.S. policy--would serve little purpose other than to place American fighting men and women adrift in harm's way. That is why it is with mixed emotion I must report to my colleagues that I cannot vote for this proposal as it stands today. For our troops and for our nation, I believe we as policymakers must have the following before we can responsibly deploy ground forces: 1. A guarantee that NATO alone will supervise any Kosovo deployment-- without involvement of the United Nations or other organizations that have demonstrated their incapacity to effectively handle similar situations; 2. A guarantee that U.S. troops will serve under U.S. command--not under the command of any foreign power; 3. A report outlining the amount and type of U.S. military personnel and equipment required for the operation, as well as the cost of those resources and the deployment's overall effect on military readiness; 4. A clear mission for our ground forces, explicit rules of engagement, and a realistic military timeline and exit strategy; and 5. Most important, an overall U.S. policy that recognizes Slobodan Milosevic's role as a violent and destabilizing influence for all of southeastern Europe--a policy aimed squarely and firmly at removing Milosevic from power. The administration, unfortunately, has failed to make its case before Congress--a Congress that wants to help build a lasting peace, a real peace. There is still time for the Administration to craft a responsible policy. The crisis in Kosovo is not of recent origin. There has been plenty of time to help the American people to understand why America's sons and daughters should travel to this troubled land, to understand what it is they will do, to understand when it is that they will come home to their loved ones. Thanks to today's robust debate, we have before us a resolution that requires many of the provisions I've previously discussed. In my opinion, however, without addressing the other conditions I've raised, the resolution remains inadequate. Without any indication from the administration that each of these conditions will be met before the deployment of ground troops to Kosovo, I have no choice but to vote ``nay'' on H. Con. Res. 42.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of the House majority whip who spoke earlier calling for the release of Pastor Xu in China. It is indeed sad that, as we find ourselves just 1 year away from the 21st century, there are still places in this world where a person can be locked away merely for expressing their faith in God. Mr. Speaker, Pastor Xu serves as a reminder to us all of how precious our freedom truly is, especially our freedom to worship as we choose. The Chinese government claims that Pastor Xu is dangerous merely because he believes in a judgment day. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not find that crazy or dangerous. A belief in judgment day is a basic belief not just of Christians but of so many religions around the world. This week Pastor Xu begins his third straight year in prison simply for preaching the gospel. If the Chinese are serious about strengthening the ties between our two countries, they must learn to respect religious freedom. I urge President Jiang Zemin, please, release Pastor Xu and let him return to his family.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, on Monday I was back in northeastern Wisconsin unveiling what will be my first bill before this House, a proposal that I call the Family Farm Protection Act. Now this simple plan exempts farmers from a Federal capital gains tax when they sell their farm to a family member when they try to keep their family farm within the family. Now, while the U.S. economy is booming, our family members, some of the hardest working people in America, face a tragic crisis. Traditionally, when a farm crisis comes along, we in the Congress look at ways to create more programs, to build more government help. All too often we forget that it is the government itself which is at the heart of many problems that our farmers face. My proposal removes an onerous tax that forces families out of farming and is contributing to the destruction of our Nation's lifelong agricultural heritage. I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort and to become original cosponsors of the Family Farm Protection Act.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly this afternoon, in this raspy, cold-driven voice, about the need for tax reform in America today. I would like to begin my remarks by reading part of a letter from one of my constituents, Mr. Gerald Racine, of Green Bay, Wisconsin. This letter is one that I believe speaks for a majority of people in northeastern Wisconsin and I trust and hope for a majority of Americans. He writes: Representative Green: We just finished doing our 1998 Federal income tax returns and we agree with you that it must be simplified. Doing those calculations seems impossible and when we get done, we don't know if it makes sense. We just keep our fingers crossed that we did it right. Being a retired banker and accountant, we don't feel that we should have to go to a tax expert to file what should be a simple income tax return. Mr. Racine, I agree. We have a frightful tax problem in America today, Mr. Speaker. Not only do our families pay nearly 40 percent, almost half, of their income in taxes, they are also forced to endure a difficult, frustrating and confusing maze of paperwork and bureaucracy that can challenge even a retired financial expert like Gerald Racine. According to the IRS's own numbers, it will take an American who has a few investments and itemizes his deductions some 22 hours to file his Federal income taxes this year. That is more than a half a week of work, and it is 3 hours longer than it took just last year. So, Mr. Speaker, as we get this session under way in earnest, let us remember that while tax relief is a key priority for us in Congress, tax reform is also an issue that must be addressed. I am proud to be a supporter of the Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act. This bill would scrap the current Tax Code and enable us to replace it with a simpler, more reasonable tax system. It would ensure that we have a serious debate in this Nation, a long-overdue debate, about what our Tax Code should look like. I believe that new Tax Code will be simpler, more fair and less burdensome. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this proposal and in a larger effort to reduce and reform taxes for our working families.

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