Mark Green

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I do agree with my colleague from Massachusetts that these are sensitive issues and weighty subjects that we debated today. Like everyone, when I first looked at this legislation, I had questions. It is complicated, it is complex, and it does touch upon delicate issues. But I am proud of the work that has been done in this bill as it has moved forward. I am proud of the work that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) have done. This bill is constitutional, this bill is workable, this bill is the right thing to do. It has strong accountability provisions. It requires separate accounts for the Federal dollars. It has opt-out provisions. It has secular alternative requirements. This bill builds on current law. The religious exemption that we are going to hear about so often today is current law. It has been law for years. This body has reinforced this law on bipartisan votes several times. In many ways, this bill is nothing new, because much of this is in current law; but in many ways, fundamental ways, it is new, because it opens up to new services, it opens up to new battles, it opens us up to new communities. With this bill, we can make a difference in lives, in neighborhoods, in communities all across America. This is the right thing to do. Our President has pledged us as a Nation in his inaugural address that when we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not step to the other side. This legislation will ensure that that is the case. I am proud of this legislation. I think this rule makes sense. I look forward to the debate, and I look forward to passing this law and sending it on to the Senate and the President's desk.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is interesting that speaker after speaker today on both sides of the aisle has begun his or her remarks by citing some faith-based organization back in his or her own district that is doing such a wonderful job and then talking about how incredibly supportive they are of those organizations. Yet, with their substitute and with their attacks, the opposition would add burden after burden after burden on these very organizations. In fact, the last speaker would scare faith- based organizations to make sure that they do not take advantage of this law. Worse yet, some of them, some of them would like to remove the religious exemption that these organizations have enjoyed for years and which has been upheld by this body and the United States Supreme Court. But remember this, the first amendment to the Constitution says that government shall not establish a religion, but it also requires us to honor religious liberty. We have done so for years. We have done so in the years since charitable choice. Some here today would delete that exemption. Mr. Speaker, maybe we should have that debate on the floor of this House, but that is not the debate today. This is not about scaring faith-based organizations, this is not about putting burdens on them, this is about turning them from rivals in the minds of too many people to partners. America is hurting. America has needs. America has challenges. Neighborhood after neighborhood has challenges. There are organizations in these neighborhoods ready and willing to make a difference. We should stand by their sides. We should extend a helping hand. If we do this, we can win the war on poverty. We can change America for the good. I ask my friends to oppose this substitute amendment, support this bill, and let us get it to the President's desk.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, yes, H.R. 7 would change this situation, in a particular instance. If a religious organization were to use funds where the State funds have been commingled with Federal funds, it could assert its right under subsection (d) and (e) of H.R. 7 against the enforcement of State or local procurement provisions that limited the religious organization's ability to staff on a religious basis.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky, for yielding time to me, and for his kind words. Mr. Speaker, the seeds for this resolution come from a speech that our President gave at the University of Notre Dame commencement ceremony a few months ago. In that speech, President Bush laid out for America a great challenge. In his words, that challenge ``was to revive the spirit of citizenship, to marshall the compassion of our people to meet the continuing needs of our Nation.'' He went on to remind us that, in his words, ``It is not sufficient to praise charities and community groups. We must support them.'' This is both a public obligation and a personal responsibility. Mr. Speaker, unlike my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, I hope this body will take up H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, and take it up soon. It will create enhanced incentives for charitable giving, it will expand charitable choice, it will break down the barriers that prevent charitable sectors from being greater partners in the war on poverty. I believe the debate on the faith-based initiative will be a great and historic one, one that may help us turn the corner in the war on poverty, so I am a strong and passionate supporter. But in the meantime, this resolution that is before us today is designed to nudge corporate America into providing even more immediate reinforcements to faith-based organizations that are already taking up the mission that the President has called for, organizations that have heeded the President's call, and that of so many, many American leaders that have gone before him. This resolution seeks to draw attention to charitable efforts that are already under way, that are already working so beautifully; more importantly, to draw attention to the sad lack of support that these groups have received, not from individuals but from America's wealthiest foundations. This resolution celebrates good news, and it points out tragic news. First, the good news. As both of the previous speakers have noted, each Member of this House can point with pride and with gratitude to organizations in his or her community that are lifting lives and healing neighborhoods and making a wonderful difference. These groups are the conscience of our people. They are helping people recover from drug and alcohol addiction. They are providing shelter, comfort, and food for the homeless. They are rehabilitating prison inmates and breaking the cycle of recidivism. Hundreds of these organizations were represented recently at the faith-based summit here in Washington. As a participant in that summit, I can say there was more positive energy for poverty relief gathered here in the Capital than at any time in decades. There were wonderful organizations like Rawhide Boys Ranch from northeastern Wisconsin. Established nearly four decades ago as a faith- based alternative to juvenile detention, Rawhide accepts 100 troubled boys each year without regard to race or religious belief or economic background. These boys are counseled, given personal academic and vocational training, and they are taught discipline and given love. This program changes lives because it changes hearts. There were organizations like Urban Hope, a faith-based ministry in Green Bay, Wisconsin, committed to empowering and revitalizing people and communities through entrepreneurship; yes, entrepreneurship. It teaches credit and budgeting, entrepreneurial ideas, and has a microloan program. In its brief time of existence, it has launched over 121 new businesses in the Green Bay area. Of course, nearly every community in America has a Bureau of Catholic Charities. There are over 1,400 agencies, institutions, and organizations that make up Catholic Charities. Over 9\1/2\ million people each year, people who are in need, turn to them for services ranging from adoption to soup kitchens, child care to prison ministry, disaster relief to refugee and immigration assistance. In summary, these armies of compassion are fighting brush fires all across this great land. Now the sad news, the tragic news. According to the Capital Research Center my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) has just mentioned, the 10 largest U.S. corporate foundations have given out roughly $2 billion each year to charities, but a mere fraction of that has gone to these very organizations that each of us have referred to. It has given little to them regardless of their effectiveness. In fact, of the 10 largest corporations in America, six have specific restrictions that either ban outright giving to faith-based organizations, or greatly restricting it. In fact, of the 10 which have provided enough information, not one of them has given 5 percent. Mr. Speaker, according to that same Capital Research Center report, the leading 1,000 foundations in America have targeted just 2.3 percent of their grants to faith-based organizations. The top 100 foundations have given just 1.5 percent. I do not know if this is political correctness, I do not know if this is a lack of awareness of what these great organizations are doing. I am wondering if these organizations, these corporations, these foundations, have become conscientious objectors in the battle against poverty. I hope not. I am sure my colleagues share that sentiment. Whatever the cause, whatever the reason, it is time for these restrictions to fall. It is time for the reticence of corporate America to end. It is time for corporate America, it is time for foundations and American citizens everywhere, to take up the cause of these organizations; to contribute, to give them what they can, whether it be financial resources, tools, expertise, whatever they can give to help them help us fight poverty and the consequences of poverty. We are not asking these corporations to do any more than we should do each as individuals to turn citizenship and civic responsibility from an all too passive term to an activist philosophy, because it is only when each of us and these foundations and these corporations take up the fight, I believe it is only when that happens that we will make a difference. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. It is a sense of the Congress resolution, but it shines a spotlight on the wonderful work that is being done, and it shines a spotlight on the sad tragedy that too many corporations, too many foundations have not been there to help. I think shining this spotlight is important, and I hope it will make a difference.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman is aware, on September 11, 2000, an agreement was reached between the State of Wisconsin and the Army Corps of Engineers to transfer 17 locks along the Fox River to the State of Wisconsin for ownership. Under the memorandum of agreement signed by then-Governor Tommy Thompson and Assistant Secretary for the Army Joseph Westphal, the Army Corps of Engineers is to provide the ``full closure costs'' of $10 million to the State of Wisconsin upon the transfer. This bill that we are considering today has allocated $5 million to the Army Corps for the transfer of the locks to the State of Wisconsin. Unfortunately, without the full payment of $10 million, this transfer and decades of negotiations will be placed in jeopardy. It is essential, in my view, that full funding for the transfer be included in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation bill or else the local and State matching grants for this project will be jeopardized. This memorandum of agreement was a promise by the Federal Government to the State of Wisconsin, and I do not believe that we can shirk this responsibility.

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

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the chairman's willingness and commitment to make this transfer a reality. I congratulate him for the hard work that he has done and his staff has done on this bill. I look forward to working with him on this important project.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, we will not take all that time this evening, but I wanted to talk about a subject that probably many people out there tonight have never heard of yet and, I would suggest, adversely affects millions of people. It is something that was recently described by the Wall Street as the OPEC of Milk. It is a price-fixing cartel for milk that hurts families all over the country, especially those who are least able to pay for it. The history of the OPEC of Milk, the Northeast Dairy Compact, is somewhat interesting. Back in 1996, a small group of New England Members of Congress formed something called the Northeast Dairy Compact. The way it was authorized was not to bring it to the floor of the House or to the floor of the Senate for a vote, but, instead, they were able to sneak it into a conference committee report under an appropriations bill. Now, their intentions were sound. They believed back in 1996 that this cartel that they created, the Northeast Dairy Compact, would, in their words, help stop the loss of family farms in six New England States by guaranteeing a minimum price for milk. That sounds harmless enough. I was not here at the time, but had I been, those sentiments are certainly ones that we all could have supported. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to those who are listening tonight, that those good intentions went awry a long time ago, and that the OPEC of Milk has done tremendous damage not only to our dairy system and to dairy farmers in New England and all over the country, but also to so many families who are trying to afford the great nutrition that we have in our dairy products. The reason that this is so timely is that the Northeast Dairy Compact is due to expire in September of this year. This compact clearly could not stand on its own merits, and so we have had some of its strongest supporters, particularly Senator Jeffords over in the Senate, saying that he understands how unpopular it is. He implicitly understands how bad it is, but he has said that he is bound and determined to get this reauthorized, passed in September no matter what it takes. In fact, he told the Associated Press not 3 months ago that his goal would be to ``sneak it in through the stealth of the night. And to get it through when people are not looking.'' Mr. Speaker, the Northeast Dairy Compact should die a peaceful death in September. First, it has not met its goal. It has not stopped the loss of family farms, not even in the New England States that are part of this compact. Second, as we will talk about tonight, the Northeast Dairy Compact has raised the price of milk to consumers. It is what so many people have called a milk tax. Third, the Northeast Dairy Compact has accelerated the loss of dairy farms in other States, States like mine, Wisconsin, States like Minnesota, those whose States together have the largest number of dairy farms in the Nation. Finally, and perhaps, in my view, most damaging, the Northeast Dairy Compact has prevented us from dealing with our dairy problems on a national basis, and we do have tremendous problems in the dairy sector. We are losing dairy farms each and every day, and we must do something, but as long as we have a policy like the Northeast Dairy Compact, which pits State against State, region against region, farmer against farmer, we will not get that national policy. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand clearly I have an interest in this. I come from America's Dairyland of Wisconsin, but it is not just me, not just those in Minnesota and Wisconsin who believe that the Northeast Dairy Compact is an abomination. It is others, analysts, journalists. Mr. Speaker, I will read from a few, the Wall Street Journal recently said not 2 weeks ago that compacts are ``basically a highly regressive tax on milk drinkers, starting with school-aged children, creating them is a tacit endorsement of the OPEC cartel.'' There is the Consumer Federation of America, hardly a biased group, hardly a Republican group or hardly a Midwestern group, the Consumer Federation of America, which represents over 50 million consumers nationwide said not a month ago that regional dairy compacts give too much money to farmers who do not need the help, too little money to farmers who do need the help, and they asked consumers, especially the low-income consumers, struggling to feed their families and pay the rent to pick up the tab. There is Americans for Tax Reform, which refers to compacts as dairy cartels. There is the New Republic Magazine, which said that the Northeast Dairy Compact was ``a system that can best be described as socialism.'' There are groups like the Council for Citizens Against Government's Waste, which says that this is a regressive milk tax on Americans; or the National Taxpayer Union, which said that the Northeast Dairy Compact is ``a cartel that only a robber baron could admire.'' So it is not just folks from States like mine, Wisconsin. It is consumer groups, journalists, people really across the country, across the spectrum, who realize that the Northeast Dairy Compact was a bad idea. It has not gotten any better, and it should die a peaceful death. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) is my good friend, and in his brief time here in the House has become a wonderful voice for dairy farmers in Minnesota. He is a true leader who I think is going to be a tremendous asset to all of us as we try to reform this outdated dairy system. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think that the gentleman has pointed out what may be really the greatest tragedy from the Northeast Dairy Compact. Nobody wants to help dairy farmers more than I or the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). I mean, we come from dairy States which had the largest number of dairy farmers. It is interesting, when we were debating dairy policy last year in this House, some of my colleagues from the northeast States got up and talked about how many dairy farms that their home States, their home districts have lost. I remember a good friend of mine from the northeast exclaim that his State had lost some 200 dairy farms last year. I would like to put things into context for a moment. In my home State of Wisconsin, by this time tomorrow, by a quarter to 10:00 tomorrow night, Wisconsin will have lost four more dairy farms. We are losing four dairy farms each and every day. Over the last 10 years, we have lost 13,000 dairy farms. In fact, we as a State have lost more dairy farms than any other State ever had save the State of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy). So no one, no one wants to do more for dairy than those of us who represent States like Minnesota and Wisconsin. But we understand that to fix dairy problems, to meet the challenges, to be successful, to be compassionate, we have to have a national dairy policy, one that works all across America. The Northeast Dairy Compact rewards some dairy farmers. In fact, it encourages them to overproduce and harms others. It pits farmer against farmer, State against State, region and region. That cannot be good. As I talked to farmers in my home State and dairy farmers from all across America, they understand that one cannot have a policy that pits farmer against farmer. We cannot meet our challenges if we are divided and fighting amongst ourselves. The system that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) described is Stalinesque. I mean, I think the problem that we have had, so many of us who are so opposed to the Northeast Dairy Compact, is that, when we tell people how bad it is and we describe how it is set up, they do not believe us. They do not believe that, in America today, you could have such an absurd, illogical, irrational system. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, it is true. Believe it or not, we do have such a system. It makes no sense. It does not work. It is, to put it kindly, a great distraction as we should be taking on so very many important issues. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and he has made some great points. In our States of Minnesota and Wisconsin, we have a lot of dairy farmers though the numbers are obviously dwindling. But our dairy farmers, they know they are in a tough profession. They are in a tough way of life. The hours are long. They do not have vacations. One has got to milk every day. All they are asking for is a chance to compete. The dairy farmers I talk to say, look, you know, we understand this is a tough business. Give us a level playing field. We will compete with any dairy farmers in the world. The problem is that, with the Northeast Dairy Compact, we do not give them that fair chance to compete. We set them up to fail right off the bat; and that is wrong. Can my colleagues think of any other commodity that we treat like that? The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) has just run through some of the examples of how crazy it would be. But not just the compact and the milk marketing orders. Think about our pricing system that we take milk, and we offer a different price to farmers based upon the use down the line of that product. That does not make any sense. I mean, it is the same cows. It is the same fluid. Yet, we treat it differently. In States like Minnesota and Wisconsin, because so much of our milk goes into manufactured dairy products, again, our farmers are losing. As I began this evening, I said that, when this system was created, and it was, again, sort of slipped in in the dark of night in a conference committee report, it was done by some Members who really had the best of intentions. They wanted to reverse the decline of dairy farming in New England. But the sad news is it has not worked. So I would appeal to my friends from the northeast to reexamine their support for the Northeast Dairy Compact, because if they believe that we need to take action to help dairy farmers, this is not it. The Boston Globe last year did a really interesting study. They studied the States of Massachusetts and Vermont, and they looked at the effect of the Northeast Dairy Compact. Their study showed that, in the 2 years before the Northeast Dairy Compact was concluded, the State of Massachusetts lost 34 dairy farms and the State of Vermont lost 117. Interestingly, though, in the 2 years after the compact went into effect, the State of Massachusetts lost 44 dairy farms, 10 more, and the State of Vermont lost 153. The compact is not working. In fact, the loss of dairy farms is accelerating. It is interesting. If one goes beyond those two States to the entire New England region, one will see that 25 more dairy farms went out of business after the compact than in a comparable period before the compact. What may be most painful of all and really distressing, since the most vulnerable dairy farms in America today are the smaller ones, 50 cows or less, the compact has actually accelerated decline in those farms, the small farms, those that are most vulnerable. The Consumer Federation of America said recently that, because compacts pay farmers on a per-gallon basis, most of the benefits of this fixed price that they have go to the larger farmers who do not really need it. I heard earlier this evening the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who loves to talk about how we should be on the side of the little guy, he talks about how corporate interest dominate this Congress. Well, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), my good friend, if he wants to help the little guy in dairy farming, abolish the Northeast Dairy Compact. It punishes the family farm. It makes it worse. It makes it harder for them to get by, and it rewards the largest farmers. So even if this started with noble intentions, the reality, the stark reality is it has not worked. It is time to end it. It is time to go to a nationwide policy that does not pit farmer against farmer. It is time for a national policy that works. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. The gentleman from Minnesota is right that our two States have football teams that are great rivals. I guess the Northeast Dairy Compact would be like giving the Packers an extra player. Maybe we deserve it, but that is another debate. I think, though, that my good friend and colleague brought up a very important point when he talks about free and fair trade and the great emphasis that we are placing as a Nation and a people on opening up markets and on trying to promote free and fair trade. I think we understand the importance of commerce and growing this economy. But does it not seem just a tad hypocritical as we send our trade representative, even our President, all around the world and we ask, we demand, that he works to lower trade barriers, at the very time when we are trying to demand that these countries drop their trade barriers, have no tariffs, allow for the free flow of our goods, we have barriers between our own States? We have tariffs between our States. How can we in all seriousness look our trading partners in the eye and tell them that they have to do more to open up their markets to our goods when it would be so easy for them to say, Mr. President, why is it that in dairy, you have barriers between your own States? It makes no sense. And at a time when we are trying to open up markets, how can we be restricting markets in our own country? One other area I would like to touch upon briefly tonight, and I appreciate the indulgence of the listeners tonight, I come from a dairy State, the gentleman from Minnesota comes from a dairy State, this is a matter of great interest to him, of great interest to so many families who live and work in the dairy sector; but even if you are not part of the dairy sector, even if you are not from a dairy State or even an agricultural State, this will affect you. A recent study suggested that consumers in the Northeast Dairy Compact States are overcharged for the price of milk by about $100 million each and every year. The price of milk is artificially high as a result. It is interesting. Many of our colleagues want to expand the New England compact, they want to expand it and create a southern compact. One study suggests that if a southern compact is created, it would raise the price of milk by at least 15 cents a gallon. It would cost consumers $500 million a year at the very least. That is a conservative, modest estimate. The Northeast Dairy Compact is a tax on milk. It raises the price of milk. It takes one of our most nutritious products, one of the best things that you can possibly give to children to ensure that they have the nutrition to grow strong and fast, and it raises the price. It not only raises the price of milk, but it damages the very nutrition programs that we are struggling so hard to find money for. Families with low incomes who utilize food stamps, Meals on Wheels, the dollars that we spend for those terribly valuable programs do not go as far because of what we have done to the price of milk. We are discouraging people from consuming milk, and we are making milk more expensive for those low-income families. That is outrageous. Even if you are not from a dairy State, even if you are not from an ag State, you cannot support a tax on milk. You cannot support taking one of our most nutritious products and making it less affordable. It is just wrong. We cannot do it. We must not do it. It is the wrong thing to do, and it is something that must end. I implore our colleagues from all around the country, we represent diverse districts, but whether you come from an ag district or not, end this outdated, foolish experiment. It has not worked. It has done so much damage. It has cost so many farmers their livelihoods. It has made milk so much more expensive. It is time to end it. It is time for it to expire. It is time for us to develop a national dairy policy. We can develop a policy that rewards farmers for what they produce, that creates competition, that raises the amount that they receive but keeps the price to consumers low and affordable. We can do it if we come together. I appreciate the gentleman from Minnesota so much for joining me this evening. I offer him the opportunity if he has any final thoughts that he would like to share.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the great work of the gentleman from Minnesota in this area. Again, he may be a new Member; but he is already showing great leadership, particularly in agricultural issues, and I know the issues that are important to rural Wisconsin. I guess to summarize, what we have started tonight, Mr. Speaker, we hope is an important stride in an educational effort to help our colleagues here in this institution and the people around America to understand what this bizarre thing called the Northeast Dairy Compact really is, what has been called the OPEC of milk. It is bad because it raises the price of milk, it is bad because it does not work, it does not prop up the dairy farms of America. In fact, it accelerates their decline. Do not take our word for it. You can listen to groups like the Wall Street Journal or the Consumer Federation of America or Americans for Tax Reform, the New Republic Magazine, the National Review. How many times do you get the New Republic and the National Review to agree on something? Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union. Group after group after group has said to us and we are saying to you, this is wrong, it is bad public policy, it is time for it to end so we can move forward.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, as you know, on December 11, 1998, a great tragedy occurred on Lake Michigan. The fishing vessel Linda E. and her crew of three were out working hard, pulling in fish off Port Washington, Wisconsin. The Linda E. never came home. After 18 months of wondering and worrying, the Linda E. was located in 260 feet of water at the bottom of Lake Michigan. A Coast Guard investigation determined that the vessel was struck by an integrated tug/barge. The accident resulted in three unnecessary deaths and one of the crew members of the barge losing his license. There are two specific issues that relate to this tragedy and other tragedies like it that I would like to work with the subcommittee and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman, on. First, this accident could have been prevented if the barge had been required to have a collision-avoidance radar detection system on board. Unfortunately, it did not. Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the subcommittee to further explore the issue of requiring vessels of this size operating on the Great Lakes to install some collision-avoidance technology. Second, while the Coast Guard followed all of the procedures required under law with respect to the investigation of the Linda E., I, along with the family members of the Linda E. crew, would like to explore ways to clarify the investigation and recovery process. We would hope to work closely with both the Coast Guard and the subcommittee on this matter. Would the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman, be willing to devote some of the time of the subcommittee to review these matters?

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his consideration and look forward to working with him to ensure that the safety of all vessels operating on the Great Lakes is of utmost importance.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say a few words today about one of my constituents, Damon Szymanski. Damon recently finished his 50th assignment as an ACDI/VOCA volunteer, a truly extraordinary achievement. During Damon's missions, he has played a crucial role in helping improve agricultural development around the globe, particularly in central and eastern Europe. He has contributed dramatically to our national goal of opening global markets through an infusion of our values of democracy and economic freedom. Damon has served as a strong bridge between the United States and the rest of the world. He is here in Washington this week to receive an award from ACDI/VOCA for his record of outstanding service. On behalf of all of us, I'd like to say ``thank you'' to Damon--for everything he's done to improve U.S. foreign relations and for everything he's done to improve the quality of life of people in other nations.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 26, on H.R. 724, I was detained in route to Washington by air traffic delays. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, briefly I wish to talk tonight about a friend of mine by the name of Leo Frigo who died tragically 1 month ago. It is impossible to sum up his life and his contributions in a minute. The people of Northeastern Wisconsin know that he founded Paul's Pantry in 1983 after retiring as the President of Frigo Cheese. From its humble beginnings, this food kitchen now distributes over 300,000 pounds of unsalable food to the poor each and every month. The food comes from area stores and restaurants. When Leo began his operation, he would approach restaurants and stores asking for their unsalable food. They denied him. They thought he was crazy. So he began raiding their Dumpsters until they were so embarrassed they had to listen to him. Leo Frigo, when he retired from Frigo Cheese, could have enjoyed the easy life. He could have rested on his laurels and his good fortune. Instead he chose to be a true compassionate conservative and to serve his fellow man. I will miss him as a friend and all of us will miss him as a great and wonderful leader.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 3.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by congratulating not only the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) but also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for their fine work in moving this forward. This amendment that I rise to address is not so much an amendment about bankruptcy as it is an effort of closing a small, unintended hole in child safety. It in no way restricts the flow of necessary information regarding debtor's financial records, and it does not attempt to deal with larger issues of privacy or the Internet. What it does try to do is take a small, modest step towards protecting children from unnecessary exposure to harm. The problem is a real simple one, Mr. Chairman. When someone files for bankruptcy, they are naturally required to disclose information regarding themselves and their dependents. This information is vital to ensuring the integrity of the bankruptcy process, but as we all recognize, it is also very detailed and personal. Schedule I, for example, a document entitled ``The Current Income of Individual Debtors,'' requires the debtor to list his or her dependents, their names, ages and their relationship to the debtor. Now, much of this information is important to creditors. Unfortunately, if it is left unchanged it is also all of the information that some people might need to seek out and contact children. I think in this dangerous world, that represents a problem. My amendment makes a single, small, modest change that makes no difference to the information that creditors need but perhaps a great difference to debtors. It simply prevents the name of the child from being disclosed in these forms that go into the public domain. That is all that it attempts to do.

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

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his graciousness.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)