Mark Green

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for yielding, and also I congratulate him as we stand, I think, on the threshold of a wonderful victory. I am a freshman, obviously, but I can say this, that from the first day that we met over a year ago, the gentleman has been preaching the gospel of eliminating the marriage penalty; and finally it has become a chorus, and I think again we are poised to do great things. I congratulate the gentleman for his hard work. I think we are poised to do great things. Something I would like to add to it, why this is especially appropriate to take up right now, the President in the State of the Union speech talked about all the wonderful things that are occurring in the American economy, and he should. There are a lot for all of us, Republican and Democrat, to be proud of. Unemployment is at a 30-year low. Inflation is relatively low. The economy is growing at historic levels. Wonderful, wonderful things. There is a dark side to it. We also have to understand that so many American couples have to have two wage earners. Now, if families decide to make that choice, that is one thing; but so many families have to have two wage earners just to make ends meet in this economy. So there are so many wonderful things. The tough side is that many families do have to have two wage earners. If, in fact, economic reality is forcing that, then it is particularly unfair that we have a Tax Code that punishes that. So it is especially important right now, as we have this economy, as we have so many two wage-earner families, that we do take on eliminating the marriage penalty. I think it is awfully important. We talked a bit about the tax relief it provides, but to me it is a matter of fairness because we do have so many couples who are forced into two wage-earner situations. As we all know, the Tax Code and the IRS suffer a lack of respectability. So many of us do not have a high regard for the Tax Code and all the absurdities in it. This perhaps is at the top of the list. When we talk to our constituents about what they dislike most about the IRS code and paying taxes, this is it. People are willing to pay their fair share. People are willing to work with a Tax Code that is fair; but when we take a look at how we punish these working couples, obviously there is nothing fair about that Tax Code. Finally, I think the gentleman boiled it down to its most important element, the type of tax relief that we are poised to provide, hopefully on a bipartisan measure and hopefully the President will give in and sign this, in very practical terms it will make an important difference. Whether it be affording health insurance or affording day care, this is real money and this is a real difference for working couples. The timing could not be better. It is critically important that we not only pass it, but pass it through both Houses and get it signed as quickly as possible, so the great prosperity that we all point to with pride can be enjoyed by working couples all over America. Once again, I congratulate the gentleman for his hard work. He has done a great job, and I am real excited about what is going to happen tomorrow.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention a very important issue facing the American public, something that we dealt with today in the Committee on the Budget and something I talked about with the constituents I represent in the First Congressional District of Wisconsin throughout the past 2 months during the Christmas recess, and that is this: What are we going to do about our Social Security surplus, what are we going to do about our non- Social Security surplus, and what are we going to do about our national debt? These are the issues that are driving our Federal budget process now. In doing so, the President, as he is required by the Constitution, sent the budget that he is proposing to pass into law to Congress yesterday. This morning we had a hearing in the Committee on the Budget where the President's budget director outlined the budget. I would like to share a few of those details with the viewing public tonight and my colleagues. First, we finally have agreement, we have progress on the fact that all Social Security money should go to Social Security in paying off the debt we owe to the program. If you recall, Mr. Speaker, last year in this well, before the Nation and before Congress, the President in his State of the Union address said he wanted to dedicate 62 percent of the Social Security trust fund to Social Security, thereby spending 38 percent on other government programs. Last year this Congress said no, that is not enough. I actually authored the Social Security lockbox bill with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) which requires that from now on, if you are going to pay Social Security taxes, it goes to Social Security; that 100 percent of the Social Security taxes we pay, 100 percent of the Social Security surpluses actually go to the program, go to the trust fund and go to pay off our national debt so we can create more solvency in the Social Security trust fund. So there was a difference last year. Congress was for protecting 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund last year; the President was for protecting 62 percent of the Social Security trust fund. Now we have good news. The President has finally come around and agreed that, finally, for the first time in 30 years, we should pass legislation to protect 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund. I am very encouraged by this news. However, I am a little concerned at what Jack Lew, the OMB Director, the President's chief budget writer, said this morning, and that was this: They support the idea of putting 100 percent of the Social Security surpluses back into Social Security and paying off our debt, but they are not in support of legislation to ensure that this happens. That is a little odd, I think. So I would like to see this administration walk the walk and not just talk the talk. But then what happens when we look at the non-Social Security surpluses? Today in America people are overpaying their taxes. They are overpaying their taxes in two very fundamental ways: They are overpaying their taxes with Social Security taxes. That spending of the surplus has occurred for years. We have actually raided that fund for 30 years, this government has, to spend on other government programs. For the first time in 30 years, last year this Congress stopped the raid on the Social Security trust fund. I am seeking to pass our lockbox legislation which will make sure we never go back to the days of raiding the Social Security trust fund. But on the other side of the Federal Government ledger book, the non- Social Security part, millions of American taxpayers, hard-working families, are overpaying their income taxes. So we now have a non- Social Security surplus approaching $2 trillion over the next 10 years. That is astounding. We were looking at deficits as far as the eye could see just a few years ago. Now we have the opportunity, now we have the good fortune, based on good discipline in spending and based on a great economy, to have a $4 trillion surplus; $2 trillion for Social Security, $2 trillion from an overpayment of income taxes. Here is what the President is proposing to do. He is finally agreeing with Congress that we take the $2 trillion from the Social Security surplus and apply that back to Social Security, towards shoring up the program and paying off our National debt, which consequently is some money we owe back to Social Security. But on this non-Social Security part, the income tax overpayment, the President in this budget is proposing to spend $1.3 trillion of that surplus. He is proposing to spend 70 percent of the non-Social Security surplus on new government programs in Washington. Specifically, as we analyzed this budget in the Committee on the Budget as we did so this morning, the President is calling forth creation of 84 new Federal spending programs to be launched this year by the Federal Government, to be paid for by the income tax overpayments of the American taxpayer. Now, Mr. Speaker, I held over 60 town hall meetings in the district I serve in southern Wisconsin, the First Congressional District, where I posed a lot of questions to my constituents to ask them about this. They said that if they are given a choice between tax reduction and debt reduction with this money, they were evenly split. But if they were given a choice between spending their income tax overpayments on new spending in Washington or reducing our national debt further and reducing our tax burden on families, they would clearly side with reducing taxes and reducing the national debt. Mr. Speaker, this budget will probably fall to a similar fate as last year's budget, which was a vote of 422 opposed and 2 in favor of the President's budget. Mr. Speaker, I urge this administration to come back to the table, save these surpluses for paying down our national debt, shoring up Social Security and giving people their money back if they still overpay their taxes, instead of using it to spend $1.3 trillion on the creation of 84 new Federal Government programs.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a lot of talk today about the details in this bill. I would like to offer just a few general thoughts. It is important for us to recognize that this bill will not cause injured parties to go uncompensated. The bill does not apply unless injured parties are covered by Worker's Compensation. This bill does not override more protective, more generous express warranties that these products might have. And this bill is very limited in terms of both the time period and the goods that it covers. What this bill does do, importantly, is it separates out the least productive portion of the cost, the price, of goods and services in this country, the litigation-driven costs. It separates those out and tries to get a handle on them. The National Association of Manufacturing Technology says that one- third of respondents say they have been sued in these types of lawsuits, suits against manufacturing equipment; and while it is true that only five percent of these claims actually make it to trial, and of those that actually make it to trial, the vast majority result in favor of the manufacturer, the fact that they have to constantly defend these suits is a litigation-driven cost, it is a litigation tax not borne by these employers but borne by consumers because it raises the cost of all of their products. And unless we create a national standard, those manufacturers who have to deal with a multitude of States also have to follow a multitude of liability provisions, increasing their costs. So this is a tax on every good and service. It makes our goods less competitive worldwide. As my colleagues have already heard, the European Union and Japan have a more limited statute of repose. This is a tax, a drag on the economy. It costs us jobs. I would urge all of my colleagues to support not only this very reasonable rule but also the underlying bill.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, what I think is important to note today as this House appears poised apparently to vote for this bill with the anti-dairy reform in it, is it is important to point out why it was added to this bill. It was added to this bill because these anti-reform provisions could not pass Congress in the normal fashion. Extension of the compact and 1(a) have not passed both Houses of Congress. Right now, there is a fight going on in the Senate that I think proves that point. Because they could not pass it in the normal fashion, they had to add it in the wee hours of this debate. That is unfortunate, but maybe it means that there is hope for those of us who believe in free market reforms. Maybe it shows to us, the fact that they have to try to get it done this way, maybe it shows us that there are more people behind us than we realized. I can only hope that in the future, if given a chance to proceed in the normal order, maybe, just maybe, we will prevail, and maybe, just maybe, we will have true dairy reform.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for his leadership on the issue that he and I are joined together on, and that is dairy. I must reluctantly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill today because of the dairy provisions that it contains. It is real important to understand what has not happened today with the inclusion of these provisions. We have not done one thing to help dairy farmers in this Nation. We have not addressed the fact that most of the dairy farmers that we are losing in this Nation we are losing in the upper Midwest. In my home State, we are losing five each and every single day. We have not addressed the fact that many of the Nation's largest co- ops are gouging our dairy farmers, underpaying them. And we have not taken one step away from the Soviet style dairy system that has ruled this country since 1937. Because of what this bill does not do in dairy, I must reluctantly urge a no vote.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for his help and leadership and support on this issue. Of course, I need to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for his work authoring this resolution. I think it is an important statement. I also want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). Without his hard work and leadership on this, we would not have gotten to this point. He has done a tremendous job. Finally, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) who was my partner in developing some of the language that was added in committee, and he deserves the gratitude of all of us who are concerned about human rights. My concern, my interest in this resolution does, in fact, grow out of the plight of constituents of mine. Back some months ago, April, two American citizens, Mr. Houa Ly, who was from Appleton, Wisconsin, and Mr. Michael Vang, who was from the district of the gentleman from Fresno, California (Mr. Radanovich), were traveling along the Thai-Lao border, and they disappeared. Eye witnesses suggest that they were last seen in the company of representatives of the Lao government on a river boat. All available evidence, whether it be those eye witnesses or the congressional research mission that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) referred to, or relevant nongovernmental organizations, points, in fact, to the involvement of the Lao government in the disappearance of these two citizens. Since April, unfortunately, precious little seems to have happened. The State Department has entered into a joint investigation with the Lao government in this matter. The problem is, of course, that is the very government that is likely to have been involved in the disappearance. I would suggest to my colleagues that it should be no wonder that little has happened in that investigation if, in fact, the Lao government was involved. Let us not forget the Lao government is a government with an atrocious human rights record. Is it any wonder that the investigation really has not gotten very far? The families involved have suffered 7 months of near silence. They have been told almost nothing about their loved ones. Not only nothing from the Lao government, which I guess is to be expected given its treatment of human rights issues, but also nothing, unfortunately, or almost nothing from our own government, from our own State Department, from America. It has gotten so bad that these families have had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get any information at all, even declassified information, and they are still waiting, weeks later, for a formal response to their request. I hate to say it, but I cannot help but wonder if these U.S. citizens were not of Hmong descent but perhaps of another ethnic group or race, perhaps we would be taking this issue more seriously. Why are we bringing this resolution forward? People often ask why it is that we make such statements of policy here in the House. Well, they are, in fact, that, statements of policy. They are designed to send a public message. So here goes. Here is a public message: To the government of Laos, we say that these men are U.S. citizens. Any hope of an improved relationship with this country, in my view, must ride upon the Laos government's willingness to answer questions and to help us determine the whereabouts of these citizens. To our own State Department: Again, these men are U.S. citizens. Not second-class citizens, but full U.S. citizens. Show their families that citizenship means something; give them the information and give them the help which they are entitled to. Finally, to the families of Houa Ly and Michael Vang, who are U.S. citizens, we want them to know that they are not forgotten. It may seem like precious little consolation; but here today, before the public, we want them to know that they are not forgotten. We are remembering; we will push forward; and we will get some answers.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Today is a crossroads day, a pivotal day. It is a crossroads because today we become either partners or obstacles to reform. State after State, governor after governor, Republican and Democrat, has shown us the promise and potential of a merging American education reform. Their stories are exciting; their stories are optimistic. Thomas Jefferson called the States laboratories of democracy. It is much more than that. The States are not just engaged in experiments; they are engaged in a race, a race for education, a race towards excellence. The governors, the best governors from around the Nation, are looking at each other. They are looking to other States, seeing what is working, copying it, benchmarking it, adopting it, refining it, improving it, always pushing further down the track. Each experiment moves us down the track and brings us all up so that no one is left behind, not the inner-city youth, not the tribal school student. I want to close with this troubling thought. As my colleagues know, so many of us came from State and local government, Mr. Chairman. But yet many of us here today are poised to say that we do not trust our former colleagues. There must be something sacred or divine in the water out here in Washington. Suddenly, when we are sworn in, we become all knowing; we become the repositories of all that is good in education. Somehow we have made that change. Obviously that is absurd. Today, I say it again: we are at a crossroads. We can either be partners for reform or obstacles to reform.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I would like to draw attention back to one very simple thing. For better or worse, we have an employer-based health care system in this Nation. That is a fact. Some of us would like to change that, but today, as we are standing here, we have an employer-based system. As long as we do, we must reject plans that would lead employers to drop coverage. The debate over liability, and we are hearing it on both sides as to what that means, the debate over liability shows at the very least that it creates uncertainty for employers. Where they have uncertainty, we know in order to avoid risks they are going to drop coverage. In Wisconsin, we have the lowest level of uninsureds in the Nation. We understand that we cannot protect patients unless they have health insurance. Unfortunately, unless we pass this amendment, all we are going to do is drive up costs, drive up uninsured levels. We will not have access to care and we will not have patient protection. Please support this amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the late heavyweight champion of the world, Joe Louis, once said, ``Everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.'' Mr. Speaker, the wisdom of that statement will be shown to be true this week and next. Everybody in this House says that they want to protect Social Security. Everybody. But how many will support the spending cuts we need to get there? Every time the majority offers budget cuts to get there, the other side votes ``no,'' or offers tax increases, or screams bloody murder. We must cut spending to preserve Social Security. We must pass the Social Security lock-box. But as Joe Louis said: ``Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.''

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for yielding me time. I also want to extend my thanks to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for his work on this resolution. I appreciate their support very much. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of H. Res. 181, decrying the murder of these three U.S. citizens in Colombia, particularly Ms. Ingrid Washinawatok, a member of the Menominee Indian Nation in my own congressional district in northeastern Wisconsin. Ingrid deserves our gratitude and admiration. In these times when so many people offer little more than words and wishes, Ingrid walked the walk. She backed up her words and beliefs with constructive action. Time after time, Ingrid put her life on the line for what she believed in, often operating in dangerous, treacherous environments all around the world. She sacrificed throughout her life; and, in the end, she sacrificed her life itself. She was only 42 years old when she died at the hands of terrorists in Colombia. At the time that she was kidnapped, she and her two companions, as was mentioned by my colleague from Guam, were involved in an effort to better the lives of the U'wa people in northeastern Colombia through education. She had a vision, a vision of a better world, and she devoted her life to turning that vision into reality. But her work in Colombia was only the latest example of her devotion to that great vision. She traveled throughout the globe and tried to leave, she and her companions, each place that she worked just a little bit better than when she had first arrived. She is survived by her family and friends both in Wisconsin and in New York. But I think we all will miss her and mourn her, her and her companions, because with their passing, we all lose something. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 181 uses the force of this Congress to decry the murders of Ingrid and Mr. Freitas and Ms. Gay. It was members of FARC who kidnapped these three U.S. citizens. It was members of FARC who killed them just 2 days later. These actions were reprehensible and they were intolerable. We must send a message today to FARC and other groups who would commit brutal crimes just as this that U.S. citizenship means something, and that the U.S. will not stand for acts of aggression against its citizens anywhere in the world. This resolution also strongly condemns FARC itself for its actions. FARC is a recognized terrorist organization. It has a horrifying history of atrocities, of thuggery. Finally, this resolution calls upon the government of Colombia and our own FBI to expedite and intensify their efforts to find and arrest those responsible. We must find them, if citizenship is going to mean anything, and they must be extradited to the U.S. for a trial. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the members of the Committee on International Relations for their support, their work, and their assistance on this. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to honor the memories of these Americans, to make sure that justice is done, and to protect our citizens abroad in the future.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on a lighter topic, in my district last weekend we received formal recognition of what we from Green Bay have known for a long time, our area is one of the best places in America to live. Thanks to the National Civic League and Allstate Insurance, who sponsored this wonderful program, Green Bay was named an All-American City. Our area does indeed represent the very best of grass-root citizen involvement, creative community effort, and collaborative problem solving the three key qualities embodied by this award. I am proud to say that Green Bay is on the march, taking aggressive steps to meet its challenges in the most innovative ways we can. Those who live in Green Bay want to put the rest of the Nation on notice, there is another key quality of character we hold dear: The relentless pursuit of excellence. The All-American City award is not the end of a journey but merely another milepost in a longer journey to make sure that our area is the greatest place in the world to live, and we will not rest until we get there.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be able to share with my colleagues some wonderful news from my district--the Green Bay Police department was recently awarded the prestigious Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. The national award formally recognizes the truly outstanding job the Green Bay P.D. continues to do to serve and protect our community. I would particularly like to recognize Green Bay Mayor Paul Jadin, Police Chief Jim Lewis, as well as Steve Scully and Bill Bongle. Officers Scully and Bongle are the community policing officers who submitted the presentation for this award, and continue to do the innovative police work that earned it. The community policing program is so successful because it tackles crime in a creative new way--giving police the flexibility to work within communities to find the best solutions to the problems certain at-risk neighborhoods face. Rather than simply reacting to crime and pushing it out, community policing seeks to attack crime at its source--focusing on prevention, and effectively choking off the root problems that cause crime in the first place. The department's community policing program in Green Bay's North Broadway area achieved much more than just this award. Police calls dropped 25 percent from 1997 to 1998, and they're down a whopping 58 percent since 1993. This impressive reduction means so much more than any award could ever express. This success story means local residents and businesses have experienced a genuine and dramatic improvement in their quality of life and and work. The officers involved, the Green Bay P.D. and the entire community can be proud of this extraordinary accomplishment.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems with the debate that we are going to have today is that, as my colleagues may have already heard, we are going to be dealing with a very complex, very difficult subject, milk marketing orders. A lot of terms and a lot of images are going to be tossed around, and a lot of Members and a lot of interest groups are going to be arguing that they know what is in the best interest of a family dairy farm. This amendment, the amendment that I offer today, will ensure that, whatever we do today, it is supported by the dairy farmers themselves, not co-ops, not manufacturers, not associations, not Members of Congress, not inside-the-beltway interests, but the dairy farmers themselves. As we will also hear reference to today, back in August, dairy producers all across America were asked to vote up or down on the modest, very modest reform plan offered by Secretary Glickman. Overwhelming results: over 95 percent of the dairy producers today and over 90 percent in each region of the Nation said that they favor the Glickman reform. So why are we here? I would argue that farmers have spoken loud and clear. They want reform. Well, my colleagues, we are here because the large co-ops and some regional money interests do not like the results, and they seek today to overturn those results and overturn what the farmers I believe really want. Now, to cover themselves they offer a weak excuse. They say that the vote that they cast in August was not a true vote and it was not a true vote because they did not have a choice between 1-A and 1-B. Instead, it was up or down on the Glickman reform, it was either the Glickman reform or termination of milk marketing orders. Well, where have they been for the last 6 decades? That has been the system in place since 1937. Those of us who oppose 1402 did not create it. These are not our rules. These are the rules that we have had to play by for 60 years. The votes have always been cast in such a fashion. But today we have an opportunity through this amendment to take the anti-reformers at their word. This amendment that I offer creates democracy. It asks dairy farmers their opinion. It turns to them for votes. This amendment says that before this all-seeing, all-wise Congress overturns the result of the August referendum and reimposes its Soviet- style dairy system, we must have a real vote of dairy farmers. What a radical idea, no taxation without representation. Secondly, this amendment turns the vote over to dairy farmers themselves, all the dairy farmers covered by milk marketing orders. Instead of having an order-by-order vote, which is patchwork voting, this amendment recognizes that all dairy farmers, and we are going to hear this over and over again, all dairy farmers, all consumers have an interest, have a national stake in what we do today. Third, this terminates block voting. A dirty secret in this process is that farmers actually do not have the vote. Instead, co-ops do. Co- ops have the right to vote their members. Just like feudal lords had the right for centuries to vote their tenants, husbands had the right to vote for their wives, co-ops have the right to vote for their member farmers. Lord forbid that our dairy farmers get to express their own opinion. Fourth, this amendment does precisely what the supporters of 1402 say they want, a true choice, a true vote. We allow dairy farmers, under this amendment, to choose either 1-A or 1-B. We have heard a lot of rhetoric about dairy farmers not getting a real vote in August. Today, with this amendment, we have the opportunity to give them a real vote, a real choice. I do not rely on the Members out here, the 229 Members inside the Beltway, to make these choices. I put my faith in dairy farmers. I ask my colleagues to support this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to pull the mask off the antireformers, and we are hearing a bit of that in the rhetoric of my colleague from New York. Either my colleagues respect the overwhelming vote of dairy farmers in August, those that we all say we are here to serve, or they should change that voting system to get the real voice of dairy farmers. This amendment seeks to do that. It seeks to give us what many of us here are calling for, a real choice. As my colleagues know, so many of us here pay lip service to the family farm. We say we want to save it, we want to save Americana, we want to protect the family farm as a part of our economy and our culture; and yet apparently, we do not trust those same family farmers we say we want to protect. We do not trust them to have a voice. Instead we take the voice away from them. One wonders if perhaps those who do not support this amendment are afraid of what they might hear. They are afraid of what the farmers may tell them. This is the moment of truth, this amendment: Who lines up for dairy farmers and who lines up for others, for special interests? Who really wants to hear from dairy farmers and give them the opportunity to decide what is best for them, and who believes that they know better? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I find it interesting that my esteemed colleague is against this amendment because holding a referendum of dairy farmers would prove costly, and yet my colleague and the supporters of 1402 seek to overturn a referendum we have already paid for. Apparently that one was not so costly; it was worth throwing away to them. My colleagues cannot have it both ways. Either we are going to turn to our dairy farmers or we are not. Either we are going to respect the results of a referendum or we are going to change the referendum to get a true vote. Remember this: 1402 not only reverses the results of the August referendum, but it would take away the right to vote by dairy farmers before this change takes place. Dairy farmers have had the right to vote on the Federal order system since 1937. We are taking the step, those who support 1402 and vote against this amendment, they are taking the step for the first time in 62 years imposing a system without giving dairy farmers the right to vote. I think that is outrageous. Wherever one stands on 1402, wherever one stands on 1-A, 1-B, Glickman reform, to take away the right to vote before we do so is wrong. It is antifarmer, it is anti-family farmer, it is a slap in the face of family farms all across this Nation, those who would benefit and those who would be hurt by 1402. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) for so graciously providing this opportunity for balanced debate. I would ask those watching today and listening to remember three points as this debate takes place: number one, we are going to hear a lot today about how family farms in general and dairy farmers in particular are hurting. No one knows that better than I. In the district that I represent, we have seen a massive decline in dairy farming. By this time tomorrow, Wisconsin will have lost five dairy farms. We have lost more dairy farms in the last 10 years than nearly every other State ever had. I understand that our farmers are hurting. But as we hear about how dairy farmers are hurting, do not forget that they are hurting under the current system, the system which the supporters of H.R. 1402 seek to reimpose. It will not help them one iota. Point number two to remember, we are going to hear a lot about numbers and about losses. The supporters of H.R. 1402 are going to have their charts. Remember this: the USDA has debunked every one of those numbers. The USDA just recently came out with a report which shows what would have happened if the Secretary's proposed reforms had been in effect over the last year. The doomsday scenarios that we are hearing about are false. They are badly misleading. Point number three, we are going to hear a lot about the coalition of Members who support this bill, and it is broad, and it is bipartisan. It is 229 Members. Would this be the first time that people inside the Beltway have been wrong? I ask my colleagues, just because they have 229 Members does not make them right. I do not put my faith inside the Beltway. I put my faith in a different coalition, a broad coalition, a coalition that spans every part of the spectrum. Those standing against H.R. 1402 range from Americans for Tax Reform to the AFL-CIO, Citizens Against Government Waste to the Consumer Federation of America, the Teamsters, the Caucus of Black State Legislators, the Grocers Association, the Food Marketing Institute. We have had newspapers from every part of the country opining against raising the price of milk which is what H.R. 1402 would do. We have heard from the Washington Post, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, paper after paper, group after group outside the beltway is saying do not do this. Do not raise the price of milk that consumers have to pay. Do not push farmers out the door. I urge my colleagues to stand today not within the beltway but with groups outside the beltway opposed to 1402.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) who has had a major effect in this debate, and been a major force.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, a lot of numbers are getting tossed around here today. I have something very interesting that we just got. These are the USDA figures just released for the month of October. This is what they use to send out paychecks to farmers. What it says is the loss here, if this goes forward, is 57 cents nationwide. The gloom and doom that my colleague and friend puts forward is just not borne out by the numbers. Again, changes that we are pushing for are extremely modest. H.R. 1402, contrary to what it said, we will lose. Farmers everywhere will lose.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for yielding additional time. Mr. Chairman, in just a few days, or a week or two, this Congress will likely pass a multibillion dollar bill designed to intervene and help struggling farmers. Yet, we have right before us, right now, an amendment that is a simple way to intervene on behalf of some farmers, those who have relatively weak bargaining power with respect to their large co-op. This is a simple, easy way to intervene and to make their lot better. It does not cost billions. It is not going to grab headlines, but it is a way that we can help out, a direct way, a simple way. Let me also return to a discussion or a focus on the vote itself on this amendment. This is one of those amendments, in my view, that dairy farmers all across America will be watching closely when they see the results, because this is one of those amendments that really distinguishes a voting Member on which side they are on. This one says whether one is on the side of a small dairy farmer with relatively weak bargaining power or whether or not one is on the side of a large co-op. In many cases, as my colleague from Wisconsin has pointed out, where they essentially have a monopoly, it cannot be both ways. My colleagues are for one or for the other, and when this vote is cast, dairy farmers will know.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time. In response to the gentleman who spoke just before me, he pleaded with Members to keep co-ops strong; I think co-ops are doing just fine. I think that has become very clear today. My colleagues are hearing a few recurring themes today. One of them is they are hearing over and over again through the amendments that are being brought forward, they are seeing a distinction between those who choose to stand up for family dairy farms and those who choose to stand up for large dairy interests. Earlier today, we took away from dairy farmers the right to vote on this change in milk marketing orders, a right that they have had for 62 years. Today we took that away. Just a little while ago, we denied to farmers, with respect to Class I fluid milk, the right to forward contract, the risk-management tool that so many other businesses have, that nearly every other commodity has. We have done that. Today, with this amendment, what we are learning is that some co-ops, not all by any means, I am a supporter of co-ops, but at least some co- ops are underpaying family dairy farmers. That is the dirty little secret. In fact, according to USDA, I am reading from a USDA publication here, farmers from New England, southeast Texas, and the Southwest plains were paid on average 80 cents less than the minimum milk price in their respective regions, solely because their co-ops are not required to pay producers the minimum price for their milk. So what we are seeing today, at a time when we are all talking about how much family dairy farms are hurting, we are seeing that we have an opportunity to help them, to protect them. Now those who sponsor and support 1402, they say that family farmers are in need of protection from food processors. They say that family farmers are in need of protection. The supporters of 1402 also say that family farmers need protection from the right to vote for themselves, but apparently they do not need protection from a few large co-ops which by every reasonable measure are underpaying them. Mr. Chairman, if there were a movie theme to this vote today, it would be the Empire Strikes Back, because a few large interests are thwarting the needs, the concerns and the wishes of family dairy farms all across America.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, with reference to the cheese exchange, the interesting thing is, guess what, we did away with the cheese exchange, something that the supporters of H.R. 1402 will not do. We agree with them, that system was unfair. We ended it. I challenge the supporters of H.R. 1402 to do the same today, to join us in reforming this system. This place is locked in a time warp. This place is using a milk marketing order system that was created in the era of the manual typewriter. This place is voting on a system that ignores any modern technology since then: the interstate highway system, refrigerated trucks, for Lords' sakes. Times have changed out in the marketplace, except with respect to dairy policy. Nowhere in this country are dairy farmers hurting more than in Wisconsin and in Minnesota. But what we recognize is the system that pits farmer against farmer, State against State, region against region, cannot be the answer ever to America's challenges, America's problems. Those who seek to turn back the clock to 1937 belong to the Flat Earth Society. They fear the marketplace. They are afraid of the marketplace. They are afraid of competition. They are afraid of breaking down the Soviet-style pricing system. Members are right, we did have a cheese exchange. We ended the cheese exchange. I would say here today that the supporters of H.R. 1402 should do the same thing, end this outdated system. Let the marketplace rule. We in Wisconsin do not fear it, we welcome the marketplace.