Mark Green

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum).

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, first off, I appreciate the point. I do better appreciate the question now that it was raised. The answer to the first question about misdemeanor State offense is no, it would not be covered by this. Secondly, this is the law in Wisconsin already, and this has been the law for some time in Wisconsin. Obviously, I keep referring back, we have a three-strikes law here on the Federal level that would cover many of these same crimes and we have a three-strikes law that would cover many of these same types of crimes in nearly every State in the Union. Again, we are talking about repeated offenses; an offense that is committed after someone has been arrested and convicted of one of these offenses, and that after having served his time, doing it yet again.

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

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have just given the gentleman the information that I have.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I have given the gentleman the maximum sentences that I have under these.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, it covers no other crimes besides the ones that I have stated to the gentleman.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it explicitly provides, section 2241, as the gentleman referred to, the aggravated sexual abuse, which is currently the maximum sentence is any term of years or life. It provides for sexual abuse for which the sentence is 20 years; sexual abuse of a minor, 15-year penalty; abuse of sexual contact, 12-year penalty; sexual abuse resulting in death which is a term of years or life or capital punishment; the buying and selling of children, not less than 20 years; and the transportation of minors across State lines for illegal sexual purposes. I would also remind the gentleman that we are talking in all of these cases about a second offense. So the individual that we are referring to here must have been arrested, convicted, and served his time for a previous commission of such an offense.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, which part is the gentleman's question?

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, with respect to this provision, it would not. It would essentially recodify the proposal and position of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). What this bill does is create a two-strikes provision, a new provision within Federal law; codifies the proposal of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and puts that within that. It does not in any way conflict with it.

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

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly agree with my learned colleague from Michigan. This is a very emotional subject, there are no two ways about it. Of course the day we cease to be emotional about child molestation is the day I cease to be proud to serve in this institution, and I know the gentleman shares that sentiment. I respect his opinion, and that is why this proposal is so carefully and narrowly tailored. It is built upon the three-strikes proposal that was passed by a democratically-controlled Congress some years ago. It is also based upon the proposal of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) which again I commend. I took to heart the gentleman's arguments on a previous matter in which he talked about adding clutter, I think was the term, to the law, and was concerned about a lack of clarity when we take sentencing away from the Sentencing Commission. I respect that. In the case, though, of this proposal, I would submit that we add clarity and simplicity to the law, because we send a very strong signal with it. Instead of having conflicting terms and sending conflicting signals, this one is rather simple. Again, this is based upon the three-strikes law which this institution has previously passed and which many, if not most, States in the Nation have. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today we debate and consider legislation aimed at protecting our young people from crime and violence. Well, Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment aimed at protecting our children from a particularly devastating form of violence, and that is sexual violence. The amendment is known as the Two Strikes and You Are Out Child Protection Act. It is similar to my bill, H.R. 1989, which enjoys bipartisan cosponsorship. Furthermore, it builds upon the fine work done by my colleague from Texas (Mr. Frost) and his law known as the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996. Now this is really a very simple proposal. It provides for a life sentence for those sick individuals who repeatedly prey on our children. This amendment says something very simple. It says that if someone is arrested and convicted of a serious sex crime against kids and then, after serving that time they do it yet again, under this plan, Mr. Chairman, they will go to prison for the rest of their life. Now almost as important as what this bill does is what it does not do. This bill in no way conflicts with the fine work of my colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost). It builds upon it. It makes it stronger, just as it builds upon the three strikes and you are out law passed by this Congress several years ago. This bill does not federalize in any way our sexual assault laws, and finally, this bill does not simply pile criminal penalties on for sexual assaults. It has been narrowly drafted to target a very small group of individuals, but individuals who cause so very much damage and destruction in our society, damage to children, damage to families, damage to communities. It focuses on those who repeatedly molest our children. Mr. Chairman, in my home State of Wisconsin 77 percent of all sexual assault victims are juveniles, and the recidivism rate of the monsters who prey on these children is extraordinarily high. An Emory University report done some years ago suggested that the average child molester will commit 150 acts of child molestation during his lifetime, 150. Furthermore, there is actually a study from the Washington Post that suggests the number is higher, perhaps twice as high. I know these numbers sound unbelievable, I know we do not want to believe them, but unfortunately they are real, and they demand our action. Every time one of these sexual offenders offends, he destroys another life, he steals innocence yet again. When we find someone who has done this terrible act, after having served time for doing it before, in my view that person is self-defiant. He has shown us that he is unwilling or unable to stop his chain of violence. This amendment, I admit, is not about punishment, it is not about deterrence. Quite simply, this amendment is about removing bad actors from society, keeping them away from our friends, our families, our streets. Now many of my colleagues are familiar with my good friend Mark Klaas, whose name has come up quite a bit in the debate today, and as many of my colleagues are aware, he is a dedicated child safety advocate. He is the founder of the Mark Klaas Foundation for Kids. The story is unfortunately all too famous. His daughter, Polly, 12 years old, was kidnapped from her home in California, brutally molested and murdered. I have in fact here in my file a letter from Mr. Klaas strongly supporting the amendment that we have here today. I would also like to recognize, once again, the great work done by my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) who offered the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) was successful in creating a Federal two-strikes law covering the crime of aggravated sexual abuse. I commend his work and I hope to build on his achievement today. This bill creates a new repeat offender clause, or a two-strikes provision. It not only includes aggravated sexual abuse, but it also includes other serious sex crimes as well. Crimes like sexual abuse of juveniles, the selling and buying of children, and the transportation of those under 16 for illicit, illegal sexual activity. I would also like to point out that under this amendment, just as with the Frost amendment, previously State offenses which would have qualified as a Federal crime, a Federal strike, had they been prosecuted as such, would count as a strike. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this common- sense, yet very important child protection amendment. If my colleagues want to strike back at the alarming rate of sexual offenses against kids, my colleagues will support this amendment. I hope that they do. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, later today the House is expected to consider an amendment to the agricultural appropriations act that would essentially prevent Secretary Glickman from implementing his proposed very modest milk marketing reforms. This amendment is terrible public policy. It would reinforce what I call the milk tax, government-imposed costs on dairy products, costs to the tune of $1 billion annually. In a recent letter, Citizens Against Government Waste said it ``opposes any effort to artificially mandate higher milk prices and will score the vote for such an amendment as a vote against the U.S. taxpayer.'' Against the U.S. taxpayer. This amendment is bad for taxpayers, it is bad for consumers, and yes, it is bad for family farms. I urge my colleagues to join me later today in rejecting this amendment to increase the milk tax.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank my friend and colleague from Minnesota. I think he has pointed out again just the absurdity of the system and that cartoon does show it. Think about this. We are entering the year 2000, the next millennium, yet we have a system for the production and consumption and distribution of milk that is based upon economic realities around World War II. Think about how much technology has changed since then. Beyond that, we are at a time in our history in which Members of this body from both sides of the aisle are emphasizing the need to open up borders, to break down barriers for trade all across this world. Yet here in America, in supposedly the bastion of entrepreneurial capitalism, we have a system that creates barriers, that blocks the flow, creates disincentives for the flow of dairy products across State lines and across regional lines. This is counter to everything that we stand for in America today. Again, I want to come back and emphasize the point, this system is terrible for the dairy farmers in States like Minnesota and Wisconsin. Again, over the last 8 years, we have lost more dairy farmers than most States ever had. But beyond that, this is bad for consumers. Under this system, we are driving up the price of milk. We are also encouraging large corporate farms, which are buying up the small family farmer. If that trend continues, we are going to see dairy production in the hands of only a few, and then we will have a true monopoly on the supply of milk. Then we will see milk prices rise, and then milk will no longer be the cheap and wonderful fluid that it is, available to all today. This is also, this system is bad for taxpayers. It drives up the cost on programs like the school meal program, it drives up the costs for families on food stamps, reduces the value of food stamps. This system, almost any way to look at it, is absurd, it is un-American, and it is wrong. Now we are not going to change things overnight, we are not going to change things here tonight, but we do want to make our case to the American people. It is a long uphill battle, but it is certainly no longer and no more uphill than our dairy farmers are facing. We want to start the process tonight, and as has been stated before, it is a long battle that we have ahead. I yield my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman has been fighting this fight a lot longer than I have, and I applaud his efforts. I guess, just to wrap up and summarize, as the gentleman has pointed out, Secretary Glickman's order is not perfect; and for those of us in Minnesota and Wisconsin, we would argue it is far from it, and it is a very small, modest step. But at least it is a step in the right direction. It recognizes that the long-standing system, standing since 1937, of Federal orders and compacts is bad for farmers, driving our family farms out of business; it is bad for consumers because it inflates the costs of milk, it adds a milk tax in so many ways; and finally, it is counter to free enterprise, free enterprise not just in the manufacturing sector, not just in the service sector, but even in the agricultural sector. It is the only agricultural product treated like this. So it is bad on all counts. It is time to make a larger change, but at least to support Secretary Glickman's proposal, let that come on line, make a small but positive step and offer some hope to our farmers.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on 2 points that the gentleman made. It is ironic that at this point in our history where as Americans we are so health conscious, we keep talking about dietary changes and the things that we should be doing especially for young people in trying to encourage good health practices, at that very time when we should be encouraging the free flow of milk all around the Nation and keeping milk prices low, we are actually reinforcing a system that does just the opposite. We are making milk a healthy, wonderful product. We are making milk more expensive than its counterparts. We are actually encouraging people to shy away from milk and to go towards such products as soda, and no one is going to say that soda rivals milk for health value. That is a great irony. Secondly, I know a lot of people out there listening tonight are saying to themselves, well, if the price of milk is going to go up, that is okay if it goes to help the family farm. Well, perhaps the greatest irony of all is that the compact system, the Federal order system, hurts the small farmer to the advantage of the corporate farmer. Every analysis I have seen shows that the lion's share of the value of any increase in the price of milk does not go to that small family farmer. Instead, it goes to the large corporate farm. Nothing against the corporate farms, but they are pushing the small farmer out, and again, as we put more and more of the means of production for dairy products in the hands of those large corporate farmers, we are losing control, and then one day when we only have milk being produced by a few, then we will truly see milk prices go up. We will have a true monopoly. So for those out there who are saying, ``I am willing to pay more if it helps the family farm in Minnesota or in Wisconsin,'' the sad reality is it does not. Instead it pushes them out of business. We lost 2,000 dairy farms in Wisconsin last year, 2,000 dairy farms in Wisconsin the year before. We have lost 10,000 over the last 8 years. We have lost 50 percent of all dairy farms lost in the Nation over the last decade were lost in the upper Midwest in States like the gentleman's and mine. So, people may be thinking that they are helping out dairy farmers with these higher prices. The sad reality is they are not. They are not. If anything, they are accelerating the decline of the family farm, and that is a great tragedy.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, what my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), points out is something important, and that is that there are really two different elements to this overall fight that we have on the dairy front. There is, first of all, the problem of the Federal order system, which is what we began talking about tonight, and that is the differential system that does base the price of milk largely on the proximity to Eau Claire. In fact, it was interesting. That is a fight that my predecessor has been fighting and so many men and women over the years have been fighting. The Agriculture Commissioner from your State, in Minnesota, pointed out that dairy farmers in Minnesota have become so frustrated with their inability to change that system that they actually think it might be easier to physically relocate the City of Eau Claire to the West Coast than actually making a reform to it. That is the Federal order system. But the second part of this, and it is a problem, as you rightly pointed out, which is equally bad, it is the problem of the compacts because the compacts do serve to create trade barriers between States and between regions, and Citizens Against Government Waste have calculated that the compacts are a major tax on milk that will drive up the cost of milk for so many consumers in this country. As my colleagues know, we are the most effective dairy producing region in the whole world in the upper Midwest, and yet because of the combination of the compacts, because of the combination of the compacts with the Federal order system, we are being punished for that very productivity which we have. And as the gentleman pointed out also, the dairy farmers in Minnesota and Wisconsin are not asking for any favors. They do not want favors. They do not want sympathy. They just want the chance to compete. They know that if they are given that equal chance to compete, they will succeed. They will succeed vis-a-vis farmers in America, but also farmers all across the world. That is all they are looking for, and in this land of opportunity it seems to be the least that we can do.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about an important issue of fairness, fairness to farmers, fairness to consumers, and fairness to taxpayers. I know that ``fairness'' is an overused term. But quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it has never been more important or more true than it is on the issue that I want to talk about tonight, and that is the issue of dairy pricing. For the last six decades, we have had a Government mandated system of dairy price supports. It began in the late 1930s because dairy producers had a difficult time getting their goods to consumers in a timely way. They had a difficult time because of technology in meeting consumption needs. We did not, quite frankly, have effective infrastructure or enough technology to transport our surplus to States that had deficit in production. Those days are over, however. We have the refrigeration, we have the infrastructure to transport dairy products from States like Wisconsin anywhere in America overnight. As a result, the outdated dairy price system, the Federal order system, no longer makes sense. Wisconsin dairy farmers and Wisconsin communities are being ravaged, they are being destroyed by the current Federal order system. In the last 8 years, Wisconsin has lost over 10,000 dairy farms. Wisconsin has lost 2,000 dairy farms in each of the last 2 years. We have lost more dairy farms in the last 8 years than most States ever have. Now, I am here tonight to speak to my colleagues, quite frankly, not on behalf of dairy farmers. Dairy farmers are not looking for our sympathy. They are a tough bunch. This is a tough life-style. They know that. They have been fighting uphill all of their lives. They are not looking for sympathy. They are looking for fairness. More importantly, quite frankly, I would think to the Members of this body is the fact that this unfair system not only hurts our dairy farmers, my family farmers in Wisconsin, of which there are 22,000 remaining, but it is also unfair to consumers. Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize, it is important to know that the outdated Federal order system artificially inflates the price of milk. And as more farmers go out of business, and as I just said, we are losing farmers each and every year, the more farmers who go out of business, the higher that price will be. The Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, a number of taxpayer groups, groups that do not necessarily have a natural stake in the fight over a dairy policy, they have reached an interesting conclusion. After looking at the Federal order system, they have concluded that the Federal order system that we have had in this country for six decades is little more than a tax on milk. It is a milk tax that consumers are paying all across this land. It is a milk tax to the tune of about $1 billion each and every year. Now, the reason I come forward today is because of a battle that I believe is going to be on this floor tomorrow and, quite frankly and unfortunately, probably on this floor for weeks and months to come. Some weeks ago, Secretary Dan Glickman proposed a final order on the Federal order system for dairies. And in that Federal order, Secretary Glickman proposed a very minor change to the Federal order system, a very minor, modest change. And it is true, it will benefit Wisconsin farmers, dairy farmers, but again in a very modest way. Now, it may be ironic to some of you that I come here today to support a proposal from a Democrat administration. But I come forward because this issue of the Federal order system of the milk tax is not about Republican versus Democrat, it is not about conservative versus liberal. It is about doing the right thing. And I come here tonight to argue that we need to support Secretary Glickman's plan. Modest as it is, it is a step in the right direction. Now, the Federal order system for dairy is one of the most complicated systems that you can possibly imagine. It is full of acronyms, it is full of terminology that the average person cannot understand, let alone a Member of Congress who may serve on the Committee on Agriculture or who comes from a dairy State. If you tried to explain to your constituents that this system that we have in place creates a price on milk based not upon productivity, based not upon quality, based not upon efficiency, but instead based merely on the distance that a producer is from the city of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, your constituents would not believe you. They would think that you were making it up. The sad reality is that that is the truth. We have a dairy system in this Nation for which government mandates prices for fluid milk again based merely upon geography. That is wrong. It is unfair to farmers, it is unfair to consumers, it inflates the price of milk and, quite frank,ly it is un-American because it is contrary to our free enterprise system. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). I know that he shares many of the concerns that I bring forward tonight.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an important bill, the Safe Parks Act of 1999. Mr. Speaker, our national parks are not as safe as we would expect them to be. In 1997, there were over 550 reported sex offenses in our national parks. Even more disturbing, 1997 saw 33 forceful rapes and 11 attempted rapes in those same national parks. That is a rape or attempted rape about every 8 days on Federal lands that are supposed to be safe havens for our families. That is why I am introducing the Safe Parks Act today. It is a simple bill, barring any convicted sex offender from entering our U.S. parks. Mr. Speaker, in honor of National Missing Children's Day, please join me in supporting this measure to help defend the sanctity of our Federal parks for our kids.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to briefly say a few words in honor of Bob Bush--a man whose contributions to the Green Bay community over the past five decades have been enormous. After 53 years with Schreiber Foods, my friend Bob Bush is finally stepping down as Chairman of the Board. During his time at Schreiber, Bob has built not only a great company, but a great team of 3,600 employees. As one man, Bob Bush has done plenty to improve the quality of life in northeastern Wisconsin. But as a leader, Bob Bush has done even more. Bob serves as a shining example for the rest of us--someone who has been successful not only in his profession, but in his community life. The example he has set ensures that his long legacy of giving something back to the community will be carried on through the generations of people he has touched. Bob's service and achievements are almost too numerous to be able to list here, but I'll try to provide a few highlights . . . He's served as an officer, director, president, CEO and chairman of Schreiber Foods. He's served on or chaired the boards of the Green Bay Packers, Firstar Bank, YMCA, Junior Achievement, United Way, National Cheese Institute, Marine Bank, St. Norbert College and many, many others. He's served on the Allouez School Board and the Green Bay Water Commission. And he and his wife Carol have given us four Bush children and fourteen grandchildren--all of whom are poised to continue his special legacy into the next millennium. Bob, of course, managed all this in his ``free time'' while running one of the most successful companies in our area--think about all he'll be able to do now that he's retiring. So, on behalf of all the people whose lives have been touched by Bob Bush, I'd like to say ``thanks, Bob''--for all you've done and for all you'll do during this well-deserved retirement.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced before this House a bill I hope will finally bring an end to a decades-long legal struggle and also provide much-needed financial assistance to one of the most impoverished areas of my Congressional District and, indeed, the entire state of Wisconsin. Specifically, the bill I've introduced authorizes the U.S. government to finally make good on a $32 million court settlement with the Menominee Indian Tribe in my district. The history of this settlement can be traced back to 1954, when the federal government terminated the tribe's federal trust status and the Bureau of Indian Affairs grossly mismanaged many of the tribe's assets. In 1967, the tribe filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging this termination and seeking damages. After decades of litigation, in 1993 Congress passed a congressional reference directing the U.S. Claims Court to determine what damages, if any, were owed to the tribe. In August of last year, following three decades of lengthy court trials and appeals, the tribe finally settled its claim against the federal government for $32 million. As the members of this House are aware, Congress must authorize the payment of this court settlement before any U.S. funds can be released. The court has done its job and the tribe has waited long enough. Now it is time for Congress to do its job and agree to this settlement. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to briefly spell out four key reasons why this proposal is worthy of support: First, I believe it is our responsibility to make good on public commitments that have been made by representatives of our government in federal court proceedings. In this case, both sides negotiated this settlement in good faith, and it was approved by the court. Now it is our duty to finalize the court actions in this matter and award the settlement as agreed to. Second, I believe this legal battle has gone on long enough, and the taxpayers should be relieved of the ongoing cost burden of this litigation. The first lawsuit dealing with this matter was filed in 1967--more than 31 years ago. After numerous trials and appeals over the last three decades, we have finally reached the light at the end of the tunnel. It is time for Congress to close the book on this matter once and for all and approve the release of these funds. Third, the Menominee Indian Tribe needs and deserves this settlement. The Menominee are one of the most economically troubled Indian nations in America. This is due in part to the Menominee Termination Act and the Bureau of Indian Affairs' mismanagement of Menominee tribal resources from 1961 to 1973. Finally, this settlement will provide a boost to the local economies of northeastern Wisconsin--a part of my state in need of help due to the recent farm crisis and other economic factors. This settlement will provide at least a small amount of relief to communities throughout this area. One final note. Today, Senator Kohl has introduced nearly identical legislation in the Senate. I am pleased to be working with him and I applaud his years of hard work in trying to improve the economic situation on the Menominee Reservation. I would also like to thank Menominee Chairman Apesanahkwat for his willingness to work with me to ensure these funds, if approved, won't be used to take any land off the tax rolls. These dollars will be used to improve education, health care and economic opportunities for the tribe. I encourage my colleagues to join me in an effort to being this matter to a speedy and successful vote on the floor of this House. For the sake of our country's credibility, for people of northeastern Wisconsin, and for the Menominee Nation, now is the time for this matter to be closed.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an advocate for the taxpayers of northeastern Wisconsin. See, today, as my colleagues have already heard, is the day when Americans finally stop working for the Federal Government and start working for their own families. The average American works 131 days just to pay his or her taxes. Mr. Speaker, I am sad to report that this year Tax Freedom Day is the latest ever. As a matter of fact, Tax Freedom Day has moved back 11 days since 1993. This is unacceptable, and I believe it is time for this Congress to act. One of my constituents, Jane Savides of Appleton, recently wrote me about the excessive burden of taxes on her family. Jane writes, quote, we just put our taxes in the mail today, and as usual we owe the government more money. We all have to put food on the table, buy clothes and save for college. We have been putting more money away for our kids' education, but the more we save for them the more we get hit with taxes. I could not agree with Jane more. I appeal to my colleagues, now is the time to provide real tax relief to families like the Savides family. It is time to give all of our constituents true freedom, the freedom to earn more money.