Mark Green

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman from Virginia just stated that this amendment is controversial. I am afraid I disagree. I do not believe it is controversial in the least, and I think we will see that when the votes are taken. Mr. Chairman, we must do everything we can to stop terrorists, and that starts with ensuring that all terrorist acts are punished swiftly and severely. This amendment sends a clear message that we take terrorism seriously, that we understand that terrorist acts are not just crimes. They are acts of war, war against our way of life. We must not waver in our message to those who wish to threaten the values we hold dear. If a terrorist strikes on our soil we owe it to the victims of an attack to punish those responsible with the heaviest possible penalty, the death penalty. To do less would be a disservice to those who have lost their lives and would send a signal of weakness to those who are willing to use any means necessary to seek our destruction. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) described this amendment very well so I will not run through it in detail. But let me say that this amendment treats acts of terrorism just like treason or espionage because that is what these acts truly are, not only crimes against individuals but crimes against our Nation. Anyone who is thwarted in their attempt to carry out an attack should not be spared the heaviest penalty just because they were caught before they could carry out their heinous intentions. I was proud to work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) on this issue. I commend him for carrying this amendment forward. It is good work that the gentleman is doing. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is very important that we send a strong signal to the world that we take these acts seriously, and serious acts deserve serious consequences.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank her for this important amendment. Today, one way or another, we will be sending a very important message with this amendment. There are some here who will demand that the U.S. set a deadline for withdrawal. In my view, that would be a dangerously bad idea. For one thing, it would send a terrible message to our enemy. It would tell our enemy that if they simply wait so long to a certain date, the troops will wind down and they can take over once again. For another, it sets an embittering message to our families who have lost loved ones. I am guessing that almost every Member here has attended the funeral of a soldier lost in Iraq. I have. And I will never forget the one that I went to when I met with the family before the service and I said, Is there anything I can do? and they said, Yes, do not back down and tell the President not to back down because if you back down, our son will have died in vain. But perhaps most importantly, forcing a withdrawal deadline sends a dangerous message to the Iraqi people. The enemy tells them day after day after day that Americans are going to cut and run. At the same time we are telling them to come forward, to join us, to become trained, to become better educated, to get ready to help democracy stand up. But when we set a deadline for withdrawal, we play right into the hands of the message of our enemy: Why should Iraqis come forward if they think that we are going to pull out once again and pull out early? Those who support setting a deadline are pulling the rug out from democracy and pulling a rug out from the Iraqis who might come forward. Please, for the sake of our soldiers, their families, and the Iraqis who are courageously battling bombs and bullets to rebuild their land, do not set a deadline. A previous speaker has said that this administration and this country has no plan for getting out of Iraq. We do. It is called victory. And this is the victory-in-Iraq amendment. It is important. I thank the gentlewoman for it and urge support.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express my opposition to the Flake amendment. I know many following this debate today are not from Wisconsin--or the Upper Midwest for that matter. You may look at this amendment and wonder--``is this investment in our infrastructure really worth the cost?'' I can assure you, the answer to that question is ``yes.'' The Mississippi River is critical to Wisconsin's economic viability. Whether it is providing an efficient, cost-effective transportation system for Wisconsin agricultural products or helping bring lower-cost coal to Wisconsin power plants, the Mississippi River is the engine that keeps many communities in Wisconsin running. Unfortunately, this essential engine is aging--at times even sputtering. The infrastructure on the river is nearly 70 years old. Unplanned lock closures are increasing by 10 percent each year and the waiting time at critical locks continues to increase. The proposal we have before us today is what is needed to ensure that the Mississippi River continues to be a vital economic link for American commerce and exports. Waiting three more years will only marginalize this waterway system. The proposal we have before us today is over 12 years and $75 million dollars in the making. It is a sound proposal and has the strong support of states in the basin as well as 85% of participants at recent public meetings. Frankly, I think this issue really boils down to this: if you think shutting down access to our export markets is good for America's farmers, you should vote for this amendment. If you think Congress should abandon its commitment to rural communities, then you should vote for this amendment. If you oppose efficient, reliable, environmentally-friendly, low-cost transportation, then you should vote for this amendment. Modernization of the Upper Mississippi River System is good for our economy and good for our environment. If you support agriculture; if you support rural communities; if you support efficient infrastructure, then you should oppose the Flake amendment and support the bill we have before us today.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize before this body the Town of Ainsworth as it celebrates its 100th Anniversary this year. Named for a young immigrant from Dorchester, England, ``Uncle Tom'' Ainsworth, the Ainsworth name has long been a fixture of my district. Uncle Tom Ainsworth and his brothers played a key role in the agricultural development of the area, which included tending dams on the Wolf River. His descendents over the years have held several leadership positions to help continue the pride Uncle Tom had for his new home. Today, the Town of Ainsworth continues to hold tight to its agricultural roots with abundant natural resources and farming opportunities that keep its economy solid. Mr. Speaker, though the official anniversary date was April 4, 2005, I would like to extend congratulations on the past 100 years of success as the Town of Ainsworth holds its centennial celebration on July 2. And I wish the town and its citizens the best of wishes in the next 100 years.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 322 I was detained due to an aircraft malfunction. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and pleasure to recognize before this House a wonderful program that has helped hundreds of young men across Wisconsin turn their lives around--the Rawhide Boys Ranch. Forty years ago an idea was born. The idea was to start a program to help troubled boys get a new start on life--a program that would teach them how to become good citizens, husbands and fathers. It was called the Rawhide Boys Ranch, and since opening its doors so many years ago hundreds of boys have successfully passed through the program, becoming positive, productive young men. Today, Rawhide has grown into one of the most successful faith-based programs in Wisconsin, and it has literally paved the way for scores of other organizations dedicated to helping young folks. In 1965, the year the Green Bay Packers were crowned football world champions, quarterback Bart Starr was one of the most celebrated figures in professional sports. It was then, while his star was shining brightest, that Bart and his wife Cherry were approached by a local businessman and his wife with the dream for Rawhide Boys Ranch. Well, it didn't take John and Jan Gillespie long to sell the Starrs on their dream, and a short while later Rawhide was born. Since then, these remarkable folks have spent countless hours mentoring young men, raising funds, telling others about their amazing program, and serving as-shining examples for us all. Mr. Speaker, when Rawhide Boys Ranch was founded 40 years ago, no one could have predicted it would become such an overwhelming success. It has changed lives, touched hearts, and given families hope that a brighter future lies ahead. And, it is my distinct privilege to recognize John and Jan Gillespie, Bart and Cherry Starr, and the Rawhide Boys Ranch today.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to recognize the Town of Phelps, which this year celebrates 100th anniversary. Phelps is located within the Nicolet National Forest, and is home to some of the most forested and beautiful parts of the State. Charles Hackley, William Phelps and John Bonnell, three loggers, founded the Town of Phelps in 1905. Their hard work set the standard high for residents, and these days the town can pride itself on a strong work ethic, upholding family values, and continually moving `forward'--exemplifying Wisconsin's State motto. Over the years, the small towns and villages that blanket Wisconsin have demonstrated how truly unique and wonderful our State is. The Town of Phelps is no exception. It is a tightknit community and its charm entices scores of visitors every year. Mr. Speaker, I am honored and pleased to recognize the Town of Phelps on this historic day. One hundred years is a very special accomplishment, and on behalf of the residents of Wisconsin's 8th Congressional District, and the U.S. Congress, we say congratulations.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize before this body Mr. Larry Weyers, who on May 2nd will be named the 2005 Free Enterprise Award winner by the Rotary Foundation of Green Bay. For the last 23 years, the Green Bay Rotary has honored one Brown County resident who has demonstrated leadership in local charitable, civic, government or service programs, while helping expand business and employment throughout the area. In other words, the award winner is someone who exemplifies American free enterprise. This year, Larry Weyers earned that distinguished honor. As the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of WPS Resources Corporation, Larry has helped his company grow to become one of the most successful businesses in Wisconsin. Under his leadership, corporate assets at WPS have nearly tripled, revenues have quadrupled, net income has tripled, and the company's market value has doubled. But the success of WPS under Larry's direction is secondary to his role in the community. As an active member of dozens of charitable and civic groups, Larry has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of his neighbors. His commitment to the city of Green Bay and Brown County serves as an example to us all. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better individual to receive this award than Larry Weyers, and on behalf of the citizens of Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional District I say congratulations.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, today Congress took a significant step in establishing a comprehensive national energy plan to help lower gas prices and improve the reliability and accessibility of energy in Wisconsin. This legislation contains language I strongly support to reduce the price spikes caused by ``boutique fuels'' and helps expand the domestic supply of oil and gas. This energy bill requires five billion gallons of renewable fuel to be included in all gasoline sold in the United States by 2015. This increased use of ethanol will save 1.3 billion barrels of oil by 2016 while helping support our rural economy. Our Nation's electricity grid will also see considerable improvement. The bill provides for enforceable mechanisms to ensure reliability and stop future blackouts. Although I am generally pleased by the passage of the energy bill, it nevertheless contains some disappointing provisions, and I will be working expeditiously in the weeks to come to improve the bill even further. In particular, I plan to push for the inclusion of a ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes represent a critical and treasured part of our environment, our economy and our identity. The risks drilling poses to the lakes are unacceptable. I will also continue to lend my support to the effort to remove special liability protections for MTBE. We unfortunately came up short today to strip this MTBE language, but I'll keep up the fight until this provision is removed. The manufacturers of MTBE should not be shielded from their responsibility to clean up contaminated groundwater.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, over the past several years I have had the privilege and challenge of serving on both the House International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights, and the House Judiciary Committee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. As a member of these panels, I have closely watched the work of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. That is why I was very pleased to see the commission, chaired by former Senator Robb and Judge Silberman, recently present its final report. As someone who works daily to try and formulate the best policies to augment American security both at home and abroad, I have found a number of the conclusions and recommendations contained in this sweeping report to be of great interest. Those who have seen the news coverage of this report are aware that it serves as a broad analysis of the intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. But those who have fully read the report know that it puts forth a helpful and needed blueprint for the continued reshaping of our intelligence community to meet the requirements of the 21st Century. In particular, I'd like today to briefly discuss one of the most crucial areas of the commission's report, and one that has a substantial relationship to the work I've done on both of the committees I mentioned earlier--counterintelligence. The commission report lays out, quite frankly, a rather bleak picture of U.S. counterintelligence over the past decade. To quote the report, ``. . . since the Cold War . . . while our enemies are executing what amounts to a global intelligence war against the United States, we have failed to meet the challenge. U.S. counterintelligence efforts have remained fractured, myopic, and only marginally effective.'' The report states that these circumstances have produced ``a cycle of defeat that cannot be indefinitely sustained.'' Thankfully, the report suggests a number of what I believe are good, solid recommendations for working our way out of this counterintelligence ``wilderness.'' Like the other changes that are already slated to take place throughout the intelligence community, these reforms will not be easy. But I agree with the commission members in their conclusion that systemic changes are required to prevent the kind of counterintelligence failures we've seen in the past--failures that I fear in the future could have even more devastating consequences. The commission recommends that: ``The National Counterintelligence Executive (NCIX)--the statutory head of the U.S. counterintelligence community--become the DNI's Mission Manager for counterintelligence, providing strategic direction for the full breadth of counterintelligence activities across the government. In this role, the NCIX should also focus on increasing technical counterintelligence efforts across the Intelligence Community;'' ``The CIA create a new capability dedicated to conducting a full range of counterintelligence activities outside the United States;'' ``The Department of Defense's Counterintelligence Field Activity assume operational and investigative authority to coordinate and conduct counterintelligence activities throughout the Defense Department;'' and ``The FBI create a National Security Service that includes the Bureau's Counterintelligence Division, Counterterrorism Division, and the Directorate of Intelligence. A single Executive Assistant Director would lead the service subject to the coordination and budget authorities of the DNI.'' Each of these changes can play an important role in repairing and enhancing our current counterintelligence structure and capabilities. But I feel the first recommendation--related to empowered, centralized, strategic leadership in the counterintelligence community--is particularly important, and worthy of additional comment. As the rest of the intelligence community as a whole begins to adjust to the new structure we've all read and heard so much about, it's important to note that some considerable progress has already been made in working to centralize leadership and stimulate change within the microcosm of the counterintelligence community. Last month, President Bush approved the first National Counterintelligence Strategy of the United States--a document that sets forth a clear and unified direction for our nation's counterintelligence activities. This document further advances the importance of undertaking counterintelligence as a strategic venture--a venture that ought to be incorporated into our overall national security policy just as is any other substantial instrument of national power. In the context of this discussion of strategic counterintelligence, I am especially encouraged to see a new commitment by senior U.S. policymakers to shift our counterintelligence efforts away from the ``defensive'' activities of the past to a more robust, ``offensive'' endeavor as we look toward the future. From our many successes in the War on Terrorism, we have learned that an offensive approach--taking the battle to our enemies before they can bring it to us--is essential to success. Each of the commission's recommendations serve the achievement of that goal. Mr. Speaker, it's my hope that the report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction will not only assist in reshaping our future overall intelligence structure, but will also further enable the realization of many reforms that are already underway in our counterintelligence community. I look forward to working with President Bush and my colleagues in this body to fully consider these changes and help make them a reality.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Chairman, I want to express my deep disappointment that the Rules Committee did not accept a bipartisan amendment authored by Mr. Stupak, myself, and other Great Lakes area members last night. This important amendment would have permanently banned oil and gas drilling in and under the Great Lakes. The current ban is set to expire in 2007. I am proud to say that I have long been a proponent of banning oil and gas drilling on the Great Lakes and have voted to do so at every possible opportunity. The Great Lakes are home to the world's largest supply of fresh water. In fact, the Great Lakes make up 95 percent of the United States' fresh surface water. For those of us in the Great Lakes states, the Great Lakes represent a critical component of our environment, our economy and our identity. The risks drilling poses to the lakes are unacceptable. Congress has a history in support of banning drilling on the Great Lakes. A ban was first approved in 2002 and has been extended twice since. However, the time has come to end the uncertainty surrounding drilling on the Great Lakes. A permanent ban should be put into place. While I am disappointed the Rules Committee has prevented the House from including a ban on drilling on the Great Lakes, I plan to work night and day with my colleagues to get a permanent ban approved-- either in conference or as a stand-alone piece of legislation. This is a fight I will not give up.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his response, and I am very pleased to know that faith-based groups will have the same opportunity to compete for these important dollars with other nongovernmental entities so that together this funding can be used to alleviate the suffering of the tsunami victims. I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and enter into a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important that all groups and organizations that want to assist in the recovery are allowed to participate. The United States Agency for International Development issued a regulation on October 19, 2004, that ensures religious organizations are allowed to compete on an equal footing with other nongovernmental organizations for USAID funding, in the case of this bill, funding to help tsunami victims. Can the chairman clarify whether the appropriations under this bill fall under such regulation?

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, there are towns and neighborhoods across America that have tough problems, social crises, that desperately need to be addressed. Fortunately, there are many organizations in those communities that want to help, and they offer unique and innovative solutions to some of our most challenging needs. We must open doors for them and help them help our neighbors. That begins by removing the barriers that unnecessarily stand in their way. It is essential that we recognize the importance of government working with faith-based providers to help society. These organizations are a central part of the fabric of communities across America and we need to ensure that we are removing any obstacles that stand in the way of their ability to help. Faith-based organizations have a federally-protected right to maintain their religious nature and character through those they hire. Organizations willing to serve their communities by participating in federal programs should not be forced to give up that right. We must pass this legislation with a clear message from Congress to our faith- based leaders: we need your service and we want to assist you in delivering for us and for the most vulnerable in our society. I urge my colleagues to vote against any amendment that would remove the important religious freedom protections these organizations need and deserve.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor and pleasure to recognize before this body one of our Nation's most dedicated public servants--Secretary Tommy G. Thompson of the Department of Health and Human Services. Here in Washington, DC, most folks know Tommy for his role in transforming the Department of Health and Human Services into a highly sophisticated, highly organized agency equipped to combat the threat of bioterrorism. His hard work and steady leadership helped steer our Nation through some of its darkest moments, and America is a far safer place today because of his tireless efforts. But the service of Tommy Thompson will be heralded for decades far beyond the D.C. Beltway as well. As a member of the Wisconsin State Assembly, followed by a historic 14-year tenure as Governor of the Badger State, Tommy solidified his place as one of the greatest public servants in American history. Personally, Tommy encouraged me to run for the State Assembly and later the U.S. Congress, and he has played a monumental role in shaping the political careers of countless others. Mr. Speaker, as Secretary Thompson prepares to leave his post at the Department of Health and Human Services, I would like to once again thank him for his years of devoted service to the State of Wisconsin and our great Nation, and wish him the best of luck in all his future endeavors.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, Americans are mourning the loss of Reggie White. He was a great player--a magnificent player. Without him, my Packers would not have won Super Bowl XXXI. But, athletes come and go-- even great ones. My friend, Reggie White, will be long remembered because he was so much more. He may have left the playing fields, but he never left his fans, and he never stopped caring for the needs of his neighbors. Reggie and his wife Sara launched Urban Hope in Green Bay--a program that helped start some 400 small businesses and create 1,100 jobs. Reggie believed in active faith--in putting his values and talents to work on the field and in the streets. We have lost a great player, but we have lost a greater man.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with many provisions contained in Senate bill 2845. I certainly support the intelligence reorganization provisions, as modified by the additions made by Chairman Duncan Hunter. They will strengthen the work of our intelligence community, help ensure that actionable intelligence gets to the right people, and help make Americans more secure. I am also glad to see the ``material support for terrorism'' prohibition enhancement provisions included in this bill. Some previous versions of these provisions were challenged as being too vague, and this legislation cures that problem. This legislation clearly provides that ``training,'' ``personnel'' and ``expert advice'' are defined broadly without abridging the exercise of rights guaranteed under the first amendment. Every terrorist act is really the result of a terrorist chain made of many links--from those evil figures who pull the trigger or drive the rigged truck to those who provide ``material support'' to terrorists. This support includes expert advice and other logistical assistance. If we are going to be successful in the long run in our fight against terrorism, we must attack every link in that chain. As the author of this session's primary bill strengthening material support laws, I'm proud of the work I've done on this front, and glad to see much of it in this bill. Unfortunately, despite a lot of hard work by some good people, the final version of this bill also falls short in a few key areas. For example, the conference report drops the serious penalties we in the Hose proposed for some newly created terrorist crimes--even for crimes that result in death. The House included a provision that would permit the death penalty to be applied for any terrorist crime that causes death. This provision was adopted by a vote of 344-72, but the Senate conferees refused to include it in the final bill. As a result, we would treat these crimes less harshly than we do many other crimes outside the terrorist arena . . . a dangerous signal to send to the world. The conference report also removes other key provisions from the House bill such as those: Making it more difficult for terrorists and foreign criminals to win delays of their removal from the United States; Allowing for the deportation of all aliens who have engaged in or been affiliated with terrorists activities; Making it illegal to traffic in actual authentication features for identity documents; and Providing for the electronic confirmation by state motor vehicle departments of the validity of other states' driver's licenses and information. It also adds provisions not in the House bill, some of which are actually counterproductive to our antiterrorism efforts. One of the most egregious examples is a provision that will allow a state to waive some of the potential Federal standards for driver's licenses. The 9/11 report states that we need uniform standards for driver's licenses if they are going to serve as secure forms of identification. This provision goes entirely in the wrong direction. Allowing a state to ``opt-out'' of such protections creates an obvious loophole for terrorists to obtain the very kind of identification documents that the 9/11 terrorists exploited on that terrible day. There are many good provisions in this bill--some of which I helped produce. But because this bill falls short in some very important and troubling ways, and leaves some vitally important issues unaddressed, I must vote no. I hope that by doing so, we will keep the political pressure building to tackle some of the crucial work that has been left undone.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I support this provision to strike the insertion in the omnibus appropriations bill, which allows Appropriations Committee Congressional staff to review individual tax returns. However, I strongly protest the insertion into the omnibus-spending bill of a provisions that essentially eliminates the Federal Prison Industries Program. This provision was inserted into the 3,000-plus page spending bill without the knowledge of most Members and without an opportunity for the House to remove or modify it. This provision was stricken from the House to remove or modify it. This provision was stricken from the House Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies appropriations bill because it was found to violate House rules of legislating on an appropriations bill. This provision should not have been inserted into the omnibus bill when neither the House nor Senate passed this measure. The opponents of FPI are trying to achieve through the back door what they could not achieve in the normal legislative process. It is wrong and certainly anti-democratic.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, this body pledged its allegiance to our flag and to our Republic, under God. Just so, at every meeting, the Boy Scouts of America give their oath to our Republic and to God. There it is, that name again: God. It is good enough for our pledge, it is good enough for our currency, it is even good enough to be in the phrase above the Speaker's podium behind me. But the ACLU has sued the Department of Defense because the Boy Scouts of America use that phrase and DOD sponsors Boy Scout troops. This is not just the usual left-wing, anti-American foolishness. Boy Scouts of America is a voluntary organization. It teaches American values like self-reliance and civic duty, values that are at the heart of our military, values that have created so many great leaders, even former presidents. Like never before, America needs leaders, America needs role models and positive, values-based programs. America needs our Boy and Girl Scouts. The Department of Defense should not back down and, surely, the ACLU has better things to do.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, every now and then, I hear someone say that America lacks heroes--those great men and women amongst us who we can use to inspire and teach our young people. In my view, the problem is that too many people look to the playing fields or the big screen for their heroes. But all of us here today know better-- because we are here to remember and honor one of our real heroes; an American who we are rightly very proud of, and whom we miss very much, Ryan Jerabek. Now, we all know that our work in Iraq is far from over. There are many challenges ahead and, sadly, there will likely be some more dark days ahead as well. But we also know there will be brighter days ahead too, more and more of them, as freedom's sunlight chases away the shadows of tyranny. That's what Ryan helped to do--bring sunlight to the shadows. What our servicemen and women are accomplishing is extraordinary--by any measure and compared to any mission in modern history. Sadly, their courage can be measured by the casualties--Ryan, Jesse Thiry of Casco, Warren Hansen of Clintonville, Stephen Martin of Rhinelander, Nichole Frye of Lena and others. But on this day, let's also measure their courage by how they've changed Iraq. Just a year and a half after chasing Saddam from power, Iraq is on the path to full sovereignty and moving toward free elections. When our soldiers first reached Iraq, they found chaos and they found evil. As USAID has reported, Iraq has 270 mass graves holding perhaps 400,000 bodies--people tortured for their beliefs, and killed for their ethnicity. Ryan and others fought, and rebuilt, and protected, and liberated-- and the results have been historic. They've helped rebuild 240 hospitals, 1,200 clinics, 2,300 schools. They've distributed 1.5 million student school kits and 9 million textbooks. They've immunized over 5 million Iraqi children. They've established 16 governing councils, over 90 district councils and nearly 200 community councils. In short, Ryan was doing a good thing--no, he was doing a great thing. And the ceremony honoring Ryan this weekend in Wisconsin is just one small sign that all of us recognize it. Ryan used to say that he wanted to be a teacher--he wanted to teach others and shape lives. Well, he did. His life, his work, his sacrifice have taught us all so very much. We will never, ever forget him. We are in awe of his service and all that he accomplished in his tragically short life. Ryan, you are our hero--a real hero.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great disappointment that members have chosen not to include a two-year extension of the Milk Income Loss Contract Program in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill the House passed today. At the same time, however, I want to inject a bit of hope into the discussion, and also correct some misstatements that have been made--on the floor and elsewhere--about this issue. We still have time to extend the MILC Program. I, of course, would support doing it today--but we will again have the opportunity to do so in coming months. And it is my hope that other members of this body will see how crucial this program is to farmers and for maintaining our Nation's great dairy tradition--and pass this very important extension. Some members have stood on this floor and, for blatantly partisan political purposes, blamed the failure to extend the MILC Program on the president. But these critics have two key problems. First, they have a credibility problem. Some of the loudest critics actually voted against the legislation creating the MILC Program in the first place and have even authored their own legislation that would effectively end the MILC Program. And now they're angry that the program is not being extended? Their feigned anger strains credulity. Second, they have a truth problem. It is this president who signed MILC Program into law. And it is this president who stood in Wisconsin and pledged his staunch support for the MILC Program. The president is not member of this body and did not make the decision not to include the MILC extension in this bill. Any effort to convince people otherwise should be interpreted for exactly what it is--a cynical partisan ploy designed to affect the election in the key swing state of Wisconsin.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, it is simple. We must do everything we can to stop terrorists, and that starts with ensuring that all terrorist acts are punished swiftly and severely. This amendment sends a clear message that we take terrorism seriously; that we understand that terrorist acts are not really crimes, they are combat; that on 9/11 we were not merely assaulted, we were invaded; and when there is combat, when terrorists invade our soil in deadly fashion, we will punish those responsible with the heaviest possible penalties. To do less would be a disservice to those who have lost their lives and would send a signal of softness to those who still seek our destruction. I was proud to work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) on this subject. I commend him for carrying it forward. It is important work. It is good work that he is doing. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. This amendment would enhance public safety by denying pretrial release to individuals accused of committing a terrorism offense. It would also provide that any individual convicted of a terrorism offense could be sentenced to supervised release for any term of years up to life. Defendants in Federal cases who are accused of certain crimes are presumptively denied pretrial release. For these crimes there is a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of that person as required for the safety of the community. The list of crimes currently includes drug offenses, carrying maximum prison sentences of 10 years or more, but does not include most terrorism offenses. Thus, persons accused of many drug offenses are presumptively to be detained before trial, but no comparable presumption exists for people accused of most terrorist crimes. This makes no sense. The continuing danger posed to national security by those who materially support terrorism, who are the vital links in the chain of any terrorist act, may be no less than that posed by the direct perpetrators, the triggermen, of terrorist violence. And the court should be afforded the same degree of discretion in prescribing post- release supervision in all these cases as well. The standard for every one of these amendments is whether or not this language enhances the safety and security of this country. Clearly, this amendment is a step in the right direction. It gives our courts some of the same tools they have in drug cases. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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