Mark Green

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3699.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3699 is a simple technical correction to the continuum of care application submitted by the Jacksonville, Florida, local government and nonprofit organizations in response to the annual application process for homeless assistance funding administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Because of an error in the submitted application, and the interpretation of the HUD Reform Act that would prohibit HUD personnel from amending the application to make the corrections, statutory language is necessary. This bill will merely change the dollar amount to be distributed to the Liberty Center for the Homeless, Incorporated, to reflect an annual amount as opposed to a 10-year amount inadvertently included in the application. Enactment of this bill and the technical correction will allow the city of Jacksonville and its nonprofit organizations to receive its entire homeless funding under Title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. While it appears that this is a very minor technical problem, its impact has brought significant disruptions to the efforts of very worthy nonprofit organizations and the city of Jacksonville to coordinate and provide needed services to homeless individuals and families. I want to thank the Department of Housing and Urban Development for their assistance in resolving this issue. More importantly, however, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown) for bringing this issue to the attention of the Committee on Financial Services so that we can provide a legislative resolution. This bill is noncontroversial and has support from the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services. I urge all Members to support H.R. 3699. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on S. 1438, the Department of Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2002. This is a good bill, one that addresses the critical needs of our military as we engaged in the war against terrorism. S. 1438 also contains a provision allowing the transfer of an old, unused Army Reserve Center in Kewuanee, WI to the city. This transfer will allow the property to be put to good use by the City of Kewaunee instead sitting dormant and a benefit to no one. While S. 1438 is a good bill, it is not a perfect bill. The one glaring imperfection in the bill is a provision that fundamentally alters a Department of Justice program known as the Federal Prison Industries, or FPI. Language in S. 1438 would basically exempt the Department of Defense from the mandatory-source preference of the FPI program. Eliminating mandatory-source preference for DoD means that approximately 60% of FPI's business will be lost. Obviously, this would dramatically undermine FPI. I will not delve into a full explanation or defense of the program here. Frankly, debate over FPI should not even take place within the context of a defense bill. Debate over FPI has always been spirited. However, it is a debate that I welcome and one that I expected to participate in as a member of the Judiciary Committee. But that right has been denied to me and my fellow Judiciary Committee members. I appreciate and thank Chairman Stump for his efforts to work with me on this issue. His indulgence over last couple of months was more than I could have asked for. Unfortunately, the die was cast on this issue, and we were unable to remove this language. As I stated, FPI is a Justice Department program. I, along with many of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, feel very strongly that our committee should review any change to the FPI program. Sadly, the most dramatic reforms to FPI in its history will occur without the input of just about every member of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, I am including, for the record, a copy of a memorandum from the chief operating officer of FPI and a letter from the Justice Department. The FPI memo details the destructive effects the language in S. 1438 is already having on the program. In the DoJ letter, the department clearly states its strong opposition to this language. I request that both items be made a part of the Record.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and rise in support of the Financial Anti- terrorism Act. I appreciate how quickly and how wisely the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), moved on this subject. Mr. Speaker, in this new war we fight new and unpredictable enemies, and we fight against weapons that are unconventional and at least initially unexpected. Our enemies seek to turn our own systems, financial and transportation, against us. But today we fight back. Today, we approve new weapons for this new war. We authorize new broader searches of international mail; we make a new Federal crime of falsifying a customer's ID in a transaction with a financial institution. This bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to set up a new secure Web site dedicated to the filing of suspicious activity reports by financial institutions and providing those institutions with alerts. Last week on the antiterrorism bill and this week on the financial antiterrorism bill some have questioned why we moved so quickly. But we have men and women in harm's way overseas; we have them in harm's way abroad. Let us act boldly, let us act creatively, and let us act today. Please support this bill.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize and honor Wisconsin's Oconto county one of the most naturally beautiful areas of our country. On November 4, the county will celebrate its 150th anniversary. Oconto has a rich history of Menominee Indian, French and English settlers. The industry of Oconto through its early history changed from fur trading to lumber. In 1848, Wisconsin gained statehood, putting Oconto one step closer to formation. In 1850, census data showed that the region of Oconto held 415 residents. On November 4, 1851 the first election was held to found Oconto County, establishing the county seat in the small mill settlement of Oconto. In the twentieth century, lumber companies were the largest businesses in the region producing more than 60 million board feet of lumber per year. This lumbering tradition exemplifies the hard working drive and dedication of the people of Oconto. Through the years Oconto's business and commerce has increased due to the ingenuity and productivity of its citizens. From Oconto to Townsend, Lena to Lakewood, Gillett to Mountain and everywhere in between, we see those characteristics manifesting themselves in the people and progress in Oconto County. Today, educators, doctors, business owners, loggers, and state employees all make up a strong and vibrant Wisconsin community called Oconto. On this sesquicentennial of the inception of Oconto County, I offer my congratulations to the county and its residents. Oconto is a true representation of our Wisconsin spirit and values in industry, business, and its people.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Let me begin by congratulating the chairman on the work product before us. Both he and the ranking member have done a wonderful job in getting us to this point today. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in strong support of this legislation. I believe that this legislation balances the need to move quickly with the need to move carefully. First, the need to move carefully. If we listen to the rhetoric from the other side, it sounds like we are making all these dramatic, broad changes in laws. In fact, what we are doing today primarily is modernizing our laws, helping law enforcement to deal with evolving technology and evolving threats. The good gentlewoman from California said a few moments ago that our law enforcement has all the tools, all the resources, and all the laws they need to protect us. I could not disagree more. I think September 11 has proven to us very clearly that we need more resources and more tools for law enforcement and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The need to move carefully must be balanced with the need to move quickly. We have deployed forces. We have been threatened with a jihad. We are still cleaning up the debris of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We must move quickly. We must make sure that we are prepared, that we are safe, that this will never happen again. Debate is important; rhetoric is good. We should debate ideas. But there is also a time and place for action. Today is the time. This is the place for action. Let us get this done as quickly as we can now. Let us get this over to the Senate. Let us hope that they act quickly. Let us get this to the President's desk, and let us get these tools in the hands of law enforcement. They need it, and our citizens deserve no less.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I will make my point of order.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, at this point I stress the point of order that under clause 7 of rule XVI, this amendment is not germane. The amendment is not germane because all interstate compacts fall under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on the Judiciary, not the Committee on Agriculture. Therefore, the amendment fails to meet the jurisdictional test of clause 7 of rule XVI.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Like so many others tonight, let me begin by saying that I sincerely appreciate the effort that the gentleman from Vermont has shown. It is innovative because it takes a small step away from regionalism and towards national policy, and that is obviously something that many of us have been arguing for for a long time. Regrettably, I cannot support this amendment right now. I hope to be able to support the concept as it is refined later on. One reason I cannot support it is that in its current form, it does not add to clarity or simplicity in dairy policy, something that I think is very important. We need predictability and clarity for our dairy farmers, for our producers, so they have a system they can rely upon, a system they can believe in. Secondly, I am troubled by the fact that class 3 prices, payments are dependent upon annual appropriations. I am not sure we want our dairy farmers to be subject to the whims and fancies of this institution and its appropriations process. Tonight I think we have taken an important step forward, though, because in the debate we have had tonight, we have recognized that dairy farmers all across this Nation are suffering. To the gentlewoman from Connecticut who spoke earlier who said quite passionately that the loss of her farms is no less important than the loss of farms elsewhere, I would agree; but I would remind her that regionalism which has helped her dairy farms cause our losses to be because of her dairy policy. The other side has talked passionately about losses of hundreds of dairy farms. Tonight, in our State of Wisconsin, I heard the gentleman from the first district of Wisconsin speak, we talk about thousands. By tomorrow night this time, my State will have lost four more dairy farms. So we need to move towards a national policy. I commend the gentleman for his small step in that direction, and I pledge to work with him. Hopefully we can fix this and get to a national policy.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1850.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The purpose of H.R. 1850, the Senior Housing Commission Extension Act, is to extend for 1 year the Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Care Facility Needs of Senior Citizens. In 1999, Congress created this Commission to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the growing needs associated with senior housing. This extension is necessary because the appointment of commission members was delayed for more than 1 year after the passage on October 20, 1999, with commission member appointments not occurring until January 2, 2001. Given that more than 1 year passed before commission co-chairpersons, members and a staff could be appointed, the Commission requested an extension of the report deadline from December 31, 2001, to March 30, 2003. This legislation merely makes technical corrections to allow the Commission to do the job that Congress originally intended. H.R. 1850 extends the dates authorizing the Commission's reporting date, termination date and authority to use agency employees on a non- reimbursable basis. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will require no additional spending. This country is facing a serious housing crisis for low and moderate income families and individuals. In no other segment of our population is this crisis more evident than in our senior's population. According to the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, in July 1999 there were more than 35.5 million Americans over 65 years of age, and the Bureau projects that by the year 2075, more than 55.7 million, or one in eight, Americans will be over 65 years in age. HUD statistics indicate that only one-third of the low income senior citizens in need of affordable housing actually receives assistance. Appropriate senior housing is only part of the problem. Along with the decent housing, seniors need supportive services. Over the years, non- profits and faith-based organizations have worked with HUD to develop creative ways to meet the needs of this vulnerable group, but as our population continues to age, we must seek new ways to address this growing problem. The commission is charged with developing a comprehensive strategy to address the issues that are inherent to America's aging population by reviewing existing programs and exploring new ideas and partnerships. H.R. 1850 will provide the Commission with the time that Congress originally intended that it have to complete this task. I urge my colleagues' support and I urge adoption of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1850) to extend the Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors in the 21st Century and to make technical corrections to the law governing the Commission.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2589, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The legislation we are considering here today is about affordable housing for low-income families and how to keep it affordable. The mark-to-market program and the Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, OMHAR, are both scheduled to terminate on September 30, 2001. The legislation we are considering today represents a House- Senate consensus. H.R. 2589 extends the Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring through October 1, 2004, and reauthorizes the mark-to-market program through October 1, 2006. My colleagues should note, as a way of background, that in the late 1970s and in the early 1980s, about 800,000 units in 8,500 multifamily housing projects were financed with mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration and supported by Section 8 housing assistance payment contracts. The Federal Government guaranteed that these projects would be built by insuring the mortgages and using Section 8 contracts to guarantee that the rents would be high enough to pay off the mortgages. In most markets, these rents were above market levels. Typically, the mortgages for these multifamily dwellings had terms of 40 years and the Section 8 contracts had terms of 20 years. By the late 1990s, the 20-year Section 8 contracts started to expire. Congress started renewing the Section 8 contracts for 1 year at market rents. In some areas, the market rents were sufficient to support the property, but in other areas, market rents were not enough to support the mortgage payments. Consequently, those properties were in danger of defaulting and costing the Federal taxpayer billions of dollars. In 1997, after a careful review of the insured multifamily portfolio of the FHA, Congress realized that if substantial changes to the Section 8 project-based program were not made, the renewals of expiring contracts for Section 8 assistance would consume an increasingly larger share of HUD's future budgets. In fact, HUD estimated that if no action were taken by 2007, the annual cost of renewing project-based Section 8 contracts would rise to approximately $7 billion, or about one-third of HUD's entire budget. In an effort to address this growing problem, Congress enacted the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act. The goal of that 1997 legislation was twofold: First and foremost, to preserve affordable low-income rental housing; and, second, to reduce the cost to the Federal Government of rental assistant payments. Specifically, the legislation established OMHAR, the Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance, and the mark-to-market program for restructuring section 8 based properties with FHA-insured mortgages. The mark-to-market program provides the tools necessary for HUD to restructure the insured Section 8 multifamily housing projects by lowering their rents to market levels when their current Section 8 contracts expires, and also by restructuring their mortgage debt, if such action is necessary, for the property to continue to have a positive cash flow. In addition to extending OMHAR and the authority of the mark-to- market program, H.R. 2589 simplifies issues of jurisdiction and coordination by requiring the program director to report directly to the Federal Housing Commissioner instead of the Secretary of HUD. At present, the Office of Housing is responsible for Section 8 subsidy payments and the management of insurance contracts while at the same time OMHAR is responsible for restructuring them for the future. The same projects are under the jurisdiction of two separate equal offices, each reporting to the Secretary simultaneously. Having OMHAR report to the Commissioner will simplify these issues of coordination and jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, I will be submitting for the record a section-by-section analysis of the bill and also several support letters for this legislation, letters from the National Association of Home Builders, the National Leased Housing Association, the National Housing Trust, and the National Affordable Housing Management Association. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is supported by the National Leased Housing Association, the National Apartment Association, the National Multi-Housing Council, the National Affordable Housing Management Association, the National Association of Realtors, the Institute of Real Estate Management, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, the Coalition for Affordable Housing Preservation, the Appraisal Institute, the National Housing Trust, and the National Association of Home Builders. Mr. Speaker, with all of that support, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the letters and section by section analysis I referred to earlier. National Association of Home Builders, Legislative and Political Relations, Washington, DC, September 24, 2001. Hon. Marge Roukema, Chair, House of Representatives Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairwoman Roukema: On behalf of the 205,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders, I write to express our support for H.R. 2589, the Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring Act of 2001.'' Timely passage of the reauthorizing legislation is critical to the continuation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) authority to restructure mortgages on multifamily properties insured by FHA and enhanced by Section 8 rental assistance. This program ensures the continued viability of affordable multifamily properties and ultimately saves the federal government money. Because the program is due to expire on October 1, 2001, I respectfully request your support for swift passage of H.R. 2589 which extends the program for another five years. NAHB urges you to support passage of H.R. 2589, as amended. Thank you in advance for your consideration of views important to the housing industry. Sincerely, Katherine E. Doddridge, Acting Senior Staff Vice President.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (2589) to amend the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 to reauthorize the Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, throughout history, our foes have misunderstood and underestimated the American people. They have often mistaken our love of peace for a fear of using force. They have mistaken our adherence to the rule of law at home for an unwillingness to take decisive action abroad, and they have mistaken our vibrant democracy for an inability to stand together. But they are wrong. The foes responsible for yesterday's outrage will soon feel the depth of their miscalculation. In times like this, Mr. Speaker, I take great comfort from the halls of this old capitol herself. We are in crisis, I say to my colleagues, but as Americans, we have seen crises before: Civil War, world wars, calamity and catastrophe, but this capitol and this Nation have persevered and somehow grown stronger. Many of us, when we walked into these Chambers today, walked through what is known as Statuary Hall, where there are monuments to some of the great men and women who have gone before us and built this empire of liberty. Black and white, rich and poor, people from all walks of life, there is nothing like it, and nothing like them anywhere in the world. It is time to stand together to protect their legacy. It is time to reawaken this Nation and our spirit. It is time to show the world a force that is stronger and more potent than any weapon on Earth: the force of a free people, united in a single purpose.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the committee staff and the staff of the gentleman from Virginia and, in particular, the minority staff. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) alluded to, the extra help and assistance and cooperation they gave us, we appreciate very much. Mr. Speaker, Kewaunee is a small city of about 3,000 people located on the shores of Lake Michigan. It is filled with good people with big dreams. Kewaunee also faces, like a number of small cities, a number of financial challenges. For several years, Kewaunee has been without the financial resources to sufficiently house basic municipal services in its city hall and police station and fire station. Mr. Speaker, when the U.S. Army abandoned its reserve center in 1996, it created the opportunity for meeting those challenges. Since 1996, the Kewaunee Reserve Center has worked through the GSA disposal process. It was declared excess in 1998; and since then, there has been no expression of interest by any Federal agency. Currently, only the City of Kewaunee has any interest in this property. Right now the setup for municipal services in the City of Kewaunee is, to put it kindly, less than ideal. The city hall is in the old bank building with no parking or office space. The council shares office space with the business office. The police department is in the water treatment plant. The senior citizens center is on the second floor of the fire station, and the ambulance service is in the public works garage. Obviously, this is not ideal. Mr. Speaker, people in America, especially from small towns, want government to work for them. They are looking for common sense and partnerships. This is not a big deal to the Federal Government. This building is vacant, and it will need lots of work to bring it up to suitable standards. However, it is a big deal to the City of Kewaunee. It opens new doors to the future, and allows them to reach out and capture some of those good opportunities and big dreams. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority staff for all of their assistance in this special situation.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 257, Criminal Law Technical Amendments (H.R. 2137), had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall No. 258, H.R. 1892, Family Sponsor Immigration Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''; and on rollcall No. 259, S. 468, the James C. Corman Federal Building Designation Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late, I know the day is long, but I think it is important for us to show appreciation, so I commend both the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for their tremendous commitment here. What we are doing is not just about education and education reform; it goes much beyond that. As the gentleman from North Dakota has alluded to, we know that an educated child who becomes an educated parent is truly the key to solving many of the health care challenges in the developing world. We know that an educated community breeds democracy. We know that as expectations rise, as people learn about what is taking place beyond the border, those forms of tyranny and government control that are in many places of the world cannot survive. They will fall to democracy. Of course, education, as we all know, fosters economic development. So what we have done and what we are doing today is truly a wonderful thing. I do want to show my personal appreciation and on behalf of many of the villages that the gentleman and I visited together, we thank our colleagues.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 21.