Mark Green

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her support.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, what I want to do is to build a little bit on some of the comments that we have just heard from my companion and good friend, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy). We did travel together for 7 days in Ghana and Mali and did see some very good things and got some great news from a continent that, quite honestly, has seen less of good news and more of sobering news in recent months and years. The purpose of our brief time there was to measure education reform in general in those countries, but also, more importantly, to deal with the issues my good friend has pointed to of the role of girls' education in those countries and the pace of reform in that area. We looked at a project called SAGE, Strategies for Advancing Girls Education, as it was being implemented in those two countries. That is a partnership involving USAID dollars and the expertise of the Academy for Educational Development and some wonderful other NGOs in the area and, of course, local leaders. Now, I am quick to admit to my colleagues, as I was to my traveling companions, that I am a skeptic in this area. Twelve years ago, my wife, Sue, and I taught high school in east Africa, and we were very much aware of the institutional and cultural barriers that exist, particularly in the developing world, barriers which all too often prevent girls from going to school and finishing their education. I readily admit today that I came out a true believer, a great believer in the progress that our dollars are making in those countries. There are so many heroes that the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and I can point to in these educational reforms. Of course, the local leaders and the parents' groups, who have to embrace these reforms in order for them to have a chance. Also wonderful organizations like Save the Children and OXfam. But in the brief time that I have, I would like to focus in particular on one program, a program involving USAID dollars and the Academy for Educational Development and something called the Life Skills Curriculum in the country of Mali. Through this wonderful program, educators are able to weave throughout their curriculum valuable life skills, especially in the area of preventable health. My colleague and I watched with great interest as teachers would use lessons on, for example, how to prevent dysentery as part of their instruction on grammar so that these lessons truly were a part of the curriculum at every stage and at every level. As I said, I was a skeptic. Those of us who have taught in the developing world are often struck by how irrelevant our lessons can often be, especially in countries that have an education system which is a holdover from a colonial power. Where I taught, we had the old English system, the English style, rote learning. But what we are seeing in countries like Mali is a new style of education, a new style that involves practical lessons day in and day out, and involves students talking to each other and building upon their own experience. My colleagues can see to my left here a picture. This shows a young lady in Ghana. What she is using, because of the shortage of paper, she is using a little chalkboard, a little slate board to help her get through her lessons. That shows some of the material disadvantages that these students often have. My next chart shows something which may appear very reasonable and normal and everyday to those of us in the West but is a quite remarkable characteristic of reform in education in Mali and Ghana, and that is having breakout groups, where students are no longer stuck in that old rote-learning pattern that is a holdover from the colonial days. Instead, they talk about lessons in a very real way, and they apply those lessons, especially those life-skills lessons, to their own experience and they use it to learn grammar, they use it to learn math, they use it to learn science. And the beauty of this is, even if these children, Lord forbid, are unable to go on to secondary school, unable to go on to high school, unlikely to go on to college, they will have learned valuable lessons on preventive health care. We know these lessons will go a long way in preventing some of the great health challenges that we have seen. It will pay off in the long-run in these countries. It will pay off for America. It is a wonderful thing. The good news is our dollars are working. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for the wonderful experience he included for me. It was truly a great experience.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, as this Congress comes to a close, I want to state for the record that I continue to be very troubled about the dreadful situation in Laos and the U.S. Department of State's behavior toward this one-party, Communist regime. Wisconsin is home to the third largest Hmong and Laotian community in the United States. I am very proud to represent so many of these Americans. Their families and relatives, however, continue to suffer terribly under the current Stalinist regime in Laos. On October 19, I was pleased to speak once again before the U.S. Congressional Forum on Laos, an excellent forum series organized by the Center for Public Policy Analysis. At this forum, I again stressed my concerns about the disappearance of Messrs. Houa Ly and Michael Vang-- two Americans who disappeared in Laos last year--and the ineffective handling of the case by our State Department. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank Senator Bob Smith for placing a hold on the Administration's nominee for a new ambassador to Laos. I strongly supported Senator Smith's hold as an important tool in the effort to force significant changes in U.S. policy toward Laos--changes I hope will occur under the next Administration. I would like to submit this recent Washington Times article about our mutual efforts to enhance understanding about the situation in Laos and work for a positive change in U.S. policy. [From the Washington Times, Oct. 6, 2000] New Laos Policy Urged Philip Smith has been trying to press the Clinton administration into adopting a tougher policy against Laos and is hopeful that a senator blocking the appointment of a new U.S. ambassador to the isolated communist nation will help the cause. Mr. Smith, executive director of the Center for Public Policy Analysis, said he has no personal objections to the nominee, Douglas Alan Hartwick, a career Foreign Service officer. ``But we support the holding up of the nomination in the hope this will produce the necessary leverage for a comprehensive review of U.S. policy toward Laos,'' he said. Mr. Smith said the administration has failed to support the political opposition in Laos and has made no effort to invite opposition leaders to the United States to meet with groups like the National Democratic Institute or International Republican Institute, which promote democracy in other countries. Sen. Robert C. Smith, New Hampshire Republican, is blocking Mr. Hartwick's nomination along with several other diplomatic appointments because of his concerns about lax security in the State Department and some U.S. embassies. Mr. Smith, who is not related to Sen. Smith, is also organizing a congressional forum on Laos that will feature leading Laotian dissidents. He has invited Laos' highest-ranking defector, Khamxay Souphanouvong, former finance minister and son of the founder of the current Pathet Lao movement that controls the country. Bounthone Chanthavixay, another leading political exile, has also been invited to address the invited guests at the Oct. 19 forum. ``Laos has become increasingly and precariously unstable with an ongoing string of bombings and political violence seemingly spinning out of control,'' Mr. Smith said.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have today, I would like to talk about what consumer advocates would call a case of bait and switch. The shameful deceit of which I speak was made clear on November 13, because, on that day, the Clinton administration's Forest Service released their, quote-unquote, referred proposal for a roadless area initiative that will close off 60 million acres of public land from the public itself. As we have learned just recently, the Forest Service may actually issue the final version of this plan as early as next week. This plan bans road construction, timber harvesting, and even road reconstruction in these areas. This affects 69,000 acres of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in my district, and, as I said, millions of acres all across our Nation. It locks away all of this land from economic opportunities as well as from the taxpayers who use the land for recreation. I call it a bait and switch because, throughout this process, while the administration was talking a good game about continued access to the forest during the public comment period, they obviously intended all along to institute this much more sweeping, much more restrictive proposal after the public's opportunity for comment had expired. Mr. Speaker, throughout this process, the people of northern Wisconsin have been assured and reassured that responsible timber harvesting would not be restricted under this plan. Now, the Forest Service drops this final proposal on the folks whose livelihoods are at stake and, to add insult to injury, offers them no chance whatsoever to comment, telling them that they have already had their chance to speak out. This is an unbelievable act of arrogance by an outgoing administration, and it should outrage every Member of this body, no matter what their party, no matter how they feel about the issue itself. Our forests should not be locked away from the public by Washington bureaucrats. Keeping our forests open to multiple uses is essential to preserving the way of life in my district and in forests all across America. Entire communities and their economies rely on this access for their very survival. And what is not discussed nearly often enough, keeping these areas open to responsible multiple use is essential to preserving the forests themselves. Let us go back some time, to 1924, when the Wisconsin legislature originally decided to release these lands to the Federal Government to create the national forests. The Federal Government said explicitly and on the public record that it was acquiring these lands to restore them to a condition of maximum productivity and to maintain public access. That was the reason for taking these forests, to maintain public access. But, of course, the new restrictions that I am talking of fly in the face of that agreement. Obviously, if the Wisconsin legislature, if the Wisconsin citizens knew then what we know now, they never would have transferred these lands. In fact, some of my constituents are even exploring legal action to try to reclaim these lands. I am outraged and I am disappointed that the Forest Service has brushed aside so cavalierly the economic impact this policy will have on communities and citizens all across northern Wisconsin. Perhaps if the Forest Service had listened or accepted further comment from the people in my district, they would have understood the real impact of this policy. I am going to do everything I can, and I am sure some of my colleagues will follow suit, to make sure that the people in communities like those in northern Wisconsin have the chance to publicly comment and have their opinions recorded. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am going to place these letters that I have right here from my constituents into the Congressional Record. These letters are but a very small representation, a handful of the hundreds of letters that I have received opposing this plan. There are comments like this one, from my constituent, Brian Swearingen, in Appleton, Wisconsin. He writes, ``While the Forest Service suggests that it has the public interest in mind when advocating this initiative, little thought appears to have been given to the impact this policy will have on Americans who enjoy using our country's public lands.'' I will submit these for the Record. We can only hope that the powers that be will take them into account. Appleton, WI, November 17, 2000. Dear Representative Mark Green: As someone who enjoys visiting and using our public lands, I am writing you to express my grave concern over the various policy initiatives undertaken by the Clinton Administration to limit access to public lands. Of particular concern to me is the Roadless initiative sponsored by the U.S. Forest Service. While the Forest Service suggests that it has the public interest in mind when advocating this initiative, little thought appears to have been given to the impact this policy will have on Americans who enjoy using our country's public lands. Of particular concern is the fact that senior citizens and those with disabilities will be locked out of our public lands if this initiative becomes effective. It is important that the Congress begin to exercise oversight of the Forest Service especially since the agency seems to be forfeiting its responsibility to manage our national forests with a multiple use perspective. I believe that public lands can be utilized and kept environmentally safe all at the same time. Keeping people out of our public lands should not be an acceptable solution. The U.S. Forest Service Roadless initiative must be stopped. Please become active on this issue. Sincerely, Brian Swearingen.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to vote on the following measures yesterday. On roll No. 541--H. Res. 634 (Rule on H.R. 4656), if I had been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On roll No. 542--H. Con. Res. 414 (Regarding establishment of representative government in Afghanistan), if I had been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' On roll No. 543--H.R. 4271--National Science Education Act, if I had been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House today considered S. 1452, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act, and I would like to thank Housing Subcommittee Chairman Rick Lazio for all of his efforts to open homeownership opportunities to so many American families. This bill encompasses many important provisions from H.R. 1776, the homeownership bill that passed the House overwhelmingly earlier this year. It also includes important provisions to preserve affordable housing for seniors, and other low-income and working families. I would like to mention two provisions that I introduced (H.R. 2860 and H.R. 2931) which were included in H.R. 1776, and now S. 1452. The first would create a pilot program to assist law enforcement officers purchase homes in locally designated ``at risk'' areas. The proposal would allow law enforcement officers to purchase homes with no downpayment. They must use the property as their primary residence for at least 3 years, and have 6 months of service. It is modeled after a pilot program that was conducted in Wisconsin. The Milwaukee pilot was successful because it offered a ``no downpayment option.'' Seventy-five percent of those who participated in the program said they did so because of the no downpayment requirement. This proposal will not only provide homeownership opportunities for law enforcement officers who might otherwise not have the money for a downpayment on a home, but will also deter crime. Criminals will be far less likely to commit an act of violence if they know a police officer lives right next door. Finally, this gives control to local officials, allowing mayors to designate the areas they believe need the most protection. My second provision expands on the Section 8 homeownership rule to make it more accessible to persons with disabilities. This provision provides incentives for employment and homeownership for the most underserved group of homeowners in the country. Nationally unemployment rates among the disabled of working age exceed 70 percent and homeownership rates at less than 5 percent. Two of the biggest barriers to homeownership for persons with disabilities are affordability and accessibility. It costs $20-$40 thousand to customize a home for some disabled individuals. This pilot program addresses these problems by allowing disabled families making up to 100 percent of the area median income to qualify to use their Section 8 voucher for homeownership. The benefit may continue for the entire term of the mortgage provided they remain eligible for such assistance. It also requires one or more members of the family to have achieved employment and participation in a homeownership counseling program. While I am very pleased with the outcome of the negotiations on S. 1452, I am concerned at the omission of one provision in particular. Section 102 of H.R. 1776 requires the federal government to perform a housing impact analysis before it issues new regulations. This important provision would give the private sector an opportunity to see the impacts on housing before a rule is implemented. Hopefully, this would result in less costly regulations that impede homeownership. While it was omitted from the final version we considered today, I am hopeful we can come back to this next year and pass it into law. S. 1452 will help so many Americans achieve the dream of homeownership. I am pleased at the House's actions, and am hopeful that the other body will quickly take up and pass this extremely important legislation.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I offer a brief tribute to a young man from my district, Garrett Lowney, who this week was awarded the Bronze Medal at the Summer Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia. Garrett, a U.S. Olympian competing in Greco-Roman wrestling, overcame injury and adversity to bring the Bronze Medal home to the United States in a sport typically dominated by other nations. I know all of us back in northeastern Wisconsin are very proud of his achievements, and folks across America should share that pride. For Garrett's medal is as much an achievement for our nation as it is for Garrett himself. To win his victory, Garrett defeated a two-time champion Silver Medal winner, a five-time world champion, and another two-time world champion, among others. Despite a neck injury and being forced to battle through overtime in four of his matches, Garrett managed to win every match except one--and became the youngest American ever to win a wrestling medal in the Olympic games. So today, I say thank you, Garrett Lowney. Thank you for making us proud. Thank you for devoting so much of yourself, your time, and your talents to excellence and to our Nation.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 482, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, this week in my home town, the Heritage Hill Foundation will celebrate its 25th anniversary. I'm proud today to offer a few remarks honoring this exciting occasion before the House. It's hard to believe that the Heritage Hill Foundation is 25 years old. Back in 1975, a few folks got together and decided that they were going to dedicate themselves to creating a museum of living history right in Brown County. They banded together and founded the Heritage Hill Foundation. Over the years, this foundation has been a model organization-- serving as the example for other state and local groups to follow as they sought to improve their communities. I'm proud to have served on the board of this foundation. But I'm even more proud of what it has achieved. It has turned that dream of a living history museum into the reality that today stands as Heritage Hill State Park. The foundation has a long list of achievements to its credit. It has raised millions for the creation and operation of Heritage Hill State Park. It has restored century-old buildings to their original glory, and built new reproduction structures that make the past come alive for the generations of today and tomorrow. The successes of Heritage Hill are a direct result of the commitment and hard work by all those involved with Heritage Hill Foundation, and the support and help offered by our community. They're also the result of the enthusiasm of those folks, young and old, who visit Heritage Hill and remind all of us involved in the project that our investment has truly paid off. Thank you, Heritage Hill Foundation.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as the members of the committee, for their help and support in bringing this bill to the floor. Let me also thank those Members who previously voted for this bill. This bill was voice voted last year as an amendment to the Juvenile Crime Bill, and so I appreciate the support that we had then and hope that we can count on similar support this evening. Mr. Speaker, I think the best way to launch a discussion of this bill is to begin with a story. All bills in some way or another begin with a story, and this bill is no exception. In January of 1960, a 19-year-old man in Green Bay, Wisconsin, my own district, a man named David Spanbauer, broke into a home, tied a babysitter to a bed and viciously raped her at knife point. When he was done, he waited until her uncle came home, and he shot him point-blank in the face. David Spanbauer was convicted and sentenced to 70 years in prison. In May of 1972, 12 years later, he was paroled. Within months, he had raped another teenager, a hitchhiker, a random victim. He was returned to prison. In January of 1991, he was released yet again; and a few years later he was caught trying to break into another home in northeastern Wisconsin. And when the police searched his car, they quickly found tools and resources linking him to a series of violent sexual assaults throughout the area. He confessed to raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl, raping and murdering a 12-year-old girl, raping and murdering a 21-year-old. He was convicted of 18 felonies in five counties. Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight because of sick individuals like David Spanbauer. There is obviously no soft or pleasant way, there is nothing I can cleverly say that makes this subject matter easier. Sex crimes against children, we all agree here tonight, are the worst types of crimes. They are every parent's worst nightmare. And those of us who are parents, as I am, we try to reassure ourselves late at night by saying to ourselves that these are far away; these crimes and these individuals are far away. They are far off. They are not in our streets or in our communities. The problem is that David Spanbauer and others show us that that is not true. The good news tonight, if we can call it that, is that statistics tell us the number of repeat child molesters, taken as a percentage of the prison population, is small, relatively small. The horrific news is that the damage that each of these monsters causes is unbelievable. They destroy lives, they destroy communities, they steal innocence. The recidivism rate for repeat child molesters is extraordinarily high, higher than any other crime with which I am familiar. The bill that is before us tonight was voice voted once before, again added as part of the Crime Bill. It is a narrowly focused, carefully tailored bill aimed solely and squarely at repeat child molesters. This bill does not Federalize any crime. In fact, it carefully respects State laws in this area. It covers a limited number of the most heinous, most horrible Federal sex crimes against kids: aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, for example; sexual abuse resulting in death. And what this bill says, ``Two strikes and you're out,'' is real simple. It says that if an individual is arrested and convicted of a serious sex crime against kids and then serves their time, then after serving their time decides to do it yet again, they are going to go to prison for the rest of their life. I make no bones about it with this legislation. This bill is not about rehabilitation, openly admitted. This bill is not even about deterrence. It is about removing bad people from society. It is about removing from society a very small number of people who cause tremendous damage. And every study tells us they will do it again and again and again, if we let them. They will rob children of their innocence, they will destroy families, and they will destroy our lives. Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I would like to point to this graphic. And as some of my colleagues noticed, it was originally upside down. I point to this graphic here, this number. Nothing fancy about it. Not a terribly elaborate graphic. But this graphic right here, this number, this number gives the essence of this bill. The United States Department of Justice tells us that the average child molester will commit 380 acts of child molestation during his lifetime. Let me repeat that. The average child molester will commit 380 acts of child molestation during his lifetime. Now, monsters like David Spanbauer, they are at fault, they are guilty, obviously, for their crimes. But I would suggest to my colleagues tonight, in the case of repeat child molesters, those who have been arrested and convicted before, if we let them out, if we fail to take action, do we not bear at least a little responsibility? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to sum up. First of all, let me say that this will not be the first time or the last time I disagree with the Sentencing Commission, both regarding their opinion and also in their analysis of a bill. But let me just close by saying this. I would invite all of my colleagues, when they go home this weekend, to go to their computer, go on line, and call up the sexual offender registry in their home State or their home community and take a look at the rogues gallery of sick monsters who prey on our children. What my colleagues will find interesting when they call up those names, in taking a look at for how many of those individuals the record shows that they have done it over and over and over again. This bill is about removing sick monsters from society.

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. Chairman, today I reluctantly voted against H.R. 4811, the Fiscal Year 2001 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act. I did so for a very specific reason: this proposal contains some direct aid to the government of Colombia. In February of last year, a member of my district's Menominee Indian Nation was brutally murdered in that country. This woman, Ingrid Washinawatok, was in Colombia as part of a peaceful educational effort when she was kidnapped and killed by the Marxist terrorists of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). Since Ms. Washinawatok's murder, Colombian President Andres Pastrana has said he is unwilling to extradite those responsible for her death to the United States to be tried under U.S. anti-terrorism laws. This refusal flies in the face of the cooperative relations our nations have enjoyed in the past and directly contradicts legislation I authored on the subject--legislation that passed the House last year by a unanimous vote. That measure called on the Colombian government to extradite Ms. Washinawatok's killers to the United States for trial as soon as possible. I would also note that some months ago, I specifically asked U.S. Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey for help in this matter during a congressional hearing. He has not responded to the specific questions I posed to him. In my opinion, if Colombia wishes to continue receiving significant U.S. aid, it must be willing to cooperate with us on key matters such as this. I hope that my vote against a foreign aid bill that otherwise has much in it to support will be seen as a modest message to Colombia. It is my further hope that withholding aid to the Colombians will push their government to reconsider the folly of their decision not to extradite the murdering terrorists who killed Ingrid Washinawatok. I offer this statement today because this bill does contain several positive provisions that certainly deserve support. These positive measures include funding to help bring permanent peace and stability to the Middle East. In particular, this proposal would send needed aid to support those nations, like Israel, who share our democratic values and with whom we have forged loyal strategic friendship. This is funding I would have been pleased to support--unfortunately, the mitigating circumstances with regard to Colombia precluded me from doing so. While I could not vote to pass this bill in its current form, I hope my reasons and intentions are now more clear.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is an important day, not just for this bill, but I think also for the House as we decide which path we are going to take in response to some of the good news that we have seen recently in crime. We have seen some genuine good news. We have seen some reduction in violent crime. We have seen some reduction in property crime. We have two ways to respond. We can respond as some would suggest by perhaps resting and shifting our attention away to other issues, or we can respond, as the gentleman from Arizona is responding, by redoubling our efforts and pushing on towards victory. I know the polls and pundits are saying that people no longer care as much about crime issues, but, I say to my colleagues, we are here to lead. We are here to meet challenges. This bill is about pushing on to victory. We know that the vast majority of crimes in this Nation are committed by a very small percentage of criminals, a small number of ruthless thugs and animals who commit their crimes over and over and over again. These numbers right here that the gentleman from Arizona presented for us, this is all we need. This is all we need as an argument in favor of this bill. We heard the previous speaker talk about Aimee's Law and the terrible tragedy that Aimee's family has faced. What is even a greater tragedy is that it was not an isolated incident. There are tragedies just like Aimee's all over this Nation. There was one in my district just a matter of days ago. A young lady, age 19, out innocently jogging in the City of Kaukauna, Wisconsin, a small, quiet socially conservative community. As she went out jogging, she was attacked from behind and knifed to death by a thug, by an animal who had been previously convicted of a violent crime in New York, but he had been let out. He was let out, he came to Wisconsin, and he brutalized a family and a community. This must end, and with the passage of this bill, we will get there. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman. This is a wonderful tribute to his work here in the House of Representatives and to the family of Aimee Willard. Let us pass this bill.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the committee. As the gentleman knows, in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Congress enacted a 3-year income averaging provision to protect farmers and ranchers from excessive tax rates in profitable years. Unfortunately, a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service late last year could potentially cost farmers and ranchers thousands more in taxes each year and is inconsistent with the intent of Congress.

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

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Last October, the IRS proposed final regulations for income averaging failed to clarify that taxable income in the income averaging formula could in fact include a negative number. Current instructions that accompany schedule J of Form 1040 require that taxable income cannot be less than zero. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 4381 to address this unfortunate situation. This legislation simply amends the Internal Revenue Service code of 1986 by permanently taking into account negative taxable income during the base 3-year period. I believe this legislation, once passed, will codify Congress' original intent and ensure that farmers and ranchers receive the protection they deserve. Unfortunately, I understand that introducing H.R. 4381 as an amendment to this appropriations bill would violate House rules that prohibit legislating on an appropriations bill. As a result, I would ask for the gentleman's assistance and the assistance of the committee in working with me to present this legislation to the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) for his efforts on this subject. I know the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and I also believe the IRS's interpretation needs to be changed and regret that it cannot be done at this time. I have also seen the rapid and dramatic price fluctuations that farmers and ranchers are so often subject to. The goal of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was to help reduce the tax effect of these large fluctuations. I agree with the gentleman that the IRS's interpretation will dramatically impair the effectiveness of this legislation. I look forward to working with the gentleman on this important matter, as does the chairman.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman and the chairman for their help and their attention to this matter.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Kentucky in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, this bill appropriates $130 million for the Department of Justice to distribute to State and local governments under the Criminal Identification Technical Improvement Act.

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Kentucky knows, among the programs and uses that are eligible for money are those to help State and local crime laboratories in reducing the backlog in their convicted offender DNA sample databases and updating their laboratory equipment for this purpose. These criminal DNA databases are playing a vital role in tracking down the guilty and freeing the innocent. Unfortunately, as we have heard over the last few days, many States and local governments are overwhelmed and are falling behind on getting these DNA samples logged onto their system, and they require additional funding. This is where Federal grants can make an important difference. State and local crime labs need our help to address this growing backlog. Mr. Chairman, through this colloquy today, I hope we can send a strong message to the Justice Department urging them to give grants for these DNA sampling-related activities extra weight and every reasonable consideration. Would the chairman of the committee agree with me on the importance of reducing the convicted offender DNA sample backlogs?

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

Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for his support and commend him on crafting a bill that addresses our crime-fighting needs.