Doug Ose

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 327, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act was introduced by the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) on January 31, 2001. This good government bill continues congressional efforts to streamline and reduce paperwork burdens on small businesses. During the 105th and 106th Congresses, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight reported out bills H.R. 3310 and H.R. 391, respectively, that passed the House by votes of 267 to 140 and 274 to 151, respectively. These earlier bills included all of the substantive provisions in H.R. 327. However, unlike the predecessor bills, H.R. 327 does not include any provisions relating to the waiver of sanctions for first- time violations by small businesses of Federal paperwork requirements. H.R. 327 includes the following helpful provisions for small businesses. First, a requirement for the Office of Management and Budget to annually publish in the Federal Register and on the Internet an identification of each agency's Federal paperwork requirements for small businesses. Second, a requirement for each agency to establish a single point of contact for small businesses. Third, a requirement for each agency to make further efforts to reduce paperwork for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Fourth, a requirement to establish an interagency task force to study streamlining of paperwork requirements for small businesses. H.R. 327 asks this task force to consider having each agency consolidate its reporting requirements for small businesses, resulting in reporting to the agency's single point of contact, in a single format or using a single electronic reporting system, and on one date. The definition of small business in this bill is the one used in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C., subsection 631 et seq. H.R. 327 amends the Paperwork Reduction Act, the successor to the Federal Reports Act of 1942, which began the requirement for OMB approval before paperwork could be imposed on nine or more members of the public. The 1980 Paperwork Reduction Act which established the office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in OMB began by stating ``information needed by Federal agencies shall be obtained with a minimum burden upon business enterprises, especially small business enterprises, and other persons required to furnish the information and at a minimum cost to the government.'' The 1995 reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act set 10 percent and 5 percent goals for paperwork reduction each year from 1996 to 2001. OMB's most recent estimate of Federal paperwork burden on the public is 7.2 billion hours annually, at a cost of $190 billion a year. Despite the statutory requirements for annual reductions in paperwork burden, there have been annual increases, instead of annual decreases, in paperwork in each of the last 5 years. Those being from 1996 to 2000. OMB's April 2000 report to Congress entitled the Information Collection Budget of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 2000 does not identify any interagency efforts to streamline paperwork requirements on small businesses. Also, although Congress required OMB to provide an analysis of impacts of Federal regulation on small business, OMB's June 2000 ``Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations: 2000'' devotes less than one page to the impact of Federal regulatory and paperwork burdens on small businesses. H.R. 327 has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Small Business United, the Small Business Coalition for Regulatory Relief, the Small Business Legislative Council, the Small Business Survival Committee, the Academy of General Dentistry, Agriculture Retailers Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, the Associated General Contractors, the Automotive Parts and Service Alliance, the Food Marketing Institute, GrassRoots Impact Inc., the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the National Business Association, the National Pest Management Association, the National Restaurant Association, the National Roofing Contractors Association, the National Tooling and Machining Association, the North American Equipment Dealers Association, and the Society of American Florists. Mr. Chairman, I have introduced an amendment in the nature of a substitute which includes provisions requested by the Government Reform Minority, or the Committee on Small Business. Specifically, calling for, first, a clarification that was added that the annual list of requirements applicable to small businesses shall be organized so that small businesses can easily identify requirements with which they are expected to comply; second, the Department of Treasury was added to the membership of the interagency task force since the IRS accounts for nearly 80 percent of all paperwork burden on the public; third, a clarification was added that the consolidation requirements on small businesses shall not negatively impact the effectiveness of the underlying laws; fourth, the task force's report shall be submitted not only to Congress but also to OMB; and, fifth, a requirement was added to the task force to report in 2 years on recommendations for interactive, electronic recording with on-line editing, electronic dissemination and coordination across agencies so that agency single points of contact can provide small businesses with information from other agencies. In addition, the Small Business Committee stressed that, first, the interagency task force should reach out to actual small businesses for their views and recommendations, and that agencies should create user- friendly Web sites for small businesses, including links to each agency's reporting requirements for small businesses and organized, where possible, by the North American Industrial Classification System formally known as the SIC codes. Small businesses are particularly hurt by regulatory and paperwork burden. The Small Business Administration estimates that it costs large firms $3,400 per employee to comply with Federal regulatory and paperwork requirements. However, the costs to small businesses is 50 percent greater, a staggering $5,100 per employee. Not only are such costs higher for small businesses, but clearly they are also harder to absorb. Small businesses cannot afford to comply with Federal requirements in the same way that large businesses can. The high costs of such requirements often makes it impossible for small businesses to expand. It threatens their ability to stay afloat or it prevents them from opening in the first place. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 327 should result in needed relief for small businesses. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 327.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the rule for this good government bill to streamline and reduce paperwork burdens on small businesses, that is, H.R. 327, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act. H.R. 327 includes helpful provisions for small businesses, including a requirement for the Office of Management and Budget to annually publish in the Federal Register and on the Internet an identification of each agency's Federal paperwork requirements for small businesses; a requirement for each agency to establish a single point of contact for small businesses; a requirement for each agency to make further efforts to reduce paperwork for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees; and to establish an interagency task force to study streamlining of paperwork requirements for small businesses. CBO, as the gentleman from Washington has said, has scored this as having a minimal cost for Federal agencies each year. It is time for us to move forward on doing this. I support the open rule.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, today, all eyes are turned to California and the current electricity crisis. While there are many problems and many causes, it is important that we also take a moment to give credit to the individuals and entities that have helped meet our State's energy needs and helped chart a path out of this current crisis. Roger Fontes is one of those individuals. For the past 13 years, Mr. Fontes has served as the Assistant General Manager of the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), a joint action agency that serves the wholesale power needs of 15 public power systems, including the City of Gridley in my District. NCPA has been a shinning star within the State, and Roger Fontes has played a critical role in that success. Under Roger's supervision, NCPA constructed geothermal, hydroelectric and gas-fired power plants to meet their communities' needs in a reliable and cost-effective fashion. In the midst of the current crisis, it is worth nothing that these municipal utilities are islands of stability. Roger also over saw NCPA's legislative and regulatory programs, advancing sound energy policies for the consumers and businesses they serve. Prior to joining NCPA, Mr. Fontes was responsible for state-wide generation and transmission planning at the California Energy Commission. He also worked at the Los Angeles Department of Environmental Quality and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. While Roger is retiring from NCPA, he is not leaving the field. Roger and his family are moving to Orlando, where he will be the general manager of the Florida Municipal Power Agency. We will miss him in California, but are heartened by the knowledge that his sound public policy counsel will continue to be available. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Roger Fontes for his service to California electricity consumers and to with him and his family the best in his future endeavors.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of the Third Congressional District to express our deepest sympathies to the people of India for the losses suffered in the recent earthquake in Gujurat. As we see the victim toll continue to rise, I pledge my support to those efforts in aiding India and its people to recover and rebuild their cities and their lives. I hope that the Committee on Financial Services will take an extensive look at helping India through the Asian Development Bank. The U.S. contribution to the Asian Development Bank can provide an effective way to help India rebuilt its cities and keep its society going. I applaud the Bush administration's active role and those of all international organizations in supporting the people of India at this time. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my thanks also to Mr. Packard who has done so much during his 18 years here in this body for the State of California and everybody not only who lives in his district, but in mine and in Mr. McKeon's, Mr. Hunter's, Mr. Dreier's, and others. I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has some great stories that are coming. We have heard them in our luncheons and been regaled with them. They are good. I hope that they are presented and taken in the spirit of camaraderie that we have. Ron has a quiet leadership style that, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) said, members of both sides of the aisle appreciate and, frankly, rally around. He has been very fair to all members, regardless of party affiliation. Frankly, I have only been here for just about 2 years now, but in my short time, I have tried to emulate his qualities: humility, fairness, honesty, accountability, and frankly, the integrity that just comes. If one gets the chance to work with Ron, it just comes out. It is just so clear. His qualities have won him many friends and admirers here in Washington and in California, as we can see from him being returned 8 times from his initial election. Mr. Speaker, on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, Mr. Packard has provided critical assistance for the safety of Americans across the Nation and particularly for Californians and specifically for people who live in the Sacramento area. He understands our challenges along the Sacramento River and the American River, and his work has led to a significant increase in the level of flood protection for the people that live in my area, and for this I am grateful. It makes a difference. Mr. Speaker, Ron Packard, as others have said, is very devoted to his family, which is and always has been his most important priority in life. As he takes his bride, Jean, and returns to California and leaves this august body, I know that he will enjoy spending time again with them in the manner in which perhaps every one of us should, and devoting more time to those that he loves as family members. I say to the gentleman, I appreciate your leadership and guidance, and you will be missed. Godspeed.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor and the hard work put in by the gentleman and his staff to include the many projects needed to provide critical flood control for so many. Mr. Speaker, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency has been working with the Army Corps of Engineers to implement the historic flood control project for the Sacramento region known as the Common Elements. The Common Elements Project was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, and I thank the gentleman for his work on that bill as well. Unfortunately, recent analysis of the geology along the East Levee of the Sacramento River has shown an extremely porous condition exists. This condition can lead to seepage under the levee which will degrade the levee foundation and weaken the levee's structural integrity. In order to compensate for this serious problem, the Corps of Engineers will need to significantly alter the design and construction along this portion of the East Levee than was originally anticipated, thus leading to significantly higher costs than authorized in WRDA in 1999. I understand the reluctance of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) to increase the authorized spending levels by $80 million. This is a significant cost increase, and Congress is entitled to have specific information that justifies such a large additional expenditure. While this additional cost may very well be justified, the information given to date by both the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the Corps of Engineers to Congress is very minimal, and it did not come until the committee was almost ready to bring the bill to the floor. In fact, the Corps of Engineers Sacramento District did not release the increased cost estimate until August 16 of this year. The report makes no mention of how the money would be spent, nor does it give any specifics on the necessary changes. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) on getting more specific information and accountability from the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the Corps of Engineers Sacramento Division office on how this money will be spent before Congress approves the increased costs. I thank the gentleman for his consideration and cooperation.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would tell the gentleman from Minnesota he is always welcome in Sacramento.

Mr. OSE. The gentleman is always welcome.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to also commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for introducing this important bill, and for his efforts to bring it to the floor. I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member, for cosponsoring this bill, and for his continued work on this subject. Again, I would like to thank the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for their support. If passed, Madam Speaker, this will be the third consecutive year we will have designated the second Sunday in December as Children's Memorial Day. I urge Members to lend their support. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the House consider House Concurrent Resolution 415, introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). This legislation expresses the sense of Congress that a National Children's Memorial Day should be established. Additionally, it asks the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such a day, with appropriate ceremonies and activities, in remembrance of the many infants, children, teenagers, and young adults in the United States who have died. Madam Speaker, the death of a child at any age is a shattering experience for any family. By establishing a day to remember children that have passed away, bereaved families from all over the country will be encouraged and supported in the positive resolution of their grief. It is important to families who have suffered such a loss to know that they are not alone. To commemorate the lives of these children with a special day would pay them an honor, and help to bring comfort to the hearts of their bereaved families. For the past 2 years, the Senate has recognized the second Sunday in December as National Children's Memorial Day. Last year, the House passed a resolution similar to what we are considering here today. As a husband, and father of two young girls, I can think of nothing more terrifying than losing one of mine. They are my daily source of joy and inspiration. Yet, approximately 80,000 infants, children, teenagers, and young adults die each year from any number of reasons. After losing a child, parents and siblings are left with a void in their life. Questions are left unanswered. So many things are left unsaid. Those of us who have not experienced such loss are unable to adequately communicate our sympathy, and fail in our task to comfort the bereaved. To this end, a support network can be of great assistance. The Children's Memorial Day provides an opportunity for these families to collectively express their pain and to form these support networks. For example, on December 10, starting in New Zealand, candles will be lit for 1 hour, beginning at 7 p.m. local times, creating a 24-hour observance around the globe. This simple act goes a long way to help those who have lost a child, a grandchild, a sibling, or a friend, particularly during the December holiday season, when the loss is the most difficult to bear. This simple and easy resolution may not seem like much to many, but I can assure the Members that to those families who have lost loved ones, the support that we show here today will go a long way in helping them cope with that loss. It is important for families who have suffered such a loss to know they are not alone. Please help us in passing this resolution. I ask Members to express their support for this worthy and noble cause by voting aye. We carry the responsibility to honor and remember those who have died before their time. As compassionate concerned citizens, one of the best actions we can take is to support those who are left behind. Madam Speaker, I encourage all Members to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 415.

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 415) expressing the sense of the Congress that there should be established a National Children's Memorial Day.

Mr. OSE

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

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) for introducing this important bill and for his efforts to bring it to the floor. I also want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the distinguished ranking member, for cosponsoring the bill and for his continued work and cooperation on it. I would also like to extend heartfelt thanks to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, for their support. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will actually save the government $4 million in direct spending over the next 5 years. The Office of Personnel Management, which administers civil service retirement, believes that it is appropriate to apply the same mandatory separation age to firefighters and law enforcement officers. I urge Members to lend their support. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the House consider H.R. 460, important legislation introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly). This bipartisan legislation amends Federal civil service law relating to the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees' Retirement System to provide the same mandatory separation age for Federal firefighters and Federal law enforcement officers who have 20 years of service. Currently, the mandatory separation age is 55 for firefighters and 57 for law enforcement officers. In both cases, an agency head may allow the employees to work until age 60 if that is required by the public interests. The Subcommittee on Civil Service has examined the legislative history of these mandatory separation ages and the committee determined that there is no rationale for continuing to maintain the discrepancy that currently exists. If enacted, H.R. 460 will bolster our firefighting capabilities allowing these brave men and women the option of continuing their careers for an additional 2 years and will make it easier to maintain more experienced firefighters in the field and in senior management positions. Madam Speaker, I encourage all Members to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 460.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), I would like to enter into the record the other original cosponsors of this bill, those being, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss); the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger); the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson); the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman); the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp); and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). The reason I do that is I want to evidence the broad geographic interest in providing some means of relief for folks who are suffering from the malaise of drugs. I wish to thank also the dozens of cosponsors of this legislation from both sides of the aisle. It is my expectation that the bill soon will be introduced and receive bipartisan support in the United States Senate as well. This legislation will provide much needed resources to State and local governments for new prosecutor-managed drug treatment options for eligible nonviolent offenders. The program is designed for offenders who need and seek an opportunity to break the terrible chains of drug addiction and take back control of their lives. In fact, such a program has been administered successfully for more than a decade in Brooklyn, New York. It has been rigorously evaluated and found to have resulted in higher treatment success, low recidivism rates and substantial tax dollar savings. This legislation will be an important new addition to our Nation's drug demand reduction efforts. Mr. Speaker, most State and local criminal prosecutions are resolved through guilty pleas and plea bargains. Plea agreements prevent our criminal justice system from coming to a screeching halt and, as such, they are a valuable tool. This particular legislation represents another option for offenders who plead guilty to nonviolent offenses such as personal drug use. Just to be clear, violent drug offenders and serious drug traffickers will not be eligible under this legislation. The legislation also authorizes new Federal funding for programs designed and managed by State and local prosecutors who prosecute nonviolent offenders who are in desperate need of treatment. It allows prosecutors to select only eligible nonviolent offenders for a rigorous program of mandatory drug treatment and strict rules and conditions. Prosecutors have total discretion to select participants. Participants must be identified as being in need of treatment but they must also not have been convicted of a felony crime of violence or a major drug offense as defined under Federal law. An important benefit of this option is that a prosecutor retains the leverage of a substantial prison sentence to be used if an offender violates program or treatment requirements. That is called accountability. This accountability provides prosecutors with a common sense cost- effective alternative for offenders who really want to reform their lives. A successful model program of this type is the drug treatment alternative to prison program, as I mentioned, established in 1990 by the Office of the District Attorney for Kings County, which is Brooklyn, New York. Evaluation results of the New York program indicate high treatment retention rates, low recidivism and significant cost savings. The 1- year retention rate in drug treatment is 66 percent. The recidivism rate for participants is less than a half for comparable offenders, 23 percent compared to 47 percent. Nearly all employable program graduates, that is 92 percent, are now working or are in vocational programs compared with only 26 percent who were employed prior to entering the program. This particular program in Brooklyn, New York, reportedly has saved the city and the State more than $15 million over the past 10 years. The program holds great promise for communities across America. It is designed to combat drugs and address the treatment needs of eligible nonviolent offenders who desire to forsake crime and drugs and regain control of their lives. Experience has shown that this approach breaks addiction, protects lives, assists families, promotes gainful employment and saves substantial tax dollars. The legislation itself will provide funds up to 75 percent of program costs directly to State and local governments. The total authorized under this bill is almost a half a billion dollars. The program grants will be administered by the United States Department of Justice. State and local government recipients must match by at least 25 percent the Federal grant award amount. Evaluations will be required and funded. Each program is required to maintain an enforcement unit of sworn officers to monitor and apprehend any offenders who violate program requirements and attempt to abscond from their responsibilities. There are requirements for ensuring a fair geographic distribution of funds, so that people in Maine or people in California or people in Washington or Iowa get a fair shot at getting the funding for their treatment. Grant awards are to be made, to the extent practicable, to each State and to rural suburban and urban jurisdictions. Madam Speaker, I do not have to remind you or other Members of the need for us to do everything possible to help State and local governments respond to their continuing drug challenges. Even the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy indicates that overall drug use has increased from 6.4 percent of our population in 1997 to 7 percent in 1999. That is a 10 percent increase in 2 years. While marijuana and crack use has decreased among youth, Ecstasy, methamphetamine and ``designer drug'' use has shot through the roof among youth and adults. We are seeing overdoses and deaths as we have never seen them before. Drug-induced deaths number about 17,000 annually and are rising. In total, drug-related deaths, that is, where someone dies as a result of drug use, now exceed 50,000 each year. That is more than the number of murders in this country on an annual basis. We need to take this important step as outlined in this legislation in a national effort to turn this situation around, to make our communities safer and to improve the quality of life for everybody in America. This initiative will make a substantial contribution to this effort. Madam Speaker, I want to highlight in particular how this program, on a point-by-point comparison, will help in California because, as always, I go home every weekend, and that is kind of where my heart is. California has an initiative on the ballot this year called Prop 36, and it is being marketed to the voters as a drug treatment initiative to try and give people assistance. In fact, the initiative itself is around 4,500 words; and interestingly enough, of those 4,500 words, about 3,600 talk about sentencing and incarceration and doing time in prison. You would think that an initiative that is supposed to address drug treatment would talk about drug treatment instead of about sentencing and the like. In fact, this initiative spends about 390 words out of 4,500 talking about treatment, and then it only talks about funding. Prop 36 in California is a sham, and I would hope that the other Members of this body would take the time to read it and share it with their people, because, if it is successful in California, it is coming to your State soon. It is kind of like a bad movie. We need to defeat Prop 36. The legislation that is on the floor today addresses actual treatment opportunities for people, compared to Prop 36, which offers no treatment whatsoever. In fact, the single most effective means of helping people suffering from drug addiction, which is blood testing and urinalysis, under Prop 36 is forbidden. Think about that. Prop 36 says it is a drug treatment, but it removes the single most effective tool that professionals in the field use to hold folks accountable for getting rid of this scourge. I want to close, if I can, Madam Speaker. This legislation put forward by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is about fighting drugs harder and smarter. It can make a real difference in promoting demand reduction and breaking the link between drugs and crime for many eligible nonviolent offenders who are at great risk of pursuing criminal careers. Both sides of the aisle support this legislation. So do criminal justice professionals. Treatment experts and providers, such as Phoenix House and the Therapeutic Communities of America, have endorsed this legislation. So have Pennsylvania and New York District Attorney Associations. We have worked very closely with the DA from Brooklyn, New York, to develop this legislation based upon his proven experience. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), has personally visited the program and discussed it with the offenders going through it. Respected researchers and evaluators have documented the program's successes. If properly designed and administered as outlined in this legislation, I am convinced that we have the opportunity to save lives and save money in this country. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4493 is a good bill, and it is much needed. It is important to States, communities, and families across this country. In combatting drug use, we must identify programs that work and support them. We cannot afford any longer to squander tax dollars on unnecessary bureaucracies and ineffective approaches. Accordingly, I urge all Members to vote for H.R. 4493. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important issue this afternoon.

Mr. OSE

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

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).