Doug Ose

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce a bill entitled the ``Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act of 2003.'' I am pleased to have six other original co-sponsors of this bi-partisan legislation, including: John Tanner; Tom Davis, Chairman of Government Reform Committee; Dennis Moore; Bill Janklow, who is the Vice Chairman of my Subcommittee; Jim Matheson; and, Paul Ryan. The bill includes legislative changes to: (a) increase the probability of results in paperwork reduction, (b) assist Congress in its review of agency regulatory proposals, and (c) improve regulatory accounting. Background: In Fall 2001, the Small Business Administration released a report which estimated that in 2000, Americans spent $843 billion to comply with Federal regulations. This report concluded, ``Had every household received a bill for an equal share, each would have owed $8,164.'' The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates the Federal paperwork burden on the public at over 8 billion hours. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) accounts for 81 percent of the total. In its March 2002 draft regulatory accounting report, OMB estimated that the price tag for all paperwork imposed on the public is $230 billion a year. Because of Congressional concern about the increasing costs and incompletely estimated benefits of Federal rules and paperwork, in 1996 Congress required OMB to submit its first regulatory accounting report. In 1998, Congress changed the annual report's due date to coincide with the President's budget. Congress established this simultaneous deadline so that Congress and the public would have an opportunity to simultaneously review both the on-budget and off-budget costs associated with each Federal agency imposing regulatory or paperwork burdens on the public. In 2000, Congress required OMB to permanently submit an annual regulatory accounting report. This provision requires OMB to estimate the total annual costs and benefits for all Federal rules and paperwork in the aggregate, by agency, by agency program, and by major rule, and to include an associated report on the impacts of Federal rules and paperwork on certain groups, such as small business. From September 1997 to February 2003, OMB issued five final and one draft regulatory accounting reports. All six failed to meet some or all of the statutorily-required content requirements. Part of the reason for this failure is that OMB has not requested agency estimates for each agency bureau and program, as it does annually for its Information Collection Budget (paperwork budget) and for the President's budget (fiscal budget). In 1980, Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and established an Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB. By law, OIRA's principal responsibility is paperwork reduction. It is responsible for guarding the public's interest in minimizing costly, time-consuming, and intrusive paperwork burden. In 1995, Congress passed amendments to the PRA and set government-wide paperwork reduction goals of 10 or 5 percent per year from Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 to 2001. After annual increases in paperwork, instead of decreases, in 1998 Congress required OMB to identify specific expected reductions in FYs 1999 and 2000. OMB's resulting report was unacceptable. In response, in 2000, Congress required OMB to evaluate major regulatory paperwork and identify specific expected reductions in regulatory paperwork in FYs 2001 and 2002. Again, OMB's resulting report was unacceptable. The bottom line is that, despite explicit statutory directives to reduce paperwork burden on the public, there have been seven years of increases in paperwork burden. Since I became Chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs in 2001, my Subcommittee has held multiple hearings that form the basis for the provisions in the bill. These include a March 11, 2003 hearing entitled ``How To Improve Regulatory Accounting: Costs, Benefits, and Impacts of Federal Regulations,'' and an April 11, 2003 hearing entitled ``Mid- Term Report Card: Is the Bush Administration Doing Enough on Paperwork Reduction?'' The witnesses at these hearings made several thoughtful recommendations, which are reflected in the bill. Bill: My bi-partisan bill makes improvements in processes governing both paperwork and regulations. With respect to paperwork, the bill requires OMB to have at least two full-time staff working solely on tax paperwork reduction. Currently, there is only one OMB employee working part-time on tax paperwork even though IRS accounts for over 80 percent of all government-imposed paperwork. In July 2002, the Appropriations Committee included a directive to OMB in House Report 107-575, which accompanied its 2003 Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, to focus more of OMB staff attention on reducing IRS paperwork. In addition, I have repeatedly asked OMB to increase its staff effort devoted to tax paperwork to no avail. Also, the bill removes unjustified exemptions from various paperwork review and regulatory due process requirements in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. This law exempted certain Department of Agriculture regulations both from the Administrative Procedure Act's due process protections for affected parties and the PRA's required review and approval by OMB. Under the PRA, OMB is charged with assuring practical utility to all information collections imposed on the public. Also, the PRA includes a public protection clause, which assures that the public cannot be penalized for not providing information in unauthorized paperwork. The Department of Agriculture has one of the worst track records in terms of compliance with the PRA. The legislative history for this 2002 law includes no justification for this significant change in regulatory and paperwork promulgation procedures. With respect to regulations, the bill makes permanent the authorization for the General Accounting Office (GAO) to respond to Congressional requests for an independent evaluation of selective agency regulatory proposals. To date, GAO has not hired staff for this function since the law only authorized a 3-year pilot project. To assume oversight responsibility for Federal regulations, Congress needs to be armed with an independent evaluation. What is needed is an analysis of legislative history, e.g., to see if there is a non- delegation problem or backdoor legislating. Instructed by GAO's independent evaluations, Congress will be better equipped to review final agency rules under the Congressional Review Act. More importantly, Congress will be better equipped to submit timely and knowledgeable comments on proposed rules during the public comment period. In addition, the bill requires certain changes to improve regulatory accounting. These include: (a) requiring Federal agencies to annually submit estimates of the costs and benefits associated with the Federal rules and paperwork for each of their agency programs; (b) requiring OMB's regulatory accounting statement to cover the same 7-year time series as the President's budget; (c) requiring integration into the President's budget; and (d) establishing pilot projects for regulatory budgeting. Currently, the economic impacts of Federal regulation receive much less scrutiny than programs in the fiscal budget. Requiring OMB presentation using the same time series as the fiscal budget and being fully integrated into the fiscal budget documents, Congress will be better able to simultaneously review both the on- budget and off-budget costs associated with each Federal agency imposing regulatory or paperwork burdens on the public. Lastly, the bill includes a pilot test to determine the feasibility of regulatory budgeting. This vehicle would help ensure that agencies address the worst societal problems first. I believe that the public expects and deserves paperwork reduction results. In addition, I believe that the public has the right to know if it is getting its money's worth from Federal regulation.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce a bill entitled the ``Port Security Improvements Act of 2003.'' I am pleased to have five other original co-sponsors of this bi-partisan legislation, including: John Tierney, who is the Ranking Member of the Government Reform Subcommittee which I chair; Bill Janklow, who is the Vice Chairman of my Subcommittee; and Jane Harman, who ably represents the Port of Los Angeles. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 shook the confidence of the U.S. government and its citizens in the Nation's security. On November 19, 2001, the President signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. This law established ``emergency procedures'' for the Federal Government to issue interim final regulations without the usual opportunity for public notice and comment, as provided in the Administrative Procedure Act. To ensure Congressional and public input into the regulatory decisionmaking process, the Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, which I chair, held a November 27th hearing entitled ``What Regulations are Needed to Ensure Air Security?'' Congress then turned its attention to port security. On November 25, 2002, the President signed the Maritime Transportation Security Act. This law similarly provided for some interim final regulations without any public notice and comment but did not establish deadlines for their issuance. To provide Congressional and public input into the regulatory decisonmaking process, my Subcommittee held an April 24, 2003, hearing entitled ``What Regulations are Needed to Ensure Port Security?'' The U.S. maritime system includes more than 300 ports with more than 3,700 cargo and passenger terminals. The vast maritime system is particularly susceptible to terrorist attempts to smuggle personnel, weapons of mass destruction, or other dangerous materials into the U.S. And, terrorists could attack ships in U.S. ports. A large-scale terrorist attack at a U.S. port would cause widespread damage and seriously affect our economy. To date, Congress has provided extensive Federal funding to fully ensure air security. In contrast, Congress has not provided sufficient Federal funding to fully ensure port security. The witnesses at my Subcommittee hearing made several thoughtful recommendations, including: (a) the urgency for the Department of Homeland Security to issue a regulation governing a standardized ``smart'' common Transportation Worker Identification Credential; (b) the need for some standardization of security requirements for each U.S. port, each facility in a U.S. port, and each vessel entering a U.S. port; and, (c) the need for an additional significant Federal investment in port security. Currently, the U.S. Customs Bureau collects $15.6 billion in duties on commodities entering the U.S. through marine transportation. My bill directs a portion of these duties toward port security enhancements. In addition, my bill sets deadlines for issuance of regulations governing transportation security cards, and requires regulations that include a national minimum set of standard security requirements for ports, facilities, and vessels. To understand the logic for dedicating a portion of Customs duties, let's look at the Port of Los Angeles. It is the busiest port in the U.S. and the seventh busiest in the world. It encompasses 7,500 acres. In 2002, Custom duties collected in this port accounted for 32 percent of all Customs duties collected in all U.S. seaports. However, since passage of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, this port has only received a small fraction of what it needs for port security enhancements and a substantially inadequate share of the funding distributed to date relative to its importance in the commerce of this country. Since America's ports are crucial to our economic well being, it is essential that we find the right balance between increasing port security while not impeding the flow of commerce and trade. As a Republican, I am sensitive to the costs of excessive government regulation. But, in a post September 11th world, I realize that we must take additional precautions to protect our fellow citizens and our economy. We need to make sure that our ports are safe. I am not convinced that they are safe today. The Port Security Improvements Act will ensure that America's ports receive the security upgrades they need. This legislation links customs duties collected in our ports to investments in greater security at these ports. All of us recognize the tremendous importance that international trade plays in our economy.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Rex Fortune, Superintendent of Center Unified School District, in Sacramento, California, as he prepares for retirement. Dr. Fortune began his career in education in 1964 as a science teacher at Sequoia Union High School in Redwood City, California. Throughout his career Dr. Fortune has contributed to education as a curriculum writer, a high school Vice Principal, a field researcher, associate superintendent, and superintendent. Education has taken him from Southern California to Northern California, to West Africa, and back to Northern California. For the last 15 years Center Unified School District has been his home where he was instrumental in the passage of a $59.2 million school bond for school renovation and new construction, established a Safe Schools program, secured funding for a K-6 reading program, and in 1989, created Project Pipeline, to produce future teachers of science and mathematics. Dr. Fortune has dedicated 30 years of his life to the education of California children, and I am thankful for his commitment to excellence. Please join me in thanking Dr. Fortune for his contribution to our youth, and wishing him well as he retires.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce legislation that will elevate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the Cabinet and redesignate the EPA as the Department of Environmental Protection. The United States is one of the few industrial nations that does not place environmental protection at a cabinet-level position. I believe that environmental protection is as important as other cabinet functions, and is critical to the health and well-being of this nation's environment and people. During the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, which I chair, held three hearings to explore the merits of elevating EPA to department-level status. These hearings addressed two EPA elevation bills introduced by Congressman Sherwood Boehlert and former Congressman Steve Horn. Several experts, representatives of the regulated community, Federal and State officials testified not only about the merits of elevating EPA to department- level status, but also about current organizational problems at EPA that hinder effective environmental protection. Currently, each EPA Regional office, Program office and division reports directly to EPA's Administrator and Deputy Administrator. The Subcommittee discovered that this ``stovepipe'' organization results in EPA's inability to effectively address cross-media environmental protection. I believe that EPA's structure, as it currently exists, lacks adequate oversight and coordination of its offices to ensure that science, policy and implementation are integrated throughout EPA. The Subcommittee also found that EPA lacks scientific leadership and critical science for decisionmaking. The Subcommittee found that many of the problems with EPA's science stems from the fact that scientific activities take place in both the Office of Research and Development and the Program offices without sufficient coordination and intraagency dissemination of information. My bill creates an Under Secretary for Science and Information that will advance environmental protection by conducting peer-reviewed scientific studies of the highest caliber. Several departments have their own statistical agencies to provide independent and reliable data for decisionmaking and analysis. These include: the Department of Commerce's Bureau of the Census; the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics; the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration; the Department of Health and Human Services' National Center for Health Statistics; and the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. EPA lacks a similar function, resulting in unreliable statistical data on current environmental conditions necessary to measure whether EPA's policies and regulations efficiently and successfully protect the environment. My bill creates a Bureau of Environmental Statistics that I believe will provide the Department with the tools it needs to meet its responsibilities. EPA, as it exists today, does not have the institutional ability to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century. My bill reflects the recommendations of several expert witnesses at the Subcommittee's hearings about how to make the EPA a more effective protector of the environment.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the legislation that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has brought forward, and I thank him for yielding me this time to come to the floor and speak to it. I am opposed to the substitute. I did want to come down and talk about one issue here in particular, and that is this issue of highly compensated individuals within corporate America and the treatment that their retirement plans and retirement planning get versus the run-of- the-mill pension plans that the everyday worker gets. We have asked, and unfortunately the Committee on Rules ruled out of order, to place an amendment in that would have directed the Department of Labor to do a study as to the broad variety of plans that are available to highly compensated individuals and the manner in which they are funded and then compare that with the manner in which the pension plans for ordinary Americans who might work in corporate America might be receiving. And the reason we asked for that is that there is significant anecdotal evidence that while retirement plans in corporate America for the run-of-the-mill worker are in many cases underfunded, this cafeteria of plans for highly compensated individuals may well be getting fully funded using corporate assets. As I said, I did propose an amendment that was unfortunately ruled out of order by the Committee on Rules to this, and I will be introducing a bill entitled The Employees' Pension Equity Act of 2003 to address this situation. I think we are all concerned here on the floor of the House that Americans be treated equitably. This particular proposal that I will be putting forward will do that. We do need to look at the manner in which highly compensated individuals as defined under ERISA, how they take care of their pension planning as compared with the regular American retirement programs that the corporation provides under the pension plans that occur. We need to make sure that both groups are treated equitably. We need to make sure that if the regular American, the regular Joe and the regular Jane, if their pension plans are funded to a 60 percent level, then the highly compensated individuals cannot take corporate assets and fund their retirement programs at a 100 percent level and the like. We are looking for equity here. We are looking for some means of leveling the playing field so that the corporate assets cannot be used disproportionately to benefit employees of corporate America. In my travels around my district, I hear about this regularly. It sticks in people's craw that the occasion arises where highly compensated individuals get to take corporate assets and use them to secure their retirements using any one of the vehicles identified under the ERISA plan act for their purpose and regular Joes cannot do the same thing. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this legislation, which will provide greater security for the pensions of American workers, and to oppose the substitute. In this time of economic instability in the world, it is essential that our hard-working constituents know that their financial future is safe. Today's bill is focused on securing employee pensions. This is a truly noble cause. However, many Americans are skeptical about the security of their pension funds. They are also concerned with reports that the managers, whose actions may have damaged the stability of their retirement, walk away with a ``golden parachute'' package of guaranteed money. In short, American workers want to make sure that they are treated fairly and that their funds are equally capable of meeting liabilities as the pension plans of the highly compensated individuals who run their companies. I recently began investigating just how often employees are left holding the bag while senior executives are fully compensated. I was surprised to learn how little data there is on this topic. There have been numerous reports on the instability of employee pensions and other retirement plans in recent years. Such reports helped spur the legislation currently before us. There has also been research into the variety of compensation vehicles for corporate executives. However, little of the research compares the two systems or examines why one side may face a shortfall while other employees in the same company are assured of their compensation. Last night, I proposed an amendment to this bill which the rules, unfortunately, does not allow us to consider. It was quite simple: it called for the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study on the funding and under-funding of pension plans and similar arrangements for both employee plans and the plans of highly compensated individuals. Most American workers simply want to be treated fairly. When they succeed, they are pleased that their coworkers also benefit. When they fall short, they recognize that everyone gave their best. But, what really sticks in their ``craw'' is when they lose out and the people in charge don't care because they are paid either way. We need to look carefully at situations where employees and executives face different results in the same situation. This report would help us better understand such occurrences. It is for this reason that I recently introduced ``The Employees' Pension Equity Act of 2003,'' a bill that will prevent executives from walking away with ``golden parachutes'' while employees are left holding the bag. How does it happen that the ``highly compensated individuals,'' an actual legal term, do not suffer when their decisions leave a business floundering while the foot-soldiers of the business are left unemployed and facing financial hardships? My legislation seeks to right that wrong. The Employees' Pension Equity Act requires that the employee funds be just as sound as executive funds. Employees need to know that their pensions will not be left to ``wither on the vine'' while executives walk away with big, guaranteed checks in their pockets. This legislation is another straightforward bill that requires an annual comparison of employees' and executives' plans, and an annual additional contribution to the employees' fund when they are not in the same fiscal shape as their executives' counterparts. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1000 is a good bill that will help protect our constituents. I am pleased to support this legislation and hope the House will take the next step in passing my Employees' Pension Equity Act in the near future.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce The Employees' Pension Equity Act of 2003, a bill that will prevent executives from walking away with ``golden parachutes'' while employees are left holding the bag. We've all heard the stories: a company goes under leaving the employees unemployed and without the promised returns on their pension investments while, at the same time, the company's executives walk away with millions of dollars in their pockets. How does it happen that the ``highly compensated individuals,'' an actual legal term, don't suffer when their decisions leave a business floundering while the footsoldiers of the business are left unemployed and facing financial hardships? This bill seeks to right that wrong. The Employees' Pension Equity Act requires that the employee funds be just as sound as executive funds. Employees need to know that their pensions will not be left to ``wither on the vine'' while executives walk away with big, guaranteed checks in their pockets. This Act requires the annual comparison of employees' and executives' plans, and an annual additional donation to the employees' fund when they are not in the same fiscal shape as their executives' counterparts. It's that simple. The American worker deserves equal treatment and the guarantee that they will be taken care of before their bosses walk off with the company assets. This bill takes a stand for the American worker and for equality and justice for all.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the talents and efforts of Center High School's ``Top Ten'' Academic Seniors for the 2002-2003 school year. These students have an un-weighted, cumulative grade point average of between 3.88 and 4.0. These outstanding students have been accepted at the University of California--Los Angeles, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley, University of the Pacific, Stanford, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, and Brigham Young University. Each of these students were honored at a scholarship dinner on Monday, April 28, 2003, where they were each presented with $200 scholarships made possible by community donations, and publicly recognized for their academic achievements. I am very proud of these young men and woman. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Valerie Vinco, Navneet Riar, Tara Dougherty, Natalie Ramirez, Erin Baccay, Dieu-Huyen Nguyen, Adam Luber, Maybelline Disuanco, Kimberly Johnson, and Sabre Shin.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, health care costs increase annually. 40 million Americans currently go uninsured. 38 million Americans depend on Medicare for their health care. With these challenges before us, Congress must act to provide the most comprehensive and cost effective health care services available. For this reason, I am reintroducing the Medicare Telehealth Validation Act of 2003. I firmly believe that telemedicine is the best preventative medicine. The techniques and consultative efficiency provided by telehealth services reduce costs by diagnosing diseases and disorders before they progress. By expanding Medicare reimbursement for telehealth technology, we will be cutting illnesses off at the pass, and reducing overall costs. Furthermore, telemedicine can meet the needs of underserved populations. According to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 80 physicians per 100,000 persons in most rural areas in 1998, compared with 308.5 physicians per 100,000 in urban areas and 223.5 physicians per 100,000 persons in the suburbs. The youth death rate from all causes was 58.5 per 100,000 persons in most rural areas from 1996 to 1998, compared with 44.5 per 100,000 persons in urban areas and 35.4 per 100,000 in suburban areas. With such a disparity in quality of care between those with access to medical care and those without, Congress must act to expand the use of telehealth technology before preventable illnesses become life- threatening diseases. The Medicare Telehealth Validation Act provides $40 million for development of telehealth networks for rural communities. These networks enable underserved populations access to the same diagnostic and consultative care that urban residents have come to expect. These networks link health care professionals in their offices to patients and colleagues from across the street or from across the globe. In addition to providing critical medical consultation to underserved and rural constituents, this legislation provides telehealth technology to inpatient services, increases the categories of eligible participants to increase access to telehealth technologies, and it seeks to reduce the barriers for access to telehealth technologies by increasing multi-state licensing. Moreover, this legislation will expand Store and Forward technology and revolutionize radiology. X-rays and slides can be shared with specialists quickly and confidentially. Diagnosis and treatment will be better, faster, and less expensive. I am a firm believer that preventative medicine is the best medicine. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, Peggy A. Crowther has served, with distinction, as the Executive Director of the Rotary Club of Sacramento since August 1991. Established in 1913, this club is one of the oldest Rotary Clubs in the world, and the 12th largest, made up of nearly 500 members representing the top business, civic, and professional leaders in the region. In May 2003, Peggy will be retiring to enjoy the personal passions of her life . . . husband Bob, her children, and grandchild, travel, and golf . . . to name only a few of her interests. What she leaves behind is a legacy of leadership that will be missed by all who came to rely on her professionalism, graciousness, and warm smile. Devotion to the non-profit world has always been her passion, and is reflected throughout her life. Born in Green Bay, Wisconsin, she began her career as associate director of the YWCA, and YMCA, and then continued in that capacity in Salt Lake City, Modesto and Fresno, California. For a time she worked as director of development for Central Catholic High School in Modesto, before becoming district chief of staff for a State Assemblyman. Her next move was to Sacramento where she became the director of development of United Cerebral Palsy. It was in 1988, that Peggy joined the Rotary Club of Modesto, but her involvement with Rotary began earlier when she assisted her husband with the leadership of a Group Study Exchange Team to Melbourne, Australia. As women were welcomed into Rotary, she was one of the first to join, and with the move to Sacramento, became a member here in April 1991. During this past 12 years, with Peggy's dedication, patience, and guidance, the Rotary Club of Sacramento has continued to grow in membership, prestige, and has been a contributor of well over two million dollars to the local and world community. Leadership within the membership changes yearly, but Peggy has continued to be the one person that we have all come to appreciate as the significant contributor of our success. None of us will forget how we have come to rely on her organizational skills, her adeptness at multi-tasking, problem solving, and talent for diplomacy as she interfaces with hundreds of volunteers . . . all of which she greets by name at our weekly meetings. We thank you, Peggy, and wish you and your family all the blessings life has to offer.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, we just passed a wartime supplemental, and I wanted to make a note that it was unanimously done. I think it is a marvelous tribute to this country and this body that when this country is faced with the challenges that we have in front of us and our young people are deployed to protect us and our interests, that we bind together as a team, that we bind together as a country and that our leadership is able to take us to where we need to go. The work that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) have done in working with the Senate is a marvelous tribute to their skills as legislators, and to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) as Speaker and minority leader here in the House, they have my commendations. I am pleased to be here and be part of this momentous occasion.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully rise to oppose this bill today. When President Bush introduced the National Energy Policy in 2001, I applauded the plan. The President laid out a comprehensive, balanced policy to address our nation's energy needs. I supported the President energy policy and voted for the House version, H.R. 4, in the 107th Congress. The bill we have before us today includes much of the beneficial programs embedded in H.R. 4. However, it also includes an ethanol mandate that I am adamantly opposed to. This provision is bad public policy. It is bad for consumers, bad for air quality, and bad for the environment. Last year, the Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, which I chair, held a hearing to review the concept of an ethanol mandate. One of our expert witnesses predicted that the ethanol mandate would cause reformulated gasoline to raise almost 10 cents per gallon. On Tuesday, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) predicted that, by the time ethanol is fully integrated in California, the price increase for reformulated gas would be 9 cents per gallon. California has already seen huge price increases this year as refiners attempt to shift from MTBE to ethanol. For a State like California, or New York, or Connecticut, which uses a large amount of reformulated gasoline, this will represent an income shift of hundreds of millions of dollars from our citizen's pockets to those in ethanol-producing States. Furthermore, when the EPA implements its new 8-hour ozone rule, 155 new counties will have to use reformulated gasoline. I hope my colleagues who represent these counties know that the ethanol mandate will increase their constituents gas prices. Ethanol will also make it tougher to meet our air quality standards. While the supporters of ethanol love to tell us that ethanol reduces carbon monoxide, they fail to tell us that ethanol use results in higher volatile organic compounds, which contribute to ozone. In fact, ethanol has to get a waiver from the Clean Air Act to be used in the summertime because of its ozone forming qualities. Ethanol proponents also claim that ethanol will reduce our demand for foreign oil. But a 2002 study published by the Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology concluded that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than that gallon yields. Furthermore, an ethanol mandate that subsidizes corn production will have adverse effects on water quality, as farmers use more and more fertilizer to produce their crops. No wonder ethanol proponents slipped into the Bill liability protection for ethanol producers. If we find that ethanol does indeed harm our water supply--like we found with MTBE--ethanol manufacturers will get a free ride. I offered an amendment at the Rules committee--along with my colleague Elliot Engel--to improve the ethanol mandate. My amendment would have allowed a credit against the ethanol mandate for any refiner that produces clean burning gasoline. This is the direction our nation's fuel policy should take. Instead of mandating inputs into gasoline, we should set high environmental standards and let oil refiners and automakers meet those standards. California today can produce the cleanest burning gasoline in the nation without ethanol. The bottom lie is that an ethanol mandate will increase our gasoline prices and harm our air and water quality. And therefore, I cannot vote for this bill.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, on March 23, 1953, the City of Ione was incorporated as a General Law City and is now the largest city in Amador with a population of 7,500 people. This year the city, and all those who enjoy its unique atmosphere and year round recreation, celebrate its 50th Anniversary. Ione got its name by Thomas Brown around 1849 after one of the heroines in Edward Bulwer Lytton's drama ``The Last Days of Pompeii.'' During the days of the Gold Rush, miners knew the town by the names of ``Bedbug'' and ``Freezeout.'' Unlike other communities in Amador County, which were founded on gold mining, Ione was a supply center, stage and rail stop and agricultural hub. The town of Ione continued to grow and prosper after its gold rush founding. The first school was built in 1853 and the first flour mill in 1855. The first brick building was built by Daniel Stewart in 1855 for his general merchandise store and is still owned and operated by the same family. At the centennial of 1876, Ione had a population of 600 people. The centennial also celebrated the completion of the railroad to the town of Ione. The centennial celebration was the beginning of what is now known as the Ione Homecoming. This annual celebration has been held during the month of May almost every year since that first Centennial celebration in 1876 and is now held on the first weekend in May every year. Our community is indeed proud of the City of Ione and its history. And I am proud to congratulate the City and its residents as we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the City of Ione.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, in 1953, the roots of Heritage Community Credit Union were planted. This year the Credit Union, and all those who enjoy its unique service, celebrate its 50th Anniversary. It was 1953 when seven civilians working on Mather Air Force Base recognized a need for better financial service on base. Each member contributed $5 to form what was then called Mather Civilian Credit Union. In 1962 the Credit Union merged with another military credit union to form Mather Federal Credit Union. In an effort to increase membership the Credit Union added products and services such as mortgage loans, Priority Line Audio Response, and a Telephone Services Department. In 1992, the Credit Union merged with Electrical Workers #340 Credit Union to add 1600 new members. In a third effort to expand membership the Credit Union merged with Proctor & Gamble Employees Federal Credit Union, which added another 1600 new members. On December 14, 1998, Mather Federal Credit Union members voted to convert to a State chartered community credit union. Membership eligibility was again broadened to include anyone living or working in Sacramento County and the name was changed to Heritage Community Credit Union. It is no surprise that the Credit Union has received ``Business of the Year,'' ``Federal Credit Union of the Year'' and ``The Best Small Business to Work for in the Sacramento Area.'' The Credit Union has devoted countless hours and financial support to local charities and philanthropic causes. The Credit Union has used its rapid growth and increased recognition to serve not only its members but also the entire community. Our community is indeed proud of Heritage Community Credit Union and its history. And I am proud to congratulate the members and staff as we celebrate its 50th Anniversary.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce a revised version of my ``Presidential Gifts Accountability Act.'' During the 107th Congress, I introduced an initial bill, H.R. 1081. Both versions of this good government bill establish responsibility in one agency for the receipt, valuation and disposition of Presidential gifts. In January 2001, there were press accounts of President Clinton's last financial disclosure report, which covered calendar year 2000 and January 1-20, 2001. This report revealed that the Clintons chose to retain $190,027 in gifts, each over $260, during this period. In February 2001, there were press accounts of numerous furniture gifts to the White House residence, which the Clintons returned to the U.S. Government. These press stories led me to question how the current Presidential gifts system works and what legislative changes, if any, are needed to prevent future abuses. I believe that the American people have the right to know what gifts were received and retained by their President. Additionally, I believe that donors should not receive an unfair advantage in the policymaking process or other governmental benefits. To prevent future abuses, in March 2001, I introduced H.R. 1081, the ``Accountability for Presidential Gifts Act,'' which had bi-partisan support during the 107th Congress. The Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, which I chair, spent nearly a year gathering the empirical data to support and improve such a legislative effort. The Subcommittee found that several laws, involving six Federal offices and agencies, govern the current system. In February 2002, the Subcommittee released a 55-page document summarizing the Subcommittee's findings. The Subcommittee identified a host of problems with the Presidential gifts system, such as consistently undervalued gifts and questionable White House Counsel rulings. Since the current system is subject to abuse and political interference, I believe that there is a need for centralized accountability in one agency staffed by career employees. My bill establishes responsibility in one agency--staffed by career employees--for the receipt, valuation and disposition of Presidential gifts. On October 28, 2002, my Subcommittee's analysis was presented in House Report 107-768, ``Problems with the Presidential Gifts System.'' The Report summarized how the current system works, my Subcommittee's investigation and findings, and recommendations made in my Subcommittee's hearing and a second hearing by the Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations. The Report's findings included: Non- Competitive Hiring of Political Appointee for Career Job, Some Gifts Over the Reporting Threshold Were Not Disclosed, Some Gifts Were Solicited, Many Gifts Were Undervalued, Some Gifts Were Not Included in the White House Database, Some Gifts Were Lost, Questionable White House Counsel Rulings, Some U.S. Property Was Taken, Most Furniture Gifts Were Coordinated, Some Gift Certificates Were Accepted, and Huge Gifts to the Presidential Library The total value of gifts retained by the former First Family over an 8-year period creates at least an appearance problem. The fact that so many gifts were undervalued raises many questions. The fact that gifts were misplaced or lost show sloppy management and maybe more. The fact that U.S. government property was improperly taken is troubling. And, the fact that, after the former First Lady's election to the U.S. Senate and before she was subject to the Congress' very strict gift acceptance rules, the former First Family accepted nearly $40,000 in furniture gifts and the First Lady solicited nearly $40,000 in fine china and silver is disturbing at best. Public servants, including the President, should not be able to enrich themselves with lavish gifts. The revised version of my bill, which I am introducing today, reflects several recommendations made by public witnesses at both hearings on the earlier version. these include the President of Common Cause and the Director for Public Service of The Brookings Institution, both of which expressed support for the bill. I believe that, if enacted, this bill will provide transparency for the public, establish discipline in the multi-agency system, and ensure accountability. A section-by-section analysis of the bill's provisions is attached to this introductory statement. The current system is clearly broken and needs to be fixed. To expedite progress, I am also sending a letter to the President today to recommend some changes in the current system, which he can make administratively to provide transparency, discipline, and accountability. These include interagency coordination, establishment of a unified database with a single numbering system, and annual public disclosure of all Presidential gifts over $100 (except a gift from a foreign government or a relative). A copy of this letter is also attached to this introductory statement. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 3, 2003. Hon. George W. Bush, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Today, after a lengthy investigation and two hearings of Government Reform Subcommittees, I introduced an improved version of my ``Presidential Gifts Accountability Act.'' This good government bill establishes responsibility in one agency for the receipt, valuation, and disposition of Presidential gifts. In the meantime, I am writing you to recommend some changes in the current system, which can be made administratively. Several laws, involving six Federal offices and agencies, govern the current system. The Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, which I chair, identified a host of problems with the system in use during the prior Administration, such as consistently undervalued gifts and questionable White House Counsel rulings. These are presented in House Report 107-768, ``Problems with the Presidential Gifts System.'' Since the system is subject to abuse and political interference, I believe that there is a need for centralized accountability in one agency staffed by career employees. My bill establishes responsibility in one agency for the receipt, valuation and disposition of Presidential gifts. At the second hearing in June 2002, it was revealed that only minor changes were made by your Administration to address the problems revealed in the first hearing in February 22. In July 2002, my Subcommittee invited your staff and the six affected agencies to a meeting to identify changes, which could be made administravely. The attendees confirmed that, since the Subcommittee's investigation began: there has been no interagency meeting or other coordination between the six agencies; there is no unified database system in use by the six agencies for the receipt, valuation and disposition of Presidential gifts; and, there is no single numbering system for Presidential gifts. Please consider such coordination and establishment of a unified database with a single numbering system. In addition, I recommend annual public disclosure of all Presidential gifts over $100 (except a gift from a foreign government or a relative). As the Director for Public Service at the Brookings Institution stated, ``In this moment of heightened public confidence in government, the presidential gift process offers the potential for staggering embarrassment and diminished accountability. The current fragmented process for logging, valuing, and manging gifts to the president defies bureaucratic logic, and appears designed more to frustrate accounatbility than enhance it. One could design a more unwieldy system if one started out do so.'' I agree with his assessment. Sincerely, Doug Ose, Member of Congress.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. I object, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Wisconsin just recited a very amusing tale about learning to read and becoming a Democrat. When I learned to count, I became a Republican. The night is late, the hour is late, and we have many, many challenges in front of us. We have people arrayed across the world protecting our interests; and in the face of that, I do something tonight that I rarely do and that is come to the well and speak in favor of the Nethercutt amendment and the Kennedy amendment. I have heard a lot of citations to our indebtedness, to our friends Lafayette and others, the German Hessian soldiers and the like; and yet across this world there is but one country that uniformly puts its young people and its treasure on the line for the protection of freedom and democracy for people who do not even live here. Think about that. Think about what we are doing in this short period of time in particular. We have young people, particularly in Iraq today, putting their lives on the line to bring freedom and democracy to people who have not enjoyed it for many, many decades. It comes before us tonight on an appropriations bill with an amendment proposed by my good friends from Minnesota and Washington to say to the world that the Americans know who we are; that we believe in the concept of accountability; and that we will not vote to continue to spend American lives on a goal that benefits those lacking the courage to do the necessary thing, lacking the commitment to stand with those who will confront evil where it is found and lacking the qualifications to judge those of us who will. Mr. Chairman, we are at a point that is at the heart of who we are. Are we a country that sends our young people across the world to defend the interests of freedom and democracy, to then yield those same interests to someone who simply seeks 12 pieces of silver? I urge this body to think long and hard about the standard of accountability that we want in this world and the standard we set for our children and the generations to come. I urge support of this amendment.

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

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN: The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I fully support many of the reforms in H.R. 522 but must, once again, raise some concern with one particular section that would not only cause harm but could ensure that the other reforms are once again delayed by the other body or by the administration. That issue is the increase in coverage amounts. I am pleased to see my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a fellow member of Committee on Financial Services, here on the floor today who is joining me in offering this amendment. This simple amendment returns the base coverage level for insurance on deposits to the current $100,000 level. It removes provisions increasing coverage to $130,000, as well as provisions to automatically increase coverage through inflation adjustments. This is the only change it makes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, could you tell me how much time remains on each side?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure we are talking about the right amendment. It is amendment No. 1, which only deals with the level of insurance and the question of indexing. It does not deal with retirement accounts or municipal deposits. Am I correct in that, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to echo the comments of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). Mr. Chairman, one of the things I have is an experience of having had to survive the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s when I was in the real estate business. This was not a pretty time for those of us who were confronted with that situation, and I would advise those who did not have that pleasure that they do not want to have the opportunity to enjoy that in their future business careers. I will say that in the context of whether or not to raise from $100,000 to $130,000, or some other level, the plain fact of the matter is that 98 percent of all accounts have balances less than $100,000, and the law allows each of those who might otherwise exceed $100,000, if they wish, to open another insured account up to another $100,000; to drive down the street and open an account in another bank; to diversify their deposits in their community. It is not necessarily a fact that there is only one place at which an individual can receive insurance on their accounts. If you have more than $100,000 in an account, you can reduce the balance in that account and take that money to another bank and receive another layer of protection for that balance. Mr. Chairman, that is the beauty of this system. That is the strength of the system. And, in fact, it is the strongest argument that we do not need to increase limits. This proposal to increase to $130,000 is a solution in search of a problem. I urge this body to make an ``aye'' vote on my amendment. And, Mr. Chairman, I want to submit for the Record the statements of Under Secretary of the Treasury Peter Fischer, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, Comptroller of the Currency John D. Hawke, Jr., and Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision James Gilleran. H.R. 3717--Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2002, Rep. Bachus (R) Alabama and 63 Cosponsors The Administration supports those provisions of H.R. 3717 that would improve the deposit insurance system's operation and fairness. Specifically, the Administration supports provisions that would: (1) allow the insurance fund reserve ratio to vary within a range and eliminate triggers that could cause sharp changes in premiums; (2) merge the bank and thrift insurance fund; and (3) ensure that institutions appropriately compensate the FDIC for insured deposit growth while also taking into account the past contributions of many institutions to build fund reserves. The Administration, however, strongly opposes those provisions of H.R. 3717 that would raise deposit insurance coverage limits. The interests of depositors will not be served by an increase in deposit insurance coverage limits. The average saver would derive no financial benefit from increased coverage limits. The small fraction of savers with substantial deposits may obtain as much coverage as desired at minimal inconvenience by placing deposits at multiple institutions. An increase in coverage limits would neither enhance competition among depository institutions in general nor make the nation's community banks more competitive in raising funds. Increased coverage limits would also expose taxpayers to additional risk while providing no benefit to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Higher coverage limits would mean greater off-balance sheet contingent liabilities of the Government and weaker market discipline, exposing the insurance fund and taxpayers to increased risk of loss. To avoid dilution of FDIC and NCUA reserves resulting from the higher coverage limits provided in H.R. 3717, banks, thrifts, and credit unions will need to pay at least $3.5 billion in higher insurance assessments according to CBO and OMB estimates. A substantial amount of the higher industry costs will occur in the first year. The Administration notes the submission to Congress by the FDIC of recommendations for legislative or administration action is subject to the President's authority under the Recommendations Clause of the Constitution. Pay-As-You-Go-Scoring Any law that would reduce receipts or increase direct spending is subject to the PAYGO requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BEA) and could cause a sequester of mandatory programs in any fiscal year through 2006. The requirement to score PAYGO costs expires on September 30, 2002, and there are no discretionary caps beyond 2002. The Administration will work with Congress to ensure fiscal discipline consistent with the President's budget and a quick return to a balanced budget. The Administration will also work with Congress to ensure that any unintended sequester of spending does not occur.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, in honor of Women's History Month, I would like to join members of the Congressional Caucus for Women's issues in recognizing the accomplishments of women and the outstanding contributions they have made to our country. I would like to take this opportunity to honor an extraordinary woman from my district, Kathleen ``Tex'' Milami, for her 60 years of dedicated service as a registered nurse working in a number of hospitals throughout the country. On her 81st birthday on February 27 of this year, Tex celebrated another momentous occasion, her retirement, marking the end of her exceptional 60-year career as a nurse, 30 years of which were spent at Mercy's Sacramento birthing center facilities as a labor and delivery nurse. Tex began nursing at the age of 18, studying for 3 years at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas. In 1945 she began working in various hospitals in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, specializing in labor and delivery nursing. In 1972 she moved to the Sacramento area, working first at the Birthing Center at Mercy American River Hospital just down the street from where I live, and then in 1995 moved with the birthing center to Mercy's San Juan Hospital where she spent the remainder of her career. After 30 years of distinguished service, she has become something of a legend among her co-workers and patients in the Sacramento area and has seen many changes in birthing techniques and technology over her career. When asked what sets Tex apart from other nurses, her co-workers said that they are amazed at her willingness to embrace advances in technology. Not only was she open to change, she became an expert in learning these new techniques, enrolling in classes to learn the proper applications, and then acting as a proctor to other nurses, teaching them those same techniques. In her career, Tex has seen fetoscopes replaced by fetal monitors, the emergence of epidurals and improved pain medications, the introduction of the LaMaze technique, and the advent of homestyle deliveries where labor and birth take place in one room, and family members are welcome. In her own words, ``You tell me there is a new way of doing something, and I want to learn how to do it and do it well. As long as you arrive at the same destination, it just does not matter how you get there.'' Among her co-workers, Tex's commitment to her job, her enthusiasm and her devotion to her patients, acts as an inspiration to other nurses. Tex retired in order to keep a promise to her husband Frank that she would retire at age 81. This remarkable and energetic woman says that even at age 81 she was not ready to retire and that 81 came too soon. In all that she has experienced, Tex said the hardest part of it all has been to retire. Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge Tex for her myriad of contributions to the nursing profession and to the Sacramento area families whose lives she has touched with exceptional attention and care to birthing mothers and her eagerness to improve the experience of all her patients. Kathleen ``Tex'' Milami emerges not only as a leader in her field, with an established and respected career, but also at 81 years of age, is a role model for all women. I am honored to recognize her and all her accomplishments for Women's History Month and would like to wish her the very best in her retirement.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce a simple bill to revoke Executive Order 13233, ``Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act,'' which President Bush issued on November 1, 2001. My bill would replace this Order with President Reagan's 1989 implementing Executive Order 12267. During the 107th Congress, on April 11, 2002, Representative Steve Horn introduced the ``Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2002'' (H.R. 4187). I co-sponsored this bi- partisan bill. The Government Reform Committee held hearings on the Bush Order and then, after introduction, on Mr. Horn's bill. On October 9th, the House Government Reform Committee reported out an amended version of this bill. On November 22nd, an accompanying House Report (Report 107-790) was published. Unfortunately, the full House never considered this bill. In the 1978 Presidential Records Act, Congress clearly intended to make Presidential records available for Congressional investigations and then for the public after a 12-year period. The Act authorized the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to issue implementing regulations. President Reagan's Order expanded on NARA's implementing regulations. The Reagan Order clarified some areas not specifically addressed in the regulations. Most importantly, the Order identified only three areas where access to Presidential records could be limited--if disclosure might impair national security, law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch. President Bush's Order changed these access limitations. In a nutshell, law enforcement was dropped and two areas were added: ``communications of the President or his advisors (the presidential communications privilege); [and] legal advice or legal work (the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges).'' This broadening could severely limit Congressional access to key documents in its investigations of a former Administration. Besides broadening the grounds for executive privilege claims, the Order is inconsistent both with the Presidential Records Act itself and with NARA's codified implementing regulations. NARA's rules were promulgated after the public had notice and an opportunity to comment, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. In November 2001, a week after issuance of the Order, I raised concerns in a Subcommittee hearing on the Order. I questioned the Administration witness about the legal and substantive justification for the policy changes. After the hearing and further discussions with White House officials, I had hoped that the Administration would amend or revoke its Order. Unfortunately, it has not done so. As a consequence, I believe that legislation is needed to void the Order. My bill would do just that. The Order violates not only the spirit but also the letter of the Presidential Records Act. It undercuts the public's rights to be fully informed about how its government operated in the past. My bill would restore the public's right to know and its confidence in our government.