Doug Ose

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan legislation addressing the issue of remittances. This is a simple bill aimed at an increasingly complex issue: how recent immigrants and New Americans send support to their families ``back home.'' People come from around the world to the United States, seeking not just to live the American Dream, but also to help support their families in their native lands. New Americans have a history of supporting those without the same opportunities, whether it is the Mexican farm worker helping his family today or the Irish settler who helped keep his family during the potato famine more than 100 years ago, Americans never forget where they come from. Today, getting the money earned in the United States to one's family is easier than ever. Large money-transfer companies can send money almost anywhere in the world in an instant. More and more banks and other financial institutions are also providing these services. But one group of institutions, often heavily involved in local and immigrant community projects, is limited in their activity. To use a local credit union for check cashing and wire transfer services, you must be a member. Many in the immigrant community do not realize the benefits of credit union membership and see this is a barrier. They would rather pay higher prices for the service than go through the paperwork involved in joining--even though they are fully eligible to be a member of a specific credit union. It is, in effect, a barrier for them to take advantage of another member of the marketplace. This bill, which I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues Mr. Gonzalez, Dr. Paul, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. LaTourrette and Mr. Sherman, would simply allow credit unions to provide these services to people who would be eligible to join that credit union, but for whatever reason choose not to do so. The marketplace thrives on competition. In a recent study by the Greenlining Institute, an organization dedicated to expanding access to financial services for disadvantaged communities, the credit union had one of the lowest fees and best exchange rates for those seeking to send money overseas. Everyone should have the opportunity to take advantage of this service. There are still many issues that need to be addressed on the issue of sending support back to one's family. In my own district, not only do Latin American immigrants continue to support those overseas, but also many from Asia, India and even the Ukraine. We need to make sure that they have access to good services and are not taken advantage of by a few less-scrupulous businesses. An open market, with true competition will help us improve the costs and other burdens associated with this industry.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently declared it is unconstitutional to say the Pledge of Allegiance, our national recitation and proclamation of patriotism. This ruling is an attack on the history of our Nation and on the display of our patriotic pride. On Friday, February 28, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld its ruling on Newdow v. U.S. Congress. In its decision, the court declared the phrase ``one Nation, under God'' to infringe on the Establishment Clause of the first amendment and is therefore unconstitutional to recite within our public schools. This issue hits especially close to home because Newdow v. U.S. Congress originated in the Elk Grove Unified School District, which is located in my district in California. I would like to recognize the school district for its participation in defending our right to say the Pledge. As the party named in the lawsuit, they have shouldered the burden and the cost for standing up for our community and our Nation. Elk Grove Unified has not waivered in their support of the Pledge of Allegiance and remains an example of true patriotism. In response to the court's ruling, I authored this resolution reaffirming that the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety is appropriate and calling upon the Supreme Court to review this ruling in order to correct this infirm and historically incorrect decision. The Ninth Circuit is quite plainly wrong and has failed to represent the values of the people of California and the United States of America. The origin of this phrase is rumored to have come from a speech delivered on a cold fall day in the aftermath of the one of the bloodiest battles in American history. On November 19, 1863, President Lincoln delivered his famous Gettysburg Address while overlooking the massive graves of the soldiers who died there during that famous battle and said the following: ``It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this Nation, under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.'' Mr. Speaker, there is no better time than today, given the circumstances of our efforts to protect our homeland, that we rise to honor the men and women of the military and reaffirm our patriotism to this great Nation across all generations. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and his staff for their assistance on this resolution, for bringing it to the floor in such a timely manner, and I urge Members to support the resolution.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for this week's campaign, ``Uniting Our Voices: Speaking Together to Speak Out,'' against domestic violence sponsored by Lifetime Television and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence in coordination with the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues. I would like to commend these organizations for their hard work and continued efforts to raise awareness of domestic violence issues. Domestic violence is a serious problem in this country. Nearly one third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives. In my home state of California, it is reported that almost 6 percent of California's women suffer physical injuries as a result of domestic violence every year. In 2001, there were more than 52,000 domestic violence arrests, and ' law enforcement received 198,000 domestic violence calls. Although domestic violence has traditionally been considered a problem primarily afflicting women, it does not just affect women and is not just a ``women's issue.'' It affects men, women and children; it affects American families and our communities. Each year, an estimated 3.3 million children are exposed to violence in their homes, and statistics provided by the Department of Justice show that a child's exposure to domestic violence is one of the strongest factors in transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next, increasing the likelihood of that that child will commit a violent act, continuing the cycle of violence. Domestic violence is a problem that Americans must confront head-on in order to stop the cycle of violence occurring within our communities and throughout our country. I support the Violence Against Women Act, it is an important bill whose effects have been far-reaching in all aspects of helping victims of domestic violence, but there is still much more to be done. We must continue to provide funding to domestic violence programs and work to close the loopholes in existing legislation. VAWA and this week's campaign against domestic violence are just the first of many steps that must be taken in order to end domestic violence. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to further address issues of domestic violence so that we may work towards developing solutions, both locally and nationally, to end the cycle of violence in our communities and to put a stop to the problem of domestic violence.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, in the 1950s a new artery opened that has helped alleviate traffic in the booming Sacramento region for close to half a century: the Folsom Dam Road. Built to provide both flood protection and water reserves, a road also runs across the top of the Folsom Dam, thus providing better access to the growing communities in Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado Counties. In recent years I have often argued that the growth in the region demands a new, bigger bridge to handle the more than 18,000 commuters who traveled across the dam each day. In addition to the congestion on the narrow dam road, I argued that in the wake of the September I I attacks, providing an alternative to traffic became a security risk as well. With the dam so close to Sacramento, the access to the dam was a tempting target to terrorists who might want to attack my hometown and community. Security was increased at the dam--the only facility in the nation with a public road running across it besides the Hoover Dam, and the only one adjacent to a heavily populated area. But many of us still had concerns. Last week, the Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Reclamation--which runs the dam--came to the same conclusion: allowing traffic on the dam is too dangerous. Last Thursday they announced the closure of the dam road to all vehicle and foot traffic, effective this Friday, February 28, 2003. Said a spokesman for the bureau, ``In order to protect the facility and the 900,000 people below it, we have decided to take this step.'' Unfortunately, there is still no new bridge to provide an alternative to the tens of thousands in the region who used the bridge as their avenue through the area. Those of us who live and commute in the area have less than a week to adjust our patterns. Last year, my colleague Representative John Doolitte and I introduced legislation to build a new bridge. This bill passed the House Resources Committee. Today, Representative Doolittle and I reintroduce this language with even greater necessity. The Bureau of Reclamation unilaterally decided to close the road. But they provided no alternative. They have assured me that they support an effort to provide an alternative and restore a method for crossing the region in the form of this new bridge. Chairman Pombo has already indicated that he will give this bill its proper consideration. I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting the effort to provide a safe and secure way for all those traveling in the Sacramento region--home to an international port, airport and two interstate highways--to continue to cross through this beautiful and productive region by passing this legislation and building a bridge to replace the Folsom Dam Road.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the bill. In California, as in many of the other border States, we are working with our friends to the south to try and address many things. One of the things in this bill that I was so pleased to be part of with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) was trying to give some direction to NADBank about expanding the things that they could invest in. Specifically, we have a problem in California where discharge of wastewater and the like from some of the facilities south of the border flows into the Pacific Ocean, then by virtue of currents and tides goes north on the beach and eventually gets to the point where it spoils our beaches. There are many in this body who would argue that we need to delay and defer and not take action on this. However, frankly, one of our greatest assets in California is our beaches. It is my intention, and I am grateful for the support from other parts of the country, to try and do something to frankly address the issue of pollution hitting the beach in California. The language that we proposed and that my colleagues supported and that is now in the bill directs the NADBank to take this issue seriously and to address it when considering future projects. Secondly, my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), talked about water issues being a key element for California's success. The provision that he has placed in the bill directs NADBank to incorporate water development issues in their deliberations. I am pleased by that because, as he said, we have had population growth there of around 30 percent, but water supply growth of only about 2. I ask support of the bill.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, today I reintroduce The Clean, Learn, Educate, Abolish, Neutralize, and Undermine Production of Methamphetamines Act-- or CLEAN-UP Meth Act. This bill is a bipartisan, comprehensive effort to help local agencies address the growing threat that meth production and use poses. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by more than 60 original cosponsors that include all three Co-Chairs of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug Free America, both the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and the House Majority Whip. The cosponsors include Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, from Hawaii to North Carolina, and in almost every state in between. In addition, this bill was supported during the 107th Congress by more than two-dozen national, state and local organizations concerned with the impact of Meth on our society. Among the bills supporters are the National Narcotics Officers Association, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Fertilizer Institute, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, the California Narcotics Officers Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the California Police Chiefs Association and the Peace Officers Research Association of California. As a Californian, I have a heightened awareness of the danger posed by meth. California is the source of more than 80 percent of the meth made and sold in the U.S. Between 1995 and 1999, the number of meth labs discovered in California shot from 559 to 2,061--nearly a four-fold increase in just five years. In 2001, 199 of the 273--or 84 percent--of all ``super labs'' found in the U.S. were in California. The next most common state was home to just 17 ``super labs.'' My hometown of Sacramento is particularly hit by Meth. Many of you may remember when an out of control trucker deliberately drove his big rig into the side of California's state capitol building. The driver was on meth. The Sacramento Sheriffs department alone spends more than $1.3 million each year fighting meth--roughly 75 percent of their entire anti-narcotics budget. In 2000 the Sacramento Sheriffs dealt with 27 clan labs, in 2001 that was up to 44. The CLEAN-UP Meth Act addresses three areas where our state and local officials really need help. First, the Environment. The CLEAN-UP Meth Act authorizes $30 million for cleanup and remediation of our federal, state and local parks, forests and farmlands. All too often, the environment is the first victim of a meth lab. It also authorizes $30 million to train law enforcement and other first responders in how to safely enter and clean-up a lab, as well as how to meet the OSHA requirements for working in such a hazardous environment. Finally, it authorizes $1 million for the EPA to conduct a study of meth waste's impact on the environment. It is important to address environmental concerns as 4 pounds of waste are created for every 1 pound of meth. In 2001, 12,013 super labs, labs and waste or dump sites required clean-up and remediation. Second, Health and Education. H.R. 3782 will provide $20 million to local schools and education groups to provide anti-drug--and especially anti-meth programs. An additional $10 million is provided to local health care groups for the treatment of both meth abusers, and those abused by meth producers and users. One quarter of that money is specifically set aside for programs helping children found in the toxic environment of meth labs or abused by meth users. Finally, the bill authorizes $1 million for the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a study on the impact of not only meth use, but also meth production on community health. We need to help stop the use of this deadly drug that 9.4 million Americans admitted to having used at least once in 1999 and that in 2000, 7.9 percent of high school seniors said they had tried. Finally, Law Enforcement. With meth growing so quickly, many local law enforcement agencies, district attorneys and other members of the law enforcement community are not prepared to deal with its spread into their community. It is all well and good to find the offenders, but you need to know how to catch them--and perhaps most importantly--prosecute them to get them out of the system. This legislation authorizes an additional $20 million under the COPS program for training of state and local prosecutors as well as sheriffs and police officers in the prosecution of meth law violations. And one quarter of these funds are set aside for rural communities that are often hardest hit but lack the resources to attack this emerging threat. One example of this rapid growth: DEA arrests for meth production and distribution between 1993 and 1999 shot up from 1,944 to 8,618--an increase of more than 400 percent. Speaking of training, the bill provides $10 million to expand the great Clan Lab training program run by the DEA in Quantico, Virginia. They do a great job down there, and we need to support them. Regarding criminal penalties, the CLEAN-UP Meth Act tightens criminal laws used to prosecute the promoters of ``raves,'' the for-profit parties aimed at young people that are often the places where our children our first exposed to these dangerous drugs--too often with the full knowledge and consent of the promoter. In conclusion, no matter what you call it--meth, crank, crystal, or whatever--this drug is an emerging threat across the country. And it threatens not just those who use it, not just those who know someone who use it, but all Americans who drink our water, breathe our air, send their kids to school or work our lands. It hits rural and suburban areas, perhaps even harder than it does our cities. You cannot just sit back and say it is someone else's problem. That is why I am grateful that this Administration, so many of my Republican and Democratic colleagues, and members of the law enforcement community is focused on the emerging meth threat. And why I am pleased to have so many of them supporting our efforts to CLEAN-UP Meth as I reintroduce this important legislation today.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chairman for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House and the American people. Two years ago, many in this chamber were shocked when the United States was removed from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and of the International Narcotics Control Board. The U.S. was a founding member of the Human Rights Commission and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was its first Chair. The U.S. spends more money fighting the use of illegal narcotics than any other nation in the world. Despite these facts, some of our ``friends''--and I use the term with increasing skepticism--at the United Nations felt it was more important that nations like Libya and Syria serve on the U.N. agency overseeing human rights and that the Netherlands--a country whose own Web page admits they will not enforce their drug laws--should serve in our place on a board designed to enforce drug laws. Chairman Hyde stood up and led this body to call for the suspension of U.S. funds to the U.N. until we were reinstated on the Human Rights Commission. We are now back on that board. I offered an amendment that passed this House to curtail our funding of the International Narcotics Control Board until we were returned to its membership. This year the U.S. was again shut out while Iran, Brazil and Nigeria were added to the Board. We have seen that the United Nations does not learn from its mistakes. As former President Reagan might have said, ``There they go again.'' While we have been reelected to the Human Rights Commission, Libya has been elected to its Chairmanship. Think about that. Libya. A nation led by a brutal dictator who is known to sponsor international terrorism. Yet only two other nations joined the U.S. in opposing their election to head this prestigious body whose duty is to protect human rights. Eight European nations made the ``courageous'' decision to abstain. And in an example of how momentum is the true ruler of the United Nations and its bloated bureaucracy, this year's meeting of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament will be presided over by Iraq--despite the fact that Iraq is under U.N. sanctions for failing to disarm and even now faces international action for this failure. I wish I could tell you I was surprised. But the United Nations has not been the effective body it could have been over the past two decades. Time and time again, the U.N. in recent years has done more harm than good. I still believe the U.N. can be a useful body. One that helps promote dialogue and the exchange of ideas around the world. But many of its members have forgotten that respect is earned through logical decisions that advance the security of the world--not by blindly following bureaucratic momentum that promotes rogue regimes at the expense of the greatest democracies in the world. I truly hope that the actions we take here today send a message to the U.N. and its members that if they want the body to continue to be a force for good and progress in the world, they must think before they act and make decisions worthy of respect. The election of Libya to Chair the Human Rights Commission, and the continued exclusion of the U.S. from U.N. committees and boards, are not decisions of which they should be proud.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 18, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 19, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, in 1978, Anne Fox founded a small restaurant in Sacramento simply named The Wienery. This year The Wienery, and all those who enjoy its unique atmosphere and menu, is pleased to celebrate its 25th Anniversary. As the name implies, The Wienery offers its customers numerous varieties of hot-dog options. Among the most popular are the Hotsy Dog, the B.L.T. Dog and the Swiss Saute Dog. The Wienery buys its franks from another family owned business in the region, Alpine Meats. Alpine Meats was founded by Swiss sausagemaster Josef Kaeslin--who immigrated to California--and its wieners are spiced by hand and smoked in a hardwood-burning smokehouse with no artificial additives or preservatives. Using these top quality dogs, The Wienery has attracted a dedicated clientele devoted to appreciating their old-fashioned gourmet hot-dogs as well as its homemade soups, chili and sauces. I am proud to consider myself one of their devoted fans and have personally been eating at The Wienery for many years. As a small businessman, I know how hard it is to start a business, especially a restaurant, and keep it running for many years. Current proprietor Cynthia Fox-Vanover carries on Anne Fox's tradition of serving ``fast food with full service.'' In addition, The Wienery has been a proud member of the Sacramento community. It has sponsored more than 20 local little league teams, and supported the Special Olympics and the Disabled Veterans Association-- to name just a few. Our community is indeed proud of The Wienery and its history. And I am proud to congratulate the owners and my fellow customers as we celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the Wienery.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, my greatest responsibility as a Member of Congress is to protect America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This responsibility includes taking preemptive action, if necessary, to protect our homeland and national security interests. On September 14, 2001, Congress adopted a resolution that authorized the President to take such action. Iraq must follow the terms it agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, cease its attacks on U.S. and other peacekeepers in the region, end its promotion of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and end its persecution of its own people. Should Iraq continue to ignore the 12 U.N. Resolutions and the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War, I will support President Bush in the actions he sees necessary to ensure the safety of our citizens, as well as our allies and interests abroad. The vote today makes clear to Saddam Hussein that time for Iraq to finally meet the requirements of the international community has run out.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a group of individuals known as the braceros for their incredible contributions to our great Nation. As a result of the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the United States formally entered the Second World War. This was a fight for freedom, both foreign and domestic, to protect our allies and our own Nation, and to end a war we neither started nor wanted. This part of the history lesson is taught in virtually every school in our Nation. It is well known by our students, far and wide. However, one particular group is often left out of the history books. World War II forced our Nation to shift our economy. Throughout the war, upwards of 13 million men and women served in our Nation, roughly one-tenth of the total population. While our service people were fighting across the oceans, millions more were working constant shifts in the factories to support the effort. This resulted in a severe labor shortage in concentrated areas, such as agriculture. In an effort to minimize this loss of labor, the United States and our good friend to the south, Mexico, entered into a bilateral agreement in August of 1942 to provide contract labor. These guest workers known as braceros, literally meaning ``strong arms,'' were recruited and hired to work in the fields and on the railroads across the United States. The first 1,500 braceros to enter the United States arrived in California to work in the sugar beet fields outside of Stockton on September 29, 1942, where they worked until December 24th of that same year. I would like to point out, as the gentleman from Texas has, my good friend, that this past Sunday marked the 60th anniversary of the first braceros in the United States. Over the course of the next 22 years, as many as 5 million braceros participated in the program supporting our critical infrastructure. It was through their hard work that our Nation was able to effectively sustain our agricultural economy, as well as expand and maintain our railroads, resulting in a safe, reliable, and effective means of transporting food, medicine, troops, and other supplies for the war. In 1964, the last braceros fulfilled their contracts and the program came to an end. However, their contributions last even today. The United States did suffer a severe labor shortage as a result of World War II, but thanks to the efforts and hard work of millions of braceros from our good neighbor to the south, our Nation survived and today prospers. It is time we honor their contributions during this time of crisis and recognize the braceros for their place in American history. I rise today to say ``thank you'' to those who lent a hand.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, it is October 1, and every October 1 every American wakes up and realizes that it is playoff time. Today we across the country and in the cities fortunate to enough to have teams still participating, those playoffs started. In the National League, the defending world champion Arizona Diamondbacks face off against the St. Louis Cardinals while the San Francisco Giants challenge the Atlanta Braves. Over in the American league, the Yankees face the Anaheim Angels, and the Oakland A's take on the Minnesota Twins. It is only appropriate that we take this opportunity at the end of the season to look back at the season and at an amazing record by those amazing A's. The truly historic part of this past season is what we are here to honor today, and that is the record 20-game winning streak of the Oakland A's. When the A's took the field on August 14, they were 4\1/2\ games back in the American League West division standings. They were 2\1/2\ games out in the wild card race, and they got hot. They did not just get hot, Mr. Speaker, they started to cook. Left-handed pitcher Barry Zito took the mound that night and, as he has for much of the Athletics' season, set the tone for what was to come. Zito led the A's to a narrow 5-to-4 victory, and he started something truly amazing. The A's won their next 19 games in a row. They had a second victory against Toronto. They took three against the White Sox where shortstop Miguel Tejada got his 100th RBI of the season. They took four against the Cleveland Indians, including pitcher Corey Lidle's one-hit shutout. They took three against Detroit where even Mother Nature, Mother Nature, conspired to try to stop them, but where the A's returned from a 2-hour rain delay to keep on winning. They won three against Kansas City, took all three, and Zito led them to their 10th straight road victory. At that point, they took three more against Minnesota where Tejada went yard off the almost unhittable Twins closer Eddie Guardado and kept the streak alive. Then two more against the Royals where Tejada and first baseman Scott Hatteberg led the A's back in the late innings with game-winning hitting, but as everything must, this came to an end. Finally, Twins pitcher Brad Radke stopped the seemingly unstoppable A's, and that is what makes today's game, incidentally between the A's and the Twins, round 1 in the American League West playoffs. That is all much more exciting. Guess who is pitching for the Twins today? It is Brad Radke, and I just want to bring my colleagues up to date. It is the third inning, and the A's are up 5 to 3. The 20 games the A's won is the longest winning streak in American League history. In the past 55 years, no team had even won 19 in a row. In fact, the only two American League teams to win 19 straight were the 1947 Yankees and the 1906 Chicago White Sox. In fact, only one other Major League Baseball team has ever won 20 in a row and that is the '35 Chicago Cubs who won 21 consecutive games. Baseball is a game of statistics. Think about this. This is truly amazing. Every year every major league team has 142 opportunities to create a 20-game win streak; yet for 55 years, 55 years, this is 2002, so that would have been back to just after the end of World War II, for 55 years no team has accomplished what the A's did this year. Right in the face of a heated pennant race, they kept at it. Let us look at some of their numbers. During this winning streak, the A's outscored their opponents 141 to 65 and trailed their opponents during only 10 innings of the 180 innings of the streak. Their starting pitchers, Zito, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and Corey Lidle, pitched into the seventh inning in all but six of the 20 games won and were credited with 15 of the 20 wins; and even when they did trail, as we all would hope, they fought back. I mentioned that Tejada and Hatteberg each had walk-off hits contributing to victories, game-ending rallies. This is a team that was trailing the Seattle Mariners and the Anaheim Angels when August began, and they came back to win the division. It was a great run. Mr. Speaker, as in everything we do in this country, this 20-game winning streak took true teamwork. Defense, baseball is defense, baseball is pitching, baseball is offense, baseball is scouting. Credit not only goes to the players, but to the entire A's organization. I join with my colleagues in congratulating owners Steve Schott and Ken Hoffman; Billy Beane, who used to play himself; manager Art Howe, who used to play for Houston; and the other members of staff who contributed to building this record-setting team. They put this remarkable squad together despite losing many team leaders to free agency and with one of the smallest budgets of the league. Despite these challenges, they not only set records, the A's finished the season with a better record this year than last. In Sacramento, home of the A's AAA affiliate, the Sacramento River Cats, we watch many of the young men hope to make it to the big leagues with Oakland. It is truly a great pleasure to see them move up and move into the majors and make such an impact. I look forward to seeing more great baseball as the playoffs begin today, but in my mind 2002 will always be the year of the Oakland streak. I would like to thank my colleagues for their support of this resolution, especially my cosponsors, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano), the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca). Mr. Speaker, it is still 5 to 3. The A's are winning. The streak is alive.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I do not know. My last report is 3 to 5 A's. Go A's.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan is one of the few independent nations that has not been allowed to join the United Nations as a full member. And it looks like opposition to their bid is again forming among those who would keep Taiwan and its 23 million citizens from joining their rightful place among the community of nations. Simply put, Taiwan's 23 million people deserve a voice and a seat in the United Nations. Taiwan's population is larger than those of two thirds of the U.N. member states. Over the last 50 years Taiwan is the world's 17th largest economy, with the 15th largest trading volume. Taiwan's economic performance has contributed greatly to world prosperity. At a time when the U.N. continues to ask the United States to contribute more money to its budget, why is it turning away a willing, dues-paying member? Perhaps the best reason the United States should continue to support Taiwan and its bid for U.N. membership is shared values. Taiwan is a vibrant democracy and endorses the ideals of peace, human rights, and development. More importantly, Taiwan is able and willing to carry out all U.N. Charter obligations. Some have argued that granting Taiwan membership in the U.N. would be unacceptable to the People's Republic of China. However, Taiwan has repeatedly stated its willingness to work with the Chinese mainland. Taiwan leaders have repeatedly appealed to PRC leaders for peaceful settlement of political disagreements between the two sides. In addition, Taiwan hopes that Taiwan and the PRC will work together to help maintain peace and stability in Asia and Pacific. The United Nations should encourage a dialogue between Taiwan and China--not ignore it. Granting Taiwan U.N. membership is a positive first step to permanent peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. Finally, it is worth noting that Taiwan's exclusion from the U.N. violates the U.N. principle of universality. Remember that the U.N.'s mission is to ``reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.'' As President Bush addresses the U.N. on this very day, and talks about the threats facing the world and those nations truly fighting for peace, I urge him to remember our friend and ally who is not allowed to join him at the U.N.'s headquarters in New York. I urge him to remember Taiwan and to support them in their bid to join that great body of free nations.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 349, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a subcommittee chairman over on Government Reform, I would like to offer this good-government amendment which relates to the regional and field offices in the proposed department. Before I do that, I want to make sure that I compliment my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) who is the subcommittee ranking member with whom I have worked very closely in analyzing the President's bill and drafting bipartisan amendments to perfect it. The President's proposal includes moving agencies which currently have 10 different regional and field office structures into the new department. Neither the President's bill nor the special committee's substitute mentions any changes in these regional and field offices, although changes could be made under the select committee's section 763(a) reorganization authority, to consolidate, alter or discontinue organizational units. My amendment would require the new department's under secretary for management to develop a consolidation/collocation plan within 1 year. The plan would examine consolidating and collocating regional and field offices in each of the cities with any existing regional or field office in the transferred agencies. My amendment would retain at least one Department of Homeland Security office in each of these cities. Staff in these consolidated/collocated offices could be cross-trained to respond to the full range of functions which may need to be performed locally. Besides improving Federal preparedness and response, consolidation and collocation should result in overhead and other efficiency savings. Five examples of existing and different regional or field office networks are in the Agriculture Department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, known as APHIS; the Justice Department's Immigration and Naturalization Service; the Department of Transportation's Coast Guard; the Department of Treasury's Customs Bureau; and the Department of Treasury's Secret Service. I urge my colleagues to support this government efficiency amendment. I want to reiterate my appreciation for the time and effort and participation of my good friend from Massachusetts whom I would now like to recognize to elaborate on how helpful collocation could be for local first responders. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this important legislation. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for allowing me to speak today, and I also thank him for his leadership in dedicating additional funding for the U.S. Customs Service. I stand before my colleagues to highlight the importance of Customs funding for the Sacramento International Airport. In 2001 the airport was granted Port of Entry status, paving the way for international flights. On July 1 of this year, Mexicana Airlines commenced scheduled international service from Sacramento to Mexico. I take great pride in our ongoing efforts at the local, State, and Federal level to expand this first class airport, including putting up $3.2 million of local money to construct the processing facility. New international service has just begun and it, in fact, is just the beginning. In order to gain this international service, the Sacramento International Airport signed an agreement to cover the cost of the Customs Service for this operation until the Customs Service could provide full-time personnel. The cost to the airport is approximately $475,000 per year. Interestingly, according to an economic analysis conducted on behalf of the airport, Federal, State, and local governments will receive approximately $1.5 million in new tax revenues because of this new international service provided by Mexicana Airlines. These flights will generate approximately 360 direct and indirect jobs, with over 100 of these jobs in the visitor and tourism industry. In the Sacramento area, personal income is estimated to increase by over $9 million per year. In the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Subcommittee report, which is House Report 107-575 accompanying H.R. 5120, the committee directed ``the U.S. Customs Service to work closely with international airport authorities to ensure that Customs will meet the optimal staffing requirements at international airports in the United States.'' The committee report goes on to recommend that the Customs Service ``evaluate the feasibility of providing additional resources and staffing to include increased inspection services at Sacramento International Airport.'' I appreciate the work the committee has done on behalf of Sacramento International Airport, and I look forward to working with the committee to secure funding for permanent Customs staff. Mr. Chairman, this is a successful local, State, and Federal partnership that has laid the groundwork for opening a whole new area of economic activity in Sacramento. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I am speaking today in support of the rule for a good government bill to streamline and reduce paperwork burdens on small businesses, H.R. 327, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act. The predecessor to this bill were bills introduced in the 105th and 106th Congresses by the former chairman of a subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform, Mr. David McIntosh, and those would have been H.R. 3310 and H.R. 391 respectively. In 1999, Senator Voinovich introduced and held a hearing on an identical companion bill, which would be Senate 1378. In 1998 and 1999, the House passed the predecessor bills by votes of 267 to 140 and 274 to 151 respectively. The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs did not mark up the Voinovich bill. On January 31, 2001, the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), introduced H.R. 327. This bill includes all of the substantive provisions in the predecessor bills except those relating to the waiver of sanctions for first-time violations by small businesses of Federal paperwork requirements. On March 15, the House passed H.R. 327 by a resounding 418 to 0 vote. On July 30, Senator Voinovich introduced a companion but not identical bill, S. 1271. It also does not include any provisions relating to the waiver of sanctions for first-time violations by small businesses. However, it does include provisions for biennial agency reporting on enforcement actions taken and civil penalties assessed, including actions and assessments against small businesses. On December 17, the Senate passed S. 1271 by unanimous consent. On May 22 of this year, after bipartisan, bicameral staff-level meetings, the Senate passed an agreed-upon amended version of H.R. 327 by unanimous consent. H.R. 327, as amended by the Senate, 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 a list of compliance assistance resources available to 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, establishment of an interagency task force to study streamlining of paperwork requirements for small businesses, and a requirement for two annual reports for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 from each agency on enforcement actions taken and civil penalties assessed, including actions and assessments against small businesses. 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 6 years, from 1996 to 2001. In addition, OMB's April 2002 report to Congress on Federal paperwork did not identify any interagency efforts to streamline paperwork requirements on small businesses. Small businesses are particularly hurt by regulatory and paperwork burden. In an October 2001 report, the Small Business Administration estimated that it cost large firms, those with over 500 employees, $4,463 per employee to comply with Federal regulatory and paperwork requirements. However, the cost to small businesses, those with fewer than 20 employees, is nearly 60 percent higher, a staggering $6,975 per employee. Since introduction the staff of my subcommittee has worked with the staff of the Committee on Small Business to address concerns by this committee's majority and minority. As a consequence, as it did in the 105th Congress for the predecessor bill, that being H.R. 391, the Committee on Small Business sent a letter waiving jurisdiction on H.R. 327. H.R. 327 has been endorsed by many organizations including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Small Business United Organization, the Small Business Coalition for Regulatory Relief, the Small Business Legislative Council, and the Small Business Survival Committee. The Congressional Budget Office provided a preliminary estimate of the budgetary impact of H.R. 327, saying that the bill ``would result in a minimal cost for Federal agencies each year. Because the bill would not affect direct spending or governmental receipts, pay-as-you- go procedures would not apply.'' I support the rule to enable the House to consider a motion to concur with the Senate amendments to H.R. 327 and 1 hour of general debate evenly divided. Not only are regulatory and paperwork costs higher for small businesses, but also they are harder to absorb. Small businesses simply cannot afford to comply with Federal requirements in the same way that large businesses can. H.R. 327 should result in some much needed relief for small businesses.

Mr. OSE

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

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).