Doug Ose

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Davis-Moran amendment; and given that I have but a minute, I will be brief. The issue here is not union/nonunion, open shop/closed shop. The issue here is procurement policy. Current regulations already in place protect the Federal Government from unscrupulous contractors. I would cite for my colleagues the Federal acquisition regulations that exist today, in fact, include a phrase ``the contractor is subject to a decision by the contracting officer that that organization or person have a satisfactory record of integrity and ethics.'' This is not about open or closed shops. This is not about union or nonunion shops. This proposal by the administration in the form of these new regs is very dangerous, because today we have an administration of one party suggesting one thing. Six months from now, we may very well have a different administration of another party. This Moran amendment makes sense. Support it.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment, and I have had more than ample opportunity to sit in committee meetings and share time with my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, who is extremely far-reaching in his thoughts and what have you. However, I must rise to respectfully disagree with some of his conclusions. I just want to share some of the deliberations that took place in the subcommittee as it relates to debt relief for the highly-indebted poor countries. Just for the edification of the Members who are in this body who were not in attendance at that committee meeting, what we are considering here is a proposal in effect to forgive debt that has been accumulated by a number of heavily-indebted poor countries over the past years, the purpose of which would be to allow them to thereafter raise their standard of living, either by investing in infrastructure or in hospitals or schools or medical assistance, and care for their people, the people who live in those countries. Keep in mind, this debate in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services took place this year, this being 2000. I just want to remind everyone that in the seventies and eighties when these loans were originally extended to these now highly-indebted poor countries, the loans and the grants and what have you were extended on the basis of providing these countries with the resources to raise their standard of living, to build roads and infrastructure and hospitals and schools. So we find ourselves in the unique position today of in effect having in the seventies and eighties provided loans to raise the standard of living of these countries by virtue of investing in their infrastructure. Now we are going to forgive these loans so that these countries can raise the standard of living by virtue of investment in their infrastructure. Let me just examine a little bit how we discussed this system would work within the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. As Members know, or as many know, we have various organizations around the world that are involved in investment in highly-indebted poor countries. We have the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development, we have the World Bank, we have the IMF, we have various other things. Each of these institutions on their ledger sheets carry gold as an asset. The manner in which we talked in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services about financing these loans to the highly-indebted poor countries, I just want Members to follow this, was we were going to take the gold that is on these balance sheets and unilaterally revalue it, and then we were going to take the difference between the book value of the gold on these balance sheets and the revalued value and basically collect interest on that difference and use it to relieve this debt. Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of a more hobgoblin system by which we would conduct our financial affairs than to take what in effect is a rose that we hold at a value of $5 and say it is now worth $350 and take the difference of the $345 and use it to finance this debt forgiveness. I mean if I did that in private business, I can tell my colleagues I would be on Bill Gates' level. I would welcome that opportunity. However, I cannot get away with that. I do not see why it is that the Federal Government, that this Federal Government would enter into that kind of a financial exercise, the purpose of which would be to forgive loans for the purpose of raising a standard of living. Mr. Chairman, keep in mind, that the original purpose of the loans was to assist these highly indebted poor countries with raising their standard of living, so having given the loan, having time passed, now we are going to forgive the loan for the purpose of allowing these highly indebted poor countries to raise their standard of living. The debate in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services revolved around what constitutes a highly indebted poor country, and I would just like to share with the other members of this committee that the standard that was used was, if I recall correctly, the accumulated debt of the country as a percentage of its gross domestic product. It had no connection whatsoever to the amount of trade or commerce that a highly indebted poor country who would be extended this debt relief might engage in with the United States. There was no connection between commerce with the United States and the relief of debt to these highly indebted poor countries. We discussed at length amongst some of us whether or not we should change that standard by which we extended debt relief to account for the needs of our friends like Mexico or some of the trading partners with whom we have substantial economic commerce and with whom we have very, very specific United States interest with which to protect. I would submit to my colleagues, in wrapping up, that extending or providing debt relief on loans that were originally granted for the purpose of raising standards of living, but now to provide debt relief for the purpose of allowing those debtors to raise their standard of living is at best circuitous and at worst challenges even the most brilliant of our scientists in terms of the logic they are in.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, on Monday, July 10, a farmer cooperative with many producer members in my district filed for bankruptcy protection. Hopefully, they will be able to overcome the financial challenges that lie ahead of them. But with the prices of farm commodities so low, they face an incredibly difficult financial obstacle course. I want to personally thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his work on this important bill. It will help many farmers and ranchers in my district and in the State of California. Many of the provisions allow our producers to market their products overseas and to successfully compete against heavily subsidized agricultural producers from the European Union. In spite of all of these things that Congress is doing, such as passing this bill and passing the Agricultural Risk Protection Act to help the producers of America's food to stay on the farm, many of our farmers and some co-ops remain in financial trouble. Our farmers and ranchers cannot stay on the farm unless they make a profit. Mr. Chairman, I know of the strong commitment of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to our agricultural producers. They need to know that when times are bad, this Congress will do what is necessary with tools already at hand to assure that they can continue growing the commodities our Nation wants and needs. Mr. Chairman, I am seeking the assistance of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to convince the Secretary of Agriculture to use whatever appropriate means he has at his disposal to relieve this situation. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his consideration in this matter. I look forward to working with the gentleman.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his very cordial provision of time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I just wish to relate the impact in my district of the lack of available physician or health care professional assistance within the Medicare HMO sector of the health care market. The consequence that I am referring to is HCFA's interpretive nature on reimbursement rates that are allowed to Medicare HMOs and the like, and the consequence on doctors for providing service. I saw a study today that estimates that HCFA has exacted over $50 billion over congressional intent by virtue of BBA-97. To the extent that we can return control of these decisions to a doctor and the patient, this is a step in the right direction, and I heartily endorse it.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, wishing to speak in favor of the gentleman's amendment, how would I go about requesting time?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 2 minutes in favor of the amendment.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to make note of a particular issue. On October 25, 1980, The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction established reciprocal rights and duty to expedite the return of children to their state of habitual residence, as well as ensure that rights of custody and of access under the laws of one contracting State are respected in other contracting States. Subsequent to this convention, over 50 countries have become signatory members. Yet, egregious cases abound. A critical step to protecting our American children is making sure that U.S. Federal and State courts are aware of international parental abduction issues and The Hague Convention. Current law requires that the State Department prepare an annual report on the status of this Hague Convention. Unfortunately, the State Department has been reluctant to distribute their report to our courts. By providing State and Federal courts access to this document, judges will be better equipped to render decisions in custody cases that are in the best interest of the child. Mr. Chairman, on May 23 of this year, every single Member of this distinguished body who was present voted to support passage of a resolution, the purpose of which was to highlight our interest in making sure that American children and parents remain in this country. Every single Member of this House voted for H. Con. Res. 293 to urge the Secretary of State, in part, to disseminate to all Federal and State courts the Department of State's annual report to Congress on Hague Convention compliance. As the chairman takes this bill to conference, I ask him to keep this issue in mind and endeavor to ensure that the State Department complies with the guidance in H. Con. Res. 293.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not know quite where to begin. I do rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York. I want to emphasize it is long overdue. The gentleman from West Virginia has very eloquently stated the difficulty in cutting the salaries and expenses account. But for the benefit of the Members in the Chamber, I would just like to go through a few of the issues that we are struggling with in the overall picture rather than in a very narrow focus. As a member of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform, I have come to understand that the auditor over at HUD cannot even issue an unqualified opinion regarding the financial affairs at HUD. Yet the argument is being made on the other side to increase the resources available to HUD. I would urge all Members as a first step to familiarizing themselves with the affairs there that they read the Inspector General's report for 1999. In that, the Inspector General cannot even close their books on HUD. Are Members also aware of the fact that HUD cannot establish the condition of the units under its control? Literally they cannot. I would commend to all Members that they read the recent article in The Washington Post by Judith Havemann regarding HUD's efforts to see what kind of shape the 4.6 million units it controls are in. HUD has hired contractors to inspect its portfolio and report back on the conditions that exist therein. Perhaps we should applaud this effort. After all, each day that this inspection continues provides us with information about the condition of another 120 to 150 living units. Let us see. 4.6 million, 120 to 150 a day. That means in the year 2084, the complete report will be available. I can hardly wait to see it. We should applaud this effort. Are Members aware of the new program under the auspices of Secretary Cuomo called Community Builders? Before I share this with my colleagues, I want to read something from the 105th Congress regarding what is allowed under Public Law 105-277 and what is not: No parts of any funds appropriated in this or any other act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships, nor for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before Congress except in presentation to the Congress itself. Now, that is put in there so that the agencies do not go to Congress and lobby for their own interests. However, I want to share with the Members here what the reality is. On September 9, 1999, the public affairs officer for HUD sent out the following instructions to the field public affairs staff. Again this relates to the community builders area of HUD's operations. It says: Attached is an op-ed penned by the Secretary, that would be Secretary Cuomo, regarding the proposed cuts to the HUD budget. Here is what I need you all to do ASAP. Again this is a memorandum sent to the 800-odd community builders. Number one, localize the opinion editorial, in other words, suggesting to them that they send to their local media an opinion or an editorial piece to be published in the paper. Do whatever will get your specific media interest. Here is the local information in case you deleted the earlier copy. Find out who to send it to. Call your local daily newspapers. Fax the localized op-ed to the editorial editor. After all, the House is voting on the budget today or tomorrow. We expect the Senate to take up our appropriations bill very soon. Please send me an e-mail of all of your local op-eds and your plan of attack for getting the piece placed in as many newspapers as possible in your area. Now, on the one hand in the 105th Congress we have a law that says you are not to do this and in virtually that same year we have the employees of HUD actually doing that under the auspices of Community Builders. Let me share with Members the financial details of the Community Builders Department. This program has 440 temporary slots and 372 permanent slots. One might ask, what does a community builder do? That would be very appropriate. Because the Inspector General found that HUD could not document what the community builders were even doing. Further, in one sample by the Inspector General, of 59 Community Builder individuals interviewed, 39 reported that they spent over 50 percent of their time on public relations activities.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, just think, they spent 50 percent of their time on public relations activities. Just think, we have a whole new cadre of people out in our community doing public relations work on behalf of HUD, in this case, 812 people whose task it is to highlight the accomplishments of HUD. According to the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies who exercises oversight, these individuals are paid an average of $91,000 per year, $91,000 per year on average. Just think, 812 of them, what a great job. That is $73 million a year for public relations, not for housing; for public relations. I could go on. Believe me, I could go on; but we do not have enough time today. The amendment of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) is long overdue. There is not a clearer or a more compelling case that highlights the failures of HUD as respects their financial conditions or their public relations efforts. Just think, almost $73 million that Secretary Cuomo decided to spend on public relations instead of housing, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is telling me we do not have a million dollars to cut out of S&E. I hope that Secretary Cuomo can soon report to us that his public relations are in order so he can then concentrate on the task that HUD was created for. What a great thing, HUD focusing on housing. Support the symbolic effort presented by the amendment from the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly). Vote yes on the Kelly amendment.

Mr. OSE

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

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

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, for their comments. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly highlight the problem that these two distinguished gentlemen have helped me solve. This is a map of northern California. I represent basically the center portion of this. Geographically, this area is roughly two-thirds the size of the State of Washington. It is larger than, say, four or five States one may wish to select in New England. It is the size of two-thirds the State of New York. The State of Ohio could potentially fit right here. The purpose of this map is to highlight how this entire area, rather than draining to the Pacific Ocean, the water that falls within this area works its way south down the Sacramento River and its tributaries for which one can see the vast expansion and number past a particular point opposite downtown Sacramento. The main channel of the Sacramento River can hold around 150,000 cubic feet a second. The difficulty we have from this region is that, by virtue of the large geographic expansion, the rainfall in this region can generate up to 650,000 cubic feet a second of water flowing past downtown Sacramento. The area that is the subject of our concern tonight is the Yolo Bypass. The Yolo Bypass, as many of my colleagues may realize, is the relief valve that protects the Sacramento area from an inordinate amount of water being forced down the main channel. The bypass contains up to 500,000 cubic feet a second. That is the subject of our discussion tonight. At the suggestion of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), I have taken the opportunity to visit with the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Ms. Clark. We have, contrary to where we were headed earlier today, we have come to an agreement that allows us to work together to solve the competing needs between flood protection in one instance and the creation of an adequate amount of habitat in our State in another. I look forward to that. I do want to, if I may, enter into a colloquy at this point with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to establish understanding of how we are going to proceed from here as it relates to this issue. If I could, I would like to share with the gentleman from Washington my understanding of my discussion with Ms. Clark and have him affirm it, if he will. When I spoke with Ms. Clark, what we agreed to do as it relates to the Yolo Bypass and any proposed refuge is to complete the existing environmental work that has been under way for quite some time. Ms. Clark has agreed that she will withhold any designation of a refuge in this area until such time as we can resolve any identified outstanding issues to our satisfaction and that I would withdraw my language from the bill as I have in the body of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, if that is his understanding. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to preface my remarks this evening by expressing my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). In particular, over the last 6 months as he has worked with me to try and address an issue of significant concern to my district. I will tell my colleagues, coming to Congress recently with the expectation that it was a place of contentiousness and divisiveness, I will tell my colleagues that, having worked with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula), he has affirmed my faith in our legislative body. He is a bulwark against inappropriate action and has taught this freshman so much for which I am appreciative. To the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, who has taken the time to pull me aside sometimes with resistance from myself, I want to extend my compliments. I know the gentleman has been here far longer than I have. I will tell my colleagues, working with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is an eye opener. It is truly something that I wish our citizens could see firsthand for themselves. It is far different than perhaps the worst of our examples. It is, in fact, exactly the way that the system works. I want to, in particular, also recognize their assistance in this manner and express my appreciation for it.

Mr. OSE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the subcommittee, and I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington, and I look forward to resolving this appropriately.

Mr. OSE. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for those remarks.

Mr. OSE. Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Uzelac who is retiring today after serving as the principal of my alma mater, Rio Americano High School for the past 15 years and has worked in education for the past 38 years. Dr. Uzelac's roles and accomplishments are many. Let me highlight just a few. Not only was he an elementary school vice principal and principal, but he was also a junior high school teacher and principal as well as a high school principal. His accomplishments are many, and they include playing an instrumental role in Rio Americano becoming a National Blue Ribbon School as well as a four-time California distinguished school. Dr. Uzelac was the administrator of the year in 1983. He has been recognized by many, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), former State Senator Leroy Greene, current State Senator Patrick Johnson for his tremendous leadership in education back in February of 1996. He has received the Honorary Service Award as the administrator of the year from the San Juan Parent and Teachers Association in April of 1996. During his tenure of acting principal, Rio Americano High School was the winner of Redbook's American Best Schools award. That was in April of 1996. Dr. Uzelac and his wife Virginia will be spending more time with their three children and grandchildren at their home in Capitola, California. His devoted service epitomizes selflessness and devotion. He will be truly missed, and I applaud him for his willingness to better the lives of our youth. Godspeed to Dr. Uzelac.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Permanent Trade relations with China. My district encompasses the Sacramento Valley in California. Agriculture is the dominant industry in the region. One of the reasons I support free trade is that it's good for my farmers. We've all heard about how PNTR with China will increase Ag. exports and boost the rural economy. We've also heard about how PNTR with China will increase exports in manufacturing, high tech, and services. All these things are true. In fact, during the debate over PNTR with China, the proponents have consistently highlighted the tremendous export possibilities of trade with China. But free trade benefits all Americans, not just companies that export. Lets review some of the benefits of free trade to the American people. 1. Comparative Advantage.--In the theory of Comparative Advantage, Americans will produce products that we are best at producing and other nations will produce products that they are best at producing. With free trade, we don't have to waste time and labor on producing low quality products. By importing certain goods, American workers are freed to produce higher quality items that bring higher wages. 2. Increase Competitiveness.--Open trade forces American companies to compete with foreign companies. This competitiveness causes U.S. businesses to continually try to improve their products and lower their prices. Does anyone in this Congress believe that the U.S. auto industry would be as healthy, or that U.S. cars would be of such high quality, if not for the competition from Japan? As a result of that competition, our auto industry is competitive around the world and American consumers can buy world class American/ made automobiles. 3. Keeps Inflation in Check.--Trade also helps keep inflation in check by acting as a safety valve when the economy heats up. The recent period of robust economic growth, low unemployment, and low inflation is unprecedented in our history. A significant portion of this success is attributed the fact that our markets are open. As we consider this vote today, let us keep one thing in mind. Tariffs are really taxes on consumers. When we reduce barriers to trade, consumers win. In fact, American families save thousands of dollars a year because of trade, freeing up money that can be spent on a home, or education or health care. As we vote today, I urge my colleagues to consider all the ways the American people benefit from trade.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.