Doug Ose

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for their efforts here. I also want to memorialize the efforts of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) in bringing this matter to the attention of the Congress. What we are really talking about here is how one defines a country of habitual residency and putting the children in the position where they can live in those countries. As others have spoken so eloquently about the fact of this matter, about the relative rates of return by our country to others as opposed to those of other countries to us, I will not spend a lot of time on that. But I do want to make a couple points, and that is I am new here, if you will. I have asked for recognition from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) from the other side of the aisle, and I have come to the lectern that is typically reserved for Members of the other side, to highlight that this issue is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that touches every single district in this country. It touches constituents from Portland, Maine; to San Diego, California; to Binghamton, New York; to Seattle, Washington. Every single district. That is why it is important. Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) highlighted a success story that we recently had. I am hopeful that that gentleman and his child are home now. I am hopeful that the second case that the gentleman mentioned comes to a successful fruition, also. I am willing to take these cases one at a time, just case by case. I want to start on June 2 and June 3 by having the President of the United States speak to the chancellor of Germany about specific cases in Germany that they can both together reach out and change, the Cooke case in particular. It is possible for two people, President Clinton and Chancellor Schroeder, to get together and change the course of the future of that family for the positive, consistent with the treaty that both countries have our adherence to, consistent with the case law and the family law in both countries. Before I came to Congress, I once heard that it takes a village to raise a child. I do not say that in any means to belittle it, because it is true. We collectively raise our children. There are times when I am not home, and my neighbor helps raise my kids. What we need to have is for the President to stand and speak for the parents and children who are Americans.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I read that differently. It is designed to be either. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

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

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has clearly read the amendment. I would appreciate the opportunity to correct one misinterpretation. In terms of the incorporated cities, there is an effort to put the impetus of urban park development on those; and the modification that we just added, reducing the population threshold in the unincorporated areas to 100,000, is designed to provide counties such as the one the gentleman described and from which I come from, that being Sacramento, to have the opportunity to participate.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment. The eight counties in my district are quite diverse. Some are highly urbanized, such as Sacramento County. Some are decidedly rural, such as Sutter County and Colusa County. There are obvious challenges in the urban counties to provide an appropriate amount of parks and open space. Fortunately, the economy is booming in urban counties. Retail sales are rising, home prices are rising, jobs are plentiful, business is good. Conversely, many of my rural counties are suffering from and must confront the challenge that comes from the loss of revenue resulting from Federal ownership of land. In addition, these same counties are suffering from low commodity prices, static or falling retail sales. Frankly, Main Street in some instances is dying, and unemployment remains high. My challenge is to find a way to help the urban counties and their cities with the difficult task of urban park development and maintenance. My challenge with the rural counties is to prevent a further erosion in the revenue stream that is used to support local schools, law enforcement, and road maintenance, to name a few of the services provided by local government that contribute so much to the quality of life in rural America. This amendment accomplishes that task by setting up standards that provide urban areas the opportunity to participate in this program that CARA represents while keeping rural counties from being subjected to the adverse consequences of further expansion of government-owned land. This is a real issue affecting real people. I know that the distinguished gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) is familiar with this problem because he actually grew up in my district as a youngster, and his two brothers and their families actually live in my district today. Absent full payment of PILT on current Federal landholdings, absent a requirement of first taking care of that which the Federal Government already owns before adding more to it, we consign rural America to a repeat of the slow strangulation we witnessed throughout many of America's rural areas during certain periods of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. This is a good amendment that improves the bill. I ask my colleagues for their support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified on page 1, line 19 by deleting the number 1 million and inserting in its place the number 100,000.

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

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

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leadership for agreeing to bring the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act to the House floor before Mother's Day. This legislation is vital to provide treatment for low-income, uninsured working women who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer. Giving States the option to provide Medicaid coverage for these women if they are found to have cancer through the Center for Disease Control's early detection program will help save thousands of lives. The program currently provides screening for breast cancer, but it does not provide funding for treatment options for these women. The harsh reality is they will die because they have no options. This must change. The funding for H.R. 1070 was included in the budget resolution and has overwhelming support from my friends on both sides of the aisle with nearly 300 cosponsors. Again, I want to thank the leadership for bringing this critical piece of legislation to the House floor before Mother's Day.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my deepest sympathies to the families of Dr. Gary Polis and Michael Rose. The University of California at Davis community lost two valuable members when these two men were involved in a tragic boating accident in Mexico's Sea of Cortez. Dr. Polis chaired and taught at UC Davis' Environmental Science and Policy Department. He traveled to Mexico to lead a research expedition with a group of UC Davis students, Japanese visiting scholars, and Earth Watch study tour participants. Michael Rose, postgraduate researcher at the university, was also on that trip. After a routine visit to a nearby island, the boat they were in capsized. Dr. Polis, Mr. Rose, and three advising Japanese scholars drowned. While we understand that words cannot ease the pain everyone experienced during this tragic time, let us take solace in the fact that these people died doing the work they so loved and so willingly shared with the world. Both Dr. Polis and Michael Rose shared the passion for adventure and learning that epitomizes the spirit of the university. We were blessed by their distinguished academic accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, please join me and the entire Davis community in offering our deepest heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Dr. Polis and Michael Rose. Please know that our thoughts and prayers are with you during this difficult time.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, if I understand the rules and procedures of the 106th Congress, a Member is allowed to speak once on a question before the House. Is that accurate?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of this remarkable piece of legislation, the Government Waste Corrections Act. I would first like to especially commend my two chairmen on this committee, that being the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), for their exceptional work on this. It is a pleasure to actually have the opportunity to work with two people of such skill and knowledge and have something fruitful, such as this, come to the floor. So my compliments to both gentlemen. To the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), on the minority side, I appreciate his steady leadership and hand in keeping us on the straight and narrow, so to speak; and I welcome his bipartisan approach to this because this is an important issue. One of the reasons I ran for Congress was to come to this House and try to instill a private sector mentality into government operations. The Government Waste Corrections Act does just that. Under this legislation, agencies will adopt recovery auditing, a practice widely used in the private sector. Recovery auditing is the process of reviewing all payment transactions in order to uncover duplicate payments, vendor pricing mistakes, and missed discounts. Now, my colleagues may ask, is this bill really needed? Are our agencies not already careful with taxpayer money? Well, interestingly, both the General Accounting Office and the inspector generals throughout our agencies have repeatedly reported and testified that overpayments to government contractors are a serious, high-risk problem. However, I want to emphasize one thing here, and that is that this is not fraud or abuse; these are just mistakes that we are trying to catch in the process. A couple of examples of the mistakes that have occurred is that some agency inspector generals have made that upwards of $15 billion has erroneously been paid out under our programs for food stamps or housing programs in a given year. And as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) pointed out over at the Department of Defense, private contractors, of their own volition, have voluntarily returned $984 million in overpayments to the Department of Defense over the last 4 years. This may represent only a fraction of the total amount of money that we are trying to address here. Now, the gentleman from Indiana has highlighted that this legislation has been estimated to save $100 million of the taxpayers' money over the next 5 years. That is a remarkable sum. I happen to think that is on the low end. I am hopeful that we will be far more successful than that. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Government Waste Corrections Act is another great example of how we can take management techniques from the private sector and apply them to the Federal Government's practices ultimately for the benefit of all Americans and our taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let us let the savings begin.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5. I came to this Congress recently following in the great footsteps of my colleague, the gentleman from Sacramento, California (Mr. Matsui), and I want to specifically applaud the fact that after 40 years of Democratic majority here and 6 years of Republican majority, we finally have been able to move a bill out of the House, hopefully on to the Senate, and then to the President for signature. This particular issue, where we in effect tax the ability of our seniors to contribute to our workforce disproportionately, has needed to be changed since it was first passed in the Depression. There is no argument about that. There is no getting around that fact. Again, we spent 40 years under the tutelage of one party, and now 6 years we have been at it here. We finally have agreement, and I am happy to be part of this. This is one of the things I campaigned on, to try and get this tax off the backs of our seniors. I welcome my friends on the other side to this. I am very, very pleased to be here with the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) in this effort.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for yielding me this time. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has been a leader in this. I wanted to come down and visit briefly today on this particular subject, that being the marriage tax penalty. As has been recited very eloquently, the numbers and the facts and the figures of what this existing tax law provision causes, I want to talk about what the consequences of this $1,400 per year in added costs is to married couples. I happen to think that most young people, whether they be planning to get married or having been married planning for their family or their future, typically confront a month-to-month or week-to- week situation where their resources are constrained. They struggle in many cases to make their ends meet, and to have the opportunity to send to the Federal Government an extra $1,400 a year by virtue of having become married certainly is a privilege that they probably regret having. So I would like to come down and add my voice to those that argue for changing that particular provision of law. Now, the President has come forward very eloquently this past week suggesting at long last $45 billion worth over the next 10 years of tax relief for married couples, but I want to be clear in my comments that that really is a drop in the bucket. The President's proposals generally boil down to a doubling of the standard deduction and an across-the-board application of that, but he does not delve into the subject of the deductions that are available for married persons when their aggregate income exceeds a certain threshold. It is there we differ with the President in large measure because we, in fact, on this side of the aisle are attempting to bring equity across the board to married persons, regardless of their situation. Let me just highlight a few instances where that $1,400 comes into play, that annual $1,400 difference. That is a little bit over $110 a month. That is a night out for mom or for dad or for the two of them, after a long week of taking care of the kids. That is a new car, the difference between being able to make the payment or not make the payment. Perhaps that is the cost to add a room to their house if they have a new child. That is $1,400 a year into their retirement program that they otherwise might not have to make. $1,400 over a lifetime's career is a huge amount of money for retirement security. These are just a couple of the different consequences of providing this tax relief to married persons, and it comes at no cost to unmarried persons. It, in fact, is the same benefit unmarried persons enjoy today. So what I want to do, what I came down to do, was to back up the arguments that my good friend from northern California makes, and my good friend from Pennsylvania and so many of us make on a day-to-day basis; the arguments that I made when I campaigned for this office, that we ought to have a tax code that treats person number one the same as person number two, regardless of marital position. It should not make any difference. Those who are married should not be punished for being married. Those who have the privilege of being married should be treated equitably, without discrimination, and yet embedded in our Tax Code is this discrimination to the tune of potentially $1,400 per year that adversely impacts their finances. I for one strongly urge the President and this Congress to change the Tax Code to allow for an across-the-board equitable treatment of people, regardless of whether they are married or not. That is what the American theme has always been, and I encourage this body to take it up as soon as we can. I look forward to tomorrow's committee hearing; and, as always, it is a pleasure to be here with my good friend from the north.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from northern California for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday I had a great opportunity. I was in Sacramento. I went to the Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce dinner. I had what I consider to be the privilege to sit with two young men. One was named Moses, one was named Nils. They worked at Intel. Moses is 20, Nils is 25. As I sat with those young men, both of them unmarried, we talked about what do they do at Intel and how is their compensation level, do they participate in the retirement programs, and what have you. I must say that we have some remarkable young people working in this country. Let me just tell Members a little bit about these two fellows. Both were enrolled in the retirement program. Nils stays in the house owned by Moses. Moses is 20 years old. He has worked at Intel for 3 years. They are both quality engineers. In other words, what the chip makers produce comes to their shop, and then they check it for quality control. Then, as they both described, they tend to have to send it back to the chip engineers, as they described the flaws. The substance of the conversation was that both of these young men are enjoying remarkable success in a competitive world environment. Both of them at some point in the coming years, being 20 and 25, will consider the question of whether or not to enter into marriage. These are fellows that have taken the time to gain the skills to give them the opportunity to compete in the employee workplace and enjoy the benefits therefrom. They are going to confront the question of whether to get married. They are smart, make no doubt about it. There is no doubt about it, these kids are smart. They are going to run through the numbers, as they should in any analysis, and they are going to ask, why is it, when I come home from a long day's work, when I take my money on Saturday and Sunday and I go out and buy real estate or I buy automobiles or I support the communities, the charities in the communities in which I live, why is it that if I get married to another engineer at Intel or a successful young woman in her own business, why is it when we aggregate our income together, so that the total exceeds a certain threshold, why is it that we suffer a discount to the deductions we would otherwise get by virtue of our investments? Why is it that once we pass this threshold, that the money we pay for property taxes no longer is worth dollar for dollar on our income tax returns? Why is it that the money we pay for maintenance on real estate or investment advisory fees no longer is worth dollar for dollar on our income tax returns what we paid for it? That is at the heart of the marriage tax penalty. That is, when two people get together in marriage and their incomes exceed a certain level, then the expenses that they confront, whether it be for education or home ownership or investment for their retirement security or what have you, charity, what have you, those contributions, if you will, something that we support, education, investment, real estate ownership, those contributions no longer enjoy the same valuation as someone who is below that income level, that threshold. What we need to do is to bring equity to that situation. That is what this is all about is giving not only those two young men but every young man and woman in the country who is considering their prospects for the future and the reality that at some point or another they are going to meet Mr. Right or Ms. Right and they are going to get married, that is what this is all about is giving those young people the opportunity to get together and enjoy all those things that at least my wife and I have enjoyed and hundreds of thousands of other couples have, too, and to have no financial disincentive for doing it. It is not the role of government to place financial disincentives in the way of young people looking to get married, or those who already are. That is why I support this so wholeheartedly. That is why I encourage Members' votes. That is why I applaud the President for coming at least as far as he has, and I encourage him to come all the way. The gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) has done great work for bringing this to this point. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to come down here and visit with him.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1180, the Work Incentives Improvement Act. I want to express my sincere appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). We have heard much talk this evening about tax credits for R&D and the like and those are very important. But when I read this bill and I listen to the conversations, I hear freedom. I hear freedom for 5 million people who right now are confined or constrained because the law does not allow them to maintain their health benefits. Mr. Speaker, if I could say one thing that just sends me home here soon with a light heart, it is that at the end of the 20th century as we did at the end of the 18th century, for over 5 million Americans this bill lets freedom ring. It lets them compete and participate. I applaud my colleagues.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a humble heart to pay tribute to a distinguished leader, a personal friend, and a true pioneer for the city of Sacramento, Mr. Peter McCuen. The city lost one of its great giants on Monday, when Peter succumbed to his third battle with cancer. More than any other person in the last 20 years, Peter McCuen transformed the landscape of Sacramento and many of those who live in it. We can see the visual legacy he left when we drive through the Highway 50 corridor. The region's most graceful skyscraper and its most visible ziggurat building remind us how integral he was in bringing prosperity to the city. Peter came to Sacramento in 1980 after having successful careers as a professor at Stanford University and a hi-tech entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. He had planned on retiring in the city. But immediately after he arrived, he saw the many opportunities Sacramento had to offer. He was involved in over 100 development projects, including the Library Plaza, the U.S. Bank Plaza, the Teale Data Building, and the redevelopment of Mather Air Field. He also played a vital role in brining major corporations like Intel and Sprint to this region, which created thousands of jobs for the people of Sacramento. His impact on the economic development of the Sacramento area is unparalleled. But for many of us, it is not just the suburban business parks he built or the highrises he helped engineer that touched our lives. It is Peter's unreserved generosity, canny vision, boundless energy and incomparable intellect that make him a truly unique human being. Peter's philanthropic efforts benefited a long list of causes and groups in the city. His renowned love of arts, education and civic organizations earned him the Regional Pride Excellence Award in 1991. He served on the advisory boards of the Cancer Center at UC Davis Medical Center and both the engineering school and the graduate school of management at UCD. He also served on the advisory board to the president of the Cal State University, Sacramento and the State's Clean Air Partnership. Peter had a bright vision for our city, and he tried everything in his power to fulfill that vision. Sacramento is a better place because of Peter McCuen. My heart goes out to his wife Susan, his two children, Pamela and Patrick, and the entire McCuen family. Sacramento will miss one of its true leaders.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 642) to redesignate the Federal building located at 701 South Santa Fe Avenue in Compton, California, and known as the Compton Main Post Office, as the ``Mervyn Malcolm Dymally Post Office Building'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Reform be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 376) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in support of ``National Children's Memorial Day,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the preamble.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to acknowledge University of California Davis student, Jamila Demby, who was recently named NCAA Woman of the Year. Ms. Demby, the first UC Davis athlete to earn this NCAA honor, was selected as a national finalist from among 50 state winners. Representing California, she was one of two Division II finalists. It was a perfect ending to a perfect career at UC Davis. A seven-time All-American, Ms. Demby won eight conference championships in four years. During last year's California Collegiate Athletic Association championships, Ms. Demby established a new UC Davis 800-meter record of 2 minutes, 10.8 seconds. In addition, she ran the final leg of the 4400 relay team, which set a UC Davis record of 3:45.33. In addition to her athletic achievements, Ms. Demby has been active in student and community activities. In addition to serving as a UC Davis Aggie team captain and sitting on the student-athlete advisory committee, Ms. Demby finds time to regularly visit children at the Shriner's Hospital and tutor at local schools. In fact, her work with children has become such an influential experience that she changed her career path from advertising to serving underprivileged and underrepresented youth. As NCAA Woman of the Year, Ms. Demby was chosen from a group of highly accomplished women. Ms. Demby will graduate from UC Davis this December with a degree in rhetoric and communications and will continue to give back to her community. In closing, I would like to congratulate Ms. Demby for a job well done.

Mr. OSE

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

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to echo the remarks of my friend from Sacramento. It is interesting to note that as you go through life, you meet certain individuals whose personalities or their achievements or their vibrancy stay with you. Of all the things that Mayor Serna accomplished during his many years of service, perhaps the most lasting will be his legacy as a teacher. He was a professor of political science at Sacramento State University. I cannot tell you how many young people I have run into who, with a Cheshire smile on their face, remember their long debates in class with Mayor Serna about this or that issue and how much they took away from that time. As a young man, I came back from school and Mayor Serna, then a city councilman, had been recently elected to the city council. While we were not of the particularly same political persuasion on many things, he came one day to the city council meeting, he saw me sitting in the back of the hall. During a break he came back, put his hand on my shoulder and said, just like a normal person, which he was, are you doing all right? I said, yes, I am, and thank you for asking. At that, he went on about his way. That was Joe Serna. The ability just to reach out, put his hand on your shoulder, regardless of where you came from. He did not care. He just wanted to know whether he could help. Again, of all the lessons that I take from my acquaintance and friendship with Joe Serna, it is that we are all teachers. Some are further along the curve than others. For some, maybe the curve has ended as it has with Joe. But for the rest of my days, I will remember Joe Serna as a teacher.