Doug Ose

Mr. OSE

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

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in absolute, 100 percent opposition to this amendment. I have listened to the arguments of my friends from Texas and my friend from California in one case and my friend from California in the other, and I have to say that their argument on States' rights is a unique application as it relates to so-called ``medical marijuana.'' But I have not yet heard a single bit of testimony dealing with whether or not there is any medical value to the application of marijuana in this case. Now, the so-called phrase ``medical marijuana'' is a misnomer. It was invented by the people who passed the proposition in California that, frankly, hoodwinked the voters of California into voting in favor of it. But I just want to run through a couple of things here. The FDA looks at all sorts of prescription drugs and pharmacological treatments, and they have looked at marijuana, and by and large, we have deferred to the FDA on all these analyses. But, all of a sudden, when it comes to so-called ``medical marijuana,'' the FDA is no longer competent. But I do want to enter into the Record that the FDA, in fact, did look at marijuana as a medical substance and found absolutely no value whatsoever to its use. Now, the FDA has, in fact, looked at Marinol, in which the active ingredient in so-called ``medical marijuana'' is present, THC, and has approved that for use in treating nausea and pain and the like, and it is readily available by prescription, a true prescription, from a doctor. Let us dwell for a minute in California, which I am familiar with, on this so-called ``medical marijuana'' and the facade that people go through to obtain it. First of all, the referendum requires that a doctor issue a so-called prescription. However, the doctor refuses to issue a prescription on a prescription form for so-called medical marijuana. They write it on a piece of blank paper, because the doctors know that it is not a prescription, it is a facade perpetrated upon the people of California that this has any medical qualities whatsoever. Now, my friend from Indiana is going to share with you the story of a tragic occurrence in San Francisco, and I am not going to jump the gun on him, because this is absolutely heartbreaking, what he is going to tell you. But I do want to tell you, that incident is not singular in nature. The fact of the matter is we have children, young people across this country, watching you and me and our peers across this country as it relates to the use of so-called medical marijuana, and if you think for one minute that they are going to turn a blind eye to our acquiescence, that just because it happens to be a little bit difficult to tell people ``No, you are not going to be able to smoke dope,'' just because it happens to be a little bit difficult to tell people that, that we are going to roll over and pass this prohibition on funds, just begs the imagination about what leadership really constitutes.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and I thank the chairman. I find it interesting to come to the floor today virtually 3 years on to discuss the issue of energy in California. Frankly, I have spent my entire chairmanship on the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs dealing with energy issues, in particular the California issue. We have heard a lot of talk about certain companies manipulating market behavior, and the transcripts clearly indicate that that is the case. The question that we ought to ask is what were the precursor conditions that led to that. I think that is a fair question. I mean, instead of treating the symptoms, let us treat the root cause of the issue; and the fact of the matter is that for all the complaints that might be registered against the current administration, the same requests being registered with them were registered with the previous administration. And in accordance with the law, the previous administration said there is not a thing we could do. Go back and check the record. I encourage you to do that. Go back and see how many requests were made of the Clinton-Gore administration to intervene on this issue, and you will find that Clinton-Gore routinely and regularly said the law is very clear, and we cannot intervene. And the law has not changed. The law has not changed in terms of how FERC can intervene on these things. I think that is an important point to make. So if you are going to complain about how the law is interpreted, perhaps we ought to first look at the law itself and change that. Now, the second thing is that in California there is this interesting mix in terms of how the energy markets are regulated. And California being kind of like the big market in the entire United States, the consequences of how the market in California operates have ramifications for Oregon and Washington, Nevada and Arizona and the rest of the country. Well, in California the ability to build new plants or price the product is controlled by what is called the Public Utilities Commission, and in California at the very onset of this electricity crisis, a request was made of the Governor to ask the Public Utilities Commission to provide the investor-owned utilities, PG&E and Southern California Edison and Sempra in San Diego, the ability to forward contract for delivery of power. There is a letter on record sent from the assembly Republicans to the Governor asking him to exercise his authority over the PUC and get this forward contracting ability in place. And you know what the Governor did? The Governor never responded. He did nothing. The consequence of that is that the investor-owned utilities were left defenseless. Under a set of rules adopted unanimously by the California legislature, that effectively forced them into the day ahead of market. In other words, they had to go into the market no more than 24 hours ahead of time and buy the power for their customers. Now, think about that. Do you buy your mortgage 24 hours ahead of the time when you occupy your house? No, you do not. Do you buy your gasoline or your food or your health care insurance, do you buy that 24 hours ahead of the time when you need it? No, you do not, because the price is not going to be very favorable. And yet the structure in which the California Public Utilities Commission set this up was such as to be self-defeating, and to now come forward 3 years on and complain about the circumstances that existed in California is somewhat interesting to me at best. Now, there is a demand and supply imbalance in California. The demand and supply imbalance in California has ramifications for the folks in Oregon and for the folks in Nevada and for the folks in Arizona and Washington, because the demand in California is so great that we will suck up every kilowatt of power that is anywhere in the market. We will not let our families and our factories go quiet or be without power, and the price will act accordingly. Now, there was a proposal that I put forward to allow FERC to immediately assess the impact of inappropriate behavior, rather than waiting for 60 days. I got no cosponsors from that side of the aisle for that. There is a proposal I put forward that eventually led FERC to a solution in terms of the pricing imbalance in California that allowed FERC to set overall prices in the marketplace at the last marginal pricing unit. I not only did not get any cosponsors from that side of the aisle; I got attacked from that side of the aisle. And now I find, interestingly enough, that is exactly the proposal my Democrat colleagues all are putting forward. Mr. Chairman, we cannot solve these problems by snapping our fingers. These are not things that get solved 24 hours beforehand. We can no more solve this problem in 24 hours' time than we can reasonably expect investor-owned utilities in California or anywhere else to be able to meet their power demand in a 24-hour-ahead market. We cannot do it. We have to plan ahead. Now, to come out here 3 years on and beat your chests about the behavior of the current administration, which is exactly the same as the behavior of the previous administration that you all refused to hold accountable, I mean, that is just unacceptable. Now, you can go on and do it, but the facts of the matter speak very loudly. I invite you, and I have invited you, to look at the bills that I have put forward. I have been harangued by some of you; and upon examination, you have not even read the bills that I have put forward to try and solve this problem. I invite you to come help us. We are looking for partners to solve this thing. There are three legs to this solution. The first is the PUC, which has yet, has yet to adopt the regulation in allowing investor-owned utilities to contract for forward delivery of power. That is the first leg. The second leg is to allow the construction of new facilities instead of defending these dinosaur facilities that are high-polluting, using coal, or oil, or diesel for power generation; the second leg of this is to allow new technology to come to the market. But you stand over there and you object to everything. You stand there like Horatio at the pass, and you will not let us into the Valley of Solutions. I ask you to stand next to us, not in front of us objecting or preventing us to move forward. I will tell my colleagues why. Because the facilities we can bring on line today with new technology, created in California, perfected in California will allow us to generate power with less adverse impact on the environment at lower price, at a higher efficiency. It is unfathomable to me, after 5\1/2\ years, the last 3\1/ 2\ years of which I have been chairman of a subcommittee, to find that my friends who happen to live in California with me are only now coming to look at this solution. And the path of solution that they propose is to beat their chests, attacking an administration which did exactly the same thing as the previous one. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues in California to look at these solutions. We need to give these investor-owned utilities the ability to forward-contract for power. That is a huge step in the right direction. We need to create the new facilities that use natural gas and far less polluting carbon-based power sources to provide us the energy for our homes and our factories. We need to find a way where we can talk sensibly about a market-based solution. My Democrat colleagues cannot come down here and beat their chests in 2004 because it is a Presidential election year and try and rewrite history. Governor Davis tried that, and now he is writing his memoirs. That is just the fact. I am not interested in you guys writing your memoirs. I am interested in you joining with us to find solutions. That is what this is all about. I am not going to be here a year from now. You all are going to have this in your lap, and you are going to have to deal with it. I am going to be out in California dealing with the consequences. But I ask you to please focus on solutions. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), he has been a mentor of mine and he has done heavy lifting across this country on energy issues, and I thank him.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, we talked about this a little earlier today. I was listening to the minority leader's comments very carefully in my office, and I ran over here. I apologize for being a little short of breath. I just want to refresh everybody's memory about what happened in 2000 and 2001 and to point out the empirical fact that there have been no statewide blackouts or brownouts in California since, frankly, the Republican-dominated FERC got put into place. First of all, the law was very clear. When the previous administration was in control, these same complaints were uttered, the same concerns were brought to the floor, and the same response was given by FERC down to the last period or punctuation mark. You got no more response from the FERC under Clinton-Gore than you are complaining about today. The reason is that the law is clear. If you are unhappy about that, change the law. The prohibition of funds that the gentlewoman is asking for here will not do one thing to create another megawatt of power for California. It will not do a single thing to help us replace the carbon-based, high- polluting facilities that exist in California today with much more efficient and less adverse impact to the environment. It does not do a single thing to reduce the pricing that the California PUC board regulates which is dominated by appointees of former Governor Gray Davis. It does not do a single thing to solve the problem on forward contracting for investor-owned utilities. I repeat my invitation. I said Horatio earlier. I meant Hannibal. Rather than acting as Hannibal at the gates to the valley of solutions, stopping us from entering, come over and join us. Help us put in place the infrastructure and the technology that California is so good at creating. Help us put that in place to create the megawatts of power that our people need and our factories depend upon. Help us bring power to the peninsula of San Francisco which is probably one of the most difficult places to get power to in the entire United States. Help us eliminate the variability in power that Santa Clara depends upon. Help us bring power to our food processors up and down the State where agriculture remains the largest industry. Abandon this Hannibal at the gates concept and come over here and help us. Instead of haranguing us about past history and attempting to rewrite it, come over here and propose your solutions. This is not a witch-hunt. It should not be a witch-hunt. The response you are getting today is the same response you got under Clinton-Gore. The law is very clear about what FERC's prerogatives are. So come over here and help us find solutions. Help us create the technology and put it in place that allows us to create power at less adverse impact to our environment. I know you are environmentalists. I know you are, because I watch you very carefully. One of my models on environmental issues is the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), one of your fine, outstanding Members and one of your leaders. Help us put that technology in place and make California's environment even more suitable for our use. I know that PG&E is based in San Francisco. They have just gone through a horrendous bankruptcy. I know the gentlewoman as the minority leader is very curious about the outcome. I am trying to find solutions. We need to work together on this.

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

Mr. OSE. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, who is a neighbor of mine, because all of those are good ideas. And to the extent that we have bad actors that have manipulated the system, we are going to get at it because the chairman is going to probably accept this amendment. But the point is that we cannot sit here flailing away at the past history. We have to come to a solution, and the solution is along the lines that you would otherwise advocate for and advocated for when President Clinton was here and Vice President Gore was here and advocated for when Governor Davis was in office and now that he is not and those people are gone, you are opposing them. We want to get at the bad actors. There are two or three who manipulated the market. There is no question about it. And they did it to the detriment of every single one of us who lives in California. Every single one of us. Whether one lives in San Francisco or Modesto or Santa Clara, every single one of us suffered from that. But I ask you to come over here and help us find solutions on a bipartisan manner, on a manner that does not attempt to rewrite history. History is history. It is gone. It is done. It is over. Clinton is gone. Davis is gone. There is no point in pointing the finger. We know what the facts are. Help us put in place the facilities that give us power with the least detriment to our environment, that give us power at the lowest price, that give our investor-owned utilities, who employ thousands of people up and down the State, who give our investor-owned utilities the opportunity to forward contract because if they had the opportunity to do that, to remove the uncertainty on supply, the very same thing that Governor Davis was asked to do, that the PUC was asked to do, that both declined to do, if we gave them that power, we would not have to build new facilities. We would not have additional constraints on supply. We would not have prices going through the roof. I want to repeat my compliments to the gentleman from Ohio. I left one thing out earlier. Oftentimes he has been a gentle hand in my tenure here. Sometimes he has been a heavy hand. In every instance I have appreciated it. I thank the folks on the other side because we are in this together.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, before you came to Congress doing business, were you ever ripped off? Just plainly and simply ripped off? Mr. Chairman, this oil-for-food program is a rip-off to trump any scheme or action perpetrated on any member of any country anytime anywhere. This oil- for-food program got hijacked, pure and simple. The way it worked was, Iraq complained about not having enough money to buy food or medicine for its people, so the United Nations frankly in what turned out to be a moment of great generosity set up a program whereby a limited amount of Iraqi oil could be brought to market and sold to willing buyers for the purpose of generating revenue that Iraq could then use through the United Nations to buy food and medicine for its people. Lo and behold, the grand bazaar of Baghdad turned out to be a rip-off of all rip-offs. Saddam Hussein hijacked this program, arguably with the knowledge beforehand of certain members of the United Nations staff responsible for oversight to make sure this did not happen and lined his pockets with up to $10 billion of surcharges and levies on this program. Over the course of the oil-for-food program, $67 billion worth of oil was sold. Half of that $67 billion in turn was used to purchase food and medicine and other supplies for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Keep in mind that under the United Nations resolution that set this program up, the purpose of these oil sales was to provide food and medicine to the starving and unhealthy population in Iraq. However, let me tell my colleagues what the dictator of Baghdad purchased for the people of Iraq in part. The people of Iraq were asked to consume 1,500 ping-pong tables. They were provided with all sorts of soft ice cream machines. They purchased overpriced dental chairs from China. They even were able to acquire a warehouse full of undelivered wheelchairs and cigarettes. They paid $2 billion for presidential palaces. They bought 300 Mercedes-Benz sedans. They paid for a $200 million Olympic stadium. They bought limos. They even bought defective ultrasound machines from Algeria to feed their people with. The purpose of the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment is to harness the energies and talents of America's agencies to help us get to the bottom of this. There is absolutely no rationale for allowing this kind of a rip-off to occur. The gentleman from Connecticut's amendment directs American agencies to cooperate with the different committees of Congress to get to the bottom of this. I would close, Mr. Chairman, by, in effect, pardon my phrase, throwing back at the Secretary-General his words. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said, ``I want to get to the truth and I want to get to the bottom of this.'' Mr. Chairman, we want the truth as well. We want some answers. We want to know, what was the purpose of Cotecna in this dynamic process? How come we had to send stuff through Jordan at discounts of upwards of 67 percent to true value? How come we were able to ship stuff through Syria for only a 33 percent discount? This thing begs for an investigation. Interestingly enough, between Benon Sevan and Kojo Annan and the people who were responsible for this, the future holds answers that are just going to fascinate us all. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OSE. The gentleman from Maryland is very accurate in terms of talking about the oil-for-food program. I just want to highlight one thing. Some of the revenues that were used in this program in effect were used to buy food that had spoiled. We paid people to deliver food under this program that was spoiled. And Saddam collected commissions or levies or tariffs or something on it. We need to get to the bottom of this. I cannot tell the gentleman how pleased I am to have both sides interested in making this happen.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I find it ironic to stand here on the floor and I am not one that is so lucky to be on the Committee on Energy and Commerce but I am one that spends weekends at home every week. I am amazed to stand here on the floor and hear the comments from the other side which offer absolutely no solution whatsoever to an abatement of the price of gasoline that we pay today. None whatsoever. There is an old saying in Washington that oftentimes legislation comes forward in search of a problem. The response from the minority party today is that they come forward with testimony in search of a policy. They have nothing. At least we are over here trying. The testimony we have heard this afternoon about the boutique fuels across the country, there is no refuting that. That is an absolute fact. It is directly related to an outgrowth of the passage of a policy that has been refined and perfected by the Members of that side of the aisle when they were in the majority. The people of America are paying a price in the form of higher prices for gas on the basis of policies they put into place. We are trying to reverse those. We are trying to increase refinery capacity. We are trying to reduce the number of boutique fuels that exist across this country and increase the fungibility of gasoline between markets so that people in Maine or people in California or people in Wisconsin or Missouri can all buy gasoline that is essentially the same. They have not come forward with a single material improvement to the infrastructure that exists today. They resist us on fixing the permitting process for refiners. They resist us on fixing the permitting process for pipelines. They resist us on fixing the permitting process to bring gasoline into the country in the form of refined products. They resist, they resist, they resist. I understand their policy. I applaud them for it. There is an election every 2 years. I hope the voters are paying attention. I rise today to discuss H.R. 4545, the ``The Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004,'' introduced by Messrs. Blunt and Ryan. I welcome this legislation today because I share their concerns over high gasoline prices and the proliferation of boutique fuels. Today's gasoline market is comprised of many types of gasoline that serve different regional markets to meet varying Federal and State environmental requirements. At last count, there were approximately 19 different types of gasoline in the U.S. Arguably, there are almost 60 types if you take into account that each is made into three different octane blends. Although these numerous fuel blends are seen as an efficient means of cleaning the air, the increase in boutique fuels adds a level of complexity into production, distribution, and storage of gasoline. The result of this targeted approach to air quality has been to balkanize the gasoline market and to create gasoline market islands. The primary examples are in my home State of California and the Chicago/Milwaukee area, in which the required gasoline blends are unique, and only a limited number of refineries make the products. Small disruptions in production, such as refinery outages or pipeline ruptures, can severely limit the supply of gasoline in these areas, causing artificial shortages and price spikes. Over the last four years, my Government Reform Energy Policy Subcommittee has held four hearings on gasoline markets (in June 2001, April 2002, July 2003, and May 2004). What I have learned from these hearings is that we should not be in the business of mandating what goes into a gallon of gasoline. Instead of dictating gasoline components, we should set high performance standards for what comes out of the tailpipe and let industry meet them. Anyone who knows anything about the gasoline problems in California can tell you that the de facto ethanol mandate in California is significantly affecting gasoline supply and is not necessarily improving the environment. In fact, using ethanol in California may actually degrade air and water quality. Despite ample scientific data, and letters from the California delegation, including two I sent as Subcommittee Chairman in February 2004 and April 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency has yet to approve California's oxygen waiver request, which is environmentally and economically sound. From these hearings, I have also learned that several measures need to be taken to address the gasoline supply issues in the U.S. One measure that is key to increasing supply is the expansion and enhancement of the entire petroleum infrastructure, which is currently stressed and at its limits. Addressing the constraints and bottlenecks within the petroleum infrastructure, which includes refineries, pipelines, storage tanks, and port facilities, is important because each component of the system must function properly and efficiently to ensure consumers receive an adequate and affordable supply of gasoline. Given the ever-widening gap between gasoline supply and demand in the U.S., we should look at ways to simplify the various infrastructure permitting processes and to reduce the costs and uncertainty associated with Federal and State regulations. If we fail to do so, we will be faced with increasing imports, increasing gasoline prices, or both. I venture to say that no American would be pleased with these outcomes. Additionally, we must consider ways to reduce the regulatory burden facing the refining industry. Refiners will need to invest about $20 billion in the next decade to comply with Federal and State environmental regulations. As a result, less capital will be available for refinery maintenance and expansion, and some smaller refineries may close. We must examine ways to achieve our desired environmental results without putting companies out of business.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr Speaker, on Tuesday and Wednesday, June 8 and June 9, 2004, I missed rollcall votes 229, 230, and 231, for family reasons. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 229; ``aye'' on rollcall 230; and ``aye'' on rollcall 231. I request that my comments be placed in the Congressional Record at the appropriate section.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commemorate the 150th birthday of Amador County. June 14, 2004 marks the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of the incorporation of a county rich in history and culture. This land named Amador was once home to Miwuk and possibly other Native American tribes. In time, non-Indian trappers and explorers traversed this land, ushering in a new era. As early as 1843, hired hands for John Sutter worked the land then known as Pine Woods, to manufacture items needed at Sutter's Fort. Later, families of the hired hands came to settle. After gold was discovered in January 1848, the area was flooded with gold seekers. Many small mining settlements sprung up along the area's streams and became the foundation of today's historic towns. Resting firmly in the middle of two different jurisdictions, the communities of Amador were divided between Calaveras County and El Dorado County. Citizens became dissatisfied with the lack of a true identity, and organized a community to be separate and independent from both counties. Thus, just four short years after California officially became a state, electors voted to form the County of Amador. The County has grown to include over 18 cities and communities, yet still maintains it's small-town atmosphere. Boasting of areas known as California's Hidden Nugget and The Heart of the Mother Lode, Amador County has been diligent to preserve the past, enrich the present and build towards the Future. I am honored to commemorate this epic year in the history of the County. This Sesquicentennial Anniversary marks 150 years of pioneering a quality environment for generations of citizens. Please join me in celebrating the Sesquicentennial Anniversary of Amador County.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Cameron McLeod and Joan Segerstrom for being chosen as the Fair Oaks Team Teachers of the Year. Cameron and Joan provide an enriching and exciting sixth grade program for the students of LeGette Elementary School. They collaborate on their instructional program so all students receive a consistent, standards-based, academic opportunity. Along with high academic expectations, Cameron and Joan have high expectations of behavior. They teach students ethical, responsible behavior in a sensitive and caring manner. Cameron and Joan's talents lay in bringing out the best in 11 and 12 year olds. They achieve this by honoring and respecting students and providing opportunities for them to reflect on their own goals and behavior. Cameron and Joan have worked tirelessly as a team to provide quality educational and social experiences on and off campus. They reach beyond the classroom to excite students toward achievement. Their outdoor environmental programs are the highlight of the school year: An overnight trip to Camp Winthers and the Northstar Ropes Course and a 5- day trip to Point Bonita at the mouth of the Golden Gate Bridge, provide opportunities for new curricular learning and places to practice the team spirit, pride and ethical behavior that Cameron and Joan instill in each student. Motivating students to succeed is foremost in their program. They tailor their lessons to the learning needs of their students to make the most of their abilities. Cameron and Joan have had such an impact throughout the years, often their former students return to thank them for the influence they made on their lives. I am honored to recognize a dedicated team whose efforts have had a profound effect on the students they teach. Please join me in congratulating Cameron McLeod and Joan Segerstrom for being named the 2004 Fair Oaks Team Teachers of the Year.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exceptional teacher at Bella Vista High School, in Fair Oaks, California. Sybille Irwin, after 32 years of dedicated service, has been chosen as the Fair Oaks Teacher of the Year. Sybille Irwin is a German teacher who has single-handedly managed the German Program at Bella Vista High School. All German classes, German 1 through Honors German 5 are taught by Ms. Irwin. Her classes are rigorous and her standards are high. At the same time, she creates a classroom atmosphere of friendliness and fun. Over the years, her creativity, her organization and her passion for the language have resulted in many cultural events including the annual Oktoberfest celebration for the entire Fair Oaks community. She has organized trips to Germany for her students as well as invited German students to spend the year in Fair Oaks. Sybille is advisor of two clubs and opens her classroom and her heart to students who need help. Her colleagues and students consider Sybille as the ultimate professional educator. She is always willing to take on challenges and risks to help the school and her students. She is always willing to ``wear another hat'' when needed. She has been the WASC (School Accreditation) Coordinator, a Department Chair, a master teacher for student teachers and a district Site Leader. Additionally, when staffing needs dictated, she has taught French and English to help the master school schedule. She has always encouraged collaboration with colleagues from all departments and is consistently on the cutting edge of new techniques in teaching. For example, she was responsible for the initial introduction of portfolios and rubrics in the Bella Vista Foreign Language department before they became routine. I am honored to recognize an individual who has committed her life to the enhancement, enrichment and education of our youth. Through her efforts, her professional expertise and her striking and energetic personality, Bella Vista has managed to maintain a thriving German program of which we are very proud. Please join me in congratulating Sybille Irwin for being named the 2004 Fair Oaks Teacher of the Year.

Mr. OSE

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, regardless of the date, I would still register my opposition on the basis that this regulatory process and paperwork reduction legislation is not the vehicle by which we should properly discuss the quality of science that this or any other administration might wish to use in the deliberative decisions that they make. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, are we working off the August report or the November report?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, we are down to 3 minutes on our side.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes for each side for the purpose of debate on this bill.

Mr. OSE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Under the general rules of debate within the Committee of the Whole, how might we address a shortage of time here treating each side equally?

Mr. OSE. If I understand correctly, the gentleman from Massachusetts has the right to close on this? It is my amendment.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.