Steven LaTourette

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Actually there were three Members from Ohio. Sherrod Brown, Tom Sawyer and I can tell you what it is about you that gets these guys in your district.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Madam Speaker, I want to add my voice to thank Doug Tanner and the Faith and Politics Institute for putting this trip together. I have been, since I have been here, a strong believer in the importance of Members on both sides of the aisle, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), it is strange over here on the left side of the aisle too for me, as it is for him on the right, but I think when Members of both parties go out and see each other out of this room, good things happen. So I found it to be an enriching weekend from many standpoints. But just to have the opportunity to talk to Members who are not of my party and to get to know them as people, I think helps us do our work here. I think that is important. What actually piqued my interest on this trip, I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) at the Hershey retreat a couple years ago during the nondenominational church services describe his experience. It is his story, and I am not going to take it from him. But basically there are three Members of his party that were all involved in this movement at the same time in the 1960s, and they had some differences in points of view. The fact that they not only came together years later to serve in the United States Congress but in the same political party, I think to me that story, I have carried that story with me since he told it, for 3 years, to show that there are no differences that cannot be bridged when one begins to work towards it. Like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), I knew the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). I would sit as the Speaker pro tempore, and would I see the gentleman from Georgia come to the well and talk every once in a while. A lot of times he was talking about things that I did not agree with, but I did not know his rich history. To have the chance to walk in the footsteps with a true American hero like John Lewis was an amazing experience for me, just a kid growing up in Ohio. I will not forget that. We have all been gone over our Easter break in our districts. I took what I learned that weekend, and I visited a lot of schools because I like to spend time with my young people in my district. I was able to tell them the story about what some people had to go through to get the right to vote and the fact that John Lewis and people like John Lewis were willing to risk their lives, were willing to risk police dogs and fire hoses and everything else that could be thrown at them in the 1960s just to get the right that we all take for granted to go in and cast a ballot in a Presidential race or a congressional race or a city council race. So I was talking with some high school seniors, and I asked them, because we can register to vote at 18, how many are registered that are 18; and only half of them were. It has given me a powerful incentive and a powerful message to go back and talk to them now about what people before them had to go through to get the right to vote and that they should not squander that opportunity. I was reminded of how far we have to go, but I was mostly reminded of the fact that we need to do it all together, Republicans and Democrats, black and white, men and women, rich and poor. A lot of times discussion in this Chamber is about dividing rather than bringing together. We need to concentrate more on finding the things that unite us. When we do that, I think that we can move forward. If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) will permit me, I have one quick story that I was reminded of when we were in Alabama, about one of our Presidents, Harry Truman. We all go door-to-door in our campaigns. As the story goes, he ran into a nasty homeowner one day and stuck out his hand and said, ``I am Harry Truman, and I would like your vote.'' The woman would not come from behind the door. She said, ``Mr. Truman, I know exactly who you are, and I would not vote for you if you were Saint Peter himself.'' Mr. Truman, for a Democrat, he had pretty quick wit. He said, ``Madam, with all due respect, if I were Saint Peter, I do not think you would be in my district.'' It occurred to me when we were down in Alabama that this is one district, the United States is one district, and we need to figure out what it is that is going to pull us together more than anything else. So I was very thankful to spend those three days with all of my colleagues, and I was most appreciative to have the chance to spend that time with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. The Chair announces that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) has 1 minute remaining and the right to close. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) has 1 minute remaining.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, imagine if the Congress singled out a mostly female workforce of 39,000 federal employees and, under suspension, passed legislation that: allowed the workers to go up to 5 years in a row without a single raise; allowed them to have their pay cut by as much as 8% in a single year; or provided for an annual increase as minuscule as one-tenth of one percent. Now imagine that a president not only signed this measure into law, but that it's been the law of the land for nearly a decade. Which group of federal workers has suffered this unthinkable injustice? None other than the 39,000 nurses who work for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and have devoted their careers to caring for our nation's ailing veterans. In the 101st Congress, the House and Senate passed the Nurse Pay Act, well-intended legislation that was designed to ease a national nursing shortage by allowing VA medical center directors to forgo the annual general schedule (GS) pay schedule that applies to virtually all federal employees. In theory, this new law enabled directors to give nurses higher annual raises than other federal workers so they could recruit and retain a quality workforce. Unfortunately, as soon as the national nurse shortage eased, the intent of the law was manipulated and directors started using their discretion to deny raises, provide tiny raises, and even reduce pay rates. Today, I introduced the VA Nurse Appreciation Act of 1999, legislation that will rectify the pay injustice VA nurses have suffered. This legislation will ensure that Title 38 VA nurses receive the annual GS increase plus locality pay so they will be on equal footing with other federal workers in their area. It will also give the VA Secretary the discretion to increase pay, or delegate this authority to directors, if they have trouble recruiting or retaining quality nurses. In the last few years some congressional attention has been focused on the VA nurse problem, and the VA has quietly ``encouraged'' directors to give raises. Still, VA nurses have fared far worse than other federal workers. Overall, the average annual increase for VA nurses was 50% lower than the standard GS increase in 1996; 60% lower in 1997; 25% lower in 1998; and about 17% lower in 1999. Furthermore, abuse from the Nurse Pay Act is widespread and knows no geographic boundaries. From 1996-1999, nurses at 16 different VA medical centers had their pay rates reduced by as much as 8% while other federal workers received annual GS increases ranging from 2.4% to 3.6%. In addition, from 1996-1999, NO raises were given to Grade I, II or III nurses (statistically 98% of the VA nurse workforce) at about 80 VA medical centers around the country. Worse still, some nurses go several years without raises, such as in Long Beach, CA, where VA nurses received no raises in 1996, 1997, 1998 or 1999. At other centers, meanwhile, nurses have received embarrassingly low annual increases--often 1% or lower. Mr. Speaker, the Nurse Pay Act deserves credit for ending a nursing shortage and making salaries competitive. For example, in its first year nurse pay increased by at least 20% at 82% of all VA medical centers. Unfortunately, the well-intentioned measure's locality-based pay system eventually ended up punishing many of the 39,000 VA nurses. Our VA nurses deserve praise for standing by our nation's veterans. Many could have sought higher paying jobs in the private sector, jobs that offer annual increases and signing bonuses. Instead, most have chosen to stay with the VA because they care deeply for our ailing veterans and enjoy a sense of reward and patriotism from their specialized work. In fact, most VA nurses have devoted their entire careers to caring for our nation's veterans. The average VA nurse is a 47-year-old female with 11 years tenure. As a Congress we strive to take care of our veterans. Therefore, we should feel embarrassed that we haven't taken better care of the dedicated nurses who care for our veterans. The Congress never meant to create a mechanism where a VA nurse could receive an annual raise worth 92 cents a week before taxes or go several years without a raise. It's no way to treat those who care for our nation's veterans, and we have an obligation to fix it. Mr. Speaker, our VA nurses perform a vital service for our Nation's veterans with great care, professionalism, and compassion. We now have an opportunity to demonstrate to our nurses that they are truly appreciated by passing the VA Nurse Appreciation Act of 1999.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman from Indiana very much.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for not only giving me the time, but also for bringing this rule to the floor, and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both the rule and also the bill today before us. I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and everyone else who had a hand in bringing this bill before us today. I do want to express some concerns about the manner in which H.R. 975 addresses the steel dumping issue. There is no doubt many speakers will talk about the fact that 10,000 steelworkers have lost their jobs as a result of steel dumping, but for every one steelworker in this country there are 40 downstream employees in the metal forming and metal stamping business, and I want to chat about them for just a minute in this 3 minutes. The U.S. steel industry, even when it is going full guns, is never able to meet all of our steel demands in this country. At current levels the estimates are maybe 75 percent, which leaves us with a shortage of 17 to 24 million tons each and every year. There are some contracts and applications that call for nondumped, but foreign, steel. There is a metal foreman in my district that has a contract that calls for Dutch steel, for instance, and he says that if we put in restrictive quotas in certain situations, well then that company will just have the goods stamped over in the Netherlands, and we will have imported into this country a finished product. If steel is unavailable or a specific kind of steel is unavailable for a given application, our downstream manufacturers will lose contracts, and imports will come into this country on a finished basis. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the chief sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and I would ask the gentleman: Given the concerns of a short supply, why is it that he looked at in H.R. 975 the quotas, tariffs and other remedies to control the amount of steel coming into this country rather than focusing on dumping margins which are contained in Section 201 of the 1974 trade act?

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his answer, and I also thank the gentleman very much for his courage in bringing this bill forward. I would ask as a further courtesy, as this bill proceeds, if we discover that the quotas in place by H.R. 975 have an adverse effect and cause a short supply for our end users in this country, that we be willing across the aisle to work and address that issue, and I am certain that we can do that.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, it is not our job to determine if the president is guilty of being a philanderer, a coward, a sinner, or even a liar. This issue is not whether he was unfaithful but whether he was unfaithful to our laws, and our Constitution. No president, even a popular one, has the right to cheat on the most sacred document in the world. For those who favor a censure that amounts to nothing more than a verbal spanking, how do we adequately rebuke a man who insists he's done nothing wrong, who flaunts the law and wants to manipulate the Constitution? The law does recognize that a lesser penalty should apply to those with remorse and a contrite spirit, but there is none. There cannot be two standards under the law, just as there cannot be a geographically desirable place to lie under oath. The law does not pause, even if you are the President of the United States. If we can court-martial members of our military and subject them to 50 years of jail time for lying under oath to cover up sexual indiscretions, should the punishment be nothing for a president or any other citizen of this land? We cannot reconcile that which makes no sense. Sometimes in this life somebody has to not just be the adult, but the bigger adult. Our president refuses to go down that path. He allowed a casual workplace flirtation to go to a place it never should have gone, and then acted as if he was somehow victimized. He put our country through months of denials and defiance and outright lies. He knew the stakes and the consequences of lying under oath, and then did so anyway. I gave this president every benefit of the doubt. I remain stunned by his inability and refusal to place the country first. Lying under oath is not nothing. Perjury is not nothing. As a prosecutor, I sent people to jail for this crime. I would give anything to be elsewhere today, to not have to cast this vote. Our President left us, left me, with no other option. Mr. President, you gave into your shame. I refuse to do the same. While partisan politics makes an easy foil for the predicament President Clinton finds himself, it cannot be blamed. When the spin and partisan hostility fade, I am confident that history will reveal that President Clinton was the master of his own demise in both words and deeds.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), ranking member, for moving H.R. 1481 to the floor so expeditiously, despite the fact that we have so many other things coming to a conclusion at the end of the 105th Congress. The resources Committee, like others, face a daunting list of requests from Members, and for the fact that this bill has moved so quickly I am grateful on behalf of myself and other Great Lakes Members. I also express my appreciation for the work of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. He made time in his subcommittee's schedule to hold hearings, and he has been a strong supporter of H.R. 4181 throughout the process. I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not thank the staff that made today's presentation possible. Many times, Members make commitments and while these commitments are honored, it is due primarily and in large part to the hard work of our staffs. I thank the committee staffs of both the majority and the minority, in particular Harry Burroughs and Mike Oetker. Mike has done yeoman's work on H.R. 1481, putting in long hours and making sure that this bill stayed on track. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Rochelle Sturtevant, who is the coordinator for the Great Lakes task force who has been working on this legislation since 1996. Mr. Speaker, my district borders Lake Erie, a body of water that was once considered to be ``dead.'' I paraphrase Mark Twain when I say that the reports of the Great Lakes' demise have been greatly exaggerated. This would not be possible, of course, without the efforts of the Fish and Wildlife Service, working with State and local governments, as well as Great Lakes residents. Now, Lake Erie fishermen can enjoy catching lake trout, walleye, bass, and perch. In fact, Lake Erie is experiencing rebounds in lake whitefish populations that just 10 years ago was thought to be impossible. Last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service report that lake trout populations in Lake Superior are now self-sustaining and need no further stocking. Basinwide, water-related recreation and tourism are valued at $15 million annually, almost half of which is derived from fishing. Moreover, the Great Lakes contain over 281 square miles of coastal wetlands which provide habitat for endangered species and breeding grounds for waterfowl, migratory birds and fish. While this is a great success story, the job of restoring the Great Lakes is a work in progress. Yes, we have come a very long way, but considering we still face degraded habitats, reduced fish and wildlife populations and the threat from nonindigenous species, we must press on. The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act reauthorizes legislation passed in 1990, with the same title, to continue this important mission. The original act established the Great Lakes Coordination Office and Fishery Resources Offices in Michigan, Wisconsin and New York. The 1990 act also led to the formation of a Great Lakes ecosystem team, including partners from the States Native American tribes and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, to coordinate restoration efforts between levels of government and agencies. Finally, the 1990 act directed that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service undertake a comprehensive study of fishing resources in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Fishery Resource Study, which the Fish and Wildlife Service completed and reported to Congress in 1995, contained 32 specific recommendations for projects that would successfully restore the Great Lakes fishery resource. The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act will reauthorize the Great Lakes Coordination Office and Fishery Resources Offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service, allowing them to continue coordinating internal Fish and Wildlife Service operations and other Fish and Wildlife Service activities with State, Federal, local and international operations in the Great Lakes Basin. These coordination efforts are critical to prevent programs from wasting resources and precious funds by working at cross-purposes. In addition, 1481 sets up a new grant program to enable States and Native American tribal groups to carry out restoration projects that implement the specific recommendations contained in the 1995 study. On the issue of invasive and noninvasive species, the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act will continue to provide the resources to help stop the influx of these creatures. And in regard to the sea lamprey, the legislation ensures that authority for sea lamprey control is retained by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Additionally, the Secretary of the Army, upon request by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, may improve water resources projects related to sea lamprey management. However, nonFederal entities will be responsible for 25 percent of the cost of implementing any proposal other than those involved in construction of sea lamprey barriers. For Members who are unfamiliar with the sea lamprey, in addition to looking like something that comes out of a horror movie, the sea lamprey is a parasite and each lamprey can destroy 10 to 40 pounds of fish during its lifetime. The Great Lakes are an incredible success story. It is one that no one would have believed just a few years ago. The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act will build upon this success. This is bipartisan legislation. It has strong support in the other body. In fact, it is my understanding that if H.R. 1481 receives favorable consideration today, the other body will take it up immediately. Relative to the observations made by our distinguished colleague from Michigan, I am fully aware of the fact that he has championed the cause about which he spoke today on the floor. It is only because of some resistance in the other body that we were not able to address that in this legislation. He would have my pledge that I would do everything in my capacity from Ohio to help him realize his goals and success in that regard. I would urge all of our colleagues today to support this essential bipartisan measure.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 4006.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today's floor activity brings to conclusion hopefully a long journey for H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act, although I suppose in legislative or dog years it is rather a quick journey. For that I take to the floor today and I want to thank a number of people, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House, for getting behind this bill, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for his guidance and leadership throughout the course of this legislative process, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and also the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) for all of their hard work, and without a doubt the original cosponsor of this bill the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski). In the early part of the year, those were lonely times. Although we were aided by powerful allies on both sides of the aisle, the minority whip the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) on his side and such powerhouses on our side as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, it was a long process. Credit unions should also be thankful for the quick action, Mr. Speaker, taken by the more deliberative body on the other side of the Capitol which has a history of not moving as quickly as it has in this particular instance. I am particularly thankful to the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Although the rules of the House prohibit me from naming him by name, I would suggest that his surname rhymes with ``tomato.'' Although every bill has blemishes, Mr. Speaker, upon which each of us might wish to apply some astringent, H.R. 1151 in its current form is a good bill that needs to move forward before the end of this session. The reason that baseball is America's pastime is that it has no clock. It is over when the 27th out is recorded. Football and basketball have a clock. The clock is ticking on this session of the Congress. We need to get this bill on the President's desk. The millions of depositors and share account owners of credit unions need this matter resolved today. Concerns about CRA type requirements and charter conversions can be addressed in other legislation. The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) has already so eloquently addressed that in his statement. But today is the day, Mr. Speaker, that Clarence the angel who helped George Bailey in It's A Wonderful Life should get his wings and credit union members across this country should get relief.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the dean of the House the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and my classmate the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) for the opportunity to address my support for the Patient Bill of Rights. I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) for doing what he thinks is the right thing. Obviously there is a slight concern when you endorse a proposal that is labeled the Democratic bill when you are a Republican and vice versa. While I am saddened that this issue has a partisan spin to it, today I am driven to support the initiative that I believe gives the greatest protection and possibility of care for the people that I represent. That bill is Ganske-Dingell. I want to direct my remarks to the liability provisions, however, relating to employer-provided health care plans. Being a lawyer, I like that profession as well as any other, but I am sensitive to the concerns of small business owners, many of whom administer their own plans, about the liability problem. Some of the calls our office has received have been driven from K Street, but many others have come from business owners who are operating on small margins and who want to do the right thing by their employees. Last night, therefore, I read and I reread page 66 of the Ganske bill concerning liability, and it only reinforced my belief that employers have been needlessly frightened, similar, I am sad to say, to the shameful way seniors were frightened during the Medicare debates. The only time that an employer is exposed to liability is when the employer makes discretionary medical decisions. Not a doctor, not a hospital, not a nurse, not an HMO. I cannot even think of one situation where an employer would want to make a medical decision, good, bad or otherwise. Nevertheless, I would ask the sponsors of the bill to tighten the language of the employers' exception in conference. The one thing that I do know about my profession is that they have a unique ability to take words that seem to say one thing and then get a judge somewhere, usually an appointed one, to interpret them in another. I urge passage of the substitute and would ask both parties to work diligently in conference to create a product that represents the best of both bills. I would ask that we not be about the business of creating campaign commercials here on the floor today but we be about the business of helping Americans of all ages receive the care that they need.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 452) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service should reject the recommended decision issued by the Postal Rate Commission on May 11, 1998, to the extent that it provides for any increase in postage rates.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), author of H. Res. 452.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), one of my better friends here in this body and a diligent member of the Committee on Appropriations, for sponsoring the legislation before us today. He has been joined by 49 Members in cosponsorship of H. Res. 452. The bill, Mr. Speaker, addresses a small topic; that is, a penny, the fact that penny by penny, the United States Postal Service will be able to raise $1 billion per year. Mr. Speaker, that penny may be insignificant for some, but when paid collectively by all mailers, the accumulation is significant, $1 billion. The question is, why does the United States Postal Service require this additional annual $1 billion when it has, over each of the past four years, made more than $1 billion in profit? That is a fairly significant balance. Postal ratemaking is a complicated and specialized process in itself. The statutory provisions for changing rates are also unique. The law provides that the Postal Service may request rate increases. The request is sent to the Postal Rate Commission, which must review all of the documentation within 10 months and render a recommended decision that is fair and equitable. The recommended decision of the PRC must provide sufficient revenues so that the Postal Service will, quote, break even. The governors then may approve, allow under protest, reject, or modify that decision. The Postal Service showed an approximate $1.8 billion surplus in fiscal year 1995, a $1.5 billion surplus in fiscal year 1996, a $1.2 billion surplus in fiscal year 1997. However, last July the Postal Service requested increased rates because it estimated that it would be deficient by $1.4 billion. It turns out, Mr. Speaker, that in mid-1998 the net operating surplus of the Service was more than $1.3 billion. The chairman of the Postal Rate Commission, during a May 11 press briefing on this recommended decision, said, and I quote, ``The commission believes that the Postal Service is unlikely, in the absence of either the economy going into a free fall, a spending binge or some very creative accounting, to incur any of the $1.4 billion loss it projected for fiscal year 1998. We believe the service may have seriously misestimated its need for a rate hike.'' Additionally, the PRC discovered that the Postal Service based its estimates on 1996 data which did not reflect the current changes. It must be noted that the inflation rate is lower than anticipated. Therefore, costs to the Postal Service are lowered and its financial situation is stronger. The Postal Rate Commission's hands are tied by law. The PRC is not permitted to substitute its judgment over the recommendation by the Postal Service even though the PRC did comment that they do not believe that the Postal Service needs to raise rates to break even in fiscal year 1998. The PRC did, however, cut the original Postal Service request by almost a third and reluctantly granted a raise in the price of a first- class stamp without which other types of mail would have undergone economic consequences. The chairman of the PRC said, ``We can, however, recognize and account for known and certain changes that have occurred since the request was filed. This we have done.'' Mr. Speaker, it is my strong belief that, given these circumstances, all Members of this House will want to be on record as to whether or not they believe a postal rate increase is a responsible course of action at this time. I urge all of our colleagues to support H. Res. 452. This resolution simply expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the Postal Board of Governors reject the recommended postal rate increase. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before yielding back, I just wanted to make a couple of observations about the gentleman from Illinois' observations, because he has in the 105th Congress demonstrated himself to be not only a very studious but also a very insightful Member not only of the full committee but also of the Subcommittee on Postal Service and I know that this Member very much appreciates his input and appreciates his getting into the issues that affect all matters that come under the jurisdiction of the committee. Mr. Speaker, we had an oversight hearing last week in which the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) presided. We had the opportunity, all of us, to interchange with the new Postmaster General, Mr. Henderson. I think we are all impressed with his ability to lead the Postal Service into the next generation. But also testifying at that hearing was the General Accounting Office. I was struck by their remarks relative to this postal rate increase that they were particularly concerned about the quality and the quantity of information that had been supplied by the Postal Service to the PRC before making this recommendation. I am also struck by the gentleman from Iowa's remark that this decision will be made next Monday and time is of the essence; and, lastly, just to reiterate something I think the gentleman from Iowa said, when the PRC came out with its decision, sadly, and why I think this House needs to become involved, in their May 11 document, they indicated that complicating an already challenging case was the finding by the PRC that the Postal Service's financial projections and underlying cost data from 1996 were outdated and contained what appeared to be serious computational errors. As the gentleman from Iowa stated, the PRC then recommended to the Board of Governors that would it not be better to delay a decision even though they had this 10-month clock ticking, but would it not be better to delay a decision and have it right rather than to conform with the requirement of getting it decided. But, sadly, the Board of Governors rejected that. The head of the PRC said, in a response reflecting a preference for form over substance, ``The Governors rejected the proposal and reminded the Commission that it was obligated to complete the case in 10 months.'' I think the gentleman from Iowa's resolution, I am sure the gentleman from Illinois and all his colleagues on his side of the aisle would rather that the Board of Governors get it right than get it done quickly. It is for that reason that I would respectfully request that this House pass H. Res. 452. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 452.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Rev. Richard C. Antall, who this week will leave St. Mary's Catholic Church in Painesville, Ohio, to return to El Salvador to work as a missionary. He will leave a void that many suspect will never fully be filled. For the residents of Painesville, Ohio, and indeed all of Lake County, Ohio, Father Antall was much more than simply a local priest. In the four years Antall spent as an associate pastor at St. Mary's, he immersed himself in virtually every aspect of the community, and was often considered the spiritual, legal, and political arm of the Hispanic community. Not only did Father Antall lead a Spanish-speaking mass each Sunday at the church, but he became intertwined in the lives of the migrant workers who travel to Lake County each year from Mexico to work in the county's many nurseries and farms. For a great number of the workers, Father Antall was not just their spiritual mentor, but also served as their advocate whenever disputes arose over working or living conditions. He was a friend, mentor, translator and a wonderful listener. Father Antall was tireless in defending the workers, and was of great assistance to me personally when I was new to the Congress, particularly when we began addressing immigration legislation and its effect on seasonal workers. His input was invaluable to me, and I witnessed firsthand the kindness that drew so many to him. Father Antall has a wonderful quality of placing those around him at ease--be they his parishioners, children, educators, lawyers or lawmakers. So many lives in the Painesville area have been touched by this selfless man, and while many wish he did not have to leave, those who know him certainly understand his need to pursue his lifelong dream of being a missionary in El Salvador. This will mark a homecoming to the remote Central American country where Father Antall spent seven years working with the Cleveland Diocese mission before coming to St. Mary's. It is my full expectation that Father Antall will provide a voice, a heart and a helping hand to the neglected, the downtrodden, the silenced, and the dreamers in El Salvador, just as he has in Painesville. He will offer an uplifting message centered on the love of God, and the need to be kind to one's fellow man. On behalf of the 19th Congressional District, I thank Father Antall for his many acts of kindness and for the indelible mark he left on his community and his congregation. I wish him well in his new life, and hope that he will always save a space in his heart for Lake County.

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, this week thousands of law enforcement officers from around the country have assembled in our nation's capital for National Police Week. One of the enduring ceremonies of Police Week is the candlelight vigil held each year at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Each year at this memorial, about 10,000 people join together to honor our fallen officers. At last night's 10th Annual Candlelight Vigil, the names of 159 law enforcement officers who lost their lives in the line of duty in 1997 were added to the memorial. To date, more than 14,000 men and women have died while trying to keep our communities safe, with the earliest known death in 1794 when U.S. Marshal Robert Forsyth was shot and killed. On average, one law enforcement officer is killed somewhere in America nearly every other day, so it is important that we as a nation honor those men and women in blue who have died. One of the men whose name was added to the wall this year is from the 19th Congressional District of Ohio, which I have the honor of representing. Ashtabula Police Department Patrolman Bill Glover was shot November 17, 1997, while apprehending a robbery suspect. He left behind a wife, Marianne, and three young children. The addition of Officer Glover's name will bring the total number of Ohioans killed in duty to 621. Sadly, only four states--New York, California, Illinois and Texas--have had more officers killed in the line of duty than Ohio. Six of the Ohio officers who died in the line of duty are from my hometown of Lake Country, Ohio: Constable Ernest C. Gray, Willoughby Township, July 16, 1919. Deputy Marshal Lawrence R. Yaxley, Mentor Village, January 30, 1927. Lt. Joyce Robbin Moore, Willoughby Police Department, March 22, 1955. Patrolman John Apanites, Cleveland Police Department, April 7, 1969. Auxiliary Capt. George Maxin, Willowick Police Department, December 31, 1976. Detective Jack Spohn, Willoughby Police Department, August 2, 1998. As a member of Congress, I have had the privilege of participating in National Police Week the last three years. Tonight, like the past three years, I will participate in a solemn Pipe Band March that will conclude with a wreath laying ceremony at the at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. As in past years, I will be joined by Chief Jim McBride of the Lakeland Police Department. I wish from the bottom of my heart we had no need for such a memorial, that every year could pass without candlelight vigils and wreath laying ceremonies. It would be a wonderful world if all our officers could live full lives, watch their children and grandchildren grow up, and die of old age in their beds next to their loved ones. Unfortunately, far too many die far too young, and we are left to try and make sense of their senseless deaths. Our National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial helps to make this possible. I am honored to be able to pay tribute not only to our fallen officers from home, but also to all those who have bravely served our country. We must never forget their unselfish service because they never forgot their duty to serve and protect

Mr. LaTOURETTE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is very, very simple in its wording, and I want to commend the sponsor and the introducer of this resolution, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Very simply, it says that this resolution indicates it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the contributions made by law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty should be honored, their dedication and sacrifice recognized, and their unselfish service to the Nation remembered. Later this week, Mr. Speaker, the Nation's law enforcement community will gather from all over the country and will join us in our Nation's capital to remember the over 14,000 men and women in blue who have made the ultimate sacrifice to serve and protect. During the course of their ceremony, Officer Bill Glover of the Ashtabula City Police Department from my district and 15 officers from other jurisdictions will have their names solemnly added to the silent walls here in the Capitol. Their service is what protects the law- abiding from the lawbreaking, and their sacrifice should be honored and remembered by all in any way that we possibly can. That is what makes H.Res. 422 so fitting and appropriate. When I have the opportunity to visit the Police Officers' Memorial here on the Capitol on an annual basis, I am often reminded of remarks that we wish that all of the men and women who don police officers' uniforms in this country could die in bed with their socks on, next to their loved ones, and that we would have no need of a memorial to mark those men and women who fall protecting us from those who are bent on violence and destruction. It is appropriate that we have that memorial. It is a solemn occasion that we will remember this Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. I would urge all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 422.