John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3189) to designate the United States post office located at 14071 Peyton Drive in Chino Hills, California, as the ``Joseph Ileto Post Office.''

Mr. McHUGH

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

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Again, I want to express our appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), who currently serves as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, for introducing H.R. 2904 to authorize the Office of Government Ethics, and also to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, for his strong support of this legislation. As well, let me thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, for their combined support. Without this cooperative effort, Madam Speaker, we would not be here today. I also want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) of the Subcommittee on the Constitution for their cooperation in expediting consideration of this measure. I also wish to express our appreciation to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, for his strong support for clarifying the definition of ``special government employee.'' As we recognize, Madam Speaker, these kinds of initiatives, it takes the cooperative effort of many, and we thank yet another gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for adding the ``special government employee'' language to this initiative. Madam Speaker, although language before the House differs in some minor respects from the bill reported by the Committee on Government Reform, there really is no substantive difference. Working closely with the Office of Government Ethics, we have simply clarified the bill. Promoting the integrity of the Federal Government is critically important if our citizens are to have confidence in its operation. Nothing has made that clearer than our experience with the administration and its unprecedented reliance upon a host of informal advisors such as Harry Thomason, Paul Begala, Dick Morris, and numerous other outsiders who worked on the President's health care task force during his first term. Whether paid or unpaid, full-time or part-time, Madam Speaker, these advisors must be held to the same high ethical standards as regular government employees. Good government demands no less. Congress has the opportunity today to ensure that existing conflict of interest laws and financial disclosure requirements deter these high-level advisors from using their role to promote their own business interests. I urge all Members to support H.R. 2904. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2904 accomplished the two objectives that are critically important to ensuring honesty in government and impartiality in the executive branch of government. First, it reauthorizes the Office of Government Ethics through the year 2003. Second, it amends Title XVIII of the United States Code to clarify the definition of the term ``special government employee.'' The Office of Government Ethics is a small agency in the executive branch. Its appropriation for fiscal year 2000 is only $9.1 million, and there are only about 84 full-time equivalent employees in its work force. Nevertheless, it performs a vital function. The Office's mission is to ensure impartiality and integrity in the operation of the Federal Government. The Office oversees compliance with a variety of ethics laws in the executive branch. It issues rules and regulations on matters such as conflicts of interest, post-employment restrictions, standards of conduct, and financial disclosures. The Office also reviews financial disclosure statements of certain presidential nominees and appointees, and when necessary, recommends corrective action for violations of ethics laws. In addition, the Office of Government Ethics trains employees in ethics, provides formal and informal guidance on the interpretation and application of various ethics laws, and evaluates the effectiveness of conflict of interest and other ethics laws. The Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on Government Reform held an oversight hearing on the Office of Government Ethics shortly before the August recess. That hearing showed that the Office has performed its duties very well. There is no question that the Office has earned reauthorization by this Congress. It was also vitally important, Madam Speaker, that this Congress clarify section 202 of Title XVIII to make it easier to determine who is a ``special government employee'' and therefore, subject to conflict of interest law and financial disclosure requirements. Special government employees are informal advisors to presidents and other government officials. Some are compensated, some serve without pay. But in either case, if the integrity of government processes is to be protected, these advisors must be subject to the same conflict of interest laws and financial disclosure requirements as regular government employees. This is not a new subject for the House. The need for this legislation was first brought to our attention as a result of the Travelgate hearings held by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight during the 104th Congress. Those hearings revealed and a subsequent report adopted by the Committee on Government Reform found that certain advisors to the President used their influence to promote their own business interests by actively encouraging the firing of career employees in the White House Travel Office. As a result, the committee's report on the Travelgate investigation recommended that this Congress amend the law to provide clear standards for determining who is a ``special government employee.'' The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), who is not with us at this time, as I hope everyone in the body recognizes having suffered an injury in his home State and from which we wish him a speedy recovery, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, has held two hearings on this issue. Witnesses at those hearings also testified in favor of clarifying the definition of ``special government employee.'' Language substantially similar to section 2 of this bill was developed through those hearings. During the 104th Congress, the House passed essentially the same language in H.R. 3452, the Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act. Although most of that bill became Public Law 104- 331, the ``special government employee'' language was dropped in the conference. The need for a clearer definition remains, however. I urge all Members to seize this opportunity to promote integrity in government by passing this bill, H.R. 2904, today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2904.

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2904) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to reauthorize funding for the Office of Government Ethics, as amended.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we have heard here today, this bill truly is the product of bipartisanship and it started with the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and their work, and I think carried through with the support of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, and the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and all the members on both sides of the aisle. So this is, as we have heard repeatedly, a bill whose time has come. I urge all our colleagues to join us in supporting it.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette). And I should hasten to add, having just heard from one of the newest members of the Subcommittee on Postal Service, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), we now have the opportunity to hear from one of the more senior members, and certainly one of the most active members on the subcommittee, not just on this legislation but on the broad expansion of issues that we deal with. I am delighted he is able to join us on the floor today to make comments on this initiative. (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), another member of the Florida delegation that has been so supportive in this effort, and also I might add the sometimes the winter Congressman of my mother, who visits from New York State. So we particularly appreciate his support.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining?

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we have heard here today, this bill obviously is addressing concerns that are faced by the entire country, but particularly among senior citizens. As we know, particularly when it comes to the State of New York, many of our seniors move to the south and often Florida. We have had a great deal of input and support by the Florida delegation on both sides of the aisle in this matter. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who has been very interested in this issue and very supportive.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the author, and ratified in my comments, we have had a number of individuals who were early on supporters of this initiative who had drafted their own approaches from which we drew not just moral support, but legislative language and approaches to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), an individual who has established in this House a well-deserved reputation as a student of the law and one who had a great deal of input and we had a great deal assistance from.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBIONDO) who, as I mentioned during my opening remarks, was really a leader in this effort. Through his initiative, in fact, the question was first brought to the attention of our subcommittee last year and, in large measure, this is a product of his efforts. (Mr. LoBIONDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring H.R. 170, as amended, to the floor today and would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of my Subcommittee on the Postal Service for their interest, for their hard work in moving this important legislation, particularly thanking the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for his input in making this bill stronger and of a wider appeal. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also quote from the testimony of the General Accounting Office at the subcommittee's August 14 meeting, which I think summed it up very well, ``When it comes to deceptive mail, which includes sweepstakes and other kinds of mail material,'' quote, ``consumers' problems appear substantial.'' We are all concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the way sweepstakes mailings entice customers, particularly senior citizens, into making unwanted purchases under the mistaken impression that this will somehow enhance their chances of winning. As I have stated previously, sweepstakes in and of themselves are not evil. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they are often a marketing tool that are accessed by willing and very satisfied individuals, but experience teaches us that when laws fall short, the dishonest often flock and people ultimately will suffer. Now is the time to correct these shortfalls. H.R. 170, as amended, was carefully developed with our ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), and the bill's original author, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). In keeping with H.R. 170's objective of ensuring honesty in sweepstakes mailing, the amended language incorporates and responds to the extensive testimony submitted at the hearing conducted by the Subcommittee on the Postal Service. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) is to be commended for championing the necessary changes to our postal laws in this area, and I also, Mr. Speaker, deeply appreciate the assistance of our other colleagues; as I mentioned earlier, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member, but as well the language in this bill reflects the input of others who also introduced legislation, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), authors of H.R. 237 and H.R. 2678 respectively. This language is also based upon Senator Susan Collins' comprehensive bipartisan sweepstakes mailing legislation, which passed in the other body by a 93-to-0 vote on August 2. We certainly are indebted to Ms. Collins and to her staff and the other members of the other body for their interest, for their leadership, and for their guidance. Mr. Speaker, we have drawn from many sources to craft what I believe is a reasonably balanced and effective piece of legislation. H.R. 170, as amended, would establish strong consumer protections to prevent a number of types of deceptive mailings. It would impose various requirements on sweepstakes mailings, skills contests, facsimile checks and mailings made to look like government documents. It would establish as well strong financial penalties, provide the Postal Service with additional authority to investigate and stop deceptive mailings and preserve the ability of States to impose stricter requirements on such mailings. Mr. Speaker, I would strongly encourage all Members to fully support the legislation before us. We should join with the other body in advancing this important cause. America's consumers, particularly our senior citizens, are counting on us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 170, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 170) to require certain notices in any mailing using a game of chance for the promotion of a product or service, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. McHUGH

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

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 2357, was introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) on June 24 of this year. Again, it has been cosponsored by the entire House delegation of the great State of Ohio in accordance with our policy on the Committee on Government Reform, which has moved this legislation. The measure does, indeed, designate the United States Post Office located at 3675 Warrensville Center Road in Shaker Heights, Ohio, as the Louise Stokes Post Office. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2357 is a very special bill in that it honors the mother of two very remarkable men. Louise Cinthy Stone Stokes, mother of Louis and Carl, was born the eighth of 11 children of the Reverend Mr. William and Fannie Stone on October 27, 1895, in Wrons, Georgia. She moved to Cleveland, Ohio, in 1918 where she met and married Charles Louis Stokes, a laundry worker. Charles Stokes died when his two sons were still infants. Louis was but 2 years old, and Carl only 13 months. Louise, now widowed, worked as a domestic worker, and her widowed mother, Fannie, lived with a family and helped with the children. They lived in public housing on meager earnings. Louise Stokes insisted that her sons get jobs at an early age and that they, most of all, get an education, and they did. Louis Stokes graduated from Case Western Reserve and Cleveland Marshall Law School, and Carl Stokes graduated from Marshall Law School. Louis served as a civil rights attorney; and, in 1968, he became the first African-American Congressman from Ohio. Also in 1968, Carl became the first African-American mayor of a major U.S. city and later became a United States ambassador. Louise Stokes was selected Cleveland's Woman of the Year, Ohio Mother of the Year, and received numerous awards from religious and civic organizations throughout her lifetime. The guiding principles of Louis Stokes' life and his brother Carl's were really instilled in them by their mother. It was simply a value of hard work, education, and religion. I suspect someday, Mr. Speaker, we may be on this floor honoring two very remarkable men in Louis and Carl Stokes, but I think it is most appropriate, before we designate post offices in recognition of their contributions, that we first recognize the woman who, indeed, instilled in them the kind of values, the kind of ethics that brought them to the high pinnacle of public service which we have seen over so many years. Indeed, Louise Stokes was a remarkable woman, and she fully merits this kind of recognition. I would certainly urge my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 2357, and place the name upon the post office in Shaker Heights of which all of us, not just the people from that community and the State of Ohio, but all of us as Americans can be very, very proud. She is a dedicated mother and, as I said, a very remarkable woman. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2357) to designate the United States Post Office located at 3675 Warrensville Center Road in Shaker Heights, Ohio, as the ``Louise Stokes Post Office''.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2591, the bill just passed.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2460, the bill just passed.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 643) to redesignate the Federal building located at 10301 South Compton Avenue, in Los Angeles, California, and known as the Watts Finance Office, as the ``Augustus F. Hawkins Post Office Building''.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 2591, was introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and is sponsored by each Member of the House delegation from the great State of Kansas, which is pursuant to a long-standing policy of the Committee on Government Reform. This legislation, as noted by the Clerk, designates the United States Post Office located at 713 Elm Street in Wakefield, Kansas as the William H. Avery Post Office. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from Kansas for his leadership on this issue, for bringing to our attention I think a very, very laudable, worthy designation and express my appreciation as well from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member, and all of the members of the subcommittee and the committee and its Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), for processing this bill in a very timely manner. As to the designee, Mr. Avery was born the son of a farmer and rancher near Wakefield, Kansas, in 1911 and attended Wakefield High School in that town. He later graduated from the University of Kansas in 1934, after which he returned home to raise crops and livestock on his family farm. During that time, he served on the local school board. Mr. Avery was elected to the State House of Representatives and served from 1951 to 1955. He was a Member of the legislative council from 1953 to 1955. Mr. Avery won the Republican nomination for the United States Congress and served in this House from 1955 to 1965. In 1965, the people of Kansas elected him to serve one term as the 37th governor of Kansas. Mr. Avery continues to this day to live in his hometown of Wakefield, Kansas. Mr. Speaker, it is, it seems to me, especially meaningful to honor a person during his or her lifetime. Quite often, we come to this floor and designate these facilities in honor of someone who is no longer with us and no longer able to be directly aware of our appreciation and the honor that they are about to receive. But in this instance, we are naming a facility in the hometown after a native son, a place which is visited daily by the neighbors and friends of that person, and naming it after someone who is identified with the town literally from birth. I certainly urge our colleagues to honor Governor Avery and this very worthy recipient. Supporting this bill, the Congressional Budget Office indicates that enactment of the legislation would have no significant impact on the Federal budget and would not directly affect spending or receipts, and therefore pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. Additionally, the legislation contains no governmental or private sector mandates that are defined in the unfunded mandates reform act, and as such, would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments. In sum, Mr. Speaker, this is a very worthy piece of legislation, a very worthy designee, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.