John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2591) to designate the United States Post Office located at 713 Elm Street in Wakefield, Kansas, as the ``William H. Avery Post Office.''

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to first respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania in saying that I value the working relationship we have had, and as he so, I think, accurately noted, the work product of that relationship will be shown on this floor today. It has been both an honor and a pleasure to work with him and the Members on his side who have joined us in putting aside partisan differences in attempting to rather just move legislation that serves the people. In this instance, as I said, we do have the privilege of joining today in supporting a bill that is very worthy and recognizes a very worthy individual, as well as having with us on the floor today the gentleman who really has led the fight to put this bill together and to bring our attention to this very worthy opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the chief advocate, chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have words of appreciation to the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), and also a word of appreciation to the sponsor, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2460) to designate the United States Post Office located at 125 Border Avenue West in Wiggins, Mississippi, as the ``Jay Hanna `Dizzy' Dean Post Office.''

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak briefly on H.R. 2460, legislation that was introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) on July 1 of this year, and as consistent, again, with the policy of Committee on Government Reform, it has been cosponsored by the entire House delegation of the great State of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, this bill does designate the United States Post Office located at 125 Border Avenue West in Wiggins, Mississippi, as the Jay Hanna `Dizzy' Dean Post Office. Jay Hanna Dean was born on January 16, 1911. He made his home in Stone County, Mississippi, which is his wife's ancestral home. Dizzy Dean, as most of us know him by, loved his adopted home and was an ardent supporter of the community of Bond, the city of Wiggins, Stone County, and the State of Mississippi, as a whole. The ancestral home was subsequently donated by Mrs. Dean to the Baptist Children's Village as a home for children in the Bond community of Stone County. In addition to his outstanding record, his outstanding record as a major league baseball pitcher and a baseball telecaster featuring the major league baseball's Game of the Week, Dizzy made many contributions to his local community which was recognized by the mayor and Board of Aldermen of the city of Wiggins. It was they, Mr. Speaker, who recommended that the newly renovated and expanded post office in Wiggins be named after Dizzy Dean, who died on July 17 in 1974. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly want to commend the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for working so closely with the community in bringing this bill to the floor. Again, as is true on all of these proposals, I deeply appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and the entire Committee on Government Reform for their efforts in this matter. I would certainly urge our colleagues to support a bill which recognizes, really, to those of us who grew up in the 1950s and 1960s who really spent many, many weekends watching the game of the week, sometimes to the distress of our English teachers, learning a bit of colorful and sometimes creative language from the great Dizzy Dean, to pass this bill and support what I think is a very, very worthy measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further requests for time. Let me in closing just again thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), ranking member, and also to compliment the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) again. I appreciate his remarks about, indeed, the great gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) as a teammate of his. In the spirit of bipartisanship that we strike on these bills, I will not mention the score of the game in which the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) was rightfully named the MVP. But I think his support of this bill lends an even greater credence. I urge my colleagues that we support this bill and, indeed, honor a very colorful and very great American. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further requests for time. I am not sure that any of us could add to the passion and eloquence and I think very fitting comments of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). If the actions of a truly remarkable woman such as this do not constitute what is a great American, I am not sure we know otherwise. So this is a truly fitting naming bill, and I would urge all of our colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 643, the bill just passed.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House H.R. 643, a bill, as was noted, that was indeed introduced by our colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), honoring the very distinguished colleague from California, former Representative Augustus F. Hawkins. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that if some of this sounds familiar, it is simply because the House in fact considered and overwhelmingly passed this bill during its deliberations last year. Unfortunately, and in no way suggestive of the merits of the bill, the legislative calendar in the other body did not permit them sufficient time to consider it. So we are here again today attempting to rectify that occurrence. For that I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for her tenacity and for recognizing that what was good and owing last year remains so this year, and for the cooperative effort of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and all the members of the Committee on Government Reform for once more bringing this House the opportunity to vote on a very worthy naming bill. The history of Gus Hawkins I suspect in this body is well-known from his birth in Louisiana and his movement with his parents to California in 1918 when he was just 11 years old, a recipient of his AB from the University of California in 1931, with a major in economics, and later his graduation from the University of Southern California in 1932. After working in the real estate business, he was elected to the California State Assembly, where he served from 1934 to 1963, and later elected to the 88th Congress and to 13 succeeding Congresses running from 1963 to 1991. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, Gus Hawkins served his constituents of the Watts area of Los Angeles for 48 years in elective office, 28 years in the California State Assembly, and 20 years in the House of Representatives. He became known at that time for the Humphrey-Hawkins Act, a bill to reduce unemployment, move ahead in job training and employment opportunities for all Americans. He served in this body on various committees and, in fact, rose to be a leader in this House on many issues that were important certainly to the people that he represented but more so to the people of this country. We have had the opportunity in the past, Mr. Speaker, to honor our former colleagues with this naming for their community service and in this instance, of course, the service to their country. Certainly, as happened on this House floor last year, I would again urge my colleagues to unanimously support this bill and designate a naming for a very, very worthy American and a great former colleague, Gus Hawkins. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) who has expressed, I think, a very understandable interest in this, a gentleman who served with the designee.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would only state that I think as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) has persistently now for 2 years in a row and as we heard here today very eloquently stated, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), that this is a very, very worthy recipient of this designation. I would certainly urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting it.

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

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. 2357.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1374) to designate the United States Post Office building located at 680 State Highway 130 in Hamilton, New Jersey, as the ``John K. Rafferty Hamilton Post Office Building,'' as amended.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this represents the fifth, final but certainly not the least of the proposed naming bills that we will have before us today. Indeed, I think this whole House owes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) a debt of gratitude for bringing to us what in looking over the life of John K. Rafferty is certainly someone who is totally fitting for this kind of honor. The gentleman from New Jersey brought this bill to the committee on April 12 of this year and, as with all of the other naming bills, it does bear the cosponsorship of the entire delegation here in the House from the great State of New Jersey. I do not want to undercut the sponsor's comments here in a moment, I know that he will have a great deal to say about Mr. Rafferty, but suffice it to say that he served his community for more than 30 years. He first worked on the Hamilton Committee for 6 years and then became Hamilton's first full-time mayor, serving continuously since 1976. In fact, Mr. Rafferty intends to retire from the office of mayor early next year at the completion of this term. As we have heard today both in the bills that have been proposed and some of the comments, we would like to think that these post office designations are extended to great Americans. We heard earlier the gentleman from Ohio speaking, I thought, very forcefully about the very appropriate nature of the designation to Mrs. Louise Stokes, as someone who had a profound effect on America and someone who exemplifies what we think constitutes a good and wholesome life as a citizen of this great country. Certainly from the information that I have seen on Mr. Rafferty from the comments and submissions by the gentleman from New Jersey, in fact, Mr. Rafferty is a great American, someone who perhaps is not read about in the national newspapers or heard often about in the national news broadcasts but nevertheless a man who every day wakes up and thinks of one thing first beyond his family and his loved ones and, that is, service to his community, simply working to try to make today a little bit better than yesterday and hopefully tomorrow a little bit better than today. That is a great American. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership on this issue. As with all of the naming bills, again my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member, for not just his cooperation and support but for his leadership as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me respond to the very, I think, appropriate and certainly gracious comments by the ranking member. I think these designations are worthy of this House floor. Certainly the cooperative effort that he and the members on his side bring to these kinds of initiatives very clearly underscores that. It has been both a pleasure and an honor to work with him. As he noted, we have much work before us that we are looking forward to on other endeavors. We will be back indeed. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the primary sponsor on this bill.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time but yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine any way in which I can add to the eloquence and the depth of the very appropriate comments by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and with that I would simply urge all of our colleagues to join with the ranking member and myself and all of the committee members in sponsoring the gentleman from New Jersey's very worthy initiative.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may be granted 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1374, bill just passed.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Perhaps some very troubling but, I think undeniable, important facts. As my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) suggested, the Department had hearings but the Department did not listen. Of the 4,217 comments placed into the hearing record, 3,579, nearly 85 percent of them, supported 1-A. Again, as my colleague so correctly noted, the industry, the Ag Department's own internal price structure committee accepted and recommended 1-A. As well, the Congress has voted on this time and time again. During the 1996 farm bill, we considered proposals that would have dramatically altered the price structure and the market order system, but we rejected each and every one of those. To my friends that say that Congress is now reneging on the deal, let me read the report language from the 1996 farm bill: ``The minimum price for class I fluid milk shall be the same or substantially similar to those set forth in the 1985 farm bill.'' This 1402 is totally consistent with congressional intent. Let me just make a couple of other points. I am pleased to let Governor Ventura know that, under 1402, or 1-B, neither uses Eau Claire, Wisconsin, as the sole basing point for Class I differentials. So he can go to bed happy tonight. Also, when we talk about market orientation, both 1-B, the Department's plan, and our bill, 1402, use the market price of cheese as the driving force for class I. So that my opponents here and other opponents can continue not to worry about that, as well. Also, the Ag Department's analysis, the Secretary's analysis, was totally debunked by every reputable economist and organization that analyzes the dairy industry. They used a totally false premise with respect to class III prices when they came up with the calculation of $2.2 million. I wish it were true, quite honestly. Otherwise, we would not have to be here. 1402 is consistent with congressional intent. It is good for dairy farmers across this country. The House needs to adopt the bill today.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. The more I listen, the less I learn. There are things being said here on the floor today with respect to this amendment that I think draws two conclusions: Number one, that somehow a Federal order system for milk is an improper and illegal restraint of trade. In fact, my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that is an issue that has been well adjudicated. It was an issue that was extensively discussed during the last trade negotiations under GATT. It was an issue that was determined in the trade negotiations under GATT that Federal orders have no effect on trade. So, Mr. Chairman, that is not the core issue here. The second assumption or the second claim that is being made is that something in H.R. 1402 or something in the current law and current dairy policy restricts any farmer from exporting in America today. That is totally false. It is totally incorrect. If my friends in Wisconsin want to export, go ahead, they can do that. The current world price for milk is about $9 a hundred-weight. I do not think many farmers in America, be they in Wisconsin or any other part of the country, would want to export into that kind of market because it would be unaffordable, it would cause even wider bankruptcies. What we have here is a difference of not what should be done, but who should benefit. Every single Member who is in support of this amendment today voted earlier to try to impose and to keep a system that preserves the market order structure. What it does not do in their mind is direct enough money to them. So I think we have to keep reality in focus here, Mr. Chairman. We need to explore trade opportunities. There is nothing in H.R. 1402 that would prohibit that. There is nothing in the Federal order system that in any way precludes that. It is common sense; it is constitutional; and it is something that has been discussed time and time again. So when we go to the floor and vote on this amendment, I hope we keep reality in mind because it is rather important.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), number one, he will be delighted to hear, and apparently he was not on the floor earlier when I noted that H.R. 1402, as the modified one, B, also does, no longer uses Eau Claire, Wisconsin, as its basing point in determining class I differentials; so, we have taken care of that for him. Number two, New York is not part of the northeast dairy compact, but the gentleman's statement that farmers have to pay a tax is absolutely incorrect. Any farmer can ship into the northeast, as my farmers do. What it does require, that farmer receives the same equitable prices as every other member.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I had not intended to speak today on this rule because I think it is a good one, a fair one. But in the hopes of perhaps injecting some reality and facts into the debate tomorrow, I want to rise and just make a few points. First of all, my friend from Minnesota, and he is my friend, spoke about the good faith of the Department of Agriculture's policy and development of 1(b). And frankly, that is the problem. It was a total lack of good faith by the Secretary that brings us to this point here today. How do I know? Well, frankly, as they listened as we have heard today to so many farmers, the hearing record shows that in response to the 1(a)/1(b) proposal, 4,217 total comments were received. Of those, 3,579 supported 1(a). How many supported 1(b)? 436. Eighty-five percent of the hearing record supported 1(a). The lack of good faith is evident. Not only that, Madam Speaker, we must remember that the Secretary's own dairy price structure committee, the internal organization, the experts in the Department of Agriculture assigned to make these kinds of decisions supported 1(a), as well. The other thing I wanted to mention is we have heard about market orientation in Eau Claire, Wisconsin and such. It may not be nice to hear but the facts are H.R. 1402 as well as 1(b), in fact, change and make adjustments to the current system so that the Eau Claire pricing system is no longer applicable. And, in fact, under 1(b), 408 counties in 10 States will have class 1 differentials equal to or lower than Eau Claire, Wisconsin. So it is not an issue of Eau Claire and it is not an issue of market orientation because, indeed, both of the plans operate in essentially the same way. Lastly, modest reforms, $200 million. The Congress spoke as to the wiseness of this policy when we debated the 1996 farm bill. As my colleague from Vermont so eloquently stated, we spoke when we wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture on this issue. We have to now take the matter back into our hands into this, the people's House, where the answers lie. We have to pass this rule and support H.R. 1402.