John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the gentleman. Who amongst us has not walked up to the dairy case in our local supermarket and reached to the back to try to find the expiration date that is furthest away? And it is true, refrigeration has made a difference in how we can ship dairy product. But it is not a total answer. There is a very substantial cost to be paid in terms of lessening the shelf life when that product reaches our market shelves, a very substantial degradation in the quality of the product of milk. If my colleagues are interested in increasing consumption amongst Americans of this very wholesome product, it seems to me that that kind of loss of quality, that kind of loss in consumer convenience in terms of the compressed expiration date is absolutely critical. And there is one final reality that those who argue that market orders are no longer necessary because we can ship from California to New York or from New York to Florida or wherever conveniently choose to ignore, and that reality is simply that transportation is a significant cost factor in the retail price of milk; and the further they have to ship over time, it will have an irreversible and a very significant factor on the price of milk to the consumers. And it seems to me that one of our primary objectives has to be in all of this dairy policy, because we are not just formulating policy to help farmers, we have to take the broader public interest into mind, is that we stabilize prices, not increase them artificially, and particularly not do it in a way which is proposed through 1(b) that would be so devastating to the producers. So, again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. McHUGH. Well, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very gracious comments, and let me return the compliment. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) has been a leader on this issue. And, frankly, without the gentleman's hard work and without his dedication and devotion, we would not have this opportunity to come forward tonight and to talk about what is I know shared in America and is understood to be a very, very important issue. We have heard about the Compact tonight, but, as the gentleman noted, we have a very important markup tomorrow in the Committee on Agriculture dealing with a very complex issue with respect to milk market orders. I, like many of us, have listened over the past several weeks, heard the discussion from those Members who do not share our perspective, I have read their statements, and I think, unfortunately, there is a great deal of misunderstanding, there is a great deal of misinformation as to the particulars of milk marketing and milk market reform. I think, however, we can all agree on one thing, and that is that the current system of milk marketing in America is extraordinarily complex. Some would say it is arcane. And it is true, the proliferation, the really fragmented evolution that has surrounded the growth of marketing orders in America today has really provided us with what I think we can all agree upon is a very ineffective system. But for all of that complexity and for all of the need for change, I think that the need for the market order system today, in 1999, is as evident and is as important as it was back in the 1930s. Clearly, some of the things from 60-plus years ago, when the original market orders were first constructed, exist today as they did then. Milk production, as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) has noted today, and others have as well, is a long-term undertaking. It is seasonal as well. One cannot, as the gentleman noted, just take a dairy cow and start milking it tomorrow for market. There is an intensive capital input and an extraordinary amount of time necessary to raise a calf into the age and position where it can be a productive animal. The seasonality is a factor of life today as it was 60 years ago. Cows produce more milk in the spring, less milk at other times, and that is a very important factor. Farmers cannot shut down a factory line, cannot lay off cows during times of less demand, and those are realities that have not changed. And I think most importantly is the recognition behind the original orders that milk is, indeed, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) just said, a wholesome product, that the vast majority of Americans wish to provide it for their families, wish to provide it for their children, and that was a very important policy position behind the formulation of those markets back in the 1930s. Things are different. I have heard our friends on the other side of this issue say that refrigeration now can change the way in which milk markets operate; that you can ship fluid milk to further distances; that, clearly, the population centers of America are different today than they were in the 1930s and that the reason behind original markets, the increased production, to ensure there was an adequate supply, are no longer reflective of those changes in population. But those have limits as well. And, quite honestly, that thought, that recognition was behind the 1996 farm bill. I become confused when I listen to some folks who, for all of their good intentions, were not part of the formation of that 1996 bill, who were not there in the negotiations, suggest that it was somehow the intention of the Congress to do away with market orders; that market orders were, by definition, a relic of the past and that Congress expressed an intent in that bill to do away with market orders. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. The Congress spoke very clearly. They understood that at that time the 31 designated regions of milk markets were no longer relative to the 1990s, that they needed to be reconstructed, but they very specifically dealt with the issue of the elimination of market orders, of the elimination of what is called Class 1 differentials, that price-plus that is paid to farmers for fluid milk, and gave very clear instructions in that bill to the Secretary of Agriculture that, indeed, milk market orders should continue; that the process and the practice of Price 1 differentials should not be unduly disrupted in whatever market order reform came about. That is why I think the Secretary's ruling is so perplexing. The record clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of individuals and organizations that expressed their interest during the formal hearing or informal hearing process was in support of the so-called I-A Option. It has been mentioned on this floor this evening. Congress spoke loudly both at the time when the bill was on the floor and in follow- up meetings with the Secretary. It was expressed very clearly in letters to the Secretary. 238 Members of the House, 61 Senators, who normally could not agree on what day of the week it is, said that they wanted the Secretary to support 1-A as the most viable and the most effective option. Even the Secretary's own dairy price structure committee, the in-house United States Department of Agriculture Advisory Committee, the experts, including many prominent economists, supported 1-A. The reality is if we were not under an informal rulemaking process, that if this bureaucratic decision had to be done under a formal rulemaking process, it could have never and would never withstand legal scrutiny, because the record simply does not support the implementation of a 1-B Option. And I think that is a very important point of this. But I have to say, if I could continue for just a moment longer, the saddest aspect in all of this to me, as someone who has tried to work on these issues in a positive way for more than 20 years now, is how we seem to pit dairy farmers against dairy farmers, that somehow good dairy policy has to help one at the expense of the other. And I think it is very important that we go on record tonight to say that all of us recognize there are no dairy farmers in good shape today. Whether they are milking cows in the Northeast or the South or the Midwest, the upper Midwest, out on the West Coast or anywhere in America, they are not receiving a fair return on their labor and on their products. We have heard the figures here tonight, and they are really startling. If people would just stop and think about what it would mean in their own lives, as my good friend and neighbor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) stated, if overnight an individual's income was reduced by 40 percent. Farmers are receiving in real terms the same dollar for their product today as they did in 1978. Cost of living, input, production costs, as we have heard, since 1982, have increased 60 percent; and that is a reality whether a farmer is in New York or Wisconsin. And it saddens me deeply to have to find ourselves time and time again opposing representatives who are good of heart, who are trying to represent their dairy farmers as well, as though somehow we have to hurt some to even marginally help another. New York's dairy history is a sad one in recent years. Built on a proud tradition, we have lost more than 8,000 dairy farmers over the past 10 years or so. Milk cows in New York have decreased by some 23 percent. So there are no winners in this. And what really confuses me in the fight that we will see tomorrow on 1-A and 1-B is that somehow the folks who think that by adopting 1-B their dairy farmers will prosper are simply wrong. Every region of the country, including the upper Midwest, who seem to be most supportive of this, will, at the end of the day, when the market order reforms are taken into consideration and when the pricing structures for Class 3 milk are taken into consideration will lose money. The class pricing changes for Class 3 will mean a loss of some $30 million to farmers in the upper Midwest. So 1-A, 1-B is not a fight of who will do well but rather a fight of who is going to be hurt less, and I think that is a very, very disturbing aspect. And there is another important point that for all of the debate I have heard in support of 1-A and 1-B, particularly those who are favoring 1-B, that somehow other farmers are receiving more for their milk. Well, as my boyhood hero Paul Harvey used to say, ``Here is the rest of the story.'' The reality is that when we factor in all of the price components, what a farmer is paid for his or her milk, dairy farmers in the upper Midwest have traditionally, historically, and continue today to receive more than the farmers do in, say the Northeast. In the Chicago regional market, for example, when we factor in the cost under the market order support, when we factor in the various premiums that they receive, those farmers obtain 55 to 66 cents per hundredweight more than farmers in the Northeast. So while my heart goes out to those farmers and while I definitely and strongly support things that we can and should be doing to help them as well, this action, 1-A versus 1-B, will not be the salvation, will not reach out and help dairy farmers in the upper Midwest, will not, as I have heard time and time again, level the playing field. We cannot have a responsible dairy policy that indeed encourages the production of fluid milk, affordable, wholesome fluid milk in every part of the country, a policy objective that I think is so very sound, so very important, by taking away annual farm income, depending on whose figures you read, anywhere from $360 to $560 million a year. And that is why this is so very, very important. In our part of the world, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and myself, and I know it is reflected in the districts of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), and all the other Members, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink) is going to speak shortly, in all of our regions dairy farmers are important for what they do, for what they produce. But it is more than that. We have to help people understand that when a dairy farm goes out of business, it is not just a few buildings becoming vacant, it is not just that no longer is that field populated with dairy cows. It is a loss of business of devastating proportions to our local communities, a loss of an incredibly important, I would argue irreplaceable, fabric in the social and economic fabric of a community. We lose our neighbors. They no longer shop at the local supermarket. They do not go to the feed store, implement store. They are no longer purchasing products from the hardware store on down to the local book store. So it is an important thing for consumers. It is an important thing certainly for the preservation of, in the State of New York, the largest segment of our largest industry, agriculture. And it is important, too, that we preserve this way of life. I would like to believe that over time we can begin to work together with all of our friends here in this Congress who care very deeply about their dairy farmers as well and evolve a policy that helps all of these folks stay in business, to the betterment of each and every American. Again, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue and for the chance to be here this evening.

Mr. MCHUGH

Mr. MCHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1327) to designate the United States Postal Service building located at 34480 Highway 101 South in Cloverdale, Oregon, as the ``Maurine B. Neuberger United States Post Office.''

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. 1327.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the Record reflect that an error occurred with regard to my vote on Mr. Goss's amendment which prohibits DOD funding to maintain a permanent U.S. military presence in Haiti beyond December 31, 1999. On June 9, I was recorded as voting ``nay'' on rollcall No. 183 when in fact I voted ``aye'' on the amendment.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Dennis. One of the most significant study missions that we have done in recent years has been to Cuba. In December of 1996, the Association sent a delegation of current and former Members of Congress to Cuba on this study mission to assess the situation there and to analyze the effectiveness of U.S. policies toward Cuba. Upon its return, the delegation wrote a report of its findings which was widely disseminated through print and visual media, and was made available to Members of the House and the Senate, as well as to officials in the executive branch. There was also a follow-up to this initial study mission which was conducted in January of this year. Again, the delegation was bipartisan; it made a report upon its return, and that report has gotten widespread dissemination, and hopefully some attention as well. We expect that there will be two additional bipartisan teams of former Members of Congress who will travel to Cuba this fall and will hold workshops in regional centers on topics of particular concern to the leaders in those areas. This program with Cuba is funded by the Ford Foundation. At this point I would like to yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Wheat) to report on this year's study mission, and he was a participant in that.

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Alan. As I mentioned earlier, one of the things we do is organize study tours to a variety of countries in which Members and their spouses at their own expense participate in educational and cultural experiences. We have had a number of very interesting study tours, including ones to Canada, China, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, the former Soviet Union, Western and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South America. I want to alert the membership that later this year in the fall we are going to be planning a study tour to Italy. This should be fascinating, not only because of Italy itself, but we have three former Members of Congress who are presently in Rome as ambassadors. Tom Foglietta is our Ambassador to Italy; Lindy Boggs, a former Chair of our Association, is the Ambassador to the Holy See at the Vatican; and George McGovern is our Ambassador to the Food and Agriculture Association. So we anticipate we will be well treated and that the study tour will be a very interesting one when we go in the fall. In September of 1998 the Association conducted a study tour of Vietnam, and I would like to invite the gentleman from Virginia, Bob Daniel, to report briefly on that trip.

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Bob. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the Association conducts a wide variety of programs, some of which we have touched on this morning and which we hope to expand. This would not be possible without the support and active work of a number of people, and I would like to acknowledge the support we have had from our Board of Directors and our Counselors. In particular, I would like to thank the officers of the Association, John Erlenborn, who is chairing this session today and is our Vice President; Larry LaRocco, who is our Treasurer; and Jack Buechner, who is our Secretary. They have done a fantastic job. As others have said, Lou Frey, as our former Chair, also serves on our Executive Board. We also want to thank the Auxiliary, whose members have been instrumental, among other things, in making our Life After Congress seminars successful, in helping Members make the transition from the Congress to life after Congress. We would not be able to do anything if we did not have a very capable staff, and many of you are familiar with our staff and I know are grateful for their work. I would like to acknowledge their support: Linda Reed, our Executive Director; Peter Weichlein, our Program Officer, with special responsibility for the Study Group on Germany; Victor Kytasty, who is our Congressional Fellow in Ukraine; and Walt Raymond, who many of you know is our Senior Advisor for International Programs and works to put together many of these international efforts. We also maintain relations as an Association with the Association of Former Parliamentarians in other countries, and we are very pleased at lunch today we are going to have Barry Turner once again representing the former parliamentarians in Canada. We will hear a few words from Barry, for those of you who will join us for lunch. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform the House of those persons who have served in Congress and have passed away since our report last year. The deceased Members of Congress are the following: Watkins Abbitt of Virginia; Thomas Abernethy of Mississippi; E.Y. Berry of South Dakota; Gary Brown of Michigan; Lawton Chiles of Florida; James McClure Clarke of North Carolina; Jeffrey Cohelan of California; George Danielson of California; David W. Dennis of Indiana; Charles Diggs, Jr., of Michigan; Carl Elliott of Alabama; Dante B. Fascell of Florida; Barry Goldwater, Sr., of Arizona; Albert Gore, Sr., of Tennessee; Robert A. Grant of Indiana; Floyd K. Haskell of Colorado; Roman L. Hruska of Nebraska; Muriel Humphrey of Minnesota; Albert W. Johnson of Pennsylvania; Joe M. Kilgore of Texas; Walter Moeller of Ohio; Wilmer D. Mizell of North Carolina; Abraham Ribicoff of Connecticut; Will Rogers, Jr., of California; D.F. Slaughter of Virginia; Gene Taylor of Missouri; Morris K. Udall of Arizona; Prentiss Walker of Mississippi; Compton L. White of Idaho; Chalmers Wylie of Ohio; and Sam Yorty of California. I would respectfully ask all of you to rise for just a moment of silence in the memory of our deceased Members. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the highlight of our presentation this morning. As you know, the Association presents a Distinguished Service Award to an outstanding public servant each year. The award rotates between the parties, as do the officers in our Association. Last year, the award was presented jointly to two exceptional former Republican Senators, Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Howard Baker. This year, as you know, we are pleased to be honoring the former House Speaker, Jim Wright. Jim Wright was born in Fort Worth, Texas, a city he represented in Congress from 1955 through 1989. He completed public school in 10 years and was on his way to finishing college in 3 years when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Following enlistment in the Army Air Corps, Jim received his flyer's wings and a commission at 19. He flew combat missions in the South Pacific and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and Legion of Merit. After the war, Jim was elected to the Texas legislature at age 23. At age 26 he became the youngest mayor in Texas when voters chose him to head their city government in Weatherford, his boyhood home. Elected to Congress at the age of 31, Jim served 18 consecutive terms and authored major legislation in the fields of foreign affairs, economic development, water conservation, education, energy and many others. Speaker Wright received worldwide recognition for his efforts to bring peace to Central America. He served 10 years as majority leader before being sworn in as Speaker on January 6, 1987. He was reelected as Speaker in January of 1989. A member of Congress for 34 years, Jim served with eight U.S. presidents and has met and come to know many foreign heads of state and current leaders of nations. A prolific writer, he has authored numerous books. He currently serves as a Senior Political Consultant to American Income Life Insurance Company and Arch Petroleum. He writes a frequent newspaper column, which I hope many of you have had the chance to read. I have. They are very insightful. And he occasionally appears on network television news programs. In addition, he is a visiting professor at Texas Christian University where he teaches a course entitled ``Congress and the Presidents.'' This is a particularly difficult time for Jim. Among other things, he is moving his residence now, and that is why Betty, his wife, could not be with us. But we are really delighted that his daughter Ginger has come with him from Texas to be with us for this occasion. Jim, if you would come up, I have two presentations to make. The first is a plaque. I am sure Jim has no plaques at home any more. I am going to read the inscription on this plaque, Jim; and I am going to read it from the paper since my eyes cannot read the inscription on the plaque. But I hope you can. It says: ``Presented by the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress to the Honorable Jim Wright for his exemplary service to the State of Texas and the Nation as a combat pilot in World War II and recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross, as a mayor and State legislator, and as a Member of the United States Congress for 34 years, including his distinguished leadership as Majority Leader and Speaker of the House of Representatives. Washington, D.C., May 13, 1999.'' On a more personal note, I am presenting Jim on behalf of all of us a scrapbook, which includes personal letters from many of us here and others who feel so strongly that Jim has contributed to the Congress and the country in ways which cannot be fully expressed but for which we are all deeply grateful. So, Jim, these are some of the letters, and I am sure there will be others coming in the mail. We would invite you, Jim, to say whatever you would like. We are delighted you are here, and we are very proud of your service.

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Jim. We hope that this is of interest to you because we are involved in a wide variety of these international-related programs and we think that is something that at one time or another you can participate in productively. We would like to say a few words about a number of these, and I understand that we are flexible in terms of timing. So the most important thing we are doing this morning is honoring Speaker Jim Wright and we want to leave adequate time for that, but we will cover a few of these additional items since we have the time available. One of the things that we do is act as a secretariat for the Congressional Study Group on Japan, which, similar to the Study Group on Germany, brings together Members of the U.S. Congress and the Japanese Diet and enables former Members of Congress to participate as well in these discussions of common interest. We find that to be very productive and helpful, especially at times when there is a little tension between the two countries on issues like trade. We are in the process of trying to expand our activities as well by creating exchange programs with China and with Mexico. These are obviously two countries of great interest to the United States and the Congress in particular, and given our experience with the Study Group on Germany and the Study Group on Japan, we think that we are well positioned to serve as a secretariat for these programs as well. In the aftermath of the political changes in Europe, the Association began a series of programs in 1989 to assist the emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. With funding from the USIA, the Association sent bipartisan teams of former Members, accompanied by either a congressional or a country expert to the Czech Republic, to Slovakia, Hungary and Poland for up to two weeks. They conducted workshops and provided instruction in legislative issues for the new Members of parliament in these emerging democracies. We also worked with their staffs and other people involved in the legislative process. Public appearances were also made by Members of our delegations in these emerging democracies also. The Association arranged briefings with Members of Congress and their staffs, meetings with other U.S. Government officials, and personnel at the Congressional Support Service organizations. Visits to congressional districts to give them the opportunity to observe the operation of district offices in our home towns. Also with the funding of USIA the Association sent a technical adviser to the Hungarian Parliament in 1991 to 1993. With financial support from the Pew Charitable Trust in 1994, the Association assigned technical advisors to the Slovak and Ukrainian Parliaments. The initial support was supplemented by grants from the Rule of Law Program, the Mott Foundation, the Eurasia Foundation, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and we had a Congressional Fellow in Slovakia until 1996. Our program in the Ukraine has been quite successful, and since 1995 we have managed an intern effort there, which has provided assistance to the legislators in the Ukraine Parliament, something which they would not otherwise have had without our support. I would like to yield briefly to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hertel) to report on the program in Ukraine.

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

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You are a very distinguished leader, and I am ready for retirement in Florida, I suppose. It is a delight for all of us and a real honor to be here to present our 29th annual report to the Congress. General Leave

Mr. McHUGH. It is very clear that Jim Wright is as eloquent with his second jaw as he was with his first. Jim, we are truly proud of you and take joy in your being with us today and giving us the opportunity to honor you for your many years of service. I would like at this point sort of extra-record to invite our former distinguished minority leader and friend, Bob Michel, to say a word.

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Larry and Jack. As most of you know, the Association is not funded by the Congress, and therefore, in order to conduct our educational programs, programs like the Congress to Campus Program and others, we need to initiate fund-raising efforts and raise the money ourselves. As part of that effort, in 1998, we initiated an annual fund-raising dinner and auction which we repeated earlier this year on February 23. Both of these dinners, if my colleagues attended, they know were quite successful, both socially and financially, and we owe much of that success to the chair of those two dinners, the gentleman from Florida, Lou Frey, who is our former President of the Association as well. So I would like to invite the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frey) to not only tell us about this year's dinner, but also to alert us to next year's dinner. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. (Mr. FREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Bob. Thanks to all of you for being with us today and participating, especially since it was a special opportunity to honor Jim Wright. We have a program for the rest of the day. We hope that many of you will be able to participate in it. Of course, tonight we have our dinner. So, again, thank you for being with us. This does conclude the 29th Annual Report of the U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress. Thank you. Mr. ERLENBORN (presiding). The Chair again wishes to thank the members of the United States Association of Former Members of Congress for their presence here today. Before terminating these proceedings, the Chair would like to invite any former Members who did not respond when the role was called to give their names to the reading clerks for inclusion on the role. Good luck to you all. The Chair announces that the House will reconvene at 10:45 a.m. Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 28 minutes a.m.), the House continued in recess.

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you very much, Lou. We hope that all of you will be at the dinner next year, February 22. Lou really has done a magnificent job in heading up that dinner for two years in a row, and it is a fun time. We have talked about our Congress to Campus Program, which is our most important domestic activity, and we have also engaged in a wide variety of international activities which many of you have participated in and have enjoyed. We facilitate interaction and dialogue between leaders of other nations and the United States. We have arranged more than 380 special events at the Capitol for distinguished international delegations from 85 countries and the European parliaments. We have programmed short-term visits of Members of those parliaments and long- term visits here of parliamentary staff. We have hosted 45 foreign policy seminars in nine countries involving more than 1,000 former and current Members of the U.S. Congress and foreign parliamentarians, and we have conducted 17 study tours abroad for Members of Congress and former Members of Congress. We also serve, as many of you know, as the secretariat for the Congressional Study Group on Germany, which is the largest and most active exchange program between the United States Congress and the parliament of another country. This was founded in 1987 in the House of Representatives and the following year in the Senate. It involves a bipartisan group of more than 135 Members of the House and Senate. It provides opportunities for Members of Congress to meet with their counterparts in the German Bundestag and to enhance understanding and greater cooperation between the two bodies. Ongoing study group activities include conducting a distinguished visitors' program at the United States Capitol for guests from Germany; sponsoring annual seminars involving Members of the Congress and the German Bundestag; providing information about participation in the Youth Exchange Program that we cosponsor with the Bundestag and the Congress; and arranging for Members of the Bundestag to visit congressional districts in our own country with Members of the current Congress. This is a program which is active and growing. The Congressional Study Group on Germany is funded primarily by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and we have now gotten support, financial support from six corporations that serve as a Business Advisory Committee as well. I would like to invite now and yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Slattery) to report on the most recent meeting in Kreuth, Germany, which was held on March 30 to April 2 for the Study Group.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, we want to especially thank the Speaker for being here to greet us and to thank the Minority Leader and all the Members of Congress in fact for giving us the privilege to be here in this institution that we know and love. We were pleased also to hear the remarks not only of the Speaker but of the Majority Leader and Minority Whip, Mr. Bonior, not only because they welcomed us so warmly but because the positive tone of those remarks is encouraging to many of us. I think we have been concerned about the increasing partisanship that has characterized much of the debate in Congress in recent times. Strong arguments on policy differences are healthy, and we expect that, but the negative tone has at times seemed excessive. This, together with some of the negative campaigning, I think has contributed to some of the public displeasure with politics and government. I say that because, in this context, it was very encouraging to many of us when the Speaker and the Minority Leader opened the Congress. I am sure many of you watched this on TV, or perhaps were here yourselves personally, but they were eloquent really in pledging to work cooperatively to establish a much more positive climate in the Congress. They did not disavow their contrasting views, which was appropriate, but they did commit to restoring a more congenial spirit in which lively debate and legislative action could proceed. I mention this in part because the Association of Former Members subsequently joined with the Council for Excellence in Government in publicly commending the leaders for getting the new Congress off to such a positive start, and we also offered to work in some constructive way with them to foster this positive climate. For example, we proposed that we cosponsor with them a joint town meeting, perhaps on a college campus, at which the Speaker and the Minority Leader could appear together and talk about this Congress and the agenda that they will be pursuing. This was just one idea, and it is entirely up to them as to whether they want to take us up on that offer. But I think the point we want to make is that as an Association, on a bipartisan basis, we want to encourage them not to agree on all of the issues they have legitimate disagreements on, but we want to encourage them to promote even further this climate of positive debate in terms of the issues. We discussed this issue, if you recall, at our last Association annual meeting a year ago, and at that time we talked about ways in which we might come up with some concrete proposals to help the leadership in this respect, and I report to you on this as a follow-up to that discussion. Our most important activity perhaps is our Congress to Campus Program, which continues to reach out to citizens across the country, particularly to our college students. We believe that this effort conveys important insights about the Congress and promotes a much more positive view on the part of the public of the institution of the Congress. As you know, what we do is send out bipartisan teams, a Republican and a Democrat who served in the Congress, to make 2\1/2\ days of meetings available to not only students on college campuses but to others in the community; and through these formal and informal meetings we share our firsthand experiences of the operations of the Congress and our democratic form of government. Since this was initiated in 1976, 113 former Members of Congress have reached more than 150,000 students through 259 visits to 177 campuses in 49 States and the District of Columbia. Beginning with the 96-97 academic year, the Congress to Campus Program has been conducted jointly with the Stennis Center for Public Service in Mississippi. The former Members of Congress donate their time to this program, the Stennis Center pays transportation costs, and the hosting institution provides room and board for the visiting former Members. This is something which I know some of you have participated in. We certainly encourage others of you to let us know if you would like to do that. Those of us who have done it have enjoyed it very much, and I am sure all of you would as well. What I would like to do at this point is yield to the gentleman from Missouri, Jack Buechner, and to the gentleman from Idaho, Larry LaRocco, who will discuss briefly their recent visits to college communities under this program. Jack.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, as all of America knows, on December 11 and 23, the House Judiciary Committee approved four separate articles of impeachment against the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton. Today, with profound sorrow, but firm conviction, I cast my vote in support of Articles 1 and 2 of those charges. Articles 3 and 4, while constituting disturbing accusations alleging obstruction of justice and the failure of the President to deal honestly with the House of Representatives in the discharge of its constitutional duties, do not, in my judgment, contain sufficient specificity of clear and unquestioned misconduct to rise to a level of an impeachable offense. Clearly, however, the accusations described in Article 3 strongly suggest activity that warrants further examination and possible legal action against the President following the conclusion of his current term of office. This has been the most difficult and heart-wrenching decision I have ever faced in my 14 years of elective office. It is a circumstance I never envisioned and it's certainly a choice I never sought to make. And yet, the honor the good people of the 24th Congressional District have bestowed upon me requires that I now make a judgment. For the past 12 months, I have watched and listened as the President's predicament has evolved. With each new revelation, with each additional shred of evidence, it has become increasingly clear that the President has committed grievous wrongs. Still, like most Americans, I wanted desperately to forgive, to heal, and to direct our Nation's gaze toward other challenges. Sadly, the continued failure of the President to face his guilt fully and honestly, in addition to the overwhelming body of highly credible evidence, no longer permits me such a course. To those who would say this action of impeachment is the result of nothing more than an admittedly unseemly, but nevertheless consensual, relationship between two adults, I would respond that I deeply wish it were so. I would much prefer to leave judgment of highly private transgressions to those who have been most directly harmed by them. While the President's indiscretions did, in fact, add to and even help light the path to his current legal troubles, they are not the cause of my decision today. In this instance, my vote is based on the fact that the America of today has grown from certain convictions of the past. Our democracy has outlived all others because, through all our marvelous diversity, we have always shared certain common bonds: belief in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the recognition that all are created and must live equally. The binding force of our national ideals has always been the rule of law--the recognition that the passage of the tyranny of kings brought an era wherein no citizen, man or woman, for lack of power or position, would ever be judged differently from all others. For some 222 years, that irreplaceable belief has nurtured our freedom and our liberties. It's that belief that the President's actions have so directly assailed and, as such, requires my affirmative vote on Articles 1 and 2. When the President submitted a false affidavit to the courts during the Paula Jones case, he was going far beyond an illegal, yet somewhat understandable, effort to conceal an illicit affair. He was, instead, attempting to avoid legal responsibility for his alleged actions of sexual harassment of an employee during his tenure as Governor of the State of Arkansas. To excuse the deliberate act of falsifying testimony in a Federal civil rights case because the truth may have proven somehow embarrassing would be to lay waste to the essential tenet that an oath of honesty before a court requires the whole truth, no matter how disruptive or unfortunate its consequences. The President knowingly and willfully ignored this solemn duty, a failure that in America today has caused dozens of citizens to be incarcerated in prisons, denied of their liberty and rights, simply for not telling the truth. As tragic as this original failure was unto itself, the President went beyond, seeking to further obscure, conspiring to conceal. When the President again swore an oath of honesty before a federal grand jury and repeated his deceptions, he again crossed a line that cannot be ignored. To do so would be to say to the thousands of Americans that each day pledge their truthfulness in the courtrooms of this land that their oath is meaningless as well, and that like their President, their personal convenience is the superior concern. I firmly believe such a message would result in a dangerous and irreversible decline in the respect for our Nation's laws, our judicial system, and the liberties we rely upon them to protect. I realize there are those who will claim that this impeachment is but an attempt to secure some political advantage or revenge. Such assertions are wholly without foundation and in themselves seek political gain. In truth, the easy political path would be to turn from this crisis, pretending that somehow it all never occurred. But thoughtful people understand that, in our democracy, where the heart may be fooled, the head will not be deceived. The false, short-term sense of security that such a self-deception might produce would be buried under the longer term costs of a nation blind to the wrongdoings of its highest official. Through its actions today, the House seeks not to imprison or punish this President as we normally use these terms. Rather, we seek to express our outrage and dismay at his lawlessness through the sole means provided to us under the Constitution. Whether the President is held to account through a trial and possible removal from office is a question solely to be decided by the Senate. I, for one, would accept, even welcome, their mercy. But through the adoption of these articles of impeachment, the House of Representatives seeks to reaffirm our most solemn national principle that in the United States, equal treatment under the law requires its universal and uniform respect. I join those who long for a conclusion to this seemingly endless and trying ordeal. But, for the sake of those who will follow us, and in solemn respect for those who have sacrificed and gone before, that end must be reached in a fashion that, above all else, preserves the high principles and standards upon which this great Nation was built. To do otherwise would be to dishonor the blood that has been spilled by so many in pursuit and preservation of the American dream. To do otherwise would be to hasten the goal of so many others whose perverse objective is a world of tomorrow that is devoid of American honor and ideals. I cannot, I will not, be an accomplice to such a foul scheme. To the President and his family, I would say I am deeply saddened by your pain. I pray that you find peace and redemption from your anguish. In his remarks to the American people on December 11, the President recalled the words of Omar Khayyam, wherein he noted the futility of struggling to erase the failures of the past. Truly, those words hold much wisdom. It is important to remember, however, that especially in this most holy time of year, the greatest promise our faith can provide is that of redemption from our transgressions. The first step in that salvation is the acceptance of our failings. May our actions this day, as wrenching as they may be, hasten us up the long, difficult path to a higher and better place. May God bless America.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2349) 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. Madam Speaker, with an additional compliment and thank you to the gentlewoman from California, I would like to urge all of our colleagues to support this very worthy nominee.

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 2349 was introduced by our distinguished colleague from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) on July 31 of 1997; and as required under the rules of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, all Members of the House delegation from the State of California are cosponsors of this bill. In addition, 46 other Members of this body are cosponsors of the bill honoring former Representative Hawkins. Madam Speaker, this bill designates the Federal building located at 10301 South Compton Avenue, Los Angeles, California, known as the Watts Finance Office as the Augustus F. Hawkins Post Office Building. H.R. 2349 was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on July 31 of 1997. On October 1 of 1998, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure discharged the measure, and it was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I am pleased that we are able to bring this legislation to the floor, and I certainly want to congratulate the gentlewoman from California for her hard work in seeing this measure to the end. We had the opportunity to discuss the bill at the end of last week, and there was some confusion as to the path that this legislation has taken, and I commend her for not being deterred by that confusion but sticking with it and bringing us to this moment and this opportunity to pass this measure. Madam Speaker, I know the gentlewoman will have a great deal to say about our former colleague, Augustus Hawkins. I would just note that, like so many individuals who have had the honor bestowed upon them of a Post Office-naming legislation, he, too, is an example of the kind of service, the kind of commitment to community that I think merits this kind of designation. Through his service in the California State legislature for some 28 years, often during that period as the only African American member, he authored some 100 laws attempting to improve such things as child care, housing and fair employment. Of course later, when in 1962 he was elected to the Congress of the United States, he continued to make those kinds of contributions and those kinds of efforts on behalf of all of his constituents. So I certainly commend the gentlewoman from California for her dedication to this initiative and for bringing us yet another very deserving designee. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this measure. 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. 2349.

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, 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. 4052) to establish designations for United States Postal Service buildings located in Coconut Grove, Opa Locka, Carol City, and Miami, Florida, as amended.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with a closing thanks to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) for his leadership on this issue, I would highly recommend all of our colleagues support us in this very meritorious renaming bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1298 was introduced by Senator Shelby on October 20, 1997, and the bill passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on June 2 of this year, and a message on Senate action was sent to the House on June 3. John McKinley was a U.S. Senator and the first United States Supreme Court Justice from the State of Alabama. A Virginian by birth, he practiced law in Kentucky. He was a self-taught lawyer. He moved to Alabama in 1818, becoming a member of the Cypress Land Company, which was then the largest single purchaser of land in north Alabama, along with a gentleman by the name of Andrew Jackson. In 1820, Mr. McKinley was elected to the Alabama State legislature. He then proceeded to have a long, historic and extremely distinguished public career. The State legislature elected Mr. McKinley to the U.S. Senate in 1826, where he served until 1831. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by voice vote of the Senate in September of 1837. Mr. Speaker, our colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), introduced a similar bill, H.R. 1804, also honoring Justice McKinley, which was cosponsored by the entire delegation from the great State of Alabama, and I want to thank him and that delegation for working with the other body, working with Senator Shelby, and bringing us not just a deserving individual, obviously, but one who represents a great period in the history of this country, obviously a great period that continues to this day in the history of the great State of Alabama. I thank him for his efforts. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.