John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us, H.R. 2700 was unanimously approved as amended by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. H.R. 2700 designates the U.S. Post Office building located at 7980 FM 327, Elmendorf, TX, as the ``Amos F. Longoria Post Office Building.'' The amendment corrects the address to read 8302 FM 327 and modifies the title of the bill to reflect the change. H.R. 2700 was introduced by the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Tejeda] and was cosponsored by the full Texas House Delegation, pursuant to committee policy. H.R. 2700 honors Amos F. Longoria who was born in Elmendorf on September 12, 1924. He was one of seven children of Bonaficio and Juanita F. Longoria. Amos Longoria was drafted into the U.S. Army in April 1943 during his last year of high school; he reported for basic training at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio. He volunteered to serve in the European theater during World War II, was assigned to the 30th Infantry, 3d Division and saw combat in the Italian campaign. Amos Longoria was wounded during the first 6 months of his joining the military but he returned to duty shortly thereafter. He was mortally wounded on November 13, 1943 at the crossing of the Rapido River in Italy and died in an army hospital in Italy on November 19, 1943 at the age of 19. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support H.R. 2700 as amended, a bill naming the Post Office Building in honor of a local, young hero who served when called and died in service to your country. 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. 2700) to designate the United States Post Office building located at 7980 FM 327, Elmendorf, TX, as the ``Amos F. Longoria Post Office Building'', as amended.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, Monday, July 1, 1996, will mark the beginning of the 26th year of operations for the U.S. Postal Service under the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. That act has worked well for the past 25 years. However, changing market conditions and advances in communications technology necessitate that Congress revisit the legislative infrastructure of the Postal Service to ensure its continued viability and financial well-being into the next century. Today I am introducing the Postal Reform Act of 1996. This measure represents the first comprehensive reform effort involving the U.S. Postal Service since 1970. For the past year and a half the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, which I chair, has conducted in- depth and lengthy hearings on the U.S. Postal Service. During these hearings we heard from more than 60 witnesses representing all facets of the postal community. In addition, I have had the opportunity to meet with a variety of individual postal customers, postal employees, and business leaders from some of our Nation's major corporations regarding postal affairs. I have listened and attempted to absorb the varying comments and interests put forth on and off the record. Ideally, this legislation addresses many of those issues. Before outlining the details of the bill, let me say that the one central point of consensus in all my discussions has been the continuing need to maintain universal postal service to all of our citizens at a uniform, affordable rate. Coming as I do from a predominantly rural area, I believe that maintenance of a universal postal system is the cornerstone of any reform measure. I strongly believe universal service at reasonable rates remains the primary mission of the U.S. Postal Service. However, shifting mail volumes and stagnant postal revenue growth require Congress to reexamine the statutory structure under which our current postal system now operates if we are to maintain this important public service mission. During the conducting of our oversight hearings, the subcommittee heard a number of witnesses describe methods of communications that were not imaginable in 1970. At that time, who could have foreseen the explosion of personal computers, the Internet, and facsimile machines as methods of communication? There has been a steady erosion of what used to be standard correspondence moving through the U.S. Mail that now moves electronically or via carriage by a number of private urgent mail carriers. According to reports of the General Accounting Office, the U.S. Postal Service controlled virtually all of the express mail market in the early 1970's; by 1995 its share had dropped to approximately 13 percent. Similarly, the Postal Service is moving considerably fewer parcels today than 25 years ago. In 1971 the Postal Service handled 536 million parcel pieces and enjoyed a 65 percent share of the ground surface delivery market. Compare this to 1990 when the Postal Service parcel volume had dropped to 122 million pieces with a resulting market share of about 6 percent. Even the Postal Service's ``bread and butter,'' first-class financial transactions and personal correspondence mail, are beginning to show the effect of electronic alternatives. Financial institutions are promoting computer software to consumers as a method of conducting their billpaying and general banking, while Internet service providers and online subscription services are offering consumers the ability to send electronic messages to anyone in the world or around the corner. Similarly, many of us have become accustomed to the immediacy of the facsimile machine. These new communication technologies all carry correspondence that formerly flowed through the Postal Service. These former sources of revenues supported a postal infrastructure dedicated to the mission of universal service. This shift in postal revenues will have a negative long-term effect on the financial well being of the Postal Service. Should the service continue to labor under the parameters established by the 1970 act, its inability to compete, develop new products and respond to changing market conditions jeopardizes its ability to continue to provide universal service to the diverse geographic areas of our Nation. We must make adjustments to the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 which will allow the Postal Service more flexibility in those areas in which it faces competition while assuring all postal customers of a continued universal mail service with the protection of reasonable rates that can be easily calculated and predicted. My legislation meets this goal by replacing the zero-sum game that has driven postal ratemaking for the last 25 years with a system that reflects today's changing communication markets. Mr. Speaker, I propose to allow the U.S. Postal Service the opportunity to make a profit and remove the break-even financial mandate of existing law that promotes the wide, yearly, swings of postal profit and deficit and weeks of negotiations on arcane economic assumptions for ratemaking purposes. I propose to divide the product offerings of the Postal Service into two primary categories. The first, the ``non-competitive mail'' category, represents all single piece letters, cards and parcels as well as those classes of users without significant alternatives. The class will utilize a postage rate cap process by which the associated customers can easily determine postal rates. The second category will be the competitive mail category and will include those mail classes, products and services the Postal Service provides through the competitive marketplace. Within this category the Postal Service may set its rates according to market forces subject to an annual audit provided to the Postal Rate Commission to assure that rates are reflective of costs while providing a contribution to the overhead of the U.S. Postal Service. In addition, it would allow the Postal Service freedom to experiment with new offerings for a period of 3 years before requiring the Postal Rate Commission to permanently place it in either the competitive or non-competitive mail categories. This legislation grants significant freedoms and flexibility to the Postal Service. Consequently, other changes are needed to reflect this status. I propose to remove the safety net of the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Financing Bank from postal operations and repeal the remaining authorizations for taxpayer appropriations to the Postal Service. Similarly, I propose to apply the anti-trust laws of our Nation to the Postal Service products offered in either the competitive mail or the experimental market test categories. I am also proposing that the Postal Service conduct a demonstration project that will provide us with the data needed to determine the continued necessity of providing the Postal Service with sole access to individual private mailboxes. This bill, Mr. Speaker, will also settle once and for all the nagging problem of an agency's chief law enforcement officer and member of postal management serving as its Inspector General by establishing an independent, Presidentially-appointed, Inspector General for the Postal Service. The bill enacts stringent reporting requirements to the Congress and to the U.S. Postal Rate Commission by providing the Commission with the ability to issue subpoenas, manage proprietary documentation and procure necessary information. This legislation places significant responsibilities on the Commission and, reflective of that, directs that the Commission will have for the first time its own Inspector General. My proposal, Mr. Speaker, also increases the penalties for repeated mailings of unsolicited sexually oriented advertising as well as the mailing of hazardous materials and controlled substances. It protects workers on the job by making it a felony to stalk, assault or rob a postal employee. Just this past month we saw a letter carrier killed while on duty in our Nation's capital and we cannot allow those that would harm or rob postal carriers to go without significant punishment. My proposal addresses this serious situation by increasing the penalties for such acts of violence. I stress that significant areas of current law remain intact. This legislation does not affect the existing collective-bargaining process. However, the subcommittee recognizes that serious problems exist between postal management and labor. To address this serious situation, I propose to form a Presidentially appointed commission made up of non- postal union and corporate representatives as well as those well known in the field of labor-management relations. The commission would be charged with addressing these issues in detail and provide guidance to the Congress and the Postal Service on any needed changes.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, the following letter by Postmaster General Marvin Runyon was published in the June 1, 1996 Washington Post as a rebuttal to an earlier Washington Post column calling for the creation of a Government commission to address the complex issues of postal reform. The authors of the original article--Messrs. David Ginsburg, Murray Comarow, Robert Hardesty and David Harris--argued in their guest column, ``Delivery for the Postal Service,'' that postal reform would best be addressed through the creation of a Government commission to report and analyze these important public policy issues. While I do not embrace that conclusion, I included their column in the Congressional Record of June 6. In his rebuttal, Mr. Runyon argues to the contrary and says that the Postal Service cannot wait for results of findings of a commission. Mr. Runyon stresses that the Postal Service has begun to meet the demands of today's mail delivery and that legislative reforms are needed to keep it thriving for years to come. I will be introducing such legislation in the next few days. [From the Washington Post, June 1, 1996] Already Delivering (By Marvin Runyon) Were the Postal Service a private company, it would be the ninth-largest business in the United States. It is bigger than Coca-Cola, Xerox and Eastman Kodak--combined. With more than 750,000 employees in all U.S. states and territories, the U.S. Postal Service is the largest civilian employer in the country--accounting for one out of every 170 U.S. paychecks. Last year, the Postal Service delivered 181 billion pieces of mail--more pieces in a day than Federal Express delivers in a year. No doubt the complex and amazing U.S. Postal Service faces some serious challenges. But does anyone seriously believe that this calls for creating another government commission? In their article of May 20 [``Delivery for the Postal Service,'' op-ed] four friends of the Postal Service--David Ginsburg, Murray Comarow, Robert L. Hardesty and David F. Harris--argue for just such a panel. The fact is, the Postal Service can't wait for a commission. We've already begun to turn things around. No tax dollars fill our coffers. And the real price of a stamp, when adjusted for inflation, is about the same today as it was in 1971. But today's Postal Service makes a profit. Last year, we earned $1.8 billion. So far, we're on track to earn between $700 million and $900 million in fiscal 1996. In 1995 we set a record of 88 percent for on-time delivery. We expect to set a new record when new statistics are released next week. Moreover, we intend to raise our national on-time delivery average for local first-class mail to 92 percent by next year. By 2000, we are aiming for 95 percent or better, with similar improvements in other service categories. We're also working to raise revenue and exploring the universe of technology. In the coming months, we will be launching hybrid mail services that combine the speed of computer messaging with the security and impact of the U.S. Mail. We'll also be introducing electronic money transfer services, international catalogue shopping, convenient new bill-paying methods and dozens of new services available at our 40,000 post offices. And we're increasing service, not costs, by reengineering the way we deliver the mail. Last year, we launched a new blueprint for excellence called CustomerPerfect!, which is helping us examine how we deliver the mail every step along the way, from the back dock to the customer's mailbox. At the same time, we're working to reduce labor costs, which account for some 80 percent of our annual budget. But more must be done. Legislative reform is needed to allow the Postal Service to keep pace with the communications business; for example, to offer business customers volume discounts and customized service contracts. We need the authority to test new products more easily and bring them to market more quickly. And we need changes that will bring labor negotiations back to the bargaining table so we can better control our costs. The Postal Service doesn't need a commission. It needs to have the shackles of government regulation loosened so it can continue its commitment to excellence.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 20, 1996, a column in the Washington Post discussed many of the issues facing the Postal Service today. This guest column was written by David Ginsburg, a member of the former Kappel Commission on postal organization; Murray Comarow, its executive director and later the senior assistant postmaster general; Robert L. Hardesty, a former chairman of the Postal Service Board of Governors; and David F. Harris, former secretary of the Postal Service Board of Governors as well as the Postal Rate Commission. While, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, I do not embrace their conclusions that yet another commission is the appropriate vehicle at this time to address postal reform, I believe their column is an excellent summary of the issues surrounding the need for postal reform today. It will be helpful for anyone wishing to educate themselves on the challenges facing the Postal Service. Delivery for the Postal Service The U.S. Postal Service is in deep trouble. It is losing market share to competitors in five out of its six product lines: packages, international mail, correspondence/ transactions, expedited mail and publications. The only market share growth has been in advertising mail. By the end of this century, the Postal Service estimates that a third of its customers will have stopped using the mail to pay their bills. And the intensity of the technological assault increases daily. Faxes, e-mail and expanding use of 800 numbers are cutting into postal markets at a rising rate. Already, more Americans order merchandise through 800 numbers than through the Postal Service. In 1994 electronic messages grew 122 percent. Add to that the growth of alternative delivery networks and the loss of catalogue business to competitors such as UPS and FedEx. These challenges will not go away; they will increase. To make matters worse, the money the Postal Service has invested in modernization has had little impact on productivity. Twenty-eight years ago, 83 percent of the Postal Service's total budget went to wages and benefits. Today, after the expenditure of billions of dollars for automation, there has been a substantial increase in the number of employees. Labor costs are still 82 percent of the budget. It costs more to process a piece of mail today than in 1991. To stay alive the Postal Service may have no choice but to cut back on service and close thousands of facilities. This in turn could lead to further losses, as dissatisfaction mounts. The American people may well be left with a postal service that has nearly a million employees and yet whose only significant function is to deliver advertising mail and greeting cars. What's to be done? Bear in mind that the U.S. Postal Service is an arm of the government. It has been called ``quasi-government'' and sometimes ``quasi-private,'' but it is not ``quasi'' anything. It is a 100 percent federal government entity to which Congress has granted limited independence and certain powers, such as collective bargaining and the right to use the money it collects. And even while Congress gave the Postal Service its `'independence'' a quarter of a century ago and transformed it into a ``businesslike,'' self- sustaining government corporation, it interposed a number of obstacles that would make it impossible even for a team of the best business executives in the country to run the Postal Service efficiently. Among these constraints: the postal rate commission (prc) Headed by five commissioners appointed by the president, it is the only government agency whose primary job it is to set rates on prices for another government entity. Thus pricing authority is divorced from management responsibility and also, substantially, from market considerations. Not only is the Postal Service not free to set prices for its services-- without PRC approval it cannot even determine what services it will offer. When a business determines that it needs to raise its prices, it is free to do so immediately--before it starts losing money. With the Postal Service, it takes about five to six months to prepare its rate case; the PRC then has 10 months in which to issue a recommended decision. binding arbitration and labor relations The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) calculates that the Postal Service has 860,625 employees. Of these, the Postal Service bargains over the wages and benefits of 760,899, represented by four unions. If there's an impasse, the law mandates binding arbitration. The consequence? Of the 32 cents you pay for a first-class stamp, 26 cents is paid to postal employees. The rest goes for post offices, vehicles, automated equipment, etc. In arbitration, one person with no responsibility for the consequences decides how much should be paid to clerks, carriers and others, as well as their health benefits and their grievance rights. In effect, the arbitrator determines how much you pay for stamps. Another labor issue turns on that phrase in the statute that speaks of compensation for postal employees ``comparable to . . . compensation paid in the private sector.'' This was clearly intended to refer to compensation for similar work. Yet the postmaster general in 1971, pressed by mailers who feared an unlawful strike, agreed to interpret the phrase to mean comparable to wages in other highly unionized industries unrelated to the sorting and delivery of mail. That interpretation, plus concessions on COLAs, layoffs and part- timers, laid a foundation for subsequent arbitrators' awards resulting in today's average pay for clerks and carriers of more than $45,000 a year including fringe benefits. Most private-sector employees doing similar work make far less. Grievance procedures are further barriers to efficiency. Any union employee dissatisfied with his wages, hours or other aspects of his job, may initiate a complex 14-step procedure. The GAO reported that in 1993, 51,827 such grievances were appealed beyond local management-union levels. By 1995 that number was up to 73,300. legislative controls The law requires a complex and lengthy procedure before the Postal Service can close a small, inefficient post office. William J. Henderson, the Postal Service's chief operating officer, estimates that 26,000 small post offices cost more than $4 for every dollar they take in, and asserts that other ways are available to provide better service. We certainly do not suggest that all these 26,000 post offices should be closed, but in clear cases, postal managers should be able to move decisively. There is also congressional resistance when postal management undertakes moneymaking activities. This is especially true with respect to competitive activities and experimental rates. Postal Rate Commission approval, even for experimental rates, can take months. Most business mailers support the concept of a postal service with more freedom to set rates and introduce new products and services. Some believe it should be allowed to make a profit, to negotiate prices, to innovate and to reward customers who prepare the mail efficiently. Congress has also disregarded its own mandate for an efficient, self-supporting postal service by using it as a ``cash cow,'' milking it over the years for $8.3 billion for deficit reduction a disguised tax on postal customers. Why can't these obstacles be removed by legislative action? Some could if there were a consensus among the mailers' groups and labor--and in Congress. But experience has shown, as Sen. Ted Stevens, chairman of the Postal Affairs Committee acknowledged, that these groups are too diverse to develop such a consensus. And even if a partial legislative solution were possible, it would be only patchwork. It wouldn't speak to the future of the Postal Service and its ability to master change. Only a nonpartisan, blue-ribbon commission, free of administrative and other constraints, is capable of doing all that now needs to be done. There is precedent for just such a commission. In 1967, in the wake of a massive mail stoppage in Chicago, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed a Commission on Postal Organization (headed by Frederick R. Kappel, then board chairman of AT&T) to look at the post office. In June of 1968, the commission announced its finding that ``the procedures for administering the ordinary executive departments of Government are inappropriate for the Post Office.'' The Kappel Commission recommended that the Postal Service be turned into a self-supporting government corporation; that patronage control of all top jobs, all postmaster appointments and thousands of other positions, be eliminated; that postal rates be set independently of Congress; and that the postmaster general be named by a presidentially appointed board of governors, which would also become the Postal Service's policy-making arm. The commission's proposal formed the basis of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. Despite flaws, that act saved the Postal Service from disaster--at least for a while. Now the time has come for another commission. To be credible, it should be made up primarily of leaders of business, finance and labor with no special connection to postal matters. Among the basic questions it needs to consider: Should universal service, whether or not at uniform prices, be required by law? Should any part or all of the Postal Service be spun off to the private sector? Should the postal monopoly on letters (and some advertising mail) be rescinded or modified? What is to be done about binding arbitration, postal unions' right to strike, the comparable pay provision, work rules and grievance procedures? How do we speed up and simplify the rate-making process? Should private deliverers have access to residential mailboxes? (At present they do not.) Should nonprofit organizations, ranging from local charities to the AARP, continue to pay less than other postal customers? Should the Postal Service be permitted to bid against private companies for major contracts? (It was precluded from bidding for the governmentwide contract for expedited delivery that was awarded to FedEx.) Is a part-time board of governors still an appropriate body to direct the Postal Service? These and other matters the commission will deal with are controversial and do not lend themselves to quick legislative solutions or patchwork solutions. The sooner a first-rate nonpartisan commission gets to work on them the better. Time is running out on the U.S. Postal Service.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me add my words of appreciation and congratulations to the chairman of the full committee for his very effective work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the National Security Committee's Special Oversight Panel on Morale, Welfare and Recreation, I rise in strong support of this bill. The conference report fully funds important military quality of life programs including family support, child care, commissaries, gymnasiums and other recreational programs and facilities. These programs are critical to ensuring that our military personnel are taken care of, especially considering the sacrifices demanded of them in places. The conference report makes a big contribution to caring for military personnel while on deployments and to the families who must experience the difficulties associated with this high personnel tempo. Also, special efforts were made in this bill to ease the burden on these programs that resulted from the reduction of forces in Europe. These quality of life improvements are a direct investment in readiness because they aid in retaining quality people in our Armed Forces. This bill represents a commitment by the American people in return for the sacrifices we demand of our men and women, in uniform each and every day. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this worthy legislation.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1606), to designate the U.S. Post Office building located at 24 Corliss Street, Providence, RI, as the ``Harry Kizirian Post Office Building'', with Senate amendments thereto, and disagree to the Senate amendments.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time, I will submit my full statement for the Record. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly say in response to the comments by the gentleman from Rhode Island and the comments of the gentlewoman from Michigan how much I appreciate their efforts. The Senate had a very, I think, meritorious proposal as amended to this bill, but one that just is not appropriate for consideration at this time. It is certainly our intent in the Subcommittee on Postal Service to reinvolve that issue. I am pleased that the Senate has agreed to consider the House bill with their amendments deleted. Mr. Speaker, the salary of the Board of Governors was set at $10,000 per annum in 1970. This was when the Postmaster General, who is also a member of the Board of Governors, received a salary of $60,000. Today, the Postmaster General receives $148,000 but the Governors' salaries have remained at $10,000. The amendment would provide a salary of $30,000 a year with a provision for annual adjustments based on that awarded to General Schedule employees, and a per diem of $300 a day for not more than 42 days each year to Governors who attend meetings of the Board of Governors or perform the official business of the board as approved by the Chairman. The amendment also provides for the reimbursement for travel and reasonable expenses incurred in attending meetings and performing the official business of the Board. Mr. Speaker, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan, as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, my request to delete the Senate amendment is twofold. First, it is our intent to expedite the passage of H.R. 1606, honoring Harry Kizirian. This would be achieved by deleting the amendment and sending the already passed House bill back to the Senate which would reconsider the measure and send it to the President for signature. Consideration of the amended bill would require the whole House voting on the amendment and delay the enactment of the measure. Second, Mr. Speaker, the Senate amendment is substantive; members may need additional time to consider it. The Subcommittee on the Postal Service and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will revisit these important Senate amendments at a later time. I hope that this explanation clarifies the reason that the amendment should be deleted at this time. The minority has informed they have no objection to this request and I thank the gentlelady for yielding her time for this explanation.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight voted favorably on H.R. 1398. This legislation was introduced by Representative william Clay of Missouri and was cosponsored by the entire House delegation of the State of Missouri as required by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. This bill designates the U.S. Post Office building located at 1203 Lemay Ferry Road, St. Louis, MO, as the ``Charles J. Coyle Post Office Building''. Mr. Coyle, who is honored in this legislation, was a U.S. Army veteran before he started his career with the Post Office Department in 1960. He started in the clerk craft and later served as a letter carrier. He was active with the National Association of Letter Carriers in his local chapter and at the national level. He later served as that organization's national secretary/treasurer in 1994. Charlie Coyle died on February 18, 1995, at the age of 60. Mr. Speaker, I urge all our colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1398) to designate the U.S. Post Office building located at 1203 Lemay Ferry Road, St. Louis, MO, as the ``Charles J. Coyle Post Office Building''.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing]. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], esteemed deputy majority whip.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1880, to designate the United States Post Office located at 102 South McLean, Lincoln, Illinois, as the ``Edward Madigan Post Office Building''.

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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood], the prime sponsor of this legislation. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. 1880, the bill just passed.

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. 2704, the bill just passed.

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. 2262, the bill just considered.

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. 1398, the bill just passed.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us has been approved by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. H.R. 2262 was introduced by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] and joined by the entire House Delegation of the State of Alabama as required by the rules of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. This legislation honors Arthur A. Holk and his father, George Holk. Arthur Holk was elected as mayor of the city of Foley in 1979 and is presently serving his fifth term. George Holk also served as mayor of the city of Foley from 1924 to 1928. Both father and son have participated actively in various city organizations and on the city and county school boards. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support H.R. 2262. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the prime sponsor of this bill. (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. 2704) to provide that the U.S. post office building that is to be located on the 2600 block of East 75th Street in Chicago, IL, shall be known and designated as the ``Charles A. Hayes Post Office Building'' as amended.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight voted favorably on the measure before us. Congresswoman Collins of Illinois, ranking minority member of the committee, introduced H.R. 2704 and was joined by the State delegation in cosponsoring this bill, as required by committee policy. The bill was amended in committee to accurately identify the address of the facility to be renamed. Mr. Speaker, the legislation honors former Representative Charles Hayes. He was a labor organizer and served as a Member of this body. Charlie Hayes was first elected to Congress in 1983, in a special election succeeding former Representative Harold Washington, who had resigned his seat after being sworn in as mayor of Chicago. Prior to his departure from Congress, Representative Hayes served as chairman of the former Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Postal Personnel and Modernization. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support H.R. 2704 as amended, a bill which would name a post office in Chicago after one of our colleagues who served his constituents in the First District of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.