Paul Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, the committee has included language in its report directing the U.S. Customs Service to continue to provide service to the Port of Racine, Wisconsin, and that any change in service shall only be an improvement. I would like to clarify the term ``service'' as used in the committee's report. The Port of Racine is a growing area. It is home to modern industrial corporations and businesses that depend on continuous availability of Customs' services to ensure the rapid clearance of cargo to support their business operations in what has really become a growing business hub. The importance of having Customs' presence in Racine cannot be underestimated, given the growth of just-in-time manufacturing that allows very little room for delays in the delivery of trade goods in the Racine community. I recognize that the committee has attempted to ensure with the report language that Racine will continue to be well served. However, I would like an assurance that there will be no attempt to reduce the level of services, including, perhaps, the closing of the Customs office in Racine. Can the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) provide such assurances that this is the intention of the committee by this report language?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in a colloquy.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona for his support and his willingness to work with us on this very, very important matter. I look forward to reviewing any possible proposal from the Customs Service before anything would be implemented.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Vincenzo Melenzio for his assistance to the United States forces during World War II. Mr. Melenzio, or ``Enzo,'' was an Italian navy radioman who after the Germans had taken over the Italian Government, defected and volunteered for action against the Germans with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Mr. Melenzio was employed by the OSS for four months in the winter of 1945 as a behind-the-lines radio operator. He served with the OSS 2677th Regiment along with approximately 750 Italian partisan led by 9- 10 Americans. On May 11, 1945, Mr. Melenzio received a certificate of appreciation for his services from Col. Russell D. Livermore, commander of all Special Operations Units in the Mediterranean area. Furthermore, the United States Army, in a memo to the Italian Navy, recommended Mr. Melenzio for the bronze medal. It is appropriate that Mr. Melenzio be recognized for his bravery, and for his service to both the United States, and to the international community at large.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of The Child Custody Protection Act. This bill will help to enforce parental involvement laws that are implemented to protect the physical and emotional health of children. Parents know their child's medical history, as well as other health factors that a minor child might not even know about themselves. When parents aren't involved in major medical decisions, such as abortion, risks to the minor's health increase dramatically. In fact, in it's H.L. versus Matheson decision (1981), the Supreme Court expressed it's concern that abortion can be harmful to minors, ``The medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting; this is particularly so when the patient is immature.'' Why in the world would we not want parents to be involved in these decisions? Parents have to sign permission slips for their kids to go on field trips at school, and they have to sign a medical slop that allows them to take over the counter medication at school. But abortion advocates would have you believe that parents shouldn't have to sign off on major decisions like abortion. That just doesn't make sense. This bill does not in any way require states to create new parental consent or notification laws, nor does it interfere with existing state laws regarding abortions for minors. This bill would make it a federal misdemeanor to transport a minor across a state line for an abortion, if that action circumvents state law requiring parental or judicial involvement in that minor child's abortion decision. This legislation ensures the rights of parents, protects the health of minors, and enforces state law.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. So what the gentleman from Minnesota is saying, that the train is already leaving the station, and it is heading in the direction of the market, and the USDA is driving this train, but that if nothing else happens, but that there are Members of Congress here among us, friends of ours from other States, who are trying to stop that train.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That is a wonderful point to make. Because if we look at today in society and look at the marketplace, why should the government be dictating the price of milk based on where we live in relation to Eau Claire, Wisconsin? It is absolutely asinine. It is just crazy. But that is the world we are living in today. What is more, the USDA is trying to move moderately away from that policy toward more of a market-based system so that it is fair and equitable for all farmers, especially those who have been punished for 62 years under this antiquated system. Yet there are Members of Congress here today, here in this body, here in the majority who are trying to stop that from happening, who are trying to freeze in place this crazy antiquated system where, just as the Member from Minnesota mentioned, they mandate the price the producer gets based on how far from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, one lives. In my hometown of Janesville, and I am so proud of this fact, we have a General Motors plant. And in Janesville, Wisconsin, in our General Motors plant, we produce Chevy Tahoes, which I drive. It is a great truck. It is good for four-wheeling. We produce Suburbans, we produce Yukons. These are wonderful trucks. Actually, the sales really took off when they added the four doors onto the Chevy Tahoe and the Yukon. Before it was a 2-door vehicle, and the sales were only okay. Once we added those four doors onto the Tahoes and the Yukons the sales took off. They really just took off. And anyone can buy a Chevy Tahoe all over this country, but no one is getting a different price for a Chevy Tahoe because they farther or closer away from Janesville, Wisconsin, where they are produced. A Chevy Tahoe is the same price in New York City as in Janesville, Wisconsin. People can get a Chevy Tahoe in Denver or in California, same as they can in Janesville, Wisconsin. That is the way the market works. Now, it may be a little more costly to ship a Chevy Tahoe from Janesville, Wisconsin, all the way up to California, and maybe the buyer will pay a little bit more because it cost to have the Chevy Tahoe carted out to California, that transportation cost may be factored into the price, but the government is not mandating that.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would just like to ask the gentleman from Minnesota a couple of questions so people understand the timing of the issue. Is it the case that the bill that we are talking about, freezing the status quo in place; that is, being drafted up, marked up, in the Agriculture Committee tomorrow?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. It would be a government mandated price.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Sure. Be happy to yield.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Because they are producing cheese and they are closer to Eau Claire, Wisconsin. So farmers, say, in New York or Florida or Arkansas and Alabama are getting higher prices. They are producing Class 1 milk, fluid milk, the kind of you drink out of the bottle, that gives you the mustache. They are overproducing that, which is then getting turned into cheese which is suppressing the price of Class 3 or cheese prices which we produce in the upper Midwest, so that further depresses the prices. So you get hit twice. Is that what the gentleman is suggesting?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. So what the gentleman is saying is, they get hit once, farmers in Wisconsin, in Illinois, in Minnesota, they get hit once because the price that they get for their milk that they produce is lower for the rest of the country.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Was part of the purpose of the Constitutional Convention when our country was created not to avoid those type of trade wars, to try and avoid these interstate commerce trade wars, so we would not have barriers from State to State, that we would be able to have free trade among the States within the United States of America? Is this proposal, this Northeast Dairy Compact essentially not a trade barrier between one State and another State within the United States of America?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would like to bring it back from the constitutional question, because there are clear implications that the compacts violate the commerce clause of the Constitution. But let us go back to the human toll that is taken with this pricing system. I live in Janesville, Wisconsin. Just east of me on County Trunk A are the Barlass Farms. I used to work for Grande Cheese Company. When I was a young kid in high school, I worked for Grande out with the milk trucks. I used to put up the signs and just do some odd jobs around Grande. The Grande Cheese Company would do a lot of work and buy milk from milk producers around Rock County, Wisconsin, where I live. The Barlasses I got to know at an early age. The patriarchs of the Barlass family are about to retire and their two boys are taking over the family farm. They milk Jersey cows. Most of the cows we milk in southern Wisconsin are Holsteins but they milk Jerseys and they take quite a bit of pride in milking Jerseys. Because the Barlasses, their parents are going to try and pass the farm on to them, they have got problems, with capital gains taxes, with the estate tax, that if they pass away, their farm is going to be taxed so much so at a 55 percent rate that they may have to sell the farm and discontinue having their sons farm it for them because of the estate taxes. On top of that, the capital gains taxes they pay are so high because they are not indexed for inflation that they are paying tax rates as high as 70 percent when you take into account the fact that they are paying on the inflationary gains of their assets. Look at all of that. How difficult it is with this price system, the fact that in Wisconsin we have lost 2,000 dairy farmers just last year. The Barlasses have a tough time as it is, with the estate tax, with the things that the government is imposing on them right now. And look at what else is happening. Look at what is being piled on top of them. What is being piled on top of them is that irrespective of their efforts to keep their family farm alive and they say they know they have to grow it to survive, they have got to get more money from the bank to invest in better technology with the dairy farm, to get more cow, to grow, to get bigger, for surviving. But if that is not enough, what they have to face is this pricing system, that just by the very fact that they farm and raise Jersey cows in Rock County, Wisconsin, southern Wisconsin, which is located fairly close to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, in the whole scheme of the country, they get a lower price for the milk they produce than farmers around other parts of the country. That is the other part that is crushing their ability to keep their family farm alive. Not only are they getting hit with a lower price but we have a system that even lowers the price more because of the oversupply of Class 1 milk. So not only is it very difficult to keep a farm alive, just on its own, but we have a milk pricing system which is based upon this antiquated, socialistic, Depression era program that they and many other farmers like them are going out of business. And that there are Members of Congress here today who swear to uphold the Constitution, who swear to uphold the commerce clause of the Constitution, who out of this side of their mouth talk about upholding market principles, the free market, the individual, and then out of this side of their mouth they say, ``Well, not for the dairy industry, not for milk. For orange juice, yes, for Chevy Tahoes, yes, for free trade, yes, but not for milk.'' I would ask them, these Members of Congress who are saying this out of this side of their mouth and that out of that side of their mouth, go talk to the Barlasses because I do not know what to tell them. I do not know how to explain to them that in this country, the market should survive.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. If the gentleman would yield, is not another loser in this the American consumer as well?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Are not people who buy milk paying higher prices because of this system?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. So not only are we talking about hurting upper Midwest dairy farmers, it is just not a regional clash, we are talking about poor inner city parents who are trying to provide for their children with a lot of single, we have the illegitimacy rate in the inner city is as high as 70 percent in this country in inner city America. We are talking about these mothers, these young mothers in many cases, trying to raise their babies and their children, to try and nurture them with dairy products, and they are paying a higher price for these products because of this?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Because of this government mandate?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Trying to derail that train, trying to stop this modest reform from taking place so, if they can intervene in Congress, to stop this from happening. Is that precisely what?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. And if this legislation does not pass, if nothing happens, then by October the USDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will implement these forms which are a step in the right direction towards the free market; is that correct ?

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for your leadership on this issue. As you know, I am a new Member of Congress. I was just elected in this last November elections. I was elected as a Republican based on the free market, thinking that we were here to make sure as we go into the next century, we will do so based upon the principles that built this country, that the individual is the nucleus of our society, the individual is the nucleus of our economy, based on the principles of the market. When I had come to learn the kind of system we have, that binds our dairy markets, it is absolutely amazing that we still have a dairy market, that we still have a dairy policy that is based upon a geographical location in the middle of the United States, in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Well, I come from Wisconsin. There is something else that is happening for Members that are viewing this in their office. There are Members of the Republican Party who are advancing legislation right now to try to solidify the status quo. We are actually trying to move toward the market direction and the USDA is actually moving in that way. I would like to go through some remarks first and then I would like to ask my senior colleague from Minnesota a few questions. Today I am here to join you, to express strong opposition to the legislation that is being introduced by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), a Republican. This legislation is scheduled to be marked up in the Committee on Agriculture actually tomorrow. This legislation would essentially say that we are going to force the status quo on the rest of the country. Not only are farmers who lived under the current system for 62 years have to do so, this legislation proposes that farmers continue to live under the current system. What does this do? This system forces a continuation of this welfare system that will be funded on the backs of hard-working farmers in the Midwest, and particularly in the upper Midwest. The USDA has a proposal which goes moderately in the right direction toward a market-based system. It does not go all the way, but it goes a good step in the right direction. The USDA proposal reflects a step toward a more market-friendly system. As Republicans, I think it is important to be fighting for this system, not against it. But I do not see this as really a partisan issue. This is just an issue about fairness and equity. As representative from Wisconsin, which as everybody knows, is America's dairyland, if you see anybody drive by in Wisconsin, you see the license plate says ``America's dairyland.'' The problem in Wisconsin is we are losing dairy farmers every single year. We are America's dairyland right now; we have been America's dairyland forever. My fear is we will not be America's dairyland in the future, because just last year we lost 2,000 dairy farmers because of this antiquated system. That is 2,000 dairy farmers. I just enjoyed participating in the Kenosha County Dairy Day breakfast. You mentioned June is dairy month. I participated in the Kenosha dairy breakfast about 2 weeks ago in Kenosha, Wisconsin, out in the county area. What was wonderful was to see all the children running around enjoying milk. The Dairy Days in Wisconsin is an opportunity for people in the cities to come out and see how farm operations work, to see how farmers work, to see how you have to get up so early in the morning to milk the cows and you have to do it twice a day, to appreciate nature, to appreciate rural America, something we are so prideful of in Wisconsin. My fear is if we keep this antiquated system in place, we will not see those days, at least in Wisconsin, because we are losing so many dairy farmers. Well, as a representative from Wisconsin, from America's dairyland, I feel it is my duty to address the devastation this bill will cause, not only for the farmers in my personal district in Wisconsin that I serve, but also for other Midwest regions. The dairy farmers in the Midwest have long been operating under this system that penalizes them for being more efficient and more productive. These are principles that we as a Nation should be advocating. However, I stand before you today, and I see other Members, other Members of Congress from all these other regions, fighting to keep this antiquated system in place. So when you come to Congress and you think we are going to fight for fairness, we are going to fight for equity in this country, it is not always the case. The system that we have today may have been appropriate in the 1930s, as the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned, but the need for that kind of system is gone. We have the interstate highway system, we have refrigerated trucks. Advances in technology and transportation have simply eliminated the need for this type of antiquated system. Other regions in this system enjoy surpluses in dairy production. The surplus State is no longer just Wisconsin. We have surplus States all over the country. Your ability to get milk no longer depends on how close or far you live away from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. In my opinion, it is time to stop punishing Midwest farmers based on this horse and buggy perception of the world around us. Now, in 1996, Congress recognized this. They recognized that this system has outlived its usefulness. In 1996, the farm bill required that the USDA reform the milk marketing order in a fair and equitable manner. We relied on the USDA to develop a proposal that would serve all farmers in the country in the best possible way. This was a wise decision by Congress in 1996. The only objective of the USDA was to create a more fair and more equitable system based on market forces. So what we have before us today, after the USDA floated two rival proposals, one we call 1-A and one we call 1-B, 1-A was more or less the status quo, 1-B was going more toward the market-driven area, so the location on where one lived did not have such a bearing on the price a farmer gets for the milk he produces. What the USDA came out with was something in between, a step toward 1-B, a step away from the status quo. This will take place if nothing else is done. But there are forces that are building here in Congress to stop this small reform from taking place. One of the things that the Members of Congress who are from these other regions have been saying, they have been using these exaggerated claims that this kind of reform, this small reform toward the market- based system, will devastate farmers across the country. They are using exaggerated estimates. I would like to address that for one moment. Contrary to these exaggerated claims that this will result in huge losses to dairy farmers across the country, the USDA estimates that this change will result in a loss of revenue of approximately $2.8 million on average in all Federal order regions. Let me put that in perspective. The total loss per hundredweight, per hundred gallons of milk, is estimated to be about .02 cents under the new regulation proposed by the USDA, not the massive losses that the proponents of the status quo are saying. Now, this nominal change in revenue will make all the difference to the farmers in the first district of Wisconsin, which I represent; in northern Illinois, as my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), will soon talk about. I urge my colleagues to rely on the expertise of the USDA and allow the reform decision of the USDA to stand. I urge my colleagues who are thinking of freezing in place the status quo to think about the principles that built this country. Do we want to freeze in time 1937? Because today is 1999. We do not live under 1937 circumstances. We have the technology, we have the transportation, we have the advances to allow the milk pricing system to set up in a fair and equitable way. There is one other way of looking at this issue, because I know this dairy issue can be quite complex. We have Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, and Class 4 milk. We have all of these different milk marketing orders. Let us put it in this kind of perspective. What about orange juice? Do orange producers get a higher price for orange juice if they live farther away from Florida? It is sort of like saying that since I live in Janesville, Wisconsin, I should pay a higher price for the orange juice I purchase because it is made in Florida, but someone who lives in South Carolina will pay less for their orange juice. It is like saying a country music singer is going to get a lower price for producing country music if they live in Nashville, Tennessee, than if they are a country music singer out in California. This is a crazy system.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would also just like to ask, mention to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), and thank him for his leadership. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) has provided excellent leadership here in Congress on this issue. I want to thank him on behalf of the dairy farmers of Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue, and I also thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). Our districts butt up against each other. He has the Wisconsin border, I have the Illinois order, and hopefully we can fight together on behalf of the dairy farmers in our areas along and with the leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) to try to get resolve to this, to make sure that we can stop what is going on here in Congress. So the USDA, the train can leave the station toward the market so we can go down the road of getting a market-based system, and I want to just thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his leadership.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I sincerely appreciate my colleague's commitment. I look forward to working with him on the Rock County Airport issues.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.