[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 56 (Tuesday, April 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2901-H2909]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
POSTAL CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FUNDING REFORM ACT OF 2003
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the
[[Page H2902]]
House of April 7, 2003, I call up the Senate bill (S. 380) to amend
chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, to reform the funding of
benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System for employees of the
United States Postal Service, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of April
7, 2003, the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of S. 380 is as follows:
S. 380
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Postal Civil Service
Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
(a) Definitions.--Section 8331 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (17)--
(A) by striking `` `normal cost' '' and inserting ``
`normal-cost percentage' ''; and
(B) by inserting ``and standards (using dynamic
assumptions)'' after ``practice'';
(2) by amending paragraph (18) to read as follows:
``(18) `Fund balance' means the current net assets of the
Fund available for payment of benefits, as determined by the
Office in accordance with appropriate accounting standards,
but does not include any amount attributable to--
``(A) the Federal Employees' Retirement System; or
``(B) contributions made under the Federal Employees'
Retirement Contribution Temporary Adjustment Act of 1983 by
or on behalf of any individual who became subject to the
Federal Employees' Retirement System;''; and
(3) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (27), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and
inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(29) `dynamic assumptions' means economic assumptions
that are used in determining actuarial costs and liabilities
of a retirement system and in anticipating the effects of
long-term future--
``(A) investment yields;
``(B) increases in rates of basic pay; and
``(C) rates of price inflation.''.
(b) Deductions and Contributions.--
(1) In general.--Section 8334(a)(1) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)(1)(A)'';
(B) by designating the matter following the first sentence
as subparagraph (B)(i) and aligning the text accordingly;
(C) in subparagraph (B)(i) (as so designated by
subparagraph (B)), by striking ``An equal'' and inserting
``Except as provided in clause (ii), an equal''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) In the case of an employee of the United States
Postal Service, the amount to be contributed under this
subparagraph shall (instead of the amount described in clause
(i)) be equal to the product derived by multiplying the
employee's basic pay by the percentage equal to--
``(I) the normal-cost percentage for the applicable
employee category listed in subparagraph (A), minus
``(II) the percentage deduction rate that applies with
respect to such employee under subparagraph (A).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 8334(k) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``the first sentence
of subsection (a)(1) of this section'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(1)(A)'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) by striking ``the second sentence of subsection (a)(1)
of this section'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) of
subsection (a)(1)''; and
(ii) by striking ``such sentence'' and inserting ``such
subparagraph''; and
(C) in paragraph (2)(C)(iii), by striking ``the first
sentence of subsection (a)(1)'' and inserting ``subsection
(a)(1)(A)''.
(c) Postal Supplemental Liability.--Subsection (h) of
section 8348 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(h)(1)(A) For purposes of this subsection, `Postal
supplemental liability' means the estimated excess, as
determined by the Office, of--
``(i) the actuarial present value of all future benefits
payable from the Fund under this subchapter attributable to
the service of current or former employees of the United
States Postal Service, over
``(ii) the sum of--
``(I) the actuarial present value of deductions to be
withheld from the future basic pay of employees of the United
States Postal Service currently subject to this subchapter
pursuant to section 8334;
``(II) the actuarial present value of the future
contributions to be made pursuant to section 8334 with
respect to employees of the United States Postal Service
currently subject to this subchapter;
``(III) that portion of the Fund balance, as of the date
the Postal supplemental liability is determined, attributable
to payments to the Fund by the United States Postal Service
and its employees, including earnings on those payments; and
``(IV) any other appropriate amount, as determined by the
Office in accordance with generally accepted actuarial
practices and principles.
``(B)(i) In computing the actuarial present value of future
benefits, the Office shall include the full value of benefits
attributable to military and volunteer service for United
States Postal Service employees first employed after June 30,
1971, and a prorated share of the value of benefits
attributable to military and volunteer service for United
States Postal Service employees first employed before July 1,
1971.
``(ii) Military service so included shall not be included
in the computation of any amount under subsection (g)(2).
``(2)(A) Not later than June 30, 2004, the Office shall
determine the Postal supplemental liability as of September
30, 2003. The Office shall establish an amortization
schedule, including a series of equal annual installments
commencing September 30, 2004, which provides for the
liquidation of such liability by September 30, 2043.
``(B) The Office shall redetermine the Postal supplemental
liability as of the close of the fiscal year, for each fiscal
year beginning after September 30, 2003, through the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2038, and shall establish a new
amortization schedule, including a series of equal annual
installments commencing on September 30 of the subsequent
fiscal year, which provides for the liquidation of such
liability by September 30, 2043.
``(C) The Office shall redetermine the Postal supplemental
liability as of the close of the fiscal year for each fiscal
year beginning after September 30, 2038, and shall establish
a new amortization schedule, including a series of equal
annual installments commencing on September 30 of the
subsequent fiscal year, which provides for the liquidation of
such liability over 5 years.
``(D) Amortization schedules established under this
paragraph shall be set in accordance with generally accepted
actuarial practices and principles, with interest computed at
the rate used in the most recent dynamic actuarial valuation
of the Civil Service Retirement System.
``(E) The United States Postal Service shall pay the
amounts so determined to the Office, with payments due not
later than the date scheduled by the Office.
``(F) An amortization schedule established under
subparagraph (B) or (C) shall supersede any amortization
schedule previously established under this paragraph.
``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
computing the amount of any payment under any other
subsection of this section that is based upon the amount of
the unfunded liability, such payment shall be computed
disregarding that portion of the unfunded liability that the
Office determines will be liquidated by payments under this
subsection.
``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, any determination or redetermination made by the
Office under this subsection shall, upon request of the
Postal Service, be subject to reconsideration and review
(including adjustment by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil
Service Retirement System) to the same extent and in the same
manner as provided under section 8423(c).''.
(d) Repeals.--
(1) In general.--The following provisions of law are
repealed:
(A) Subsection (m) of section 8348 of title 5, United
States Code.
(B) Subsection (c) of section 7101 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 8348 note).
(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be considered to affect any payments made before the date of
the enactment of this Act under either of the provisions of
law repealed by paragraph (1).
(e) Military Service Proposals.--
(1) Proposals.--The United States Postal Service, the
Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Personnel
Management shall, by September 30, 2003, each prepare and
submit to the President, the Congress, and the General
Accounting Office proposals detailing whether and to what
extent the Department of the Treasury or the Postal Service
should be responsible for the funding of benefits
attributable to the military service of current and former
employees of the Postal Service that, prior to the date of
the enactment of this Act, were provided for under section
8348(g)(2) of title 5, United States Code.
(2) GAO review and report.--Not later than 60 days after
the Postal Service, the Department of the Treasury, and the
Office of Personnel Management have submitted their proposals
under paragraph (1), the General Accounting Office shall
prepare and submit a written evaluation of each such proposal
to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate.
SEC. 3. DISPOSITION OF SAVINGS ACCRUING TO THE UNITED STATES
POSTAL SERVICE.
(a) In General.--Savings accruing to the United States
Postal Service as a result of the enactment of this Act--
(1) shall, to the extent that such savings are attributable
to fiscal year 2003 or 2004, be used to reduce the postal
debt (in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury),
and the Postal Service shall not incur additional debt to
offset the use of the savings to reduce the postal debt in
fiscal years 2003 and 2004;
(2) shall, to the extent that such savings are attributable
to fiscal year 2005, be used
[[Page H2903]]
to continue holding postage rates unchanged and to reduce the
postal debt, to such extent and in such manner as the Postal
Service shall specify (in consultation with the Secretary of
the Treasury); and
(3) to the extent that such savings are attributable to any
fiscal year after fiscal year 2005, shall be considered to be
operating expenses of the Postal Service and, until otherwise
provided for by law, shall be held in escrow and may not be
obligated or expended.
(b) Amounts Saved.--
(1) In general.--The amounts representing any savings
accruing to the Postal Service in any fiscal year as a result
of the enactment of this Act shall be computed by the Office
of Personnel Management for each such fiscal year in
accordance with paragraph (2).
(2) Methodology.--Not later than July 31, 2003, the Office
of Personnel Management shall--
(A) formulate a plan specifically enumerating the actuarial
methods and assumptions by which the Office shall make its
computations under paragraph (1); and
(B) submit such plan to the Committee on Government Reform
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(3) Requirements.--The plan shall be formulated in
consultation with the Postal Service and shall include the
opportunity for the Postal Service to request reconsideration
of computations under this subsection, and for the Board of
Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System to review
and make adjustments to such computations, to the same extent
and in the same manner as provided under section 8423(c) of
title 5, United States Code.
(c) Reporting Requirement.--The Postal Service shall
include in each report rendered under section 2402 of title
39, United States Code, the amount applied toward reducing
the postal debt, and the size of the postal debt before and
after the application of subsection (a), during the period
covered by such report.
(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that--
(1) the savings accruing to the Postal Service as a result
of the enactment of this Act will be sufficient to allow the
Postal Service to fulfill its commitment to hold postage
rates unchanged until at least 2006;
(2) because the Postal Service still faces substantial
obligations related to postretirement health benefits for its
current and former employees, some portion of the savings
referred to in paragraph (1) should be used to address those
unfunded obligations; and
(3) none of the savings referred to in paragraph (1) should
be used in the computation of any bonuses for Postal Service
executives.
(e) Postal Service Proposal.--
(1) In general.--The United States Postal Service shall, by
September 30, 2003, prepare and submit to the President, the
Congress, and the General Accounting Office its proposal
detailing how any savings accruing to the Postal Service as a
result of the enactment of this Act, which are attributable
to any fiscal year after fiscal year 2005, should be
expended.
(2) Matters to consider.--In preparing its proposal under
this subsection, the Postal Service shall consider--
(A) whether, and to what extent, those future savings
should be used to address--
(i) debt repayment;
(ii) prefunding of postretirement healthcare benefits for
current and former postal employees;
(iii) productivity and cost saving capital investments;
(iv) delaying or moderating increases in postal rates; and
(v) any other matter; and
(B) the work of the President's Commission on the United
States Postal Service under section 5 of Executive Order
13278 (67 Fed. Reg. 76672).
(3) GAO review and report.--Not later than 60 days after
the Postal Service submits its proposal pursuant to paragraph
(1), the General Accounting Office shall prepare and submit a
written evaluation of such proposal to the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(4) Legislative action.--Not later than 180 days after it
has received both the proposal of the Postal Service and the
evaluation of such proposal by the General Accounting Office
under this subsection, Congress shall revisit the question of
how the savings accruing to the Postal Service as a result of
the enactment of this Act should be used.
(f) Determination and Disposition of Surplus.--
(1) In general.--If, as of the date under paragraph (2),
the Office of Personnel Management determines (after
consultation with the Postmaster General) that the
computation under section 8348(h)(1)(A) of title 5, United
States Code, yields a negative amount (hereinafter referred
to as a ``surplus'')--
(A) the Office shall inform the Postmaster General of its
determination, including the size of the surplus so
determined; and
(B) the Postmaster General shall submit to the Congress a
report describing how the Postal Service proposes that such
surplus be used, including a draft of any legislation that
might be necessary.
(2) Determination date.--The date to be used for purposes
of paragraph (1) shall be September 30, 2025, or such earlier
date as, in the judgment of the Office, is the date by which
all postal employees under the Civil Service Retirement
System will have retired.
(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the savings accruing to the Postal Service as a result
of the enactment of this Act shall, for any fiscal year, be
equal to the amount (if any) by which--
(A) the contributions that the Postal Service would
otherwise have been required to make to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund for such fiscal year if this
Act had not been enacted, exceed
(B) the contributions made by the Postal Service to such
Fund for such fiscal year; and
(2) the term ``postal debt'' means the outstanding
obligations of the Postal Service, as determined under
chapter 20 of title 39, United States Code.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become
effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, except
that the amendments made by section 2(b) shall apply with
respect to pay periods beginning on or after such date.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall
be in order to consider the amendment printed in the Congressional
Record, if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), or
his designee, which shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 10
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a
division of the question.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the
bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
General Leave
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on the Senate bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 380, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System
Funding Reform Act of 2003, is a bipartisan bill in the Senate. Its
House counterpart is sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
McHugh), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), myself and others. It reforms the way the Postal
Service funds its obligations to the Civil Service Retirement System.
It prevents the Postal Service from overfunding its obligations to CSRS
and postpones a rate increase for the American people and postal
ratepayers.
Last year the Office of Personnel Management, at the request of GAO,
reviewed the status of the Postal Service's funding of its CSRS
benefits. OPM found that based on payments currently required by law,
the Postal Service would overfund its CSRS benefits by more than $70
billion. OPM proposed a legislative solution modeling the Postal
Service's payments to CSRS after its payments to the current Federal
Employee Retirement System. This would result in a reduction in the
Postal Service's annual obligation to CSRS, allowing the Postal Service
to delay its next rate increase beyond 2004 to at least fiscal year
2006.
The bill we are considering today, S. 380, differs from OPM's
proposal in that it places tight restrictions on how the Postal Service
uses the savings. The bill requires the Postal Service to work with the
Department of the Treasury to apply the funds saved to pay down its
debt to Treasury in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 and directs the Postal
Service to use the savings in 2005 to delay an anticipated rate
increase. Subsequently, the Postal Service and OPM are to calculate the
difference between the cost to fund CSRS under the bill and under the
current law.
The Postal Service will develop a proposal for the use of the funds.
Without congressional action on the Postal Service proposal, the funds
would be placed in escrow.
This legislation will also require the Postal Service to fund the
portion of retirement benefits attributable to the prior military
service of postal employees which, again, models the Postal Service's
payments to CSRS after the current Federal Employee Retirement System,
or FERS.
[[Page H2904]]
I think this is an issue that demands further study because no other
agency in the Federal Government that I am aware of funds its CSRS
military obligations within the department. It may ultimately be unfair
to make postal customers and ratepayers fund military retirement
benefits.
Working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), my ranking
member, I prepared an amendment to the House version of the bill, H.R.
735, requiring the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Personnel
Management, and the Postal Service to develop proposals on this issue.
So this is an issue that will be revisited.
The Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Committee on
Government Affairs will look at those proposals and revisit the issue.
This amendment was incorporated in S. 380, so we do not need to offer
it today. I also understand the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
will be offering and withdrawing an amendment on this subject in a few
moments in order to further highlight its importance, and I thank and
congratulate him for his leadership in highlighting this issue and
pledge to him that we will continue to work on this; and this is, in my
judgment, not the end of the matter.
Many people do not know this, but the Postal industry, including
ancillary businesses, represents approximately 9 percent of the gross
domestic product, the GDP. The industry has been hit hard in the last
several years, first by the economic slowdown and then by events of
September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax attacks. During this same
period, postal rates increased three times within 18 months. The Postal
industry needs relief.
The Postal Service will be able to hold off on a rate increase if
this legislation passes. This gives money back to the Postal customer
and allows us all to hold on to our 37-cent stamps for 2 more years. It
also stabilizes the Postal Service financially, securing the jobs of
nearly 9 million people in the postal industry.
Postal consumers have implored us to address this problem before it
is too late. The United States Postal Service, all four postal unions,
the postal management associations, and a very broad coalition of
postal customers support this bill. I hope that we can pass it
expeditiously and put off the next rate increase until at least 2006.
Mr. Speaker I urge adoption of S. 380.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time that I may consume.
I rise in support of the legislation before us. As the ranking member
of the Committee on Government Reform, I support this bill, S. 380, and
before I begin my remarks on the bill, I would like to commend my
colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. McHugh) for the time and effort they have spent in refining this
proposal. The bill in S. 380, is identical to the version of the bill
we reported out of committee with the exception of a provision
requiring a new study on military pensions that I worked out with the
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis). This is a very positive
bipartisan start for our committee.
I would also like to commend our Senate colleagues, Senators Susan
Collins and Joseph Lieberman, for their work on this issue.
The bill we are considering today corrects the calculation of the
Postal Service's contributions to its pension fund and provides
immediate and needed financial relief to the Postal Service. The
legislation would credit the Postal Service for the real value of Civil
Service Retirement System contributions it made in the past and change
how contributions will be computed in the future. Under S. 380, the
Postal Service will save $9 billion over the next 3 years and $36
billion over the next 10 years. S. 380 divides the money saved by the
Postal Service into two parts. For the savings received in fiscal years
2003, 2004, and 2005, the bill provides that the Postal Service will
use the money to pay down the debt and hold postage rates stable. This
will allow the Postmaster General to keep his commitment to hold off on
any rate increases through the year 2006.
For fiscal years beyond 2005, the bill requires the Postal Service to
submit to Congress a plan for using the savings. This plan must then be
reviewed by the General Accounting Office and approved or modified by
Congress. The planning provisions contained in the bill provide an
opportunity for Congress to review how the Postal Service will use the
savings to address a number of long-term challenges facing the service
such as its debt load, underfunded capital projects, and unfunded
liabilities for post-retirement health care.
This legislation is being acted upon quickly because without it, the
Postal Service faces an increasing financial crises. In fact, the
Postmaster General and the Postal Board of Governors have indicated
that in the absence of such a change, the Postal Service will be forced
to apply for a rate increase later this year.
S. 380 has broad support among the postal community and it deserves
our passage today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) who has been the former chairman
of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service and one of the real experts
on this issue to address this issue and put his stamp of approval.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The puns notwithstanding, I deeply appreciate his very kind comments,
and, Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this chance in the next 5 minutes
to add my words of great appreciation and approval to I think a very
important piece of legislation and certainly one that I hope bodes well
for the future, because we have before us here today a bipartisan
agreement, as the ranking member so correctly stated, one that sets and
bodes very well a brighter future for this full committee, and, I am
hopeful, as someone who has had the honor and opportunity to delve into
postal issues over the past several years, a fine start to continued
bipartisan cooperation in terms of our continuing efforts to modernize
the Postal Service in even broader measures. And I, too, deeply
appreciate the great leadership, the very hard work of the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the standing committee;
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member; and my
long partner in these postal issues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis) for their very concerted effort to bring this very necessary
and, as the ranking member and the chairman both said, very timely
piece of legislation to the floor at this moment.
Both the chairman and the ranking member, I think, have struck on the
major points of importance her, very eloquently and very appropriately.
But let me just highlight for a moment the very critical nature of what
we are doing. Certainly to the Postal Service's future viability, its
ability, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said, to
dedicate these savings that will accrue from what I hope the House is
about to do here today toward all of those issues to ensure even better
mail delivery service, to ensure their continued viability, to say to
those some 800,000 dedicated Postal employees that we understand the
great challenges that they face, that where the opportunities present
themselves we are not just willing, but here through this bill
apparently able to assist in that very worthy effort.
But this is an important piece of economic development legislation as
well, Mr. Speaker. Just as way of illustration, the Postal Service, the
entire postal delivery sector today represents some $635 billion
annually in direct economic activity in the production of mail and
delivery services. Mail advertising alone generates some $725 billion
in economic activity each and every year. And the parcels handled by
the Postal industry, including all postal and parcel carriers, have a
value exceeding $850 billion.
A lot of us spend a lot of time, understandably and rightfully so,
delving into the issue of what we can do to stimulate this economy, and
this bill today in supporting those significant segments of our
economic activity and our economic sector certainly would go a long way
towards boosting the economic activities of this Nation as a
[[Page H2905]]
whole into the future, and they certainly speak of the absolutely
essential nature of this bill, S. 380. And my compliments to Ms.
Collins and to Mr. Lieberman, our colleagues in the Senate, for their
leadership and their great work.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said it, and he is
absolutely right. Time is of the essence. Without this initiative it is
likely, in fact absolutely certain, the Postal Service would be forced
to impose a potential rate increase in postage rates within a matter of
weeks, and through this action we can forestall that, as has been said
here repeatedly on the floor, until at least the fiscal year 2006 to
help the Postal Service expand its declining mail volumes, to help it
become even more viable into the future.
And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and others have
said, rarely do we have a chance on this floor to support a piece of
legislation so uniformly supported by all the affected parties. The
Postal Service, the administration, the postal unions, the very vital
mail industry throughout this Nation all see this as the proper thing
to do.
{time} 1630
I want to just say for the record, I understand and in large measure
support what both the ranking member and the chairman have said with
respect to the treatment of military pay. I think we do have to take a
look at that.
I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for not clouding
the issue at this particular moment, but there are others who have
differing opinions, and I think we need to have a full discussion on
that. So I urge the full support of the House on this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the ranking
Democrat on the Postal Task Force of the Committee on Government
Reform.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Government Reform's Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight, I
rise in support of S. 380, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System
Funding Reform Act of 2003. As an original cosponsor of the House
version, H.R. 735, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the
consideration of S. 380, legislation which will correct the way
payments are made to the Civil Service Retirement System.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank especially the chairman of
this committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and the
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for their
ability to come together in a unified, bipartisan way, to reach
agreement and bring to the floor this legislation in a very timely
manner.
I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who
has provided leadership on postal issues for a number of years, and all
of their staffs, as well as my staff, for the enormous time and effort
spent in crafting H.R. 735.
I am particularly proud of the fact that we have worked together in a
productive, constructive, and bipartisan manner. We have begun the
108th Congress on a very positive note, and we look forward to the
continuation of that in our committee.
I would also like to thank the Senate for striking their language and
substituting the language from our bill, H.R. 735, and including the
military study language of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Since the introduction of the House postal pension bill and
throughout the committee's markup process, I received hundreds of
letters from members of the business mailing community expressing
support of the legislation and urging quick action. I was pleased to
have been contacted by so many businesses in the Chicago area and
within the State of Illinois.
In the face of a depressing economy and a swift and steady decline in
mail volume, businesses and consumers are in no mood for postage rate
increases. To that end, I am pleased that the bill before us not only
corrects the calculation of the postal service's contributions to the
CSRS fund, it will also allow the postal service to hold off on rate
increases for at least 2 years, while allowing the postal service to
reduce its $11.9 billion debt.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for
this important legislation. Although this is a good bill, it is not a
perfect bill. At the appropriate time, I certainly expect to express
support for the military amendment of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman), an amendment which would retain current law with respect
to Treasury paying the costs related to the military service of
employees in the Civil Service Retirement System.
Practically all of the postal service's stakeholders are in support
of this legislation: printers, mailers, the unions, and the consuming
public. It is a good bill. I urge its passage.
Again, I commend the chairman and ranking member for their
leadership.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the former chairman of the full
committee and a leader in postal reform.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
I agree with what my colleague with the great voice, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis), just said; and I rise in support of the
Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. I
commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) on our side of
the aisle for guiding this bill through this legislative body at this
time.
It is very important that we have a strong and viable postal service,
and that is why during the last Congress I was disappointed when we did
not pass the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The gentleman
from New York (Mr. McHugh) and others worked very hard on that
legislation, and it would have helped a great deal.
As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) just said a few
minutes ago, there are a lot of problems with the postal service that
need to be addressed, but this is a very important one; and that is why
I am happy to see this bill before us today.
Why is immediate action needed? Because, if we do not do anything,
that simply is not an option. If Congress does not correct the
retirement benefit formula in current law, postal rates will probably
increase in the not-too-distant future, and everybody who deals with
the postal service and has businesses understands how important that
is. Such an increase in postal rates in the current economic
environment threatens the postal service, its employees and the entire
country, as well as the mailing industry.
Congress has a duty to ensure that the U.S. Postal Service is on a
sound fiscal footing and to protect the American postal customers from
unstable rates. Changing the way the U.S. Postal Service retirement
payments are made is going to go a long way toward accomplishing that
goal. Without this change, businesses throughout the country will
continue to be unfairly taxed by having postal rate increases.
This bill is very, very needed and will ensure stable postal rates
into the foreseeable future, and I think will help facilitate an
economic recovery in many sectors of the economy.
Once again I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom
Davis) for his hard work on this. He is doing a great job as a new
chairman, and I appreciate that.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a very important
member of our committee.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Tom Davis) and certainly the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for their fine work on this bill.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) has worked tirelessly on
postal issues for several years. S. 380 contains the same language as
H.R. 735. As such, I am pleased to support S. 380, a bill that goes a
long way to ensure the viability of the postal service.
This bill provides financial relief to the postal service by reducing
the
[[Page H2906]]
amount that the postal service has to pay into the Civil Service
Retirement System. The postal service will save $9.1 billion over the
next 3 years and $35.6 billion over the next 10 years.
I am also pleased that S. 380 contains language that calls on the
postal service and other Federal agencies to study the military
pensions and report back to the Congress. Currently, the postal service
is paying billions of dollars more into CSRS each year than is needed
to fully fund its pension obligations. The Office of Personnel and
Management determined that by changing the funding formula the postal
service could reduce the amount of money needed to pay into the fund.
The funding formula would be more like the one used in the Federal
Employees Retirement System.
This bill requires the postal service to work with the Treasury
Department, applying the saved funding to pay down its debt in the
first 2 years. In fiscal year 2005, the bill allows for the money saved
to be used to keep postal rates stable through 2006.
Mr. Speaker, this bill enjoys broad support from the postal service,
postal labor unions, mailing industry representatives, and postal
consumers. Passage of this legislation will ensure that the postal
service pays down its debts and will forestall the need for another
postage rate increase until 2006. This legislation strengthens the
postal service, lowers the postal service's debts, and protects postal
consumers. I urge all of my friends in the Congress to vote in favor of
S. 380.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member on the
Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 380,
which contains the same language as H.R. 735. This legislation, as has
been said earlier, is critically important to our Nation's economy,
especially in these uncertain times.
S. 380 is good for the American consumers because it means that we
will be able to hold the line on postal rate increases for at least 2
more years. It also relieves pressure on those who rely heavily on the
postal service to deliver their products, allowing them to reinvest
that savings into their local communities and provide more jobs. Most
importantly, by freezing rates for 2 years, the postal service and its
customers are afforded great stability in their mailing and long-term
planning budgets.
As has been said earlier, this involved the support of all of the
postal service customers, the unions, the administration; and it
involved a great deal of compromise for those folks to come on board,
setting the tone for long-term structural reform of the postal service.
The bill buys everyone valuable time to develop a comprehensive long-
term solution to the post office's solvency, while avoiding the
temptation to micromanage post offices.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. McHugh), a congressional leader on postal issues, and my
chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), for his hard
work bringing the bill so swiftly to the floor. The gentleman from
Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) has demonstrated his leadership in
legislative capabilities as chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform in a very short period of time, and I appreciate his work on
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue and so many
others, and, of course, thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis) and subcommittee minority member, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis), for their work on this important bill.
I rise in strong support of S. 380, the Postal Civil Service
Retirement System Funding Program. As a member of the Committee on
Government Reform's Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight and a
cosponsor of H.R. 735, the House companion, I am very pleased that the
House is taking up this very important legislation today that is
important to the postal service and important to the American consumer.
With the postal service facing $11 billion in debt over the next few
years and the General Accounting Office listing the postal service on
their high-risk list, S. 380 and its stabilizing effects on the postal
service is very good news for our country.
S. 380 corrects the formula used to determine the amount of annual
lump-sum payments the postal service makes to the Civil Service
Retirement System. If current law remains unchanged, the postal
service-required share of this Federal Government retirement fund will
result in a very significant long-term overpayment of more than $70
billion.
S. 380 will credit the postal service for its past payments, which is
only fair, to seed SRS, and change how contributions will be made in
the future. The bottom line is that the postal service will get some
very needed fiscal relief, a cash inflow of money, and the American
people get a promise of stable postal rates until 2006. The American
public and all postal customers will enjoy a 3-year rate freeze on the
cost of postage because of this fix.
I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
McHugh), along with others, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis)
and, of course, the chairman and ranking member, as well as the postal
service and the very diverse coalition of postal, labor unions,
management groups, business and industry and other postal consumers,
all of whom support this legislation.
The mailing industry is tremendously important to the economy of our
Nation. The United States Postal Service is the second largest civilian
employer in the Nation, employing over 770,000 talented and dedicated
workers, workers who lately have had to do their job under tremendous
pressure with the threat of anthrax attacks and terrorist attacks.
{time} 1645
The mail industry is 8 percent of our GNP, a $900 billion industry
that includes not only the Postal Service, but also 9 million Americans
in the private sector who work in this industry. I represent many
businesses that rely greatly on the Postal Service, and this bill will
not only benefit the Postal Service directly, but because this will
stabilize the rates, and this is very important, because it will help
struggling and ailing businesses like the magazine industry, which
happens to be headquartered in the district that I represent. And they
have seen many longtime popular magazines fail, like Mademoiselle,
Mode, and Brill's Content shut down operations because of the tough
economy and also because of the escalating postal rates. All USPS
customers need the best service possible from the Postal Service, and
certainly a healthy Postal Service is vital to a healthy economy.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the House is taking action today
to help strengthen the Postal Service.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Macomb County, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time.
The Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003
is a very, very long name, but appropriately so, because it addresses
reform that is certainly very long overdue. The Postal Service, in
fact, has not seen any real reform since 1971 when the Congress passed
the Postal Reorganization Act. Since then, of course, the Postal
Service has dramatically expanded.
Consider some rather startling numbers. Today, the mailing industry
accounts for 9 million jobs, $900 billion in commerce, and 9 percent of
the United States gross domestic product. S. 380, as approved by the
Senate, is really nearly identical to H.R. 735 which was passed by the
Committee on Government Reform under the extraordinary leadership of
our great chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
The purpose of this legislation is to change the manner in which the
Postal Service pays into the Civil Service Retirement System.
This legislation is so very necessary because under current law, the
Postal
[[Page H2907]]
Service will overpay its obligations to the Civil Service Retirement
System by more than $70 billion. In effect, the Postal Service would be
forced to subsidize the retirement obligations of other Federal
agencies.
The net result is that the Postal Service has to continually
implement rate increases which would otherwise be unnecessary.
S. 380 does not affect the payment of retiree benefits. It has no
negative impact on retirees. It simply addresses how those benefits are
funded.
The anticipated savings from this bill would be utilized in two ways:
first of all, to pay down the total debt that the Postal Service
currently has with the Department of the Treasury; and secondly, to
delay any rate increases on consumer and commercial mailings until
fiscal year 2006.
Certainly, for most of us if one has a postal rate increase, it might
just be a nuisance, just 1 cent or 2 cents. That kind of an increase
might not mean too much if you send only a few letters per month.
However, if you are a business who is sending literally millions of
pieces of mail, this is a tremendous increase in your costs, and we can
just think about the impact that a postal rate increase has on the mail
order catalog businesses or on magazine businesses or so many
businesses that rely on the United States Postal Service to conduct
their business.
If the 108th Congress does not act on this legislation, it will
necessitate a postal rate increase, and we will, in effect, be levying
an unfair tax increase on the American consumer.
Passage of this bill would be very much the first stage of
substantial postal reform that will bring the service into the 21st
century. I think it is important that this Congress demonstrate to the
citizens of our Nation that it will be committed to improving the cost-
effectiveness and the efficiency certainly of government, and this
legislation is an excellent first step in that direction.
No other governmental entity serves its customers more directly than
the Postal Service. Almost every citizen of our Nation is impacted at
varying degrees by the Postal Service. Customer service should not be a
novel concept within the Federal Government. It should be an operative
phrase for us.
S. 380 will allow post offices to better serve their customers and,
by voting in favor of this legislation, Congress will be voting to fix
a wrong that has hampered the Postal Service for years. I certainly
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 380.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Janklow), former Governor.
Mr. JANKLOW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and
clearly the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for taking the
leadership to move forward on this.
Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual day in America when people can look to
the Congress and understand that we may really solve a problem. If we
can agree on something being a problem, it should not be hard to fix
it. The debate ought to be around what does it take to bring about a
solution, but we have to agree there is a problem.
There is no question but that when one charges more for a monopoly
like the Postal Service, when one charges more money for something than
one is supposed to, then that is an unfair tax on the people, just as
if the Congress had passed the tax. Two, it has a stifling effect on
the economy and all of those businesses, but just as importantly, all
of those individual human beings that use the Postal Service for
everything from mailing their monthly bills to mailing out anniversary
and Christmas cards. Three, they have not been able to figure out in
the past how to take care of funding the Civil Service Retirement
System adequately.
It is a red letter day when the Republicans and Democrats can come
together on a bill that they agree solves a problem.
Mr. Speaker, that is what we have here today. We have had anthrax in
the Postal Service, we have had the situation of rate increases in the
Postal Service, we have had the situation in the Postal Service where
we are dealing with a down economy, but this is a real shot in the arm
for this organization. One, we are going to be able to use the excess
monies to go into funding the operational aspects for fiscal years 03,
04 and 05. The second thing we are going to be able to do is to fix the
Civil Service Retirement System. And the third thing we are going to be
able to do is to move the Postal Service more towards a sound financial
setting.
I have heard from the mail carriers, I have heard from the
postmasters, I have heard from the newspaper organizations and the
magazine organizations. The one group that I have not heard from are
the consumers of America, the individual people, because they have not
been aware that this problem has been going forward.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is really an exciting day, truly an exciting day
when people can come together in this Congress, in this House, and
solve problems.
Now, having said that, I think we all have to recognize that this
gives the Postal Service a couple additional years of opportunity to
look at their organization, to look at the things they have to do, to
make this a more efficient, more effective service. It is the largest
single business in this country. There is no business bigger. We always
talk about the Fortune 500 or the top 100 or whatever. There is no
business in this Nation that is as large as the U.S. Postal Service in
terms of its economic impact, its economic might, and its economic
power. It can also be an economic drag, because this Nation cannot run
without that service.
So to the extent that we are able to find billions of dollars and
move them into the operational side, move them into the side to reduce
the capital expenditure demands for increased funding, there is no
question but what that does is give us the ability to be able to more
effectively deal with the economy of this country.
This is a couple billion dollars a year, but the cumulative effect
would have been $70 billion, 7 followed by 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.
As Senator Dirksen once said, If you take a billion here and a billion
there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
So what we are doing today is taking the first giant step towards
solving a real money problem for the American people. What we are doing
today is starting the long-range fix of the problem in the Postal
Service to the benefit of the employees, to the benefit of the
consumers, to the benefit of the users, and to the benefit of the
economy of America.
I say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), I sincerely applaud
you as the chairman of the committee that has drafted this in the first
couple of months in the Congress. The gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) has done the same thing. They have come together in a committee
that had historically a lot of contention. They have come together to
move forward on something that is for the good of all of the people of
this great country, and so I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
McHugh) for having planted the seed and kept the tree nurtured until
the others could seize upon it.
This is a red letter day for the people of America, and I urge my
colleagues to support it unanimously.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I
thank everybody involved with this legislation for their efforts. I
think this is a bill that we can all look at with pride.
Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time on our side, so I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests at
this time. I would urge adoption of this measure.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.
380, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of
2003. This legislation provides financial relief to the Postal Service
in a time of great need. By enacting this legislation, we will help the
Postal Service carry out its stated mission of providing universal
service--the idea that mail service in our rural areas should be as
speedy, efficient, and inexpensive as mail service in our largest
cities. In my district in New Mexico where there are numerous rural
communities, this mission is especially important. Additionally, by
providing relief for the Postal Service, we can keep postal rates
stable until 2006.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the steps this Congress has taken
toward helping the
[[Page H2908]]
Postal Service to carry out their vital services. I thank my colleagues
for showing their support not only for the Postal Service and its many
employees, but for all communities throughout the country.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time having been yielded,
it is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in the
Congressional Record by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Waxman
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Waxman:
In section 8348(h)(1)(B)(i) of title 5, United States Code
(as proposed to be amended by section 2(c) of the bill),
strike ``include'' and insert ``exclude''.
In section 8348(h)(1)(B)(ii) of title 5, United States Code
(as proposed to be amended by section 2(c) of the bill),
strike ``included shall not'' and insert ``excluded shall''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of April
7, 2003, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I support S. 380. The bill strengthens the Postal
Service, lowers their debt, and protects postal consumers. The
legislation, however, is not perfect. In particular, I do not believe
that requiring the Postal Service to pay the pension costs associated
with the military service, the previous military service of their
employees, is a good idea.
Under current law, the Department of the Treasury pays the costs of
retirement benefits related to military service for employees who are
part of the Civil Service Retirement System. My amendment would
maintain the status quo, keeping the responsibility for paying these
costs with the Federal Treasury where they have always been, and where
they belong.
In contrast, S. 380 shifts the burden of paying these costs from
Treasury to the Postal Service. The legislation even has the effect of
requiring the Postal Service to reimburse the Treasury for payments
that have already been made. This shift will require the Postal Service
to pay billions more than it otherwise would have to pay.
I believe it is wrong and unfair to require the Postal Service to
shoulder this burden.
Many believe that the Postal Service should run more like a private
business, yet no private business, including the Postal Service's
competitors, is required to pay benefits for military service. S. 380
would also make the Postal Service the only entity in the Civil Service
Retirement System that has to pay for military benefits.
I will not seek a vote on this amendment because, for reasons that I
do not understand, the White House has signaled that it would oppose
this legislation if my amendment were included. Thus, the result of
adopting the amendment would be to bring down a bill that has many
other worthwhile components.
Instead of pursuing this amendment, S. 380 contains language that we
worked out with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) that calls
for a study of whether the Department of the Treasury or the Postal
Service should be responsible for pension costs associated with
military service with reports to the Congress. I do not believe this
study language is as good as my amendment, yet at least it preserves
this issue for further consideration.
Under the language of the study provision, the submission and
evaluation of the proposals regarding military pension are timed to
coincide with our review of the Postal Service's proposed use of the
savings resulting from this legislation. I hope that at that point in
time, we will reconsider our approach toward military costs.
{time} 1700
At the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, I will seek to withdraw this
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, I agree in principle with the
concept behind the gentleman's amendment. This bill, which adopts the
administration's approach on the treatment of military funding, would
make the postal service the only agency responsible for the military
costs of the CSRS retirees. I do not think it is right. I do not think
it is fair to postal rate payers. Unlike other agencies in government,
this is an enterprise fund that is paid for by the rate payers who
should not have to bear this burden. I think it puts strains on the
post office that should not be there.
The postal service's mandate is to charge rate payers for its
operating and overhead expenses and to break even over time. While the
postal service does pay for military benefits for its FERS employees,
it has never been required to for its CSRS employees, and neither is
any other agency in government.
However, the administration is categorically opposed to any treatment
of military funding other than the FERS model that they propose. The
bill's principle sponsor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), is
going to speak on this more fully in just a moment. But with so much at
stake in this legislation, I think we have to move forward on what we
can agree on and follow the administration's approach at this time.
We will carefully consider the results of the studies that we have
mandated in this bill. But still, I want to thank my colleague from
California (Mr. Waxman) for highlighting this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
McHugh).
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Let me express my appreciation, as well, to the ranking member, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for raising this issue. I think
it is a very appropriate question, and it needs full and total debate,
and also for having the diplomatic position of withdrawing it because
of the problems.
And I am certainly one who would support any measure that brings an
added $18 billion or even more to the postal service and all the good
that that could accrue. But I think it is important for the House to
know as we set the stage here for future debate that, as the chairman
said, the administration has serious concerns about this. And their
argument is simply that if we are going to use the FERS model, which is
indeed what applies here and accrues the nearly over-$70 billion in
savings, that the FERS modeling should indeed be applied across the
board, which under FERS does require military retirement to be paid by
the agency instead of by the Federal Treasury.
I should note as well, whether or not we agree with them, the OPM
has, in meetings that all of us sat in on, our staffs, that if this
provision were to be included, they would strongly recommend a veto
which I think underscores again the gentleman from California's (Mr.
Waxman) willingness to deal with this particular issue of the funding
question and then get on to the equally important debate with respect
to the military obligation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again the chairman and the ranking
member for working this out. And certainly I am hopeful we can work
with the administration to try to bring about an agreement that accrues
to the most possible good for the postal service and its customers.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I simply rise in support of the
Waxman amendment. But I also rise in support of the agreement that the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) have been able to arrive at.
I think once again this is an indication of the manner in which the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform have
been able to provide leadership that moves us from the discussion point
to
[[Page H2909]]
the position of being able to actually do something. And so I commend
both of the gentlemen for their diplomacy, for their leadership, and
for their legislative skill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have made our point on this amendment. We
will have this issue out there for further consideration at another
time; but in the interest of moving this legislation forward and
getting a good bill enacted into law, I will withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The amendment is withdrawn.
Pursuant to the order of the House of April 7, 2003, the previous
question is ordered on the Senate bill.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question on the passage of the Senate
bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
announcement by the speaker pro tempore
The Chair announces that further proceedings on motions to suspend
the rules and agree to House Resolution 170 and House Resolution 149,
postponed earlier today, will resume tomorrow.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that this vote will be
followed by three 5-minute votes on the motion to suspend the rules
related to H.R. 205, House Resolution 179, and H.R. 1584, as amended.
This is a 15-minute vote on passage of S. 380.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 424,
nays 0, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 115]
YEAS--424
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Combest
Gephardt
Gordon
Hyde
Jenkins
Lucas (OK)
McCarthy (MO)
Payne
Smith (MI)
Stupak
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes left in this vote.
{time} 1724
So the Senate bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of April
7, H.R. 735 is laid on the table.
____________________