[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 26, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H6511-H6549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
POSTAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND ENHANCEMENT ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 380 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 22.
{time} 1850
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 22) to reform the postal laws of the United States, with Mr.
Simpson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the former chairman of the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee, who has played a lead role
in moving this bill to where it is today, and spent 6 long years in the
vineyards laboring on this when he was chairman of the committee.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to
congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who has done
yeoman's service to the committee and to this government in fighting
for a postal reform measure. He has just done a great job. I want to
congratulate him on all of the hard work in bringing this thing to the
floor.
I want to congratulate our chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis). We fought for, I think, 6 years when I was chairman to
bring this bill to the floor and pass it, and, Mr. Chairman, I want to
congratulate you on being able to get this thing to the floor.
I hope that we are successful in getting it not only through here,
but through the Senate as well.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), my
good buddy, who has one of the best voices in the Congress. If I could
talk like
[[Page H6512]]
him, I would be President. He has got that deep, resonant voice.
I want to thank you and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
for all of the hard work that you have put in on this bill. I want to
congratulate you as well.
Let me just say that we have been working on this now for, gosh, I
guess at least 10 years, but 6 years when I was chairman and now 4
years that you have been chairman. We have finally brought a bill to
the floor. I do not think it is perfect, but it sure is a giant step in
the right direction.
If we do not do something about postal reform, what is going to
happen is the costs are going to go through the roof, and instead of
this being an agency that deals with the expenses themselves, we are
going to be seeing taxpayers footing the bill for additional costs for
postal service.
With the advent of faxes and e-mails, you have seen the Postal
Service have a lot more problems with revenues than they have had in
the past. And it is absolutely essential, if we are going to have a
viable Postal Service in this country, that we pass this legislation.
So I think this is a very good bill. I believe it will pass tonight,
and I hope that all of my colleagues will vote for it. Once again, I
want to thank all of those responsible, especially the gentleman from
New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for working so hard on this.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I
control the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the House have worked over a decade to
reform this important part of our national culture and economy. I am
truly pleased to serve in this Congress which is moving this historic
reform forward.
I also want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis), and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) and their dedicated staffs for their commitment
to postal reform and for the bipartisan cooperation to work for its
passage.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) deserves particular
recognition for his leadership and perseverance with regard to postal
reform.
Postal reform is a significant issue for my congressional district as
it is for much of America. I represent one of the primary postal hubs
in the Midwest, the great city of Chicago. In addition to the 12,000
postal employees who deliver mail daily to 1.2 million homes and
businesses in the Chicago area, we have many respected companies like
R.R. Donnelley, the largest printing company in North America, that are
clients of the Postal Service.
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2005 modernizes the
postal system, helping it remain healthy and affordable well into the
21st century. This bill is a delicate compromise that has gone through
a series of processes of hearings, meetings and negotiations. We have
worked extensively and effectively with administration representatives
to address their concerns.
There is something in this bill for everyone. It may not be
everything that interest groups desire; however, as the gentleman from
Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) has said, it is our best chance at
solving the structural, legal and financial constraints that put the
Postal Service at risk of catastrophe.
As the Comptroller General recognized this past January,
comprehensive postal reform is urgently needed. The Postal Service
historically has accumulated billions of dollars in debt and currently
has massive unfunded liabilities.
Declining first class mail volumes, high infrastructure-related costs
and rigid statutes necessitate reform. It has been 35 years since
comprehensive postal reform occurred. It is our responsibility to
protect our treasured national asset before it is in crisis. The time
for reform is now.
H.R. 22 has many highlights for the Postal Service. It provides the
rate-making flexibility and incentives needed to operate as an
efficient business. For businesses it provides rate stability, fair
competition rules, financial transparency, and procurement protections
needed to predict costs and operate on a level playing field. For
consumers it preserves universal service, maintains high-quality
standards, and eliminates unfair mailing costs so that they have an
affordable and reliable means of communication. For workers it protects
collective bargaining and offers whistleblower protections that are
needed to ensure safe employment. For taxpayers it ensures the
viability of a national asset and removes the threat of a taxpayer
bail-out of the Postal Service due to financial insolvency.
These are just some of the provisions that will go a long way to
helping the Postal Service better serve its customers, compete fairly
with the mailing industry and contribute to our Nation.
In addition, I am pleased that the bill requires a study of the
number of contracts with women, minorities and small businesses, and
that it protects our domestic airlines from outsourcing of jobs to
foreign carriers. I represent many members from each of these groups,
and it is important that our reforms treat them all fairly. I reiterate
that this bill is the best option to protect our treasured national
asset before it is in crisis.
I know that the issue of classifying single-piece parcels as
competitive or market-dominant has caused a good deal of anxiety for
many parties affected by postal reform. I look forward to addressing
this issue in conference.
And at this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy
with the distinguished chairman of the Government Reform Committee, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. Chairman, section 404 of the Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act alters paragraph 2 of section 401 of title 39 of the
U.S. Code. This section pertains to the rulemaking authority of the
United States Postal Service. Obviously the issue of fairness in
rulemaking by the Postal Service affects a number of businesses in my
district.
I would like to ask the distinguished chairman to clarify how
rulemaking by the Postal Service should consider the circumstances
within the postal sector.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the committee intends that the Postal Service will
exercise the more clearly delineated rulemaking powers provided under
this section in a way that is rationally related to the policy
objectives set out in the revised statute, and it is predicated upon an
understanding of the effect the regulations will have on the conditions
in the postal sector.
{time} 1900
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform to further
clarify the meaning of the language related to the role of the Postal
Regulatory Commission in entering complaints related to rule-making.
I yield to the chairman to find out his understanding.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr.
Chairman, the committee further expects that the Postal Regulatory
Commission will distinguish carefully between abuses of the Regulatory
Authority set out in section 404 and the legitimate exercise of
managerial discretion by the Postal Service in its implementation of
the complaint provisions contained in section 205 of the bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the
distinguished chairman for his answers and for his cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, most of us are familiar with the engraved saying
outside the James A. Farley Post Office in New York City: ``Neither
rain, nor snow, nor heat, nor gloom of night might stay these couriers
from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.''
[[Page H6513]]
This is the unofficial motto depicting some of the circumstances our
Nation's letter carriers face in fulfillment of the universal service
obligation of the United States Postal Service.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 22, the Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act, which addresses a problem plaguing
our Postal Service today that is far greater than the snow or rain or
heat or gloom of night. That problem is the outdated and unsustainable
structural framework of the Postal Service which threatens to bring it
to the brink of catastrophe unless Congress acts immediately.
This legislation is about more than reforming the Postal Service
itself. It is about reforming and sustaining a vital sector of our
overall economy. After all, the Postal Service currently has about
707,000 career and 98,000 noncareer employees. In addition, more than 9
million American jobs, $900 billion in commerce, 9 percent of the
Nation's gross domestic product, let me repeat, 9 percent of GDP depend
on mail and package delivery. Thus, the Postal Service is not only
vital to our national communication network but also to our national
economy.
Each year the Postal Service processes and delivers 208 billion
pieces of mail to more than 130 million addressees in the United
States. That is 208 billion magazines, catalogs, thank-you notes,
birthday cards, wedding invitations, Social Security checks, IRS
refunds, letters to Congressmen, movie rentals, all delivered in
fulfillment of the Postal Service's promise of universal service.
The last time Congress successfully passed legislation to overhaul
the post office was 1970 when President Nixon signed the Postal
Reorganization Act, before e-mails, before fax machines. It is time to
bring the service into the 21st century.
The legislation we are considering today, the Postal Accountability
and Enhancement Act, is the culmination of a decade of hard work and
study, not to mention a great deal of bipartisan negotiation and
cooperation amongst various groups. Consequently, H.R. 22 now
represents our best chance at solving the structural, legal, and
financial constraints that have brought the Postal Service to the brink
of utter breakdown.
This past April, the Postal Service filed paperwork with the Postal
Rate Commission to request a 5.4 percent rate increase for most
categories of mail. These rate hikes, which are scheduled to take
effect early next year unless Congress acts to prevent them, will
impose a significant cost burden, let us call it what it is, a tax on
the postal consumer.
For direct marketers, financial service companies and businesses
relying heavily on shipping and mailing, these rate hikes are
devastating. To make matters worse, increasing postal rates could send
the postal office into what many observers call a death spiral, where
declining business leads to higher rates which in turn leads to decline
in business until it is too late to change course.
Unfortunately, under current law, the Postal Service's only recourse
to remain competitive in today's market is to raise rates. That is no
way to run an operation. In addition, the Postal Service's most recent
request for a rate increase was spurred in part by an existing
requirement that the Postal Service contribute $3.1 billion to a
Federal pension escrow account which now houses more than $73 billion
in civil service retirement savings that rightfully belongs to the
United States Postal Service.
This is just one of many instances in which the USPS is hampered by
the current legal framework. And it is one of many outdated
requirements that H.R. 22 seeks to reform.
Quite simply, the laws that the Postal Service has today are outdated
and unsuited for today's competitive environment. Let me take just a
minute to highlight a few of the reform components included in this
comprehensive bill that will enable the service to move into the 21st
century.
Universal service. First and foremost, the bill preserves the Postal
Service's commitment to universal service, the guaranteed delivery 6
days a week to each and every address in the United States.
Pension responsibility. It returns responsibility for funding the
military cost of postal retirees' pension to the Treasury Department
where it belongs. It is recommended by the President's commission. This
liability was shifted to the Postal Service in the last Congress. That
shift was little more than an accounting gimmick, but it is one that
must be reversed if we are to be serious about fixing the Postal
Service's long-term balance sheet.
The escrow account. As I have already mentioned, the bill frees up
the $73 billion in civil service retirement savings that has been held
in escrow, allowing the Postal Service to use this money to defray rate
increases, among other options.
Modern rate regulation. This legislation shifts the basis of the
Postal Rate Commission from a costly, complex scheme of rates to a
modern system designed to ensure that rate increases generally do not
exceed the annual change in the consumer price index. This applies only
to market-dominated products, such as letters, periodicals, and
advertising mail, because the Postal Service has provided different
pricing freedom for its competitive products, like express mail and
priority mail.
Strengthening the commission. This act will rename the Postal Rate
Commission the Postal Regulatory Commission and give it teeth by
granting it subpoena power and a broader scope for regulation and
oversight.
Finally, the act sets the stage for future reforms by mandating
several studies including a comprehensive assessment of the scope of
standards for universal service.
Today, the White House released its statement of administration
policy, its SAP, regarding this legislation. While we share the
ultimate goal of effectively reforming the Postal Service, some issues
still lack consensus between the Congress and the White House. The
administration has established some general, overarching principles to
guide the framing of the comprehensive reform of the U.S. Postal
Service. These include best practices of corporate governance,
transparency, flexibility, accountability, and self-financing.
Our bill shares these goals, but recognizes these principles are
often times at odds with one another and may require some give and
take. For example, the administration has proposed segment reporting
for each and every class of mail, a practice which would unfortunately
place the Postal Service at a competitive disadvantage with some of its
toughest competitors. Thus, this requirement would be contrary to the
administration's first stated proposal of best practices of corporate
governance. It is just one example of an instance in which compromise
is needed if we are to enact meaningful, comprehensive reform.
This bill, the refined product of nearly 10 years of careful
negotiation and compromise, strikes an ideal balance among the guiding
principles on which both the House and administration are in agreement.
I just want to assure the administration we will continue to work
closely will them as H.R. 22 heads toward a conference.
Before I conclude, I want to take this opportunity to thank the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who chaired our special panel on
postal reform and was the original bill's chief sponsor. He was,
without doubt, the right leader to undertake this daunting task.
I also want to thank the former chairman of the Committee on
Government Reform, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who played
an integral role in moving the ball forward on postal reform that
allowed us to be where we are today.
Finally, I want to thank the Committee on Government Reform's ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the ranking member on the special panel, for
their dedication to this subject and their willingness to operate in a
bipartisan manner and work through this, through the difficult issues
that have been presented.
Bipartisan cooperation is the primary reason why this bill has
finally reached the House floor and why we have been able to keep such
diverse stakeholders around the table in productive discussions.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H6514]]
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), a member of the Committee on
Government Reform whose father preceded him, and his father preceded
him not only in office but in having a great interest in postal
matters.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis) for yielding me time.
I too want to join my colleagues in congratulating and thanking the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Tom Davis), and the ranking members, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis),
for the hard work they put into advancing this bill to this point.
I rise in support of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. I
am committed to protecting the interests of the U.S. Postal Service. I
have the honor of representing over 3,000 Postal Service employees.
Together they earn over $167 million in annual payroll and pay almost
$20 million dollars in income taxes.
Postal employees represent an important part of my community economic
base. Several months ago, I hosted a postal roundtable with groups
representing postal-reliant businesses that depend on the postal system
to deliver their products and collect their revenues. In addition,
postmasters, letter carriers, direct mailers, and representatives of
trucking companies participated in this roundtable.
While overwhelming support was expressed for this legislation, many
concerns were raised about single-piece parcels, single-piece parcel
post, or single letters, whether they should continue to be classifieds
as market dominant so that the Postal Service can continue to offer
fair rates for items mailed anywhere, including rural and more remote
areas. The U.S. Postal Service would have to dramatically raise prices
on such packages and possibly be forced to stop offering the
universally affordable rate for single-piece parcels to individuals and
small businesses.
This would result in the loss of many jobs within the Postal Service
and create an inconvenience to customers. The U.S. Postal Service
provides a vital public service to all of our constituents and is an
essential part of our Nation's economic infrastructure.
I urge my colleagues to put single-piece parcels back in the market
dominance category and support the Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the chief author
of this, someone who has championed this cause since I came to
Congress.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, today, obviously, represents a critical step in what
has to this point been a journey of more than 10 years, a decade and a
half of hearings and meeting, of negotiations followed by more
hearings, more meetings, more negotiations, to rewrite and rewrite
again and again a piece of legislation that will serve as the first
true serious reform of the sector known as the United States Postal
Service, that since 1970.
In that length of effort, Mr. Chairman, that incredible commitment to
the issue speaks directly to the critical importance of the Postal
Service of this Nation and the complexity of this system that each and
every day and each and every year delivers some 206 billion pieces of
mail going through 38,000 postal facilities to 143 million addresses in
virtually every community in every State in this Nation, 6 days a week,
day in, day out, week in and week out.
So since 1775 this is the service that American people and American
businesses alike have come and grown to expect. Universal service at a
uniform price, no questions asked. No one in this country, Mr.
Chairman, goes to his or her mailbox or his or her local post office
wondering if the mail will be there. It is always there. It has always
been there. But the true question, the question that this bill seeks to
answer with a resounding yes, I might add, is will the mail always be
there?
I am concerned that truly without this legislation the answer might
well be far different than that resounding yes. Postal service of today
is far removed from that of 30 years ago when reform was last enacted.
Unlike then, the mail stream of today has diminished by such things as
e-mails and faxes and cell phones and text messages, largely electronic
means of communication that replace mail. They replace stamps. And thus
they replace the revenues necessary to operate our key mail delivery
system.
Some ask, if people are choosing to communicate in different ways,
why do we need to change things at all? Some even go so far as to
suggest that the time of the Postal Service has passed, that we ought
to let the private sector take over.
{time} 1915
But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, for all the challenges the Postal
Service of the 21st century faces, it still retains its traditional
place as a key cog in how American businesses conduct their affairs and
how Americans all across this land communicate.
The postal business sector of this Nation, as we have heard the
distinguished chairman of the full committee clearly state, represents
a $900-billion-a-year industry, with 9 million jobs, and more than 8
percent, nearly 9 percent, of our entire Nation's economy.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, if the Postal Service did not exist here
in 2005, we would have to invent it. That is why more than 200 major
companies in this country have strongly endorsed this measure, 200
companies representing the lifeblood of the economy of this Nation.
That is why virtually every major labor organization within the Postal
Service has endorsed it, why even those companies that compete against
the Postal Service have endorsed H.R. 22, including United Parcel
Service, including FedEx, and others.
Now, I have no doubt there are going to be those who believe they
have a better idea, those who will say they can improve this bill by
adding or diminishing its provisions. And, Mr. Chairman, speaking
honestly, as someone who has been involved from day one for more than
10 years, probably some, if not all, of these critics may be right. But
what I would urge my colleagues to resist this day is the
understandable temptation to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
This bill's formation has taken more than a decade for some very good
reasons. It is, frankly, based upon the complexity of the system
itself. We have considered those interests of the people who manage it,
those who man it, the businesses that rely upon it, those who compete
against it, those who depend upon it, so many interests whose input and
whose needs are all carefully balanced in this bill. Perfection? No,
perhaps not, but a solution nevertheless, a solution to the challenges
that provide the United States Postal Service with the necessary tools
to operate in a manner that most of us expect, like a modern, flexible,
nimble business competing on a fair playing field, operating in an
efficient and professional manner.
Mr. Chairman, at the risk of sounding immodest, I am very, very proud
of this legislation. I am proud of its vision, I am proud of its
construct and its provisions, but I am truly prouder still of those
organizations and those special people, those individuals involved in
those organizations and in this reform effort that have been there from
the start.
They say a year in government and politics is a lifetime, and if that
is true, 10 years has to approach infinity. But through it all, we have
had special people devoted to extraordinary efforts in a singularly
vital cause. And our thanks, and clearly my thanks, are owed to so many
to even begin to list at this moment. Many of them are cited on the
page that I just held up, all those more than 200 interests who
strongly support this.
Many, if it were appropriate under the House rules, I would note are
in the gallery today. But seeing as how it is not appropriate to say
that under the House rules, I will resist the temptation. But without
naming them specifically, I owe them thanks.
At perhaps the risk of offending many, I have to acknowledge a
particularly special few: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the two ranking members
who first began
[[Page H6515]]
to help us move this issue forward. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) has been a stalwart, a ranking member who lost
focus at no time and never lost faith.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the full committee
ranking member, who put aside partisanship, not an easy thing to do in
Washington these days, for the simple reason he understood and deeply
cared about the conclusion of this challenge.
Bill Clinger, followed by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton),
the first and second chairman of the Committee on Government Reform,
who continued to bring our attention to it and keep us focused.
And our current chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis), who might have, who might have, but thankfully did not, let
this effort die; who urged us forward; whose political skills,
intellectual depth, and administrative acumen have really advanced us
to this threshold of success.
These are all important folks, but I want to say, as much as I deeply
indebted for those efforts, in my opinion the success of today's
consideration is predicated largely upon the efforts of one very
special, very dedicated man: Robert Taub. Through it all, Robert has
been the intellectual and spiritual glue that has held this effort
together. He was always willing, even anxious, to my amazement, to do
one more meeting, one more effort to advance reform. And when others
saw failure, Robert saw a challenge. When others lost hope, Robert
remained focused. When others remained angry, including myself, Robert
remained calm. He has been the eye of the storm in a torrent of
conflict, of divergent and seemingly irreconcilable differences. I am
very, very proud that the payroll lists this very extraordinary man as
my chief of staff. I am prouder still that in my heart I consider him a
friend, and I am deeply in his debt particularly.
So I will, with again a thanks to Chairman Davis for all that he has
done, look forward to the passage of this bill.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to say that there is a big difference between vanity and
pride, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) has every reason to
be proud of this product, and we do not think it is vanity at all.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and for his extraordinary leadership on the Task Force for
Postal Reform, on which I have served, and I rise in strong support of
it.
It has been a long and difficult journey which has brought us here
today, well over 10 years, and I thank everyone who has been involved
in this bipartisan effort to reform the way the Postal Service
currently operates: the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), our
chairman; the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman); the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh); the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis); and their hard and dedicated working staffs.
This is very strongly supported legislation. It is a balance that we
have achieved. We urge everyone to vote for it and to vote against the
amendments that will be coming forward. It is supported by many of the
unions, APWU, the Letter Carriers, the Postmasters, and the postal-
reliant businesses, some of whom are located in my district, the
Magazine Publishers of America, the direct marketers, the financial
services. In fact, there is a coalition of many, literally hundreds, of
businesses, and the 21st Century Postal Service Committee has issued a
statement of support along with the over seven union statements in
support of this bipartisan legislation.
As we know, this is incredibly important to our economy, with more
than 9 million workers worldwide. They generate over $900 billion
annually of our GDP, and represent nearly 9 percent of our overall
budget. If we fail to act on this very pressing issue, the public and
the postal-reliant businesses surely will face higher postal rates in
the near future.
With the Postal Service facing billions of dollars in debt over the
next few years, this Congress, 2 years ago, passed bipartisan
legislation that reduced the Postal Service's contribution to the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund after it was determined that it
had been making overpayments. This reform was expected to help the
Service reduce its debt to the Treasury by approximately $3 billion
each year and to keep rates stable until 2006. It also created an
escrow account designed to ensure that the Postal Service uses these
savings wisely. The bill before us today releases that escrow account
and will help us to keep our rates stable.
Earlier this year, the Postal Service filed a request with the Rate
Commission for yet another increase of 5.4 percent. It would be the
fourth increase since 2001, and it is critical that we release these
monies in the escrow to delay this rate increase.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation relieves the Postal Service and postal
customers of the $27 billion burden in military service payments by
returning that responsibility to the Treasury. After all, every other
agency has this responsibility in the Treasury, and Postal should also.
This legislation also creates a Postal Regulatory Commission with
authority to create a modern system for postal rate regulation. Mr.
Chairman, a number of magazines have gone out of business because of
rate increases, and so this legislation is vital to our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the material I referred to
above regarding the unions in favor of this legislation, and also a
listing of numerous companies and organizations in favor of the
legislation:
[From the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service]
9 Million Workers . . . $900 Billion Economy . . . 9 Percent of U.S.
GDP Help Keep the Mailing Industry Strong and the USPS Viable--Vote Yes
on H.R. 22
Dear Representative: The companies and organizations below
urge you to support H.R. 22, the ``Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act of 2005.'' This legislation will bring
urgently needed modernization and meaningful reform to the
United States Postal Service (USPS), the lynchpin of the
mailing industry--a key economic sector that employs 9
million workers adding $900 billion annually to the U.S.
Gross Domestic Product. In fact, 9 percent of the nation's
GDP can be directly attributed to the mailing industry.
H.R. 22 will bring increased efficiencies to the USPS, and
would allow for more predictability and affordability in
future postal rate increases. Without postal reform, American
jobs will be placed at risk as companies are forced to
compensate for capricious and expensive rate hikes in the
future.
The companies and organizations listed below consider
passing postal reform legislation this year an urgent
priority, and urge you to cast a ``YES'' vote on H.R. 22 when
it is considered on the House floor. Thank you for your
consideration.
Advertising/Marketing/Retail Industries
Arandell, CC3, Direct Marketing Association, Domtar,
Hayzlett Companies, Inc., J.C. Penney, National Retail
Federation, Vertis Direct Marketing Services.
Financial Services/Insurance Industries
Aegon, American Express, Bank of America, CapitalOne,
Chase, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, CUNA Mutual, The Financial
Services Roundtable, LaSalle Bank, MBNA, Property Casualty
Insurers Association of America, USAA, Wachovia.
Forestry/Paper/Printing Industries
American Forest & Paper Association, Banta, International
Paper, MeadWestvaco, National Association for Printing
Leadership, Paramount Cards, Quad Graphics, Quebecor World,
R.R. Donnelly, Richardson Printing, Inc., Solar
Communications, Stora Enso, Weyerhaeuser Company, Wisconsin
Paper Council.
Newspaper/Publishing Industries
Harcourt, Inc., Holt Reinhart & Winston, Inc., IDEAlliance,
LexisNexis, Magazine Publishers of America, McGraw-Hill,
National Newspaper Association, Printing Industries of
America/GATF, Publishers Press, Reed Business Information,
Reed Elsevier, Inc., Time, Inc.
Mailing/Fulfillment/Shipping Industries
Alliance of Non-Profit Mailers, Association for Postal
Commerce, Association of Priority Mail Users, Mailers
Council, Mailing and Fulfillment Service Association,
National Postal Policy Council, Parcel Shippers Association,
Pitney Bowes, PSI Group, Total Systems Services, Inc.
Manufacturing/Technology Industries
Document Management Industries Association, Envelope
Manufacturers Association, Keyspan, Kodak, Multi-Plastics,
Inc., National Association of Manufacturers, NPES The
Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing and
Converting Technologies.
Small Business/General Commerce
National Federation of Independent Business, Small Business
Legislative Council.
[[Page H6516]]
USPS Management/Labor Organizations
National Association of Postal Supervisors, National Rural
Letter Carriers Association.
State and Local Organizations
Printing Industry Association of the South, Inc., Pacific
Printing and Imaging Association, PIA, Inc. of Arizona, PIA
of Southern California, PIA of San Diego, Printing Industries
of Northern California, Printing & Imaging Association
Mountain States, The Association of Graphic Communications,
Graphic Arts Association, Printing and Graphics Association
MidAtlantic, Printing Association of Florida, Inc., PIA of
Georgia, Inc., Printing Industries of Illinois/Indiana
Association, Printing Industries of the Midlands, Inc.,
Printing and Imaging Association of Mid America, Printing
Industries of New England, Printing Industries of Michigan,
Printing Industry of Minnesota, Inc., Printing Industries of
St. Louis, Printing & Imaging Association of New York State,
Inc., PI of the Carolinas, Inc., Printing Industries of Utah,
Printing Industries of Virginia, Inc., Printing Industries of
Wisconsin.
____
July 25, 2005.
Dear Representative: On Tuesday, July 26, the House is
scheduled to consider H.R. 22, the Postal Enhancement and
Accountability Act. We understand that a series of amendments
may be offered that will have a catastrophic impact upon more
than 740,000 postal employees and the American public.
Therefore, we urge you to vote NO on amendments that
jeopardize affordable and universal mail service to your
constituents, and undermine a carefully drafted bill that
balances the needs of the mailing public and postal
employees.
H.R. 22 is the product of years of give and take and
delicate negotiations with all sides making major concessions
along the way. Many of these amendments ignore the results of
those negotiations. Specifically, we oppose amendments being
offered by Congressmen Flake, Hensarling, McHenry, and Pence
because they individually or collectively undermine the ten-
year effort by the authors of H.R. 22.
Sincerely,
American Postal Workers Union.
National Association of Postmasters of the U.S.
National Association of Letter Carriers.
National League of Postmasters of the U.S.
National Rural Letter Carriers Association.
National Association of Postal Supervisors.
National Postal Mail Handlers Union.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much
time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has 11
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) has
17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), who has been very helpful in putting
this bill together.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis), my friend, for entering into this colloquy, and also my friend,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for the work they have done
on this bill. This has been extraordinary. Since I have gotten here, I
have had hundreds of inquiries about this issue, as has every other
Member of Congress, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) has
handled them remarkably well. I strongly support H.R. 22. It is long
overdue.
Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) an important problem in my district. The city
of Taylorsville, Utah, has been assigned four different ZIP codes, and
its citizens must access services at five different post offices, all
outside the city.
Mr. Chairman, if we were talking about New York City or Los Angeles,
more ZIP codes would be common, but in a city of only 60,000, we should
not have four different ZIP codes and be serviced by five different
post offices. So it is my sincere hope that the chairman and I can work
together to reduce the number of ZIP codes for Taylorsville from four
to one, and work towards a fully functioning post office located within
the city proper.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have tried on this
legislation to not get into some of the specific shortcomings of Postal
Service delivery on ZIP codes and the like, but I want to tell the
gentleman that I have looked at this Taylorsville issue. I want to
pledge to work with the gentleman from Utah and with the Postmaster
General to make sure these needs are resolved and to support a
thoughtful solution for the city of Taylorsville, and just assure the
gentleman that that is a priority.
Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Virginia for his commitment to helping me solve this problem, and
I want to thank Taylorsville Mayor Janice Auger for her tireless effort
on this issue.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise today in support of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability
and Enhancement Act. I am extremely happy that after years of work, we
are finally bringing this important bill to the floor for a vote.
In my congressional district alone, there are 66 postal facilities
accounting for over 1,600 postal workers and $79 million in wages. The
men and women of the United States Postal Service bind our Nation
together, offering prompt and reliable services at uniform prices.
Many people do not realize the economic power this industry has. The
postal industry accounts for over 8 percent of the gross national
product, and it is the backbone of a $900 billion mailing industry that
drives the U.S. economy. To maintain the current level of high-quality
service, we must reform our postal system for the new information age.
The United States Postal Service is the world's most efficient postal
system. While America is adding almost 2 million addresses per year,
the number of postal employees have held steady, meaning that the same
number of letter carriers are walking further, while delivering more
mail.
This bill must be passed because it addresses many pressing issues,
such as rate changes, the Postal Service Retirement System, escrow
accounts, and military pension issues. This is the only Federal agency
where funds in the civil retirement system have to be used to fulfill
military obligations within the Department.
{time} 1930
The bill also addresses the issue of the United States Postal Service
overpayment of over $78 billion in civil service retirement benefits.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the escrow requirements
will cost the United States Postal Service nearly $3 billion in 2006
and over $36 billion over the next 8 years. If the postal system is not
fixed, our constituents will bear the cost.
This Nation is very fortunate to have a Postal Service system that
handles such a large volume of mail while operating at affordable costs
to our citizens.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, although we may be living in the age of
technology and more than a few of us cannot live without our e-mail,
the United States Postal Service continues to serve a key role for both
personal and business communications. With 9 million jobs and $900
billion in annual commerce dependent on services provided by USPS,
consideration of this reform package could not come soon enough.
In recent years, the U.S. Postal Service has struggled to perform its
core mission of providing affordable mail service 6 days a week to
every American. Today, the Postal Service operates under the same set
of rules established in 1970; yet the service now delivers nearly 2\1/
2\ times more mail to almost twice as many homes.
Rising costs and financial losses, coupled with rate increases meant
to remedy a declining fiscal situation, have left the Postal Service in
a position that threatens the long-term viability of mail as an
affordable, effective business communications channel.
I am pleased H.R. 22 protects universal service while taking steps to
alleviate the seemingly constant threat of rate increases by
modernizing rate regulation and by freeing up $73 billion in civil
service retirement savings that have been held in escrow.
[[Page H6517]]
Accountability and transparency are of particular interest to me as
there continues to be unresolved questions surrounding the unfair and
inconsistent application of a postal regulation more than 5 years ago.
This particular issue is one I have championed for some time, and
while I am disappointed that we were unable to reach a resolution
before the bill reached the House floor, I look forward to working with
the committee and the Pennsylvania Senators on the issue of postal
reform legislation moves into conference.
Comprehensive legislation is 10 years in the making; and without the
passage of this bill, we are putting in jeopardy millions of American
jobs and the future availability of affordable mail service, the
repercussions of which will be felt well beyond the mailing industry.
In the last session of Congress when I was a member of the
Subcommittee on Postal Reform and the Committee on Government Reform,
we worked on this bill. I am pleased it has come before us, and I urge
my colleagues to support H.R. 22.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress to help the Federal
Government be a better partner and make communities more livable. One
of the simplest ways to achieve that objective does not require new
rules or regulations. It simply requires that the Federal Government
follow the same rules as others.
Well, H.R. 22 contains language from the Community Postal Partnership
Act which I first introduced in the 105th Congress. It requires the
Postal Service to abide by the same zoning and land use laws as
everybody else and requires that the Postal Service garner input from
communities on proposed changes for facilities.
We have had tremendous support for this concept, from homebuilders,
the National Association of Postmasters, the Trust for Historic
Preservation, Realtors, landscape architects, planners, and from within
the postal community itself.
Good government organizations across the country have joined with
mayors and local officials who understand that the over-37,000 postal
facilities are not just remote outposts of Federal activity. They can,
often are, and always should be centers of community activity.
This legislation has had bipartisan support from the majority of the
House of Representatives and has passed the Senate, only to become
victim of the politics of postal reform which I am pleased the
committee has been able to sort out.
It is time, however, to make this relationship something that every
community can count on. It should not be the exception, nor should it
require extraordinary political action. There should be no variation in
the commitment to provide the finest facilities that are part of each
and every community. I am happy that the committee has chosen to
include this language in the comprehensive postal reform bill.
In turn, I think it is essential that we recognize the valuable
service provided by the Postal Service. It delivers more items in one
day than Fed Ex does in a year; it manages half the world's mail with
one-fourth of the revenue and a fifth of the workforce. It is important
that we not just applaud these accomplishments, but give the Postal
Service the tools it needs to continue to deliver its valuable service.
This bill accomplishes that goal. It is a delicately balanced
compromise which I hope the House will support, rejecting amendments
that would upset that balance, and build on this for a better Postal
Service in the future.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and rise in support of H.R. 22. It is a good bill that should be
enacted this year.
I applaud the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the ranking
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh)
has made a career of this bill, and we are thankful for that. He is not
on the floor, but I want to congratulate him on his efforts.
Just a few months ago, the Committee on Government Reform marked up
and passed this bill 39-0. Given the current political environment,
that is amazing. An extraordinary achievement. Such bipartisanship on
Capitol Hill is all too rare these days. When it happens, we should
take note. The fact that every Democrat and Republican on the committee
embraced H.R. 22 testifies to the need for postal reform that puts
politics aside and focuses on pressing issues.
It is also a tribute to the hard work and energy that postal
employees, business groups, and postal customers brought to bear
educating lawmakers about the merits of reform.
Let me say something as an aside. The United States Postal Service is
the most efficient and productive postal service in the world. It may
surprise some to learn that some years ago when I took testimony in the
Treasury Postal Subcommittee as chairman, the United States Postal
Service was 40 percent more efficient than the number two postal
service in the world which was Japan. I observed if we had that kind of
productivity efficiency with respect to VCRs, we would not be buying
JVCs, we would be buying RCAs made in America or Emerson or some other
manufacturer.
Why has H.R. 22 earned my support and the support of a bipartisan
group? Simply put, because it satisfies four areas. First, it protects
universal service. That is absolutely essential. Secondly, it protects
collective bargaining. Since the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970
established collective bargaining as a fundamental right, there has not
been a single work stoppage or significant disruption in service as a
result of labor-management discord. It is appropriate to protect it and
continue it.
I noticed the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) is back on the
floor. I congratulate the gentleman. I said how steadfast you have been
in the face of coming right up to the brink of passage and then having
to withdraw. We all owe you a debt of gratitude and appreciation for
the work you have done on this particular piece of legislation.
H.R. 22 ensures the Postal Service is treated exactly the same way
every other Federal agency is in the area of military pensions. Our
postal workers who served in the military served America, not the
Postal Service, America. It is the U.S. Government that ought to
compensate those military veterans. H.R. 22 mandates that the
proportion of their retirement that comes from military service will be
paid for by the Treasury, as it should be.
Lastly, H.R. 22 provides the Postal Service the flexibility it needs
to set postal rates in a competitive manner. This is a difficult area.
I know the committee has grappled with it, but I think the committee
has come out with a solution that ought to be supported. There is no
legislative reason why postal reform should not be enacted before the
end of the year.
Unfortunately, however, I understand the administration has signaled
its opposition to key provisions of H.R. 22 and its Senate counterpart
S. 662. It is my hope and, yes, my expectation, that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) will be successful in resisting
efforts by the administration to weaken or repeal provisions that are
the product of years of hard bipartisan work.
I urge support of this product. I again congratulate the gentleman
from New York (Mr. McHugh) on the work he has so ably led for so long.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 22. This will be
the first major postal reform bill to receive our consideration in 35
years. I would like to, obviously, credit the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Tom Davis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the
subcommittee chairman, for their great work as well as the ranking
member, the gentleman from
[[Page H6518]]
California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis)
for all of the great work they have done.
But I would be remiss if I did not mention the number of other people
who have worked so hard on this, namely, the postal employees
themselves who have been very active in this whole process, including
the leadership of the American Postal Workers Union, the National
Letter Carriers Union, and the National Mail Handlers Union who have
been active and committed to this whole process.
All of us will remember in the days and weeks following September 11,
we had a series of anthrax attacks conducted through the U.S. mail
system. Tragically, among the victims of these attacks were included
the lives of two of our postal workers, Joseph Curseen, Jr., and Thomas
Morris, Jr., at the Brentwood facility in the D.C. area.
At that time, all of our postal workers, every clerk, every mail
handler, was faced with a difficult choice, and that choice was to
continue to come to work every day in a very difficult environment
caused by anthrax exposure, and perhaps even endangering their
families; or staying away from work and thereby risking the stability
of our own economy and upsetting the flow of commerce and shaking the
confidence of the American people.
The American postal workers, every clerk, every carrier, every mail
handler chose to come to work under those conditions. They came here
because they felt it was their particular patriotic duty to do so. H.R.
22 takes note of their service and regards postal employees as partners
and a great asset toward affecting postal reform.
Notably, this bill does not seek to curtail essential worker rights,
it does not reduce worker protections with respect to collective
bargaining, and it deserves our support. I ask only that we resist any
amendments that would weaken this bill.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for a colloquy.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R.
22 and for the purpose of engaging the chairman and the gentleman in a
brief colloquy.
H.R. 22 is long overdue and goes a long way towards ensuring the
future competitiveness and viability of the U.S. Post Office. I am
proud to cosponsor this important piece of legislation, and I encourage
my colleagues to support its passage.
One issue of concern to me, however, has to do with the consolidation
and realignment of postal facilities. I believe it is critical that
Congress and the U.S. Postal Service understand that the closing of a
postal facility has a great impact on its local community. I remain
concerned that the U.S. Postal Service's realignment and consolidation
plan may not fully take into account all of the costs associated with
each individual facility impacted by such a plan.
Clearly, there are benefits to the consolidation and realignment of
postal operations, but I rise today to ask the chairman and the ranking
member and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for their support in
working with the Postal Service to make sure that all impacts are taken
into account, not just those that are fiscal in nature. It is critical
that Congress understands the closing of a postal facility has a very
great impact on its local community.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
desire to see that the Postal Service takes into account the impact on
local communities. I share his desire for a comprehensive evaluation of
all issues regarding the realignment and consolidation of postal
facilities, including individual impact on our local communities.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
{time} 1945
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California for his support of this legislation and his efforts. I think
it is important, as he points out, that all of these different impacts
are taken into account when the Postal Service undertakes the
realignment and consolidation of postal facilities. I look forward to
working with him and the Postal Service as these unfold.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
We have heard a great deal of discussion, all good, and again I think
it is important that we realize that it took the coming together not
only of dedicated Members of the House, but also tremendous staff work.
I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is not here at
the moment, but I want to take the time to commend not only him, but
his staff, Phil Schiliro, Phil Barnett, Naomi Seiler, Althea Gregory,
as well as the members of my staff, Richard Boykin, Jill Hunter-
Williams, and, of course, Denise Wilson, who have worked tirelessly and
tirelessly for months and some of them even into years of trying to
make sure that we shaped a comprehensive bill, one that all of the
stakeholders and shareholders could, in fact, agree with and be proud
of, one that did, in fact, continue to protect universal service,
everyday delivery, knowing that people can get their mail no matter
where they live, whether it is on a remote countryside, up the
mountain, across the way, across the river, knowing that the mail is
going to come.
Again, I want to commend, as we have done so often, and not without
reason, the hard work and continuous dedication of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. McHugh), who almost single-mindedly and sometimes people
would say single-handedly has kept this train rolling, has kept this
ship going, and has prevented it from veering off course. I am very
pleased to have been a part of the process. I again commend all of
those for making it happen.
Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support for the passage of this important
piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the authors of this very, very
strong legislation that has taken us more than a decade. To the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis),
who have worked extremely hard on this issue, might I add my applause
and congratulations.
Might I, Mr. Chairman, to the distinguished chairman of the full
committee just say one thing. Might I thank the many, many postal
workers around America who have been there when you needed them and who
have managed to do a major industry with less than a third of the
personnel. They are to be congratulated. I thank you very much, and I
thank you for your interest in discussing the issue of whistleblower
protection for Federal employees in the context of considering H.R. 22
today. I do want to recognize that you have in the bill itself
provisions dealing with the inspector general.
Let me, first of all, say that I would have offered an amendment
today, but I want the supporters of that amendment, those who have
advocated for the No Fear Act that was passed by this body, legislation
authored by myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)
and signed by the President, that my amendment would have tracked the
No Fear Act, which would have established a Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties Board pilot program within the Postal Service to monitor and
enforce claims of abuse that would call for congressional review after
3 years. There is a grave need for such a body not only within the
Postal Service, but in every Federal agency given the poor
implementation of the No Fear Act. This public law is known as Public
Law 107-174. I understand that the legislation as currently drafted
contains, as I said, several new provisions that would protect
[[Page H6519]]
Federal employees and minorities such as the antikickback provisions,
increase oversight functions for the inspector general, and a study of
the Board of Governors of the number of contracts awarded to women and
minority contractors. I applaud the gentleman for this.
My real point is that the No Fear Act has been slowly implemented.
There are people in the government, workers in the government that we
respect for their service wanting us to give oversight on the No Fear
Legislation. I would like to work with the gentlemen as they go through
conference, and as we go forward to ensure that this particular
legislation is implemented, and enhanced civil rights are given to
federal employees and our fine postal workers have the whistleblower
protection and as well their civil liberties and civil rights are also
protected.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the H.R. 22. It is important that
it was brought through Committee and to the Floor for expeditious
consideration. I have an amendment that was made in order that would
seek to address the very critical issue of slow implementation of
Public Law No. 107-174, the No FEAR Act (5 U.S.C. 2301) and provide
avenues of relief for the many federal employees who continue to
complain of workplace civil rights abuse.
My amendment would establish a Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Board
Pilot Program within the Postal Service to monitor and enforce claims
of abuse that will call for congressional review after three years.
There is a grave need for such a body--not only within the Postal
Service but in every federal agency, given the poor implementation of
the No FEAR Act.
I joined Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member John Conyers in
authorizing the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination
and Retaliation Act of 2002, or No Fear Act, that was signed into law
by President Bush on May 15, 2002. This legislation was passed in order
to bring immediate relief to federal government employees who have
suffered from civil rights or other abuse in the workplace.
The product that we have before us today has many highlights. For the
Postal Service, it provides the ratemaking flexibility and incentives
needed to operate as an efficient business. For businesses, it provides
the rate stability, fair competition rules, financial transparency, and
procurement protections needed to predict costs and operate on a level
playing field. For consumers, it preserves universal service, maintains
high quality standards, and eliminates unfair mailing costs so that
they have an affordable and reliable means of communication. For
workers, it protects collective bargaining and offers whistle-blower
protections that are needed to ensure safe employment. For taxpayers,
it ensures the viability of a national asset and removes the threat of
a tax-payer bailout of the Postal Service due to financial insolvency.
These provisions, I am sure, will go a long way toward helping the
Postal Service to better serve its customers, compete fairly with the
mailing industry, and contribute to our nation.
In addition, I am pleased that the bill requires a study of the
number of contracts with women, minorities, and small businesses and
that it protects our domestic airlines from outsourcing of jobs to
foreign air carriers.
Nevertheless, the issue of slow implementation of No FEAR remains a
tremendous problem that I hope the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the
members of the Committee on Government Reform will pursue both as this
bill goes to Conference and in hearing forum.
Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 22 and hope that the Chairman, Ranking
Member, and the Conferees on this bill will address the issues that I
presented with my amendment, and I hope that both the Committee on
Government Reform as well as that of the Judiciary will hold oversight
hearings on the implementation of the No Fear Act, and I yield back. It
is critical that we use opportunities such as is afforded today to
address the slow implementation of the No Fear Act. I yield back.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is
recognized for 2 minutes.
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend and colleague for
yielding to me and also, more importantly, for the enormous
contribution he has made to this legislation along with the gentleman
from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis). The four of us have been working very, very closely and
produced legislation that was unanimously voted out of our committee.
The legislation is to modernize the structure of the Postal Service.
It is a $69 billion entity with 700,000 employees. It supports
industries that produce goods and services worth $900 billion annually.
For generations Americans have relied on the system for universal
service for letters and packages.
Reaching unanimity was not easy. A primary goal of postal reform was
to give the Postal Service the flexibility it needs to survive in a
changing and increasingly competitive environment. At the same time, we
took into account the varied and complex needs of the mailing community
and the American people. The result is a strong bill with the primary
goal of allowing the Postal Service to continue to fulfill its
universal service mission at a reasonable cost.
The legislation makes a number of key changes, but all of the changes
in this bill are calibrated to balance out conflicting forces so that
we could bring everybody on board. That is why this bill, I would urge
my colleagues to understand, is one that we need to support in its
entirety and to resist changes, however attractive they may be.
The bill, in closing, will make sure that the Postal Service can go
into this 21st century as a viable institution; where it competes, to
make sure that it will not compete unfairly; and where it is doing its
job as a unique establishment, it will be handled in a way so that it
will be run efficiently and effectively for the public good.
I ask support for the legislation before us.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the vice chairman of the
Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I
just want to congratulate him, the ranking member of the committee and
particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for what he has
done for over 10 years in this battle. His effort is awesome. This
legislation is needed. We believe in universal coverage for mail, but
know cost savings need to be made. Congratulations to all of you for
doing such a great job in bringing this legislation before us.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
It has been said that victory has 1,000 fathers, and defeat is an
orphan. As we approach a victory on this bill tonight, at least on the
House side, let me thank some of the fathers. We have talked about some
of the Members being involved, but thanks also go out to the National
Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent
Business, the Small Business Legislative Council; a group of financial
service companies like American Express, Bank of America, Capital One,
Chase, Citigroup, Financial Services Roundtable, J.P. Morgan; groups in
the newspaper and publisher business like Magazine Publishers of
America, National Newspaper Association, Printing Industries of
America, Time, Inc.; labor unions like the American Postal Workers
Union, National Association of Letter Carriers, National Rural Letter
Carriers and the National Postal Mail Handlers Association; postal
management organizations like the National Association of Postmasters,
National League of Postmasters, National Association of Postal
Supervisors; postal competitors like United Parcel Express, UPS and
FedEx; and other organizations like the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers,
the Mailers Council, the Parcel Shippers Association, Pitney-Bowes and
others.
And on the staff side, Melissa Wojciak, my staff director; Jack
Callender, who has made his career on the committee the Postal Service;
Robert Taub, who the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) rightly, I
think, gives the credit for being the father of this behind the scenes;
Ellen Brown, Mason Alinger of our staff, Rob Borden, Kristina Sherry,
Michael Layman, Phil Barnett, Michelle Ash, Denise Wilson, Naomi
Seiler, Jill Hunter-Williams and Richard Boykin from the committee as
well. All of these made major contributions.
What does this tell us if we pass this legislation? The cost of
stamps is going up, but if we pass this legislation, it
[[Page H6520]]
will be nowhere near the increases that we will get without this
important legislation.
The need for postal reform is obvious in this case. Failure to act is
a job-killer. Inaction will jeopardize at least 1.5 million jobs. This
is a top priority for industry, the mailing industry, a $900-billion-a-
year industry, nearly 9 percent of GDP, its economic value, 9 million
jobs. Failure to act would be the same as a tax increase on American
consumers. If we do not seize this moment, we effectively impose a
significant new tax and a new tax burden on every American who uses
stamps. If we do not take action, the Postal Service will be forced to
begin increasing postal rates, starting with 2 cents at the beginning
of next year. A small business that spends $5,000 annually on postage
will lose almost $300 a year. An industry like financial services would
get slammed with over $600 million in increases annually with no
increase in productivity. And the American public will waste over $20
billion in unnecessary postage over the next decade. That is why this
legislation needs to be passed.
What is wrong with the current Postal Service? We have got some of
the best and most dedicated workers in the world, as the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and
others have pointed out, but they are operating under a 30-year-old
system that completely missed the information technology revolution. It
is a service that is saddled with $7 billion in workers' comp claims,
$5 billion in retirement payments and $57 billion in health care costs.
The statutes governing USPS are some of the most rigid and restrictive
in the U.S. Code.
Finally, this means jobs. We can talk about trade and everything
else, but failure to enact this will cost jobs in every State.
Let me conclude by saying and echoing what the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) noted, and that is, this bill is not a perfect
bill. It is not a perfect bill today. It will not be perfect probably
when it comes out of conference. But as we look at this, this is a
finely balanced piece of legislation that today has almost unanimous
agreement in the industries that are affected, among the workers that
are affected and among the consumers that are affected.
We want to keep this balance as this comes to the floor. There are
some very attractive amendments, well-meaning amendments that are going
to be offered, but they upset this balance and jeopardize this bill. We
have in front of us jobs, we have productivity, and we have almost 9
percent of the gross domestic product of this country at stake if we
fail to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. This bill will
allow for the Postal Service to better serve the American People by
significantly modernizing its outdated policies.
The last postal reform bill was signed by President Nixon in 1971 and
at that time no one could have anticipated all of the technological
advances our society would create. At that time we all sent letters to
keep in contact with each other and email was something that we never
could have imagined. Unfortunately, while we have advanced with the
times, the Postal Service has been slow to keep up with our advancing
technology. H.R. 22 will allow the Postal Service to continue providing
comprehensive universal service, but at a much lower cost.
This bill is the product of hard work between the labor unions, the
Postal Service, and the Government Reform Committee. It is a good piece
of legislation that will give the Postal Service the rate modernization
it needs and it will create a level playing field for the Postal
Service to compete with other companies.
I strongly support this bill not only because my late father in-law
was a letter carrier, but because the Postal Service has provided a
vital service to the public for many years. It's time that we allow
them to modernize so that we may continue to enjoy all of the benefits
that they have afforded us.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to
speak in support of The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of
2005
As we move into a new phase of technological advancements, now is the
time for significant reform of our postal system. With over 600-
thousand postal workers, the U.S Postal Service is an essential part of
today's national economic infrastructure.
In my home town of Dallas, TX, the roles of postal workers are
vividly seen in homes, businesses, and even churches. We must have a
firm commitment to ensuring that these vital public servants have
guaranteed healthcare and retirement benefits, collective bargaining
rights, and a decent pay.
H.R. 22 will bring increased efficiencies to the United States Postal
Service, and strengthen the long-term viability of universal postal
services. We must act now to ensure that 6-day a week delivery is
maintained for all Americans.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this key piece of
legislation.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, since the days of the pony express, the USPS
has become a part of the American family.
Consider the special place of the Postal Service in our society and
its importance to Americans: to the teenagers waiting by the mailbox
for the college acceptance letters, to families waiting for letters
from loved ones serving abroad, to businesses reaching out to new
customers and to so many others.
The Postal Service delivers mail six days a week to nearly 140
million addresses. Every year this number increases by 2 million.
The Postal Service's unmatched ability to reach every household and
business in America six days a week is a vital part of the nation's
infrastructure.
The Postal Service needs tools to modernize and compete. That is why
today I am a cosponsor of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act.
This legislation will not only ensure survival of the Postal Service
but also help preserve universal service at affordable rates for
American mailing consumers.
We need to ensure the long-term viability of this $900 billion
industry and its nine million employees.
I only wish that we could also pass H.R. 147, the Social Security
Fairness Act.
We need to correct the Windfall Elimination Provision, which lowers
Social Security benefits for retirees who receive a Civil Service
Retirement System annuity and Social Security benefits from other jobs.
Too many Postal Service employees have seen their Social Security
benefits reduced by as much as 55 percent because of the Windfall
Elimination Provision.
We also need to fix the Government Pension Offset, so that spouses
and survivors do not have their benefits reduced.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 22 is a good first step and I encourage my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, please include the attached
exchange of letters between Chairman Don Young of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
of the Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Bill Thomas of the
Committee on Ways and Means and myself.
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, April 25, 2005.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, Rayburn Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the
jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R.
22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 22 and the
need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore,
while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over certain
provisions of the bill, I will agree not to request a
sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our
mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my
decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or
otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, and that a copy of this letter and
of your response acknowledging our valid jurisdictional
interest will be included in the Committee report and in the
Congressional Record'' when the bill considered on the House
Floor.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also
asks that you support our request to be conferees on the
provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House
Senate conference.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2005.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman Committee on Transportation Infrastructure, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
regarding the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 22, the
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, and your
willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 22 by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
[[Page H6521]]
I agree that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has a valid jurisdictional interest in H.R. 22
and that the committee's jurisdiction will not be adversely
affected by your decision to not request a sequential
referral of H.R. 22. In addition, I will support your request
for the appointment of outside conferees from the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure to a House-Senate
conference committee on this or similar legislation should
such a conference be convened.
As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response in the Government Reform Committee's report
on H.R. 22 and in the Congressional Record during
consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank
you for your assistance as I work towards the enactment of
H.R. 22.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2005.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Davis: In recognition of the desire to
expedite floor consideration of H.R. 22, the ``Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act,'' the Committee on the
Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill. In so
doing, I wish to express my appreciation for your willingness
to address an incorporate concerns raised by the Committee on
the Judiciary during its markup of similar legislation last
Congress.
There are several provisions contained in H.R. 22 within
the Committee on the Judiciary's subject matter jurisdiction.
Specifically, section 205 of the legislation revises the
complaint and appellate review of the Postal Regulatory
Commission. Section 301 establishes an off-budget fund within
the Treasury Department for revenues and expenditures
associated with services offered by the Postal Service on a
competitive basis. Section 303 prohibits the Postal Service
from issuing regulations that preclude competition or compel
the disclosure of protected intellectual property Section 304
ensures that laws regulating the conduct of private
commercial activities also apply to competitive activities
undertaken by the Postal Service, including the antitrust
laws. Section 502 provides authority for the Postal
Regulatory Commission to issue subpoenas to compel disclosure
of evidence in its proceedings, and to refer failures to
adhere to Commission directives to Federal district court.
Section 703 requires the Federal Trade Commission to prepare
a report detailing how Federal and State laws apply
differently to competitive activities of the Postal Service
and private companies. Section 801 provides permanent
authority for the Postal Service to employ postal police to
protect property and persons on Postal Service property, and
gives the Attorney General authority to collect penalties and
clean up costs associated with the unlawful mailing of
hazardous materials.
The Committee agrees to waive additional consideration of
H.R. 22 with the understanding that the Committee's
jurisdiction over these provisions is in no way altered or
diminished. I also ask that you support my request to be
appointed conferee on any provisions over which the Committee
on the Judiciary has jurisdiction during any House-Senate
conference on this legislation. Finally, I would appreciate
your including this letter in Congressional Record during
consideration of H.R. 22 on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2005.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your May 12th letter
regarding the Judiciary Committee's jurisdictional interest
in H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act,
and your willingness to forego consideration of H.R. 22 by
your committee. As you noted, the Committee on the Judiciary
considered a similar bill last Congress, H.R. 4341; and the
amendments agreed to by your committee last Congress were
significant improvements that were gladly incorporated in
H.R. 22 this Congress by Congressman McHugh and myself.
I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has a valid
jurisdictional interest in H.R. 22 and that the committee's
jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by your decision
to not call a business meeting to consider H.R. 22. In
addition, I will support your request for the appointment of
outside conferees from the Committee on the Judiciary to a
House-Senate conference committee on this or similar
legislation should such a conference be convened.
As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response in the Congressional Record during
consideration of H.R. 22 on the House floor. Thank you for
your assistance as I work towards the enactment of H.R. 22.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, July 25, 2005.
Hon. Tom Davis,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Davis: I am writing concerning H.R. 22, the
``Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act,'' which was
reported by the Committee on Government Reform on May 27,
2005,
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over matters concerning customs revenue
functions. A provision in Section 305 of H.R. 22 directs the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to apply United
States customs laws to certain mail, and thus falls within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However,
in order to expedite this legislation for floor
consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill.
This is being done with the understanding that it does not in
any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the
appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 22, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during floor
consideration.
Best regards,
Bill Thomas,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, July 25, 2005.
Hon. William M. Thomas,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your recent letter
regarding the Committee on Ways and Means' jurisdictional
interest in H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act, and your willingness to forego action on
H.R. 22.
I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has a valid
jurisdictional interest in H.R. 22 and that the committee's
jurisdiction will not be adversely affected by your decision
to take no action at this time. In addition, I will support
your request for the appointment of outside conferees from
the Committee on Ways and Means to a House-Senate conference
committee on this or similar legislation should such a
conference be convened.
As you have requested, I will include a copy of your letter
and this response in the Congressional Record during
consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank
you for your assistance as I work towards the enactment of
H.R. 22.
Sincerely,
Tom Davis,
Chairman.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 22,
the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.
Employing nine million workers nationwide, many of whom reside in my
Congressional District of El Paso, Texas, the United States Postal
Service (USPS) has been delivering hundreds of millions of pieces of
mail each day keeping an important link of communication open to
millions of people.
Many of my constituents from El Paso, Texas who have expressed their
strong support for postal reform. I share their support and have co-
sponsored the bill before us today.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation would ensure that the USPS is provided
with the tools to remain competitive and viable in the 21st century. As
a co-sponsor of H.R. 22, I would urge all my colleagues to support the
passage of this important legislation.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 22, the
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. This legislation, which is
long overdue, will improve commerce in this country, better the lives
of the nation's postal workers, and guarantee that the mail will be
delivered each day to the 140 million American households that look
forward to a daily visit from their letter carrier.
In a time of declining revenues and increased costs, it is no secret
that the Postal Service faces financial challenges. Competition in the
package-delivery business and from Internet-based communication has
intensified. And, as a result, each year, the dedicated letter carriers
of the Postal Service are asked to carry less mail to more households
and businesses nationwide. In part, that is because the Postal Service
is operating under laws written 35 years ago--long before anyone had
ever heard of the Internet.
This legislation will modernize the Postal Service, giving it the
resources and flexibility it needs to manage its operations and set
fair prices. The bill will help the Postal Service cut through the
bureaucratic red tape and allow it to act more like the businesses it
must compete against.
In addition to providing a more streamlined rate-setting process that
will allow the Postal Service to make business decisions quickly, the
bill also will allow the Postal Service to enter into partnerships with
second- and third-class mailers, while preserving the jobs of those at
postal sorting and processing centers. I welcome these improvements,
although I anticipate more will need to be done to balance
[[Page H6522]]
the mailing industry's need for price certainty with unanticipated or
extraordinary fiscal needs of the Postal Service.
The bill will alleviate a $27 billion burden by limiting the Postal
Service's responsibility to pay the benefits of veterans who also
worked in the Postal Service. To be clear, this provision does not
limit the benefits of our brave veterans who, after military service,
went to work for the Postal Service. This bill simply says that the
U.S. Treasury must pay veterans benefits, and the Postal Service must
pay postal benefits.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is also good for one of the Postal
Service's best assets--its human capital. I am particularly pleased
that this bill preserves the right of more than 500,000 postal workers
and letter carriers to bargain collectively. These dedicated men and
women work in processing centers, they work in local post offices, and
they work in our neighborhoods delivering the mail to our doorsteps
each day. They are the reason that the postal service has a 96 percent
on-time delivery record for first-class mail.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It will make the Postal Service
leaner and more efficient, while preserving the collective bargaining
rights of its workers. And it will continue the legacy of universal
service. Since the birth of this nation, the United States Postal
Service has been committed to delivering the mail to every single
household in the country--142 million in all today. The daily mail
delivery is something that many Americans look forward to, and this
bill will ensure that the Postal Service has the resources it needs to
maintain that commitment well into the future. I urge my colleagues to
support this important legislation.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, since the days of the pony express, the USPS
has become a part of the American family.
Consider the special place of the Postal Service in our society and
its importance to Americans: to the teenagers waiting by the mailbox
for the college acceptance letters, to families waiting for letters
from loved ones serving abroad, to businesses reaching out to new
customers and to so many others.
The Postal Service delivers mail six days a week to nearly 140
million addresses. Every year this number increases by 2 million. The
Postal Service's unmatched ability to reach every household and
business in America six days a week is a vital part of the nation's
infrastructure.
The Postal Service needs tools to modernize and compete. That is why
today I am a cosponsor of H.R. 22, the Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act. This legislation will not only ensure survival of the
Postal Service but also help preserve universal service at affordable
rates for American mailing consumers. We need to ensure the long-term
viability of this $900 billion industry and its nine million employees.
I only wish that we could also pass H.R. 147, the Social Security
Fairness Act.
We need to correct the Windfall Elimination Provision, which lowers
Social Security benefits for retirees who receive a Civil Service
Retirement System annuity and Social Security benefits from other jobs.
Too many Postal Service employees have seen their Social Security
benefits reduced by as much as 55% because of the Windfall Elimination
Provision. We also need to fix the Government Pension Offset, so that
spouses and survivors do not have their benefits reduced.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 22 is a good first step and I encourage my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation before
us: the most important postal reform of our generation.
The specific reforms contained in the bill have been well described
in the preceding comments of various members, but I would simply like
to underscore the importance of the United States Postal Service to the
country, particularly rural America, and emphasize the immense respect
that citizens have for their mail carriers.
The United States Postal Service began with the founding of the
Republic; it grew as the nation grew; it has continuously transformed
itself with entrepreneurial enterprise and technological innovation.
Before Henry Ford developed mass assembly techniques in the
automobile industry, mail carriers on horseback--the pony express--used
analogous methods of passing along packages to next-step destinations.
And just as rail cars added speed, labor- and horse-saving capabilities
to mail delivery in the latter half of the 19th century, the airplane
has provided the means to bring greater speed and service efficiency in
the last century. Likewise, at the various decentralized post offices
and more centralized postal hubs, innovative machinery to help sort and
distribute the mail has been developed.
But the unique aspect of mail delivery is that it remains a people-
centric service. Good people make a difference and the Postal Service
has a heritage of decency and quality of enlployee--from the clerk at
the counter to the rural mail carrier to postmasters in small towns and
urban centers. This country takes great pride in their dedication and
professionalism.
Now is not the time to either ideologically tamper with the private
express statutes or saddle the Postal Service with liabilities
developed by other parts of the government.
The bottom line is that the United States Postal Service has served
the country well for more than two centuries. We in the Congress
respect this record and are obligated to ensure that the viability of
this universal system is maintained.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 22
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--DEFINITIONS; POSTAL SERVICES
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Postal services.
Sec. 103. Financial transparency.
TITLE II--MODERN RATE REGULATION
Sec. 201. Provisions relating to market-dominant products.
Sec. 202. Provisions relating to competitive products.
Sec. 203. Provisions relating to experimental and new products.
Sec. 204. Reporting requirements and related provisions.
Sec. 205. Complaints; appellate review and enforcement.
Sec. 206. Workshare discounts.
Sec. 207. Clerical amendment.
TITLE III--PROVISIONS RELATING TO FAIR COMPETITION
Sec. 301. Postal Service Competitive Products Fund.
Sec. 302. Assumed Federal income tax on competitive products income.
Sec. 303. Unfair competition prohibited.
Sec. 304. Suits by and against the Postal Service.
Sec. 305. International postal arrangements.
Sec. 306. Redesignation.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Qualification requirements for Governors.
Sec. 402. Obligations.
Sec. 403. Private carriage of letters.
Sec. 404. Rulemaking authority.
Sec. 405. Noninterference with collective bargaining agreements, etc.
Sec. 406. Bonus and compensation authority.
Sec. 407. Mediation in collective-bargaining disputes.
TITLE V--ENHANCED REGULATORY COMMISSION
Sec. 501. Reorganization and modification of certain provisions
relating to the Postal Regulatory Commission.
Sec. 502. Authority for Postal Regulatory Commission to issue
subpoenas.
Sec. 503. Appropriations for the Postal Regulatory Commission.
Sec. 504. Redesignation of the Postal Rate Commission.
Sec. 505. Officer of the Postal Regulatory Commission representing the
general public.
TITLE VI--INSPECTORS GENERAL
Sec. 601. Inspector General of the Postal Regulatory Commission.
Sec. 602. Inspector General of the United States Postal Service to be
appointed by the President.
TITLE VII--EVALUATIONS
Sec. 701. Universal postal service study.
Sec. 702. Assessments of ratemaking, classification, and other
provisions.
Sec. 703. Study on equal application of laws to competitive products.
Sec. 704. Greater diversity in Postal Service Executive and
administrative schedule management positions.
Sec. 705. Plan for assisting displaced workers.
Sec. 706. Contracts with women, minorities, and small businesses.
Sec. 707. Rates for periodicals.
Sec. 708. Assessment of certain rate deficiencies.
Sec. 709. Network optimization.
Sec. 710. Assessment of future business model of the postal service.
Sec. 711. Study on certain proposed amendments.
Sec. 712. Definition.
TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS; TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
Sec. 801. Employment of postal police officers.
Sec. 802. Date of postmark to be treated as date of appeal in
connection with the closing or consolidation of post
offices.
[[Page H6523]]
Sec. 803. Provisions relating to benefits under chapter 81 of title 5,
United States Code, for officers and employees of the
former Post Office Department.
Sec. 804. Obsolete provisions.
Sec. 805. Investments.
Sec. 806. Reduced rates.
Sec. 807. Hazardous matter.
Sec. 808. Provisions relating to cooperative mailings.
Sec. 809. Technical and conforming amendments.
7TITLE IX--POSTAL PENSION FUNDING REFORM AMENDMENTS
Sec. 901. Civil Service Retirement System.
Sec. 902. Health insurance.
Sec. 903. Repealer.
Sec. 904. Ensuring appropriate use of escrow and military savings.
Sec. 905. Effective dates.
TITLE I--DEFINITIONS; POSTAL SERVICES
SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
Section 102 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3), by striking the
period at the end of paragraph (4) and inserting a semicolon,
and by adding at the end the following:
``(5) `postal service' means the carriage of letters,
printed matter, or mailable packages, including acceptance,
collection, processing, delivery, or other functions
supportive or ancillary thereto;
``(6) `product' means a postal service with a distinct cost
or market characteristic for which a rate or rates are, or
may reasonably be, applied;
``(7) `rates', as used with respect to products, includes
fees for postal services;
``(8) `market-dominant product' or `product in the market-
dominant category of mail' means a product subject to
subchapter I of chapter 36;
``(9) `competitive product' or `product in the competitive
category of mail' means a product subject to subchapter II of
chapter 36;
``(10) `Consumer Price Index' means the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers published monthly by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor; and
``(11) `year', as used in chapter 36 (other than
subchapters I and VI thereof), means a fiscal year.''.
SEC. 102. POSTAL SERVICES.
(a) In General.--Section 404 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (6) and by
redesignating paragraphs (7) through (9) as paragraphs (6)
through (8), respectively; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Nothing in this title shall be considered to permit
or require that the Postal Service provide any special
nonpostal or similar services, except that nothing in this
subsection shall prevent the Postal Service from providing
any special nonpostal or similar services provided by the
Postal Service as of January 4, 2005.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1402(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (98 Stat. 2170; 42 U.S.C.
10601(b)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking ``404(a)(8)'' and
inserting ``404(a)(7)''.
SEC. 103. FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY.
(a) In General.--Section 101 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by redesignating subsections (d) through (g)
as subsections (e) through (h), respectively, and by
inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) As an establishment that provides both market-
dominant and competitive products, the Postal Service shall
be subject to a high degree of transparency, including in its
finances and operations, to ensure fair treatment of
customers of the Postal Service's market-dominant products
and companies competing with the Postal Service's competitive
products.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5001 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``101(e) and (f)'' and
inserting ``101(f) and (g)''.
TITLE II--MODERN RATE REGULATION
SEC. 201. PROVISIONS RELATING TO MARKET-DOMINANT PRODUCTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 36 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by striking sections 3621 and 3622 and
inserting the following:
``Sec. 3621. Applicability; definitions
``(a) Applicability.--This subchapter shall apply with
respect to--
``(1)(A) single piece first-class letters (both domestic
and international);
``(B) single piece first-class cards (both domestic and
international); and
``(C) special services;
``(2) all first-class mail not included under paragraph
(1);
``(3) periodicals;
``(4) standard mail;
``(5) media mail;
``(6) library mail; and
``(7) bound printed matter,
subject to any changes the Postal Regulatory Commission may
make under section 3642.
``(b) Rule of Construction.--Mail matter referred to in
subsection (a) shall, for purposes of this subchapter, be
considered to have the meaning given to such mail matter
under the mail classification schedule.
``Sec. 3622. Modern rate regulation
``(a) Authority Generally.--The Postal Regulatory
Commission shall, within 24 months after the date of the
enactment of this section, by regulation establish (and may
from time to time thereafter by regulation revise) a modern
system for regulating rates and classes for market-dominant
products.
``(b) Objectives.--Such system shall be designed to achieve
the following objectives:
``(1) To establish and maintain a fair and equitable
schedule for rates and classification.
``(2) To maximize incentives to reduce costs and increase
efficiency.
``(3) To create predictability and stability in rates.
``(4) To maintain high quality service standards.
``(5) To allow the Postal Service pricing flexibility.
``(6) To assure adequate revenues, including retained
earnings, to maintain financial stability.
``(7) To reduce the administrative burden of the ratemaking
process.
``(c) Factors.--In establishing or revising such system,
the Postal Regulatory Commission shall take into account--
``(1) the value of the mail service actually provided each
class or type of mail service to both the sender and the
recipient, including but not limited to the collection, mode
of transportation, and priority of delivery;
``(2) the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to
each class or type of mail service plus that portion of all
other costs of the Postal Service reasonably assignable to
such class or type;
``(3) the effect of rate increases upon the general public,
business mail users, and enterprises in the private sector of
the economy engaged in the delivery of mail matter other than
letters;
``(4) the available alternative means of sending and
receiving letters and other mail matter at reasonable costs;
``(5) the degree of preparation of mail for delivery into
the postal system performed by the mailer and its effect upon
reducing costs to the Postal Service;
``(6) simplicity of structure for the entire schedule and
simple, identifiable relationships between the rates or fees
charged the various classes of mail for postal services;
``(7) the relative value to the people of the kinds of mail
matter entered into the postal system and the desirability
and justification for special classifications and services of
mail;
``(8) the importance of providing classifications with
extremely high degrees of reliability and speed of delivery
and of providing those that do not require high degrees of
reliability and speed of delivery;
``(9) the desirability of special classifications from the
point of view of both the user and of the Postal Service;
``(10) the educational, cultural, scientific, and
informational value to the recipient of mail matter; and
``(11) the policies of this title as well as such other
factors as the Commission deems appropriate.
``(d) Allowable Provisions.--The system for regulating
rates and classes for market-dominant products may include
one or more of the following:
``(1) Price caps, revenue targets, or other form of
incentive regulation.
``(2) Cost-of-service regulation.
``(3) Such other form of regulation as the Commission
considers appropriate to achieve, consistent with subsection
(c), the objectives of subsection (b).
``(e) Limitation.--In the administration of this section,
the Commission shall not permit the average rate in any
subclass of mail to increase at an annual rate greater than
the comparable increase in the Consumer Price Index, unless
it has, after notice and opportunity for a public hearing and
comment, determined that such increase is reasonable and
equitable and necessary to enable the Postal Service, under
best practices of honest, efficient, and economical
management, to maintain and continue the development of
postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs
of the United States.
``(f) Transition Rule.--Until regulations under this
section first take effect, rates and classes for market-
dominant products shall remain subject to modification in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter and section
407, as such provisions were last in effect before the date
of the enactment of this section.''.
(b) Repealed Sections.--Sections 3623, 3624, 3625, and 3628
of title 39, United States Code, are repealed.
(c) Redesignation.--Chapter 36 of title 39, United States
Code (as in effect after the amendment made by section
501(a)(2), but before the amendment made by section 202) is
amended by striking the heading for subchapter II and
inserting the following:
``SUBCHAPTER I--PROVISIONS RELATING TO MARKET-DOMINANT PRODUCTS''.
SEC. 202. PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS.
Chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after section 3629 the following:
``SUBCHAPTER II--PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS
``Sec. 3631. Applicability; definitions and updates
``(a) Applicability.--This subchapter shall apply with
respect to--
``(1) priority mail;
``(2) expedited mail;
``(3) mailgrams;
``(4) international mail; and
``(5) parcel post,
subject to any changes the Postal Regulatory Commission may
make under section 3642.
``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this subchapter, the
term `costs attributable', as used with respect to a product,
means the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to
such product.
``(c) Rule of Construction.--Mail matter referred to in
subsection (a) shall, for purposes of this subchapter, be
considered to have the meaning given to such mail matter
under the mail classification schedule.
``Sec. 3632. Action of the Governors
``(a) Authority To Establish Rates and Classes.--The
Governors shall establish rates
[[Page H6524]]
and classes for products in the competitive category of mail
in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter and
regulations promulgated under section 3633.
``(b) Procedures.--
``(1) In general.--Rates and classes shall be established
in writing, complete with a statement of explanation and
justification, and the date as of which each such rate or
class takes effect.
``(2) Rates or classes of general applicability.--In the
case of rates or classes of general applicability in the
Nation as a whole or in any substantial region of the Nation,
the Governors shall cause each rate and class decision under
this section and the record of the Governors' proceedings in
connection with such decision to be published in the Federal
Register at least 30 days before the effective date of any
new rates or classes.
``(3) Rates or classes not of general applicability.--In
the case of rates or classes not of general applicability in
the Nation as a whole or in any substantial region of the
Nation, the Governors shall cause each rate and class
decision under this section and the record of the proceedings
in connection with such decision to be filed with the Postal
Regulatory Commission by such date before the effective date
of any new rates or classes as the Governors consider
appropriate, but in no case less than 15 days.
``(4) Criteria.--As part of the regulations required under
section 3633, the Postal Regulatory Commission shall
establish criteria for determining when a rate or class
established under this subchapter is or is not of general
applicability in the Nation as a whole or in any substantial
region of the Nation.
``(c) Transition Rule.--Until regulations under section
3633 first take effect, rates and classes for competitive
products shall remain subject to modification in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter and section 407, as such
provisions were as last in effect before the date of the
enactment of this section.
``Sec. 3633. Provisions applicable to rates for competitive
products
``The Postal Regulatory Commission shall, within 18 months
after the date of the enactment of this section, promulgate
(and may from time to time thereafter revise) regulations--
``(1) to prohibit the subsidization of competitive products
by market-dominant products;
``(2) to ensure that each competitive product covers its
costs attributable; and
``(3) to ensure that all competitive products collectively
make a reasonable contribution to the institutional costs of
the Postal Service.''.
SEC. 203. PROVISIONS RELATING TO EXPERIMENTAL AND NEW
PRODUCTS.
Subchapter III of chapter 36 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``SUBCHAPTER III--PROVISIONS RELATING TO EXPERIMENTAL AND NEW PRODUCTS
``Sec. 3641. Market tests of experimental products
``(a) Authority.--
``(1) In general.--The Postal Service may conduct market
tests of experimental products in accordance with this
section.
``(2) Provisions waived.--A product shall not, while it is
being tested under this section, be subject to the
requirements of sections 3622, 3633, or 3642, or regulations
promulgated under those sections.
``(b) Conditions.--A product may not be tested under this
section unless it satisfies each of the following:
``(1) Significantly different product.--The product is,
from the viewpoint of the mail users, significantly different
from all products offered by the Postal Service within the 2-
year period preceding the start of the test.
``(2) Market disruption.--The introduction or continued
offering of the product will not create an unfair or
otherwise inappropriate competitive advantage for the Postal
Service or any mailer, particularly in regard to small
business concerns (as defined under subsection (h)).
``(3) Correct categorization.--The Postal Service
identifies the product, for the purpose of a test under this
section, as either market dominant or competitive, consistent
with the criteria under section 3642(b)(1). Costs and
revenues attributable to a product identified as competitive
shall be included in any determination under section 3633(3)
(relating to provisions applicable to competitive products
collectively).
``(c) Notice.--
``(1) In general.--At least 30 days before initiating a
market test under this section, the Postal Service shall file
with the Postal Regulatory Commission and publish in the
Federal Register a notice--
``(A) setting out the basis for the Postal Service's
determination that the market test is covered by this
section; and
``(B) describing the nature and scope of the market test.
``(2) Safeguards.--For a competitive experimental product,
the provisions of section 504(g) shall be available with
respect to any information required to be filed under
paragraph (1) to the same extent and in the same manner as in
the case of any matter described in section 504(g)(1).
Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be considered to permit or
require the publication of any information as to which
confidential treatment is accorded under the preceding
sentence (subject to the same exception as set forth in
section 504(g)(3)).
``(d) Duration.--
``(1) In general.--A market test of a product under this
section may be conducted over a period of not to exceed 24
months.
``(2) Extension authority.--If necessary in order to
determine the feasibility or desirability of a product being
tested under this section, the Postal Regulatory Commission
may, upon written application of the Postal Service (filed
not later than 60 days before the date as of which the
testing of such product would otherwise be scheduled to
terminate under paragraph (1)), extend the testing of such
product for not to exceed an additional 12 months.
``(e) Dollar-Amount Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--A product may be tested under this
section only if the total revenues that are anticipated, or
in fact received, by the Postal Service from such product do
not exceed $10,000,000 nationwide in any year, subject to
paragraph (2) and subsection (g). In carrying out the
preceding sentence, the Postal Regulatory Commission may
limit the amount of revenues the Postal Service may obtain
from any particular geographic market as necessary to prevent
market disruption (as defined in subsection (b)(2)).
``(2) Exemption authority.--The Postal Regulatory
Commission may, upon written application of the Postal
Service, exempt the market test from the limit in paragraph
(1) if the total revenues that are anticipated, or in fact
received, by the Postal Service from such product do not
exceed $50,000,000 in any year, subject to subsection (g). In
reviewing an application under this paragraph, the Postal
Regulatory Commission shall approve such application if it
determines that--
``(A) the product is likely to benefit the public and meet
an expected demand;
``(B) the product is likely to contribute to the financial
stability of the Postal Service; and
``(C) the product is not likely to result in unfair or
otherwise inappropriate competition.
``(f) Cancellation.--If the Postal Regulatory Commission at
any time determines that a market test under this section
fails, with respect to any particular product, to meet one or
more of the requirements of this section, it may order the
cancellation of the test involved or take such other action
as it considers appropriate. A determination under this
subsection shall be made in accordance with such procedures
as the Commission shall by regulation prescribe.
``(g) Adjustment for Inflation.--For purposes of each year
following the year in which occurs the deadline for the
Postal Service's first report to the Postal Regulatory
Commission under section 3652(a), each dollar amount
contained in this section shall be adjusted by the change in
the Consumer Price Index for such year (as determined under
regulations of the Commission).
``(h) Definition of a Small Business Concern.--The criteria
used in defining small business concerns or otherwise
categorizing business concerns as small business concerns
shall, for purposes of this section, be established by the
Postal Regulatory Commission in conformance with the
requirements of section 3 of the Small Business Act.
``(i) Effective Date.--Market tests under this subchapter
may be conducted in any year beginning with the first year in
which occurs the deadline for the Postal Service's first
report to the Postal Regulatory Commission under section
3652(a).
``Sec. 3642. New products and transfers of products between
the market-dominant and competitive categories of mail
``(a) In General.--Upon request of the Postal Service or
users of the mails, or upon its own initiative, the Postal
Regulatory Commission may change the list of market-dominant
products under section 3621 and the list of competitive
products under section 3631 by adding new products to the
lists, removing products from the lists, or transferring
products between the lists.
``(b) Criteria.--All determinations by the Postal
Regulatory Commission under subsection (a) shall be made in
accordance with the following criteria:
``(1) The market-dominant category of products shall
consist of each product in the sale of which the Postal
Service exercises sufficient market power that it can
effectively set the price of such product substantially above
costs, raise prices significantly, decrease quality, or
decrease output, without risk of losing business to other
firms offering similar products. The competitive category of
products shall consist of all other products.
``(2) Exclusion of products covered by postal monopoly.--A
product covered by the postal monopoly shall not be subject
to transfer under this section from the market-dominant
category of mail. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the
term `product covered by the postal monopoly' means any
product the conveyance or transmission of which is reserved
to the United States under section 1696 of title 18, subject
to the same exception as set forth in the last sentence of
section 409(e)(1).
``(3) Additional considerations.--In making any decision
under this section, due regard shall be given to--
``(A) the availability and nature of enterprises in the
private sector engaged in the delivery of the product
involved;
``(B) the views of those who use the product involved on
the appropriateness of the proposed action; and
``(C) the likely impact of the proposed action on small
business concerns (within the meaning of section 3641(h)).
``(c) Transfers of Subclasses and Other Subordinate Units
Allowable.--Nothing in this title shall be considered to
prevent transfers under this section from being made by
reason of the fact that they would involve only some (but not
all) of the subclasses or other subordinate units of the
class of mail or type of postal service involved (without
regard to satisfaction of minimum quantity requirements
standing alone).
``(d) Notification and Publication Requirements.--
``(1) Notification requirement.--The Postal Service shall,
whenever it requests to add a product or transfer a product
to a different category, file with the Postal Regulatory
Commission and publish in the Federal Register a notice
[[Page H6525]]
setting out the basis for its determination that the product
satisfies the criteria under subsection (b) and, in the case
of a request to add a product or transfer a product to the
competitive category of mail, that the product meets the
regulations promulgated by the Postal Regulatory Commission
pursuant to section 3633. The provisions of section 504(g)
shall be available with respect to any information required
to be filed.
``(2) Publication requirement.--The Postal Regulatory
Commission shall, whenever it changes the list of products in
the market-dominant or competitive category of mail,
prescribe new lists of products. The revised lists shall
indicate how and when any previous lists (including the lists
under sections 3621 and 3631) are superseded, and shall be
published in the Federal Register.
``(e) Notification Requirement.--The Postal Regulatory
Commission shall, whenever it reaches a conclusion that a
product or products should be transferred between the list of
market-dominant products under section 3621 and the list of
competitive products under section 3631, immediately notify
the appropriate committees of the Congress. No such transfer
may take effect less than 12 months after such conclusion.
``(f) Prohibition.--Except as provided in section 3641, no
product that involves the carriage of letters, printed
matter, or mailable packages may be offered by the Postal
Service unless it has been assigned to the market-dominant or
competitive category of mail (as appropriate) either--
``(1) under this subchapter; or
``(2) by or under any other provision of law.''.
SEC. 204. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED PROVISIONS.
(a) Redesignation.--Chapter 36 of title 39, United States
Code (as in effect before the amendment made by subsection
(b)) is amended by striking the heading for subchapter IV and
inserting the following:
``SUBCHAPTER V--POSTAL SERVICES, COMPLAINTS, AND JUDICIAL REVIEW''.
(b) Reports and Compliance.--Chapter 36 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after subchapter III the
following:
``SUBCHAPTER IV--REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED PROVISIONS
``Sec. 3651. Annual reports by the Commission
``(a) In General.--The Postal Regulatory Commission shall
submit an annual report to the President and the Congress
concerning the operations of the Commission under this title,
including the extent to which regulations are achieving the
objectives under sections 3622 and 3633, respectively.
``(b) Additional Information.--In addition to the
information required under subsection (a), each report under
this section shall also include, with respect to the period
covered by such report, an estimate of the costs incurred by
the Postal Service in providing--
``(1) postal services to areas of the Nation where, in the
judgment of the Postal Regulatory Commission, the Postal
Service either would not provide services at all or would not
provide such services in accordance with the requirements of
this title if the Postal Service were not required to provide
prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all
areas and all communities, including as required under the
first sentence of section 101(b);
``(2) free or reduced rates for postal services as required
by this title; and
``(3) other public services or activities which, in the
judgment of the Postal Regulatory Commission, would not
otherwise have been provided by the Postal Service but for
the requirements of law.
The Commission shall detail the bases for its estimates and
the statutory requirements giving rise to the costs
identified in each report under this section.
``(c) Information From Postal Service.--The Postal Service
shall provide the Postal Regulatory Commission with such
information as may, in the judgment of the Commission, be
necessary in order for the Commission to prepare its reports
under this section.
``Sec. 3652. Annual reports to the Commission
``(a) Costs, Revenues, and Rates.--Except as provided in
subsection (c), the Postal Service shall, no later than 90
days after the end of each year, prepare and submit to the
Postal Regulatory Commission a report (together with such
nonpublic annex thereto as the Commission may require under
subsection (e))--
``(1) which shall analyze costs, revenues, and rates, using
such methodologies as the Commission shall by regulation
prescribe, and in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the
rates in effect for all products during such year complied
with all applicable requirements of this title; and
``(2) which shall, for each market-dominant product
provided in such year, provide--
``(A) market information, including mail volumes; and
``(B) measures of the quality of service afforded by the
Postal Service in connection with such product, including--
``(i) the service standard applicable to such product;
``(ii) the level of service (described in terms of speed of
delivery and reliability) provided; and
``(iii) the degree of customer satisfaction with the
service provided.
The Inspector General shall regularly audit the data
collection systems and procedures utilized in collecting
information and preparing such report (including any annex
thereto and the information required under subsection (b)).
The results of any such audit shall be submitted to the
Postal Service and the Postal Regulatory Commission.
``(b) Information Relating to Workshare Discounts.--
``(1) In general.--The Postal Service shall include, in
each report under subsection (a), the following information
with respect to each market-dominant product for which a
workshare discount was in effect during the period covered by
such report:
``(A) The per-item cost avoided by the Postal Service by
virtue of such discount.
``(B) The percentage of such per-item cost avoided that the
per-item workshare discount represents.
``(C) The per-item contribution made to institutional
costs.
``(2) Workshare discount defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `workshare discount' has the meaning
given such term under section 3687.
``(c) Market Tests.--In carrying out subsections (a) and
(b) with respect to experimental products offered through
market tests under section 3641 in a year, the Postal
Service--
``(1) may report summary data on the costs, revenues, and
quality of service by market test; and
``(2) shall report such data as the Postal Regulatory
Commission requires.
``(d) Supporting Matter.--The Postal Regulatory Commission
shall have access, in accordance with such regulations as the
Commission shall prescribe, to the working papers and any
other supporting matter of the Postal Service and the
Inspector General in connection with any information
submitted under this section.
``(e) Content and Form of Reports.--
``(1) In general.--The Postal Regulatory Commission shall,
by regulation, prescribe the content and form of the public
reports (and any nonpublic annex and supporting matter
relating thereto) to be provided by the Postal Service under
this section. In carrying out this subsection, the Commission
shall give due consideration to--
``(A) providing the public with adequate information to
assess the lawfulness of rates charged;
``(B) avoiding unnecessary or unwarranted administrative
effort and expense on the part of the Postal Service; and
``(C) protecting the confidentiality of commercially
sensitive information.
``(2) Revised requirements.--The Commission may, on its own
motion or on request of an interested party, initiate
proceedings (to be conducted in accordance with regulations
that the Commission shall prescribe) to improve the quality,
accuracy, or completeness of Postal Service data required by
the Commission under this subsection whenever it shall appear
that--
``(A) the attribution of costs or revenues to products has
become significantly inaccurate or can be significantly
improved;
``(B) the quality of service data has become significantly
inaccurate or can be significantly improved; or
``(C) those revisions are, in the judgment of the
Commission, otherwise necessitated by the public interest.
``(f) Confidential Information.--
``(1) In general.--If the Postal Service determines that
any document or portion of a document, or other matter, which
it provides to the Postal Regulatory Commission in a
nonpublic annex under this section or pursuant to subsection
(d) contains information which is described in section 410(c)
of this title, or exempt from public disclosure under section
552(b) of title 5, the Postal Service shall, at the time of
providing such matter to the Commission, notify the
Commission of its determination, in writing, and describe
with particularity the documents (or portions of documents)
or other matter for which confidentiality is sought and the
reasons therefor.
``(2) Treatment.--Any information or other matter described
in paragraph (1) to which the Commission gains access under
this section shall be subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of
section 504(g) in the same way as if the Commission had
received notification with respect to such matter under
section 504(g)(1).
``(g) Other Reports.--The Postal Service shall submit to
the Postal Regulatory Commission, together with any other
submission that it is required to make under this section in
a year, copies of its then most recent--
``(1) comprehensive statement under section 2401(e);
``(2) performance plan under section 2803; and
``(3) program performance reports under section 2804.
``Sec. 3653. Annual determination of compliance
``(a) Opportunity for Public Comment.--After receiving the
reports required under section 3652 for any year, the Postal
Regulatory Commission shall promptly provide an opportunity
for comment on such reports by users of the mails, affected
parties, and an officer of the Commission who shall be
required to represent the interests of the general public.
``(b) Determination of Compliance or Noncompliance.--Not
later than 90 days after receiving the submissions required
under section 3652 with respect to a year, the Postal
Regulatory Commission shall make a written determination as
to--
``(1) whether any rates or fees in effect during such year
(for products individually or collectively) were not in
compliance with applicable provisions of this chapter (or
regulations promulgated thereunder);
``(2) whether any performance goals established under
section 2803 or 2804 for such year were not met; and
``(3) whether any market-dominant product failed to meet
any service standard during such year.
If, with respect to a year, no instance of noncompliance is
found under this subsection to have occurred in such year,
the written determination shall be to that effect.
``(c) If Any Noncompliance Is Found.--If, for a year, a
timely written determination of
[[Page H6526]]
noncompliance is made under subsection (b), the Postal
Regulatory Commission shall take appropriate action in
accordance with subsections (c)-(e) of section 3662 (as if a
complaint averring such noncompliance had been duly filed and
found under such section to be justified).
``(d) Rebuttable Presumption.--A timely written
determination described in the last sentence of subsection
(b) shall, for purposes of any proceeding under section 3662,
create a rebuttable presumption of compliance by the Postal
Service (with regard to the matters described in paragraphs
(1) through (3) of subsection (b)) during the year to which
such determination relates.
``Sec. 3654. Additional financial reporting
``(a) Additional Financial Reporting.--
``(1) In general.--The Postal Service shall file with the
Postal Regulatory Commission beginning with the first full
fiscal year following the effective date of this section--
``(A) within 35 days after the end of each fiscal quarter,
a quarterly report containing the information required by the
Securities and Exchange Commission to be included in
quarterly reports under sections 13 and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m, 78o(d)) on
Form 10-Q, as such Form (or any successor form) may be
revised from time to time;
``(B) within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year, an
annual report containing the information required by the
Securities and Exchange Commission to be included in annual
reports under such sections on Form 10-K, as such Form (or
any successor form) may be revised from time to time; and
``(C) periodic reports within the time frame and containing
the information prescribed in Form 8-K of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, as such Form (or any successor form) may
be revised from time to time.
``(2) Registrant defined.--For purposes of defining the
reports required by paragraph (1), the Postal Service shall
be deemed to be the `registrant' described in the Securities
and Exchange Commission Forms, and references contained in
such Forms to Securities and Exchange Commission regulations
are incorporated herein by reference, as amended.
``(3) Internal control report.--For purposes of defining
the reports required by paragraph (1)(B), the Postal Service
shall comply with the rules prescribed by the Securities and
Exchange Commission implementing section 404 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7262), beginning with the annual
report for fiscal year 2007.
``(b) Financial reporting.--
``(1) The reports required by subsection (a)(1)(B) shall
include, with respect to the Postal Service's pension and
post-retirement health obligations--
``(A) the funded status of the Postal Service's pension and
--postretirement health obligations;
``(B) components of the net change in the fund balances and
obligations and the nature and cause of any significant
changes;
``(C) components of net periodic costs;
``(D) cost methods and assumptions underlying the relevant
actuarial valuations;
``(E) the effect of a one-percentage point increase in the
assumed health care cost trend rate for each future year on
the service and interest costs components of net periodic
postretirement health cost and the accumulated obligation;
``(F) actual contributions to and payments from the funds
for the years presented and the estimated future
contributions and payments for each of the following 5 years;
``(G) the composition of plan assets reflected in the fund
balances; and
``(H) the assumed rate of return on fund balances and the
actual rates of return for the years presented.
``(2)(A) Beginning with reports for the fiscal year 2007,
for purposes of the reports required under subparagraphs (A)
and (B) of subsection (a)(1), the Postal Service shall
include segment reporting.
``(B) The Postal Service shall determine the appropriate
segment reporting under subparagraph (A) after consultation
with the Postal Regulatory Commission.
``(c) Treatment.--For purposes of the reports required by
subsection (a)(1)(B), the Postal Service shall obtain an
opinion from an independent auditor on whether the
information listed in subsection (b) is fairly stated in all
material respects, either in relation to the basic financial
statements as a whole or on a stand-alone basis.
``(d) Supporting Matter.--The Postal Regulatory Commission
shall have access to the audit documentation and any other
supporting matter of the Postal Service and its independent
auditor in connection with any information submitted under
this section.
``(e) Revised Requirements.--The Postal Regulatory
Commission may, on its own motion or on request of an
interested party, initiate proceedings (to be conducted in
accordance with regulations that the Commission shall
prescribe) to improve the quality, accuracy, or completeness
of Postal Service data required under this section whenever
it shall appear that--
``(1) the data have become significantly inaccurate or can
be significantly improved; or
``(2) those revisions are, in the judgment of the
Commission, otherwise necessitated by the public interest.
``(f) Confidential Information.--
``(1) In general.--If the Postal Service determines that
any document or portion of a document, or other matter, which
it provides to the Postal Regulatory Commission in a
nonpublic annex under this section or pursuant to subsection
(d) contains information which is described in section 410(c)
of this title, or exempt from public disclosure under section
552(b) of title 5, the Postal Service shall, at the time of
providing such matter to the Commission, notify the
Commission of its determination, in writing, and describe
with particularity the documents (or portions of documents)
or other matter for which confidentiality is sought and the
reasons therefor.
``(2) Treatment.--Any information or other matter described
in paragraph (1) to which the Commission gains access under
this section shall be subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of
section 504(g) in the same way as if the Commission had
received notification with respect to such matter under
section 504(g)(1).''.
SEC. 205. COMPLAINTS; APPELLATE REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT.
Chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by
striking sections 3662 and 3663 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 3662. Rate and service complaints
``(a) In General.--Interested persons (including an officer
of the Postal Regulatory Commission representing the
interests of the general public) who believe the Postal
Service is not operating in conformance with the requirements
of chapter 1, 4, or 6, or this chapter (or regulations
promulgated under any of those chapters) may lodge a
complaint with the Postal Regulatory Commission in such form
and manner as the Commission may prescribe.
``(b) Prompt Response Required.--
``(1) In general.--The Postal Regulatory Commission shall,
within 90 days after receiving a complaint under subsection
(a), either--
``(A) begin proceedings on such complaint; or
``(B) issue an order dismissing the complaint (together
with a statement of the reasons therefor).
``(2) Treatment of complaints not timely acted on.--For
purposes of section 3663, any complaint under subsection (a)
on which the Commission fails to act in the time and manner
required by paragraph (1) shall be treated in the same way as
if it had been dismissed pursuant to an order issued by the
Commission on the last day allowable for the issuance of such
order under paragraph (1).
``(c) Action Required If Complaint Found to Be Justified.--
If the Postal Regulatory Commission finds the complaint to be
justified, it shall order that the Postal Service take such
action as the Commission considers appropriate in order to
achieve compliance with the applicable requirements and to
remedy the effects of any noncompliance (such as ordering
unlawful rates to be adjusted to lawful levels, ordering the
cancellation of market tests, ordering the Postal Service to
discontinue providing loss-making products, or requiring the
Postal Service to make up for revenue shortfalls in
competitive products).
``(d) Suspension Authority.--The Postal Regulatory
Commission may suspend implementation of rates or
classifications under section 3632(b)(3) for a limited period
of time pending expedited proceedings under this section. In
evaluating whether circumstances warrant suspension, the
Commission shall consider factors such as (1) whether there
is a substantial likelihood that such rate or classification
will violate the requirements of chapter 1, 4, or 6, or this
chapter (or regulations promulgated under any of those
chapters), (2) whether any persons would suffer substantial
injury, loss, or damage absent a suspension, (3) whether the
Postal Service or any other persons would suffer substantial
injury, loss, or damage under a suspension, and (4) the
public interest.
``(e) Authority to Order Fines in Cases of Deliberate
Noncompliance.--In addition, in cases of deliberate
noncompliance by the Postal Service with the requirements of
this title, the Postal Regulatory Commission may order, based
on the nature, circumstances, extent, and seriousness of the
noncompliance, a fine (in the amount specified by the
Commission in its order) for each incidence of noncompliance.
Fines resulting from the provision of competitive products
shall be paid out of the Competitive Products Fund
established in section 2011. All receipts from fines imposed
under this subsection shall be deposited in the general fund
of the Treasury of the United States.
``Sec. 3663. Appellate review
``A person adversely affected or aggrieved by a final order
or decision of the Postal Regulatory Commission may, within
30 days after such order or decision becomes final, institute
proceedings for review thereof by filing a petition in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
The court shall review the order or decision in accordance
with section 706 of title 5, and chapter 158 and section 2112
of title 28, on the basis of the record before the
Commission. For purposes of this section, the term `person'
includes the Postal Service.
``Sec. 3664. Enforcement of orders
``The several district courts have jurisdiction
specifically to enforce, and to enjoin and restrain the
Postal Service from violating, any order issued by the Postal
Regulatory Commission.''.
SEC. 206. WORKSHARE DISCOUNTS.
(a) In General.--Title 39, United States Code, is amended
by adding after section 3686 (as added by section 406) the
following:
``Sec. 3687. Workshare discounts
``(a) In General.--As part of the regulations established
under section 3622(a), the Postal Regulatory Commission shall
establish rules for workshare discounts that ensure that such
discounts do not exceed the cost that the Postal Service
avoids as the result of workshare activity, unless--
``(1) the discount is--
``(A) associated with a new postal service, a change to an
existing postal service, or a new workshare initiative
related to an existing postal service; and
``(B) necessary to induce mailer behavior that furthers the
economically efficient operation of
[[Page H6527]]
the Postal Service and the portion of the discount in excess
of the cost that the Postal Service avoids as a result of the
workshare activity will be phased out over a limited period
of time;
``(2) a reduction in the discount would--
``(A) lead to a loss of volume in the affected category or
subclass of mail and reduce the aggregate contribution to the
institutional costs of the Postal Service from the category
or subclass subject to the discount below what it otherwise
would have been if the discount had not been reduced to costs
avoided;
``(B) result in a further increase in the rates paid by
mailers not able to take advantage of the discount; or
``(C) impede the efficient operation of the Postal Service;
``(3) the amount of the discount above costs avoided--
``(A) is necessary to mitigate rate shock; and
``(B) will be phased out over time; or
``(4) the discount is provided in connection with
subclasses of mail consisting exclusively of mail matter of
educational, cultural, scientific, or informational value.
``(b) Report.--Whenever the Postal Service establishes or
maintains a workshare discount, the Postal Service shall, at
the time it publishes the workshare discount rate, submit to
the Postal Regulatory Commission a detailed report that--
``(1) explains the Postal Service's reasons for
establishing or maintaining the rate;
``(2) sets forth the data, economic analyses, and other
information relied on by the Postal Service to justify the
rate; and
``(3) certifies that the discount will not adversely affect
rates or services provided to users of postal services who do
not take advantage of the discount rate.
``(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`workshare discount' refers to rate discounts provided to
mailers for the presorting, prebarcoding, handling, or
transportation of mail, as further defined by the Postal
Regulatory Commission under section 3622(a).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 36 of
title 39, United States Code (as amended by section 207) is
amended by adding after the item relating to section 3686 the
following:
``3687. Workshare discounts.''.
SEC. 207. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.
Chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by
striking the heading and analysis for such chapter and
inserting the following:
``CHAPTER 36--POSTAL RATES, CLASSES AND SERVICES
``Subchapter I--Provisions relating to market-dominant products
``Sec.
``3621. Applicability; definitions.
``3622. Modern rate regulation.
``3626. Reduced rates.
``3627. Adjusting free rates.
``3629. Reduced rates for voter registration purposes.
``Subchapter II--Provisions relating to competitive products
``3631. Applicability; definitions and updates.
``3632. Action of the Governors.
``3633. Provisions applicable to rates for competitive
products.
``3634. Assumed Federal income tax on competitive products.
``Subchapter III--Provisions relating to experimental and new products
``3641. Market tests of experimental products.
``3642. New products and transfers of products between the
market-dominant and competitive categories of mail.
``Subchapter IV--Reporting requirements and related provisions
``3651. Annual reports by the Commission.
``3652. Annual reports to the Commission.
``3653. Annual determination of compliance.
``3654. Additional financial reporting.
``Subchapter V--Postal services, complaints, and judicial review
``3661. Postal services.
``3662. Rate and service complaints.
``3663. Appellate review.
``3664. Enforcement of orders.
``Subchapter VI--General
``3681. Reimbursement.
``3682. Size and weight limits.
``3683. Uniform rates for books; films, other materials.
``3684. Limitations.
``3685. Filing of information relating to periodical publications.
``3686. Bonus authority.''.
TITLE III--PROVISIONS RELATING TO FAIR COMPETITION
SEC. 301. POSTAL SERVICE COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS FUND.
(a) Provisions Relating to Postal Service Competitive
Products Fund and Related Matters.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 20 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 2011. Provisions relating to competitive products
``(a) There is established in the Treasury of the United
States a revolving fund, to be called the Postal Service
Competitive Products Fund, which shall be available to the
Postal Service without fiscal year limitation for the payment
of--
``(1) costs attributable to competitive products; and
``(2) all other costs incurred by the Postal Service, to
the extent allocable to competitive products.
For purposes of this subsection, the term `costs
attributable' has the meaning given such term by section
3631.
``(b) There shall be deposited in the Competitive Products
Fund, subject to withdrawal by the Postal Service--
``(1) revenues from competitive products;
``(2) amounts received from obligations issued by the
Postal Service under subsection (e);
``(3) interest and dividends earned on investments of the
Competitive Products Fund; and
``(4) any other receipts of the Postal Service (including
from the sale of assets), to the extent allocable to
competitive products.
``(c) If the Postal Service determines that the moneys of
the Competitive Products Fund are in excess of current needs,
it may request the investment of such amounts as it deems
advisable by the Secretary of the Treasury in obligations of,
or obligations guaranteed by, the Government of the United
States, and, with the approval of the Secretary, in such
other obligations or securities as it deems appropriate.
``(d) With the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury,
the Postal Service may deposit moneys of the Competitive
Products Fund in any Federal Reserve bank, any depository for
public funds, or in such other places and in such manner as
the Postal Service and the Secretary may mutually agree.
``(e)(1) Subject to the limitations specified in section
2005(a), the Postal Service is authorized to borrow money and
to issue and sell such obligations as it determines necessary
to provide for competitive products and deposit such amounts
in the Competitive Products Fund. Any such borrowings by the
Postal Service shall be supported and serviced by the
revenues and receipts from competitive products and the
assets related to the provision of competitive products (as
determined under subsection (h) or, for purposes of any
period before accounting practices and principles under
subsection (h) have been established and applied, the best
information available from the Postal Service, including the
audited statements required by section 2008(e), but in either
case subject to paragraph (5)).
``(2) The Postal Service may enter into binding covenants
with the holders of such obligations, and with the trustee,
if any, under any agreement entered into in connection with
the issuance thereof with respect to--
``(A) the establishment of reserve, sinking, and other
funds;
``(B) application and use of revenues and receipts of the
Competitive Products Fund;
``(C) stipulations concerning the subsequent issuance of
obligations or the execution of leases or lease purchases
relating to properties of the Postal Service; and
``(D) such other matters as the Postal Service considers
necessary or desirable to enhance the marketability of such
obligations.
``(3) The obligations issued by the Postal Service under
this section--
``(A) shall be in such forms and denominations;
``(B) shall be sold at such times and in such amounts;
``(C) shall mature at such time or times;
``(D) shall be sold at such prices;
``(E) shall bear such rates of interest;
``(F) may be redeemable before maturity in such manner, at
such times, and at such redemption premiums;
``(G) may be entitled to such relative priorities of claim
on the assets of the Postal Service with respect to principal
and interest payments; and
``(H) shall be subject to such other terms and conditions;
as the Postal Service determines.
``(4) Obligations issued by the Postal Service under this
subsection--
``(A) shall be negotiable or nonnegotiable and bearer or
registered instruments, as specified therein and in any
indenture or covenant relating thereto;
``(B) shall contain a recital that they are issued under
this section, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence
of the regularity of the issuance and sale of such
obligations and of their validity;
``(C) shall be lawful investments and may be accepted as
security for all fiduciary, trust, and public funds, the
investment or deposit of which shall be under the authority
or control of any officer or agency of the Government of the
United States, and the Secretary of the Treasury or any other
officer or agency having authority over or control of any
such fiduciary, trust, or public funds, may at any time sell
any of the obligations of the Postal Service acquired under
this section;
``(D) shall not be exempt either as to principal or
interest from any taxation now or hereafter imposed by any
State or local taxing authority; and
``(E) except as provided in section 2006(c) of this title,
shall not be obligations of, nor shall payment of the
principal thereof or interest thereon be guaranteed by, the
Government of the United States, and the obligations shall so
plainly state.
``(5) The Postal Service shall make payments of principal,
or interest, or both on obligations issued under this section
out of revenues and receipts from competitive products and
assets related to the provision of competitive products (as
determined under subsection (h) or, for purposes of any
period before accounting practices and principles under
subsection (h) have been established and applied, the best
information available, including the audited statements
required by section 2008(e)). For purposes of this
subsection, the total assets of the Competitive Products Fund
shall be the greater of--
``(A) the assets related to the provision of competitive
products; or
``(B) the percentage of total Postal Service revenues and
receipts from competitive products times the total assets of
the Postal Service.
``(f) The receipts and disbursements of the Competitive
Products Fund shall be accorded the same budgetary treatment
as is accorded to receipts and disbursements of the Postal
Service Fund under section 2009a.
[[Page H6528]]
``(g) A judgment against the Postal Service or the
Government of the United States (or settlement of a claim)
shall, to the extent that it arises out of activities of the
Postal Service in the provision of competitive products, be
paid out of the Competitive Products Fund.
``(h)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Postal Service and an independent, certified public
accounting firm and such other advisors as the Secretary
considers appropriate, shall develop recommendations
regarding--
``(A) the accounting practices and principles that should
be followed by the Postal Service with the objectives of (i)
identifying and valuing the assets and liabilities of the
Postal Service associated with providing, and the capital and
operating costs incurred by the Postal Service in providing,
competitive products, and (ii) subject to subsection (e)(5),
preventing the subsidization of such products by market-
dominant products; and
``(B) the substantive and procedural rules that should be
followed in determining the Postal Service's assumed Federal
income tax on competitive products income for any year
(within the meaning of section 3634).
Such recommendations shall be submitted to the Postal
Regulatory Commission no earlier than 6 months, and no later
than 12 months, after the effective date of this section.
``(2)(A) Upon receiving the recommendations of the
Secretary of the Treasury under paragraph (1), the Commission
shall give interested parties, including the Postal Service,
users of the mails, and an officer of the Commission who
shall be required to represent the interests of the general
public, an opportunity to present their views on those
recommendations through submission of written data, views, or
arguments, with or without opportunity for oral presentation,
or in such other manner as the Commission considers
appropriate.
``(B) After due consideration of the views and other
information received under subparagraph (A), the Commission
shall by rule--
``(i) provide for the establishment and application of the
accounting practices and principles which shall be followed
by the Postal Service;
``(ii) provide for the establishment and application of the
substantive and procedural rules described in paragraph
(1)(B); and
``(iii) provide for the submission by the Postal Service to
the Postal Regulatory Commission of annual and other periodic
reports setting forth such information as the Commission may
require.
Final rules under this subparagraph shall be issued not later
than 12 months after the date on which the Secretary of the
Treasury makes his submission to the Commission under
paragraph (1) (or by such later date as the Commission and
the Postal Service may agree to). The Commission is
authorized to promulgate regulations revising such rules.
``(C) Reports described in subparagraph (B)(iii) shall be
submitted at such time and in such form, and shall include
such information, as the Commission by rule requires. The
Commission may, on its own motion or on request of an
interested party, initiate proceedings (to be conducted in
accordance with such rules as the Commission shall prescribe)
to improve the quality, accuracy, or completeness of Postal
Service data under such subparagraph whenever it shall appear
that--
``(i) the quality of the information furnished in those
reports has become significantly inaccurate or can be
significantly improved; or
``(ii) those revisions are, in the judgment of the
Commission, otherwise necessitated by the public interest.
``(D) A copy of each report described in subparagraph
(B)(iii) shall also be transmitted by the Postal Service to
the Secretary of the Treasury and the Inspector General of
the United States Postal Service.
``(i) The Postal Service shall render an annual report to
the Secretary of the Treasury concerning the operation of the
Competitive Products Fund, in which it shall address such
matters as risk limitations, reserve balances, allocation or
distribution of moneys, liquidity requirements, and measures
to safeguard against losses. A copy of its then most recent
report under this subsection shall be included with any other
submission that it is required to make to the Postal
Regulatory Commission under section 3652(g).''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The analysis for chapter 20 of
title 39, United States Code, is amended by adding after the
item relating to section 2010 the following:
``2011. Provisions relating to competitive products.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Definition.--Section 2001 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(1), by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3), and by
inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) `Competitive Products Fund' means the Postal Service
Competitive Products Fund established by section 2011; and''.
(2) Capital of the Postal Service.--Section 2002(b) of
title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking
``Fund,'' and inserting ``Fund and the balance in the
Competitive Products Fund,''.
(3) Postal service fund.--
(A) Purposes for which available.--Section 2003(a) of title
39, United States Code, is amended by striking ``title.'' and
inserting ``title (other than any of the purposes, functions,
or powers for which the Competitive Products Fund is
available).''.
(B) Deposits.--Section 2003(b) of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``There'' and inserting ``Except
as otherwise provided in section 2011, there''.
(4) Relationship between the treasury and the postal
service.--Section 2006 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or section 2011''
before ``of this title,'';
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``under section 2005''
before ``in such amounts'' in the first sentence and before
``in excess of such amount.'' in the second sentence; and
(C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or section
2011(e)(4)(E)'' before ``of this title,''.
SEC. 302. ASSUMED FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS
INCOME.
Subchapter II of chapter 36 of title 39, United States
Code, as amended by section 202, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``Sec. 3634. Assumed Federal income tax on competitive
products income
``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `assumed Federal income tax on competitive
products income' means the net income tax that would be
imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on
the Postal Service's assumed taxable income from competitive
products for the year; and
``(2) the term `assumed taxable income from competitive
products', with respect to a year, refers to the amount
representing what would be the taxable income of a
corporation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the
year, if--
``(A) the only activities of such corporation were the
activities of the Postal Service allocable under section
2011(h) to competitive products; and
``(B) the only assets held by such corporation were the
assets of the Postal Service allocable under section 2011(h)
to such activities.
``(b) Computation and Transfer Requirements.--The Postal
Service shall, for each year beginning with the year in which
occurs the deadline for the Postal Service's first report to
the Postal Regulatory Commission under section 3652(a)--
``(1) compute its assumed Federal income tax on competitive
products income for such year; and
``(2) transfer from the Competitive Products Fund to the
Postal Service Fund the amount of that assumed tax.
``(c) Deadline for Transfers.--Any transfer required to be
made under this section for a year shall be due on or before
the January 15th next occurring after the close of such
year.''.
SEC. 303. UNFAIR COMPETITION PROHIBITED.
(a) Specific Limitations.--Chapter 4 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by adding after section 404 the
following:
``Sec. 404a. Specific Limitations
``(a) Except as specifically authorized by law, the Postal
Service may not--
``(1) establish any rule or regulation (including any
standard) the effect of which is to preclude competition or
establish the terms of competition unless the Postal Service
demonstrates that the regulation does not create an unfair
competitive advantage for itself or any entity funded (in
whole or in part) by the Postal Service;
``(2) compel the disclosure, transfer, or licensing of
intellectual property to any third party (such as patents,
copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and proprietary
information); or
``(3) obtain information from a person that provides (or
seeks to provide) any product, and then offer any product or
service that uses or is based in whole or in part on such
information, without the consent of the person providing that
information, unless substantially the same information is
obtained (or obtainable) from an independent source or is
otherwise obtained (or obtainable).
``(b) The Postal Regulatory Commission shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section.
``(c) Any party (including an officer of the Commission
representing the interests of the general public) who
believes that the Postal Service has violated this section
may bring a complaint in accordance with section 3662.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) General powers.--Section 401 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``The'' and inserting ``Subject
to the provisions of section 404a, the''.
(2) Specific powers.--Section 404(a) of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``Without'' and inserting
``Subject to the provisions of section 404a, but otherwise
without''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 4 of
title 39, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 404 the following:
``404a. Specific limitations.''.
SEC. 304. SUITS BY AND AGAINST THE POSTAL SERVICE.
(a) In General.--Section 409 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsections (d) and (e) and
inserting the following:
``(d)(1) For purposes of the provisions of law cited in
paragraphs (2)(A) and (2)(B), respectively, the Postal
Service--
``(A) shall be considered to be a `person', as used in the
provisions of law involved; and
``(B) shall not be immune under any other doctrine of
sovereign immunity from suit in Federal court by any person
for any violation of any of those provisions of law by any
officer or employee of the Postal Service.
``(2) This subsection applies with respect to--
``(A) the Act of July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the
`Trademark Act of 1946' (15 U.S.C. 1051 and following)); and
``(B) the provisions of section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act to the extent that such section 5 applies to
unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
``(e)(1) To the extent that the Postal Service, or other
Federal agency acting on behalf of or in concert with the
Postal Service, engages in conduct with respect to any
competitive product, the Postal Service or other Federal
agency (as the case may be)--
[[Page H6529]]
``(A) shall not be immune under any doctrine of sovereign
immunity from suit in Federal court by any person for any
violation of Federal law by such agency or any officer or
employee thereof; and
``(B) shall be considered to be a person (as defined in
subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act) for
purposes of--
``(i) the antitrust laws (as defined in such subsection);
and
``(ii) section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the
extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods of
competition.
``(2) No damages, interest on damages, costs or attorney's
fees may be recovered, and no criminal liability may be
imposed, under the antitrust laws (as so defined) from any
officer or employee of the Postal Service, or other Federal
agency acting on behalf of or in concert with the Postal
Service, acting in an official capacity.
``(3) This subsection shall not apply with respect to
conduct occurring before the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(f)(1) Each building constructed or altered by the Postal
Service shall be constructed or altered, to the maximum
extent feasible as determined by the Postal Service, in
compliance with one of the nationally recognized model
building codes and with other applicable nationally
recognized codes.
``(2) Each building constructed or altered by the Postal
Service shall be constructed or altered only after
consideration of all requirements (other than procedural
requirements) of zoning laws, land use laws, and applicable
environmental laws of a State or subdivision of a State which
would apply to the building if it were not a building
constructed or altered by an establishment of the Government
of the United States.
``(3) For purposes of meeting the requirements of
paragraphs (1) and (2) with respect to a building, the Postal
Service shall--
``(A) in preparing plans for the building, consult with
appropriate officials of the State or political subdivision,
or both, in which the building will be located;
``(B) upon request, submit such plans in a timely manner to
such officials for review by such officials for a reasonable
period of time not exceeding 30 days; and
``(C) permit inspection by such officials during
construction or alteration of the building, in accordance
with the customary schedule of inspections for construction
or alteration of buildings in the locality, if such officials
provide to the Postal Service--
``(i) a copy of such schedule before construction of the
building is begun; and
``(ii) reasonable notice of their intention to conduct any
inspection before conducting such inspection.
Nothing in this subsection shall impose an obligation on any
State or political subdivision to take any action under the
preceding sentence, nor shall anything in this subsection
require the Postal Service or any of its contractors to pay
for any action taken by a State or political subdivision to
carry out this subsection (including reviewing plans,
carrying out on-site inspections, issuing building permits,
and making recommendations).
``(4) Appropriate officials of a State or a political
subdivision of a State may make recommendations to the Postal
Service concerning measures necessary to meet the
requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2). Such officials may
also make recommendations to the Postal Service concerning
measures which should be taken in the construction or
alteration of the building to take into account local
conditions. The Postal Service shall give due consideration
to any such recommendations.
``(5) In addition to consulting with local and State
officials under paragraph (3), the Postal Service shall
establish procedures for soliciting, assessing, and
incorporating local community input on real property and land
use decisions.
``(6) For purposes of this subsection, the term `State'
includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and a territory or possession of the United States.
``(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, legal
representation may not be furnished by the Department of
Justice to the Postal Service in any action, suit, or
proceeding arising, in whole or in part, under any of the
following:
``(A) Subsection (d) or (e) of this section.
``(B) Subsection (f) or (g) of section 504 (relating to
administrative subpoenas by the Postal Regulatory
Commission).
``(C) Section 3663 (relating to appellate review).
The Postal Service may, by contract or otherwise, employ
attorneys to obtain any legal representation that it is
precluded from obtaining from the Department of Justice under
this paragraph.
``(2) In any circumstance not covered by paragraph (1), the
Department of Justice shall, under section 411, furnish the
Postal Service such legal representation as it may require,
except that, with the prior consent of the Attorney General,
the Postal Service may, in any such circumstance, employ
attorneys by contract or otherwise to conduct litigation
brought by or against the Postal Service or its officers or
employees in matters affecting the Postal Service.
``(3)(A) In any action, suit, or proceeding in a court of
the United States arising in whole or in part under any of
the provisions of law referred to in subparagraph (B) or (C)
of paragraph (1), and to which the Commission is not
otherwise a party, the Commission shall be permitted to
appear as a party on its own motion and as of right.
``(B) The Department of Justice shall, under such terms and
conditions as the Commission and the Attorney General shall
consider appropriate, furnish the Commission such legal
representation as it may require in connection with any such
action, suit, or proceeding, except that, with the prior
consent of the Attorney General, the Commission may employ
attorneys by contract or otherwise for that purpose.
``(h) A judgment against the Government of the United
States arising out of activities of the Postal Service shall
be paid by the Postal Service out of any funds available to
the Postal Service, subject to the restriction specified in
section 2011(g).''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 409(a) of title 39,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``Except as
provided in section 3628 of this title,'' and inserting
``Except as otherwise provided in this title,''.
SEC. 305. INTERNATIONAL POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 407 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 407. International postal arrangements
``(a) It is the policy of the United States--
``(1) to promote and encourage communications between
peoples by efficient operation of international postal
services and other international delivery services for
cultural, social, and economic purposes;
``(2) to promote and encourage unrestricted and undistorted
competition in the provision of international postal services
and other international delivery services, except where
provision of such services by private companies may be
prohibited by law of the United States;
``(3) to promote and encourage a clear distinction between
governmental and operational responsibilities with respect to
the provision of international postal services and other
international delivery services by the Government of the
United States and by intergovernmental organizations of which
the United States is a member; and
``(4) to participate in multilateral and bilateral
agreements with other countries to accomplish these
objectives.
``(b)(1) The Secretary of State shall be responsible for
formulation, coordination, and oversight of foreign policy
related to international postal services and other
international delivery services, and shall have the power to
conclude treaties, conventions and amendments related to
international postal services and other international
delivery services, except that the Secretary may not conclude
any treaty, convention, or other international agreement
(including those regulating international postal services) if
such treaty, convention, or agreement would, with respect to
any competitive product, grant an undue or unreasonable
preference to the Postal Service, a private provider of
international postal or delivery services, or any other
person.
``(2) In carrying out the responsibilities specified in
paragraph (1), the Secretary of State shall exercise primary
authority for the conduct of foreign policy with respect to
international postal services and international delivery
services, including the determination of United States
positions and the conduct of United States participation in
negotiations with foreign governments and international
bodies. In exercising this authority, the Secretary--
``(A) shall coordinate with other agencies as appropriate,
and in particular, shall give full consideration to the
authority vested by law or Executive order in the Postal
Regulatory Commission, the Department of Commerce, the
Department of Transportation, and the Office of the United
States Trade Representative in this area;
``(B) shall maintain continuing liaison with other
executive branch agencies concerned with postal and delivery
services;
``(C) shall maintain continuing liaison with the Committee
on Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate;
``(D) shall maintain appropriate liaison with both
representatives of the Postal Service and representatives of
users and private providers of international postal services
and other international delivery services to keep informed of
their interests and problems, and to provide such assistance
as may be needed to ensure that matters of concern are
promptly considered by the Department of State or (if
applicable, and to the extent practicable) other executive
branch agencies; and
``(E) shall assist in arranging meetings of such public
sector advisory groups as may be established to advise the
Department of State and other executive branch agencies in
connection with international postal services and
international delivery services.
``(3) The Secretary of State shall establish an advisory
committee (within the meaning of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act) to perform such functions as the Secretary
considers appropriate in connection with carrying out
subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2).
``(c)(1) Before concluding any treaty, convention, or
amendment that establishes a rate or classification for a
product subject to subchapter I of chapter 36, the Secretary
of State shall request the Postal Regulatory Commission to
submit a decision on whether such rate or classification is
consistent with the standards and criteria established by the
Commission under section 3622.
``(2) The Secretary shall ensure that each treaty,
convention, or amendment concluded under subsection (b) is
consistent with a decision of the Commission adopted under
paragraph (1), except if, or to the extent, the Secretary
determines, by written order, that considerations of foreign
policy or national security require modification of the
Commission's decision.
``(d) Nothing in this section shall be considered to
prevent the Postal Service from entering
[[Page H6530]]
into such commercial or operational contracts related to
providing international postal services and other
international delivery services as it deems appropriate,
except that--
``(1) any such contract made with an agency of a foreign
government (whether under authority of this subsection or
otherwise) shall be solely contractual in nature and may not
purport to be international law; and
``(2) a copy of each such contract between the Postal
Service and an agency of a foreign government shall be
transmitted to the Secretary of State and the Postal
Regulatory Commission not later than the effective date of
such contract.
``(e)(1) With respect to shipments of international mail
that are competitive products within the meaning of section
3631 that are exported or imported by the Postal Service, the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of
Homeland Security and other appropriate Federal agencies
shall apply the customs laws of the United States and all
other laws relating to the importation or exportation of such
shipments in the same manner to both shipments by the Postal
Service and similar shipments by private companies.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `private
company' means a private company substantially owned or
controlled by persons who are citizens of the United States.
``(3) In exercising the authority pursuant to subsection
(b) to conclude new treaties, conventions and amendments
related to international postal services and to renegotiate
such treaties, conventions and amendments, the Secretary of
State shall, to the maximum extent practicable, take such
measures as are within the Secretary's control to encourage
the governments of other countries to make available to the
Postal Service and private companies a range of
nondiscriminatory customs procedures that will fully meet the
needs of all types of American shippers. The Secretary of
State shall consult with the United States Trade
Representative and the Commissioner of Customs, Department of
Homeland Security in carrying out this paragraph.
``(4) The provisions of this subsection shall take effect 6
months after the date of the enactment of this subsection or
such earlier date as the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection of the Department of Homeland Security may
determine in writing.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding any provision of the
amendment made by subsection (a), the authority of the United
States Postal Service to establish the rates of postage or
other charges on mail matter conveyed between the United
States and other countries shall remain available to the
Postal Service until--
(1) with respect to market-dominant products, the date as
of which the regulations promulgated under section 3622 of
title 39, United States Code (as amended by section 201(a))
take effect; and
(2) with respect to competitive products, the date as of
which the regulations promulgated under section 3633 of title
39, United States Code (as amended by section 202) take
effect.
SEC. 306. REDESIGNATION.
Chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code (as in effect
before the amendment made by section 204(a)) is amended by
striking the heading for subchapter V and inserting the
following:
``SUBCHAPTER VI--GENERAL''.
TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 401. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR GOVERNORS.
(a) In General.--Section 202(a) of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a)(1)''
and by striking the fourth sentence and inserting the
following: ``The Governors shall represent the public
interest generally, and at least 4 of the Governors shall be
chosen solely on the basis of their demonstrated ability in
managing organizations or corporations (in either the public
or private sector) of substantial size; for purposes of this
sentence, an organization or corporation shall be considered
to be of substantial size if it employs at least 50,000
employees. The Governors shall not be representatives of
specific interests using the Postal Service, and may be
removed only for cause.''.
(b) Consultation Requirement.--Section 202(a) of title 39,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(2) In selecting the individuals described in paragraph
(1) for nomination for appointment to the position of
Governor, the President should consult with the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the
House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate,
and the minority leader of the Senate.''.
(c) Restriction.--Section 202(b) of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``(b)'' and inserting
``(b)(1)'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, in the case of the office of the Governor the term
of which is the first one scheduled to expire at least 4
months after the date of the enactment of this paragraph--
``(i) such office may not, in the case of any person
commencing service after that expiration date, be filled by
any person other than an individual chosen from among persons
nominated for such office with the unanimous concurrence of
all labor organizations described in section 206(a)(1); and
``(ii) instead of the term that would otherwise apply under
the first sentence of paragraph (1), the term of any person
so appointed to such office shall be 3 years.
``(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (A), an
appointment under this paragraph shall be made in conformance
with all provisions of this section that would otherwise
apply.''.
(d) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall not affect the appointment or tenure of any person
serving as a Governor of the Board of Governors of the United
States Postal Service pursuant to an appointment made before
the date of the enactment of this Act, or, except as provided
in the amendment made by subsection (c), any nomination made
before that date; however, when any such office becomes
vacant, the appointment of any person to fill that office
shall be made in accordance with such amendment. The
requirement set forth in the fourth sentence of section
202(a)(1) of title 39, United States Code (as amended by
subsection (a)) shall be met beginning not later than 9 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 402. OBLIGATIONS.
(a) Purposes for Which Obligations May Be Issued.--The
first sentence of section 2005(a)(1) of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``title.'' and inserting
``title, other than any of the purposes for which the
corresponding authority is available to the Postal Service
under section 2011.''.
(b) Limitation on Net Annual Increase in Obligations Issued
for Certain Purposes.--The third sentence of section
2005(a)(1) of title 39, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows: ``In any one fiscal year, the net increase
in the amount of obligations outstanding issued for the
purpose of capital improvements and the net increase in the
amount of obligations outstanding issued for the purpose of
defraying operating expenses of the Postal Service shall not
exceed a combined total of $3,000,000,000.'' .
(c) Limitations on Obligations Outstanding.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 2005 of title
39, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) For purposes of applying the respective limitations
under this subsection, the aggregate amount of obligations
issued by the Postal Service which are outstanding as of any
one time, and the net increase in the amount of obligations
outstanding issued by the Postal Service for the purpose of
capital improvements or for the purpose of defraying
operating expenses of the Postal Service in any fiscal year,
shall be determined by aggregating the relevant obligations
issued by the Postal Service under this section with the
relevant obligations issued by the Postal Service under
section 2011.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The second sentence of section
2005(a)(1) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``any such obligations'' and inserting ``obligations
issued by the Postal Service which may be''.
(d) Amounts Which May Be Pledged, Etc.--
(1) Obligations to which provisions apply.--The first
sentence of section 2005(b) of title 39, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``such obligations,'' and inserting
``obligations issued by the Postal Service under this
section,''.
(2) Assets, revenues, and receipts to which provisions
apply.--Subsection (b) of section 2005 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``(b)'' and inserting
``(b)(1)'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section--
``(A) the authority to pledge assets of the Postal Service
under this subsection shall be available only to the extent
that such assets are not related to the provision of
competitive products (as determined under section 2011(h) or,
for purposes of any period before accounting practices and
principles under section 2011(h) have been established and
applied, the best information available from the Postal
Service, including the audited statements required by section
2008(e)); and
``(B) any authority under this subsection relating to the
pledging or other use of revenues or receipts of the Postal
Service shall be available only to the extent that they are
not revenues or receipts of the Competitive Products Fund.''.
SEC. 403. PRIVATE CARRIAGE OF LETTERS.
(a) In General.--Section 601 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following:
``(b) A letter may also be carried out of the mails when--
``(1) the amount paid for the private carriage of the
letter is at least the amount equal to 6 times the rate then
currently charged for the 1st ounce of a single-piece first
class letter;
``(2) the letter weighs at least 12\1/2\ ounces; or
``(3) such carriage is within the scope of services
described by regulations of the Postal Service (including, in
particular, sections 310.1 and 320.2-320.8 of title 39 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on July 1, 2004)
that purport to permit private carriage by suspension of the
operation of this section (as then in effect).
``(c) Any regulations necessary to carry out this section
shall be promulgated by the Postal Regulatory Commission.''.
(b) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date as of which the regulations promulgated under section
3633 of title 39, United States Code (as amended by section
202) take effect.
SEC. 404. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.
Paragraph (2) of section 401 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(2) to adopt, amend, and repeal such rules and
regulations, not inconsistent with this title, as may be
necessary in the execution of its functions under this title
and such other functions as may be assigned to the Postal
Service under any provisions of law outside of this title;''.
SEC. 405. NONINTERFERENCE WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
AGREEMENTS, ETC.
(a) Noninterference With Collective Bargaining
Agreements.--Except as provided in section 407, nothing in
this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall restrict,
expand, or otherwise affect any of the rights, privileges, or
[[Page H6531]]
benefits of either employees of or labor organizations
representing employees of the United States Postal Service
under chapter 12 of title 39, United States Code, the
National Labor Relations Act, any handbook or manual
affecting employee labor relations within the United States
Postal Service, or any collective bargaining agreement.
(b) Free Mailing Privileges Continue Unchanged.--Nothing in
this Act or any amendment made by this Act shall affect any
free mailing privileges accorded under section 3217 or
sections 3403 through 3406 of title 39, United States Code.
SEC. 406. BONUS AND COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.
Subchapter VI of chapter 36 of title 39, United States Code
(as so redesignated by section 306) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``Sec. 3686. Bonus authority
``(a) In General.--The Postal Service may establish one or
more programs to provide bonuses or other rewards to officers
and employees of the Postal Service in senior executive or
equivalent positions to achieve the objectives of this
chapter.
``(b) Limitation on Total Compensation.--
``(1) In general.--Under any such program, the Postal
Service may award a bonus or other reward in excess of the
limitation set forth in the last sentence of section 1003(a),
if such program has been approved under paragraph (2). Any
such award or bonus may not cause the total compensation of
such officer or employee to exceed the total annual
compensation payable to the Vice President under section 104
of title 3 as of the end of the calendar year in which the
bonus or award is paid.
``(2) Approval process.--If the Postal Service wishes to
have the authority, under any program described in subsection
(a), to award bonuses or other rewards in excess of the
limitation set forth in the last sentence of section
1003(a)--
``(A) the Postal Service shall make an appropriate request
to the Board of Governors in such form and manner as the
Board requires; and
``(B) the Board of Governors shall approve any such request
if it certifies, for the annual appraisal period involved,
that the performance appraisal system for affected officers
and employees of the Postal Service (as designed and applied)
makes meaningful distinctions based on relative performance.
``(3) Revocation authority.--If the Board of Governors
finds that a performance appraisal system previously approved
under paragraph (2)(B) does not (as designed and applied)
make meaningful distinctions based on relative performance,
the Board may revoke or suspend the authority of the Postal
Service to continue a program approved under paragraph (2)
until such time as appropriate corrective measures have, in
the judgment of the Board, been taken.
``(c) Exceptions for Critical Positions.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Board of Governors may allow
up to 12 officers or employees of the Postal Service in
critical senior executive or equivalent positions to receive
total compensation in an amount not to exceed 120 percent of
the total annual compensation payable to the Vice President
under section 104 of title 3 as of the end of the calendar
year in which such payment is received. For each exception
made under this subsection, the Board shall provide written
notification to the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management and the Congress within 30 days after the payment
is made setting forth the name of the officer or employee
involved, the critical nature of his or her duties and
responsibilities, and the basis for determining that such
payment is warranted.
``(d) Information for Inclusion in Comprehensive
Statement.--Included in its comprehensive statement under
section 2401(e) for any period shall be--
``(1) the name of each person receiving a bonus or other
payment during such period which would not have been
allowable but for the provisions of subsection (b) or (c);
``(2) the amount of the bonus or other payment; and
``(3) the amount by which the limitation set forth in the
last sentence of section 1003(a) was exceeded as a result of
such bonus or other payment.
``(e) Regulations.--The Board of Governors may prescribe
regulations for the administration of this section.''.
SEC. 407. MEDIATION IN COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING DISPUTES.
(a) In General.--Section 1207(b) of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by striking all that follows ``the Director
of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shall'' and
inserting ``, within 10 days appoint a mediator of nationwide
reputation and professional stature, and who is also a member
of the National Academy of Arbitrators. The parties shall
cooperate with the mediator in an effort to reach an
agreement and shall meet and negotiate in good faith at such
times and places that the mediator, in consultation with the
parties, shall direct.''.
(b) Provisions Relating to Arbitration Boards.--Section
1207(c) of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``90'' and inserting ``60'';
(B) by striking ``not members of the factfinding panel,'';
and
(C) by striking all that follows ``shall be made'' and
inserting ``from a list of names provided by the Director.
This list shall consist of not less than 9 names of
arbitrators of nationwide reputation and professional
stature, who are also members of the National Academy of
Arbitrators, and whom the Director has determined are
available and willing to serve.''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``factfinding panel'' and
inserting ``mediation''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1207(d) of title 39,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``factfinding
panel will be established'' and inserting ``mediator shall be
appointed''.
TITLE V--ENHANCED REGULATORY COMMISSION
SEC. 501. REORGANIZATION AND MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN
PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE POSTAL REGULATORY
COMMISSION.
(a) Transfer and Redesignation.--Title 39, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting after chapter 4 the following:
``CHAPTER 5--POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
``Sec.
``501. Establishment.
``502. Commissioners.
``503. Rules; regulations; procedures.
``504. Administration.
``Sec. 501. Establishment
``The Postal Regulatory Commission is an independent
establishment of the executive branch of the Government of
the United States.
``Sec. 502. Commissioners
``(a) The Postal Regulatory Commission is composed of 5
Commissioners, appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioners shall be
chosen solely on the basis of their technical qualifications,
professional standing, and demonstrated expertise in
economics, accounting, law, or public administration, and may
be removed by the President only for cause. Each individual
appointed to the Commission shall have the qualifications and
expertise necessary to carry out the responsibilities
accorded Commissioners under the Postal Accountability and
Enhancement Act. Not more than 3 of the Commissioners may be
adherents of the same political party.
``(b) A Commissioner may continue to serve after the
expiration of his term until his successor has qualified,
except that a Commissioner may not so continue to serve for
more than 1 year after the date upon which his term otherwise
would expire under subsection (e).
``(c) One of the Commissioners shall be designated as
Chairman by, and shall serve in the position of Chairman at
the pleasure of, the President.
``(d) The Commissioners shall by majority vote designate a
Vice Chairman of the Commission. The Vice Chairman shall act
as Chairman of the Commission in the absence of the Chairman.
``(e) The Commissioners shall serve for terms of 6
years.'';
(2) in subchapter I of chapter 36 (as in effect before the
amendment made by section 201(c)), by striking the heading
for such subchapter I and all that follows through section
3602; and
(3) by redesignating sections 3603 and 3604 as sections 503
and 504, respectively, and transferring such sections to the
end of chapter 5 (as inserted by paragraph (1)).
(b) Determinations.--Section 503 of title 39, United States
Code, as so redesignated by subsection (a)(3), is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``Such rules shall include
procedures which balance, inter alia, the need for protecting
due process rights and ensuring expeditious decision-
making.''.
(c) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)(1)
shall not affect the appointment or tenure of any person
serving as a Commissioner on the Postal Regulatory Commission
(as so redesignated by section 504) pursuant to an
appointment made before the date of the enactment of this Act
or any nomination made before that date, but, when any such
office becomes vacant, the appointment of any person to fill
that office shall be made in accordance with such amendment.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for part I of title
39, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the
item relating to chapter 4 the following:
``5. Postal Regulatory Commission................................501''.
SEC. 502. AUTHORITY FOR POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION TO ISSUE
SUBPOENAS.
Section 504 of title 39, United States Code (as so
redesignated by section 501) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(f)(1) Any Commissioner of the Postal Regulatory
Commission, any administrative law judge appointed by the
Commission under section 3105 of title 5, and any employee of
the Commission designated by the Commission may administer
oaths, examine witnesses, take depositions, and receive
evidence.
``(2) The Chairman of the Commission, any Commissioner
designated by the Chairman, and any administrative law judge
appointed by the Commission under section 3105 of title 5
may, with respect to any proceeding conducted by the
Commission under this title--
``(A) issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and
presentation of testimony by, or the production of
documentary or other evidence in the possession of, any
covered person; and
``(B) order the taking of depositions and responses to
written interrogatories by a covered person.
The written concurrence of a majority of the Commissioners
then holding office shall, with respect to each subpoena
under subparagraph (A), be required in advance of its
issuance.
``(3) In the case of contumacy or failure to obey a
subpoena issued under this subsection, upon application by
the Commission, the district court of the United States for
the district in which the person to whom the subpoena is
addressed resides or is served may issue an order requiring
such person to appear at any designated place to testify or
produce documentary or other evidence. Any failure to obey
the order of the court may be punished by the court as a
contempt thereof.
[[Page H6532]]
``(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `covered
person' means an officer, employee, agent, or contractor of
the Postal Service.
``(g)(1) If the Postal Service determines that any document
or other matter it provides to the Postal Regulatory
Commission pursuant to a subpoena issued under subsection
(f), or otherwise at the request of the Commission in
connection with any proceeding or other purpose under this
title, contains information which is described in section
410(c) of this title, or exempt from public disclosure under
section 552(b) of title 5, the Postal Service shall, at the
time of providing such matter to the Commission, notify the
Commission, in writing, of its determination (and the reasons
therefor).
``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no officer or
employee of the Commission may, with respect to any
information as to which the Commission has been notified
under paragraph (1)--
``(A) use such information for purposes other than the
purposes for which it is supplied; or
``(B) permit anyone who is not an officer or employee of
the Commission to have access to any such information.
``(3)(A) Paragraph (2) shall not prevent the Commission
from publicly disclosing relevant information in furtherance
of its duties under this title if the Commission has adopted
regulations under section 553 of title 5 that establish a
procedure for according appropriate confidentiality to
information identified by the Postal Service under paragraph
(1). In determining the appropriate degree of confidentiality
to be accorded information identified by the Postal Service
under paragraph (1), the Commission shall balance the nature
and extent of the likely commercial injury to the Postal
Service against the public interest, as required by section
101(d) of this title for financial transparency of a
government establishment.
``(B) Paragraph (2) shall not prevent information from
being furnished under any process of discovery established
under this title in connection with a proceeding under this
title. The Commission shall, by regulations based on rule
26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, establish
procedures for ensuring appropriate confidentiality for any
information furnished under the preceding sentence.''.
SEC. 503. APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE POSTAL REGULATORY
COMMISSION.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Subsection (d) of
section 504 of title 39, United States Code (as so
redesignated by section 501) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) There are authorized to be appropriated, out of the
Postal Service Fund, such sums as may be necessary for the
Postal Regulatory Commission. In requesting an appropriation
under this subsection for a fiscal year, the Commission shall
prepare and submit to the Congress under section 2009 a
budget of the Commission's expenses, including expenses for
facilities, supplies, compensation, and employee benefits.''.
(b) Budget Program.--
(1) In general.--The next to last sentence of section 2009
of title 39, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows: ``The budget program shall also include separate
statements of the amounts which (1) the Postal Service
requests to be appropriated under subsections (b) and (c) of
section 2401, (2) the Office of Inspector General of the
United States Postal Service requests to be appropriated, out
of the Postal Service Fund, under section 8L(e) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978, and (3) the Postal Regulatory
Commission requests to be appropriated, out of the Postal
Service Fund, under section 504(d) of this title.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 2003(e)(1) of title 39,
United States Code, is amended by striking the first sentence
and inserting the following: ``The Fund shall be available
for the payment of (A) all expenses incurred by the Postal
Service in carrying out its functions as provided by law,
subject to the same limitation as set forth in the
parenthetical matter under subsection (a); (B) all expenses
of the Postal Regulatory Commission, subject to the
availability of amounts appropriated pursuant to section
504(d); and (C) all expenses of the Office of Inspector
General, subject to the availability of amounts appropriated
pursuant to section 8L(e) of the Inspector General Act of
1978.''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply with respect to fiscal years beginning on or after
October 1, 2005.
(2) Savings provision.--The provisions of title 39, United
States Code, that are amended by this section shall, for
purposes of any fiscal year before the first fiscal year to
which the amendments made by this section apply, continue to
apply in the same way as if this section had never been
enacted.
SEC. 504. REDESIGNATION OF THE POSTAL RATE COMMISSION.
(a) Amendments to Title 39, United States Code.--Title 39,
United States Code, is amended in sections 404, 503-504 (as
so redesignated by section 501), 1001, and 1002 by striking
``Postal Rate Commission'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Postal Regulatory Commission''.
(b) Amendments to Title 5, United States Code.--Title 5,
United States Code, is amended in sections 104(1), 306(f),
2104(b), 3371(3), 5314 (in the item relating to Chairman,
Postal Rate Commission), 5315 (in the item relating to
Members, Postal Rate Commission), 5514(a)(5)(B),
7342(a)(1)(A), 7511(a)(1)(B)(ii), 8402(c)(1), 8423(b)(1)(B),
and 8474(c)(4) by striking ``Postal Rate Commission'' and
inserting ``Postal Regulatory Commission''.
(c) Amendment to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.--
Section 101(f)(6) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5
U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ``Postal Rate
Commission'' and inserting ``Postal Regulatory Commission''.
(d) Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.--Section
501(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791(b))
is amended by striking ``Postal Rate Office'' and inserting
``Postal Regulatory Commission''.
(e) Amendment to Title 44, United States Code.--Section
3502(5) of title 44, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``Postal Rate Commission'' and inserting ``Postal
Regulatory Commission''.
(f) Other References.--Whenever a reference is made in any
provision of law (other than this Act or a provision of law
amended by this Act), regulation, rule, document, or other
record of the United States to the Postal Rate Commission,
such reference shall be considered a reference to the Postal
Regulatory Commission.
SEC. 505. OFFICER OF THE POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
REPRESENTING THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
(a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 39, United States Code
(as added by this Act) is amended by adding after section 504
the following:
``Sec. 505. Officer of the Postal Regulatory Commission
representing the general public
``The Postal Regulatory Commission shall designate an
officer of the Postal Regulatory Commission in all public
proceedings (such as developing rules, regulations, and
procedures) who shall represent the interests of the general
public.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 5 of
title 39, United States Code (as amended by section
501(a)(1)) is amended by adding after the item relating to
section 504 the following:
``505. Officer of the Postal Regulatory Commission representing the
general public.''.
TITLE VI--INSPECTORS GENERAL
SEC. 601. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE POSTAL REGULATORY
COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 8G(a) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978 is amended by inserting ``the
Postal Regulatory Commission,'' after ``the United States
International Trade Commission,''.
(b) Administration.--Section 504 of title 39, United States
Code (as so redesignated by section 501) is amended by adding
after subsection (g) (as added by section 502) the following:
``(h)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title
or of the Inspector General Act of 1978, the authority to
select, appoint, and employ officers and employees of the
Office of Inspector General of the Postal Regulatory
Commission, and to obtain any temporary or intermittent
services of experts or consultants (or an organization of
experts or consultants) for such Office, shall reside with
the Inspector General of the Postal Regulatory Commission.
``(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1), any exercise of
authority under this subsection shall, to the extent
practicable, be in conformance with the applicable laws and
regulations that govern selections, appointments and
employment, and the obtaining of any such temporary or
intermittent services, within the Postal Regulatory
Commission.''.
(c) Deadline.--No later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act--
(1) the first Inspector General of the Postal Regulatory
Commission shall be appointed; and
(2) the Office of Inspector General of the Postal
Regulatory Commission shall be established.
SEC. 602. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE TO BE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT.
(a) Definitional Amendments to the Inspector General Act of
1978.--Section 11 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``or'' before ``the President of the
Export-Import Bank;'' and
(B) by inserting ``or the Governors of the United States
Postal Service (within the meaning of section 102(3) of title
39, United States Code);'' after ``the President of the
Export-Import Bank;''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``or'' before ``the Export-Import Bank,'';
and
(B) by inserting ``or the United States Postal Service,''
after ``the Export-Import Bank,''.
(b) Special Provisions Concerning the United States Postal
Service.--
(1) In general.--The Inspector General Act of 1978 is
amended by inserting after section 8K the following:
``Special provisions concerning the United States Postal Service
``Sec. 8L. (a) In carrying out the duties and
responsibilities specified in this Act, the Inspector General
of the United States Postal Service shall have oversight
responsibility for all activities of the Postal Inspection
Service, including any internal investigation performed by
the Postal Inspection Service. The Chief Postal Inspector
shall promptly report any significant activities being
carried out by the Postal Inspection Service to such
Inspector General. The Postmaster General shall promptly
report to such Inspector General all allegations of theft,
fraud, or misconduct by Postal Service officers or employees,
and entities or individuals doing business with the Postal
Service.
``(b) In the case of any report that the Governors of the
United States Postal Service (within the meaning of section
102(3) of title 39, United States Code) are required to
transmit under the second sentence of section 5(d), such
sentence shall be applied by deeming the term `appropriate
committees of Congress' to mean the Committee on Government
Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and such other committees
or subcommittees of Congress as may be appropriate.
``(c) Notwithstanding any provision of paragraph (7) or (8)
of section 6(a), the Inspector General of the United States
Postal Service may
[[Page H6533]]
select, appoint, and employ such officers and employees as
may be necessary for carrying out the functions, powers, and
duties of the Office of Inspector General and to obtain the
temporary or intermittent services of experts or consultants
or an organization of experts or consultants, subject to the
applicable laws and regulations that govern such selections,
appointments, and employment, and the obtaining of such
services, within the United States Postal Service.
``(d) Nothing in this Act shall restrict, eliminate, or
otherwise adversely affect any of the rights, privileges, or
benefits of employees of the United States Postal Service, or
labor organizations representing employees of the United
States Postal Service, under chapter 12 of title 39, United
States Code, the National Labor Relations Act, any handbook
or manual affecting employee labor relations with the United
States Postal Service, or any collective bargaining
agreement.
``(e) There are authorized to be appropriated, out of the
Postal Service Fund, such sums as may be necessary for the
Office of Inspector General of the United States Postal
Service.''.
(2) Related provisions.--For certain related provisions,
see section 503(b).
(c) Exercise of Certain Powers.--Section 6(e)(3) of the
Inspector General Act of 1978 is amended--
(1) by striking ``and the'' before ``Tennessee Valley
Authority''; and
(2) by inserting ``, and United States Postal Service''
after ``Tennessee Valley Authority''.
(d) Public Contracts.--
(1) Additional provisions applicable.--Section 410(b)(5) of
title 39, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(B) by adding after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986 (41 U.S.C. 51 and
following), other than subsections (a) and (b) of 7 and
section 8 of that Act; and
``(D) section 315 of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 265) (relating
to protecting contractor employees from reprisal for
disclosure of certain information);''.
(2) Regulations on allowable costs.--Section 410 of title
39, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) The Postal Service shall develop and issue purchasing
regulations that prohibit contract costs not allowable under
section 5.2.5 of the United States Postal Service Procurement
Manual (Publication 41), as in effect on July 12, 1995.''.
(e) Reports.--Section 3013 of title 39, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``Postmaster General'' each place it
appears and inserting ``Chief Postal Inspector''.
(f) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Relating to the inspector general act of 1978.--(A)
Subsection (a) of section 8G of the Inspector General Act of
1978 (as amended by section 601(a)) is further amended--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Postal Regulatory
Commission, and the United States Postal Service;'' and
inserting ``and the Postal Regulatory Commission;'' and
(ii) in paragraph (4), by striking ``except that'' and all
that follows through ``Code);'' and inserting ``except that,
with respect to the National Science Foundation, such term
means the National Science Board;''.
(B)(i) Subsection (f) of section 8G of such Act is
repealed.
(ii) Subsection (c) of section 8G of such Act is amended by
striking ``Except as provided under subsection (f) of this
section, the'' and inserting ``The''.
(C) Section 8J of such Act is amended by striking the
matter after ``8D,'' and before ``of this Act'' and inserting
``8E, 8F, 8H, or 8L''.
(2) Relating to title 39, united states code.--(A)
Subsection (e) of section 202 of title 39, United States
Code, is repealed.
(B) Paragraph (4) of section 102 of such title 39 (as
amended by section 101) is amended to read as follows:
``(4) `Inspector General' means the Inspector General of
the United States Postal Service, appointed under section
3(a) of the Inspector General Act of 1978;''.
(C) The first sentence of section 1003(a) of such title 39
is amended by striking ``chapters 2 and 12 of this title,
section 8G of the Inspector General Act of 1978, or other
provision of law,'' and inserting ``chapter 2 or 12 of this
title, subsection (b) or (c) of this section, or any other
provision of law,''.
(D) Section 1003(b) of such title 39 is amended by striking
``respective'' and inserting ``other''.
(E) Section 1003(c) of such title 39 is amended by striking
``included'' and inserting ``includes''.
(3) Relating to the energy policy act of 1992.--Section
160(a) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 8262f(a))
is amended (in the matter before paragraph (1)) by striking
all that follows ``(5 U.S.C. App.)'' and before ``shall--''.
(g) Effective Date; Transition Provisions.--
(1) Effective date.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) or
subsection (c), this section and the amendments made by this
section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(2) Transition provisions.--
(A) Presidential appointment authority available
immediately.--The authority to appoint an Inspector General
of the United States Postal Service in accordance with the
amendments made by this section shall be available as of the
effective date of this section.
(B) Continuation in office.--Pending the appointment of an
Inspector General of the United States Postal Service in
accordance with the amendments made by this section, the
individual serving as the Inspector General of the United
States Postal Service on the day before the effective date of
this section may continue to serve--
(i) in accordance with applicable provisions of the
Inspector General Act of 1978 and (except as provided in
clause (ii)) of title 39, United States Code, as last in
effect before the effective date of this Act; but
(ii) subject to the provisions of such title 39 as amended
by subsection (e) of this section (deeming any reference to
the ``Inspector General'' in such provisions, as so amended,
to refer to the individual continuing to serve under
authority of this subparagraph) and subparagraph (C).
(C) Authorization of appropriations.--
(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, section 8L(e) of the Inspector General Act
of 1978 (as amended by this section) shall be effective for
purposes of fiscal years beginning on or after October 1,
2005.
(ii) Savings provision.--For purposes of the fiscal year
ending on September 30, 2005, funding for the Office of
Inspector General of the United States Postal Service shall
be made available in the same manner as if this Act had never
been enacted.
(D) Eligibility of prior inspector general.--Nothing in
this Act shall prevent any individual who has served as
Inspector General of the United States Postal Service at any
time before the date of the enactment of this Act from being
appointed to that position pursuant to the amendments made by
this section.
TITLE VII--EVALUATIONS
SEC. 701. UNIVERSAL POSTAL SERVICE STUDY.
(a) Report by the Postal Service.--The United States Postal
Service shall, within 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, submit to the President, the Congress,
and the Postal Regulatory Commission, a written report on
universal postal service in the United States (hereinafter in
this section referred to as ``universal service''). Such
report shall include at least the following:
(1) A comprehensive review of the history and development
of universal service, including how the scope and standards
of universal service have evolved over time.
(2) The scope and standards of universal service provided
under current law (including sections 101 and 403 of title
39, United States Code) and current rules, regulations,
policy statements, and practices of the Postal Service.
(3) A description of any geographic areas, populations,
communities, organizations, or other groups or entities not
currently covered by universal service or that are covered
but that are receiving services deficient in scope or quality
or both.
(4) The scope and standards of universal service likely to
be required in the future in order to meet the needs and
expectations of the American public, including all types of
mail users, based on such assumptions or alternative sets of
assumptions as the Postal Service considers plausible.
(5) Such recommendations as the Postal Service considers
appropriate.
(b) Report by the Postal Regulatory Commission.--The Postal
Regulatory Commission shall, within 12 months after receiving
the report of the Postal Service under subsection (a), submit
to the President and the Congress a written report evaluating
the report of the Postal Service. The report of the
Commission shall include at least the following:
(1) Such comments and observations relating to the matters
addressed in the Postal Service's report as the Commission
considers appropriate.
(2) An estimate of the cost attributable to the obligation
to provide universal service under prior and current law,
respectively.
(3) An estimate of the likely cost of fulfilling the
obligation to provide universal service under--
(A) the assumptions or respective sets of assumptions of
the Postal Service described in subsection (a)(4); and
(B) such other assumptions or sets of assumptions as the
Commission considers plausible.
(4) Such additional topics and recommendations as the
Commission considers appropriate.
(c) Consultation.--In preparing the reports required by
this section, the Postal Service and the Postal Regulatory
Commission--
(1) shall consult with each other, other Federal agencies,
users of the mails, enterprises in the private sector engaged
in the delivery of mail, and the general public; and
(2) shall address in their respective reports any written
comments received under this section.
(d) Clarifying Provision.--Nothing in this section shall be
considered to relate to any services that are not postal
services (within the meaning of section 102 of title 39,
United States Code, as amended by section 101).
SEC. 702. ASSESSMENTS OF RATEMAKING, CLASSIFICATION, AND
OTHER PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--The Postal Regulatory Commission shall, at
least every 5 years, submit a report to the President and the
Congress concerning--
(1) the operation of the amendments made by the Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act; and
(2) recommendations for any legislation or other measures
necessary to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the
postal laws of the United States.
(b) Postal Service Views.--A report under this section
shall be submitted only after reasonable opportunity has been
afforded to the Postal Service to review such report and to
submit written comments thereon. Any comments timely received
from the Postal Service under the preceding sentence shall be
attached to the report submitted under subsection (a).
[[Page H6534]]
(c) Specific Information Required.--The Postal Regulatory
Commission shall include, as part of at least its first
report under subsection (a), the following:
(1) Cost-coverage requirement relating to competitive
products collectively.--With respect to section 3633 of title
39, United States Code (as amended by this Act)--
(A) a description of how such section has operated; and
(B) recommendations as to whether or not such section
should remain in effect and, if so, any suggestions as to how
it might be improved.
(2) Competitive products fund.--With respect to the Postal
Service Competitive Products Fund (under section 2011 of
title 39, United States Code, as amended by section 301), in
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury--
(A) a description of how such Fund has operated;
(B) any suggestions as to how the operation of such Fund
might be improved; and
(C) a description and assessment of alternative accounting
or financing mechanisms that might be used to achieve the
objectives of such Fund.
(3) Assumed federal income tax on competitive products
fund.--With respect to section 3634 of title 39, United
States Code (as amended by this Act), in consultation with
the Secretary of the Treasury--
(A) a description of how such section has operated; and
(B) recommendations as to whether or not such section
should remain in effect and, if so, any suggestions as to how
it might be improved.
SEC. 703. STUDY ON EQUAL APPLICATION OF LAWS TO COMPETITIVE
PRODUCTS.
(a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission shall prepare
and submit to the President, the Congress, and the Postal
Regulatory Commission, within 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, a comprehensive report identifying
Federal and State laws that apply differently to the United
States Postal Service with respect to the competitive
category of mail (within the meaning of section 102 of title
39, United States Code, as amended by section 101) and
private companies providing similar products.
(b) Recommendations; Adjustments.--The Federal Trade
Commission shall include such recommendations as it considers
appropriate for bringing such legal differences to an end
and, in the interim, to account under section 3633, for the
net economic effects provided by those laws.
(c) Consultation.--In preparing its report, the Federal
Trade Commission shall consult with the United States Postal
Service, the Postal Regulatory Commission, other Federal
agencies, mailers, private companies that provide delivery
services, and the general public, and shall append to such
report any written comments received under this subsection.
(d) Competitive Product Rate Regulation.--The Postal
Regulatory Commission shall take into account the
recommendations of the Federal Trade Commission, and
subsequent events that affect the continuing validity of the
estimate of the net economic effect, in promulgating or
revising the regulations required by section 3633 of title
39, United States Code.
SEC. 704. GREATER DIVERSITY IN POSTAL SERVICE EXECUTIVE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT POSITIONS.
(a) Study.--The Board of Governors shall study and, within
1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to
the President and Congress a report concerning the extent to
which women and minorities are represented in supervisory and
management positions within the United States Postal Service.
Any data included in the report shall be presented in the
aggregate and by pay level.
(b) Performance Evaluations.--The United States Postal
Service shall, as soon as practicable, take such measures as
may be necessary to ensure that, for purposes of conducting
performance appraisals of supervisory or managerial
employees, appropriate consideration shall be given to
meeting affirmative action goals, achieving equal employment
opportunity requirements, and implementation of plans
designed to achieve greater diversity in the workforce.
SEC. 705. PLAN FOR ASSISTING DISPLACED WORKERS.
(a) Plan.--The United States Postal Service shall, before
the deadline specified in subsection (b), develop and be
prepared to implement, whenever necessary, a comprehensive
plan under which reemployment assistance shall be afforded to
employees displaced as a result of the automation or
privatization of any of its functions.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the United States Postal Service shall
submit to the Board of Governors and to Congress a written
report describing its plan under this section.
SEC. 706. CONTRACTS WITH WOMEN, MINORITIES, AND SMALL
BUSINESSES.
The Board of Governors shall study and, within 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the
President and the Congress a report concerning the number and
value of contracts and subcontracts the Postal Service has
entered into with women, minorities, and small businesses.
SEC. 707. RATES FOR PERIODICALS.
(a) In General.--The United States Postal Service, acting
jointly with the Postal Regulatory Commission, shall study
and submit to the President and Congress a report
concerning--
(1) the quality, accuracy, and completeness of the
information used by the Postal Service in determining the
direct and indirect postal costs attributable to periodicals;
and
(2) any opportunities that might exist for improving
efficiencies in the collection, handling, transportation, or
delivery of periodicals by the Postal Service, including any
pricing incentives for mailers that might be appropriate.
(b) Recommendations.--The report shall include
recommendations for any administrative action or legislation
that might be appropriate.
SEC. 708. ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN RATE DEFICIENCIES.
(a) In General.--Within 12 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Office of Inspector General of the
United States Postal Service shall study and submit to the
President, the Congress, and the United States Postal
Service, a report concerning the administration of section
3626(k) of title 39, United States Code.
(b) Specific Requirements.--The study and report shall
specifically address the adequacy and fairness of the process
by which assessments under section 3626(k) of title 39,
United States Code, are determined and appealable,
including--
(1) whether the Postal Regulatory Commission or any other
body outside the Postal Service should be assigned a role;
and
(2) whether a statute of limitations should be established
for the commencement of proceedings by the Postal Service
thereunder.
SEC. 709. NETWORK OPTIMIZATION.
(a) In General.--The Postal Service shall, within 90 days
after the end of each fiscal year, prepare and submit to the
Postal Regulatory Commission, the Congress, and the Board of
Governors a written report on the postal processing,
transportation, and distribution networks. Such report shall
include at least the following:
(1) An account of actions taken during the preceding fiscal
year to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
processing, transportation, and distribution networks, while
preserving the timely delivery of postal services.
(2) An account of--
(A) actions taken to identify any excess capacity within
the processing, transportation, and distribution networks;
and
(B) actions taken to implement savings through realignment
or consolidation of facilities.
(3) Identification of statutory or regulatory obstacles
that prevented or will prevent the Postal Service from taking
action to realign or consolidate facilities.
(4) Such additional topics and recommendations as the
Postal Service considers appropriate.
(b) Treatment as Performance Goals.--The Postal Service
shall establish and report the matters set forth in
subsection (a) as performance goals in the reports required
by sections 2803 and 2804.
(c) Actions To Be Taken.--The Postal Service shall take
such actions it considers, in its sole discretion, necessary
and appropriate to provide the Nation with a modern and
efficient network for the processing, transportation, and
distribution of mail. Nothing in this section shall prevent
the Postal Service from making such improvements in the
efficiency and effectiveness of the network as it deems
appropriate.
SEC. 710. ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE BUSINESS MODEL OF THE POSTAL
SERVICE.
(a) Appointment of Research Organization.--Not later than
90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall appoint, in
such manner and under such terms as he in his sole discretion
determines appropriate, an independent, impartial, and expert
research organization (hereinafter in this section referred
to as the ``research organization'') to prepare and submit to
the President and to Congress a comprehensive report that
evaluates what business model would best promote an
efficient, reliable, innovative, and viable Postal Service
that can meet the needs of the Nation and its citizens in the
21st century. The final report required by this section shall
be submitted within 27 months of the date of the enactment of
this Act. The final report shall identify costs, benefits,
and feasible options, if any, associated with one or more
strategies for--
(1) maintaining the Postal Service in its current form as
an independent establishment in the executive branch of the
Government; and
(2) transforming the Postal Service into an ordinary
corporation, owned wholly by the Government, wholly by
private shareholders, or partly by the Government and partly
by private shareholders.
(b) Protection of Universal Service.--The research
organization may include such recommendations as it considers
appropriate with respect to how the Postal Service's business
model can be maintained or transformed in an orderly manner
that will minimize adverse effects on all interested parties
and assure continued availability of affordable, universal
postal service throughout the United States (based on the
reports required by section 701). The research organization
shall not consider any strategy or other course of action
that would pose a significant risk to the continued
availability of affordable, universal postal service
throughout the United States.
(c) Elements of Report.--
(1) Topics to address.--The report shall address at least
the following:
(A) Specification of nature and bases of one or more sets
of reasonable assumptions about the development of the postal
services market, to the extent that such assumptions may be
necessary or appropriate for each strategy identified by the
research organization.
(B) Specification of the nature and bases of one or more
sets of reasonable assumptions about the development of the
regulatory framework for postal services, to the extent that
such assumptions may be necessary or appropriate for each
strategy identified by the research organization.
(C) Qualitative and, to the extent possible, quantitative
effects that each strategy identified by the research
organization may have on universal service generally, the
Postal Service,
[[Page H6535]]
mailers, postal employees, private companies that provide
delivery services, and the general public.
(D) Financial effects that each strategy identified by the
research organization may have on the Postal Service, postal
employees, the Treasury of the United States, and other
affected parties, including the American mailing consumer.
(E) Feasible and appropriate procedural steps and
timetables for implementing each strategy identified by the
research organization.
(F) Such additional topics as the Comptroller General or
the research organization shall consider necessary and
appropriate.
(2) Matters to consider.--For each strategy identified, the
research organization shall assess how each business model
might--
(A) address the human-capital challenges facing the Postal
Service, including how employee-management relations within
the Postal Service may be improved;
(B) optimize the postal infrastructure, including the best
methods for providing retail services that ensure convenience
and access to customers;
(C) ensure the safety and security of the mail and of
postal employees;
(D) minimize areas of inefficiency or waste and improve
operations involved in the collection, processing, or
delivery of mail; and
(E) impact other matters that the Comptroller General or
the research organization determines are relevant to
evaluating a viable long-term business model for the Postal
Service.
(3) Experiences of other countries.--In preparing the
report required by subsection (a), the research organization
shall comprehensively and quantitatively investigate the
experiences of other industrialized countries that have
transformed the national post office. The research
organization shall undertake such original research as it
deems necessary. In each case, the research organization
shall describe as fully as possible the costs and benefits of
transformation of the national post office on all affected
parties and shall identify any lessons that foreign
experience may imply for each strategy identified by the
research organization.
(d) Outside experts.--In preparing its study, the research
organization may retain the services of additional experts
and consultants.
(e) Consultation.--In preparing its report, the research
organization shall consult fully with the Postal Service, the
Postal Regulatory Commission, other Federal agencies, postal
employee unions and management associations, mailers, private
companies that provide delivery services, and the general
public. The research organization shall include with its
final report a copy of all formal written comments received
under this subsection.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated from the Postal Service Fund such sums as
may be necessary to carry out this section.
SEC. 711. STUDY ON CERTAIN PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
The Government Accountability Office shall study and,
within 12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act,
submit to the Congress a report on sections 805 and 807 of
H.R. 22 (109th Congress), as introduced. Such report shall
include the following:
(1) A description of the efficiencies of the current system
under section 5402 of title 39, United States Code.
(2) The potential for cost savings to the United States
Postal Service if the Postal Service, rather than the
Department of Transportation, were to administer
international mail carriage.
(3) The potential for harm to domestic air carriers and
American workers currently employed by domestic air carriers.
(4) The potential loss of revenue to domestic air carriers
and American workers currently employed by domestic air
carriers.
(5) The process by which the United States Postal Service
would administer any changes in current law.
(6) The process by which the Department of Transportation
administers current law.
(7) The potential for change in protection of national
security by carriage by foreign carriers of international
mail to and from the United States.
SEC. 712. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this title, the term ``Board of Governors''
has the meaning given such term by section 102 of title 39,
United States Code.
TITLE VIII--MISCELLANEOUS; TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
SEC. 801. EMPLOYMENT OF POSTAL POLICE OFFICERS.
Section 3061 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c)(1) The Postal Service may employ police officers for
duty in connection with the protection of property owned or
occupied by the Postal Service or under the charge and
control of the Postal Service, and persons on the property,
including duty in areas outside the property to the extent
necessary to protect the property and persons on the
property.
``(2) With respect to such property, such officers shall
have the power to--
``(A) enforce Federal laws and regulations for the
protection of persons and property;
``(B) carry firearms; and
``(C) make arrests without a warrant for any offense
against the United States committed in the presence of the
officer or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the
United States if the officer has reasonable grounds to
believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is
committing a felony.
``(3) With respect to such property, such officers may
have, to such extent as the Postal Service may by regulations
prescribe, the power to--
``(A) serve warrants and subpoenas issued under the
authority of the United States; and
``(B) conduct investigations, on and off the property in
question, of offenses that may have been committed against
property owned or occupied by the Postal Service or persons
on the property.
``(4)(A) As to such property, the Postmaster General may
prescribe regulations necessary for the protection and
administration of property owned or occupied by the Postal
Service and persons on the property. The regulations may
include reasonable penalties, within the limits prescribed in
subparagraph (B), for violations of the regulations. The
regulations shall be posted and remain posted in a
conspicuous place on the property.
``(B) A person violating a regulation prescribed under this
subsection shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for
not more than 30 days, or both.''.
SEC. 802. DATE OF POSTMARK TO BE TREATED AS DATE OF APPEAL IN
CONNECTION WITH THE CLOSING OR CONSOLIDATION OF
POST OFFICES.
(a) In General.--Section 404(b) of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) For purposes of paragraph (5), any appeal received by
the Commission shall--
``(A) if sent to the Commission through the mails, be
considered to have been received on the date of the Postal
Service postmark on the envelope or other cover in which such
appeal is mailed; or
``(B) if otherwise lawfully delivered to the Commission, be
considered to have been received on the date determined based
on any appropriate documentation or other indicia (as
determined under regulations of the Commission).''.
(b) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall apply with respect to any determination
to close or consolidate a post office which is first made
available, in accordance with paragraph (3) of section 404(b)
of title 39, United States Code, after the end of the 3-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 803. PROVISIONS RELATING TO BENEFITS UNDER CHAPTER 81 OF
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, FOR OFFICERS AND
EMPLOYEES OF THE FORMER POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 8 of the Postal Reorganization Act
(39 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by inserting ``(a)'' after
``8.'' and by adding at the end the following:
``(b) For purposes of chapter 81 of title 5, United States
Code, the Postal Service shall, with respect to any
individual receiving benefits under such chapter as an
officer or employee of the former Post Office Department,
have the same authorities and responsibilities as it has with
respect to an officer or employee of the Postal Service
receiving such benefits.''.
(b) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall be effective as of the first day of the
fiscal year in which this Act is enacted.
SEC. 804. OBSOLETE PROVISIONS.
(a) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 52 of title 39, United States
Code, is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 5005(a) of title
39, United States Code, is amended--
(i) by striking paragraph (1), and by redesignating
paragraphs (2) through (4) as paragraphs (1) through (3),
respectively; and
(ii) in paragraph (3) (as so designated by clause (i)), by
striking ``(as defined in section 5201(6) of this title)''.
(B) Section 5005(b) of such title 39 is amended by striking
``(a)(4)'' each place it appears and inserting ``(a)(3)''.
(C) Section 5005(c) of such title 39 is amended by striking
``by carrier or person under subsection (a)(1) of this
section, by contract under subsection (a)(4) of this section,
or'' and inserting ``by contract under subsection (a)(3) of
this section or''.
(b) Eliminating Restriction on Length of Contracts.--(1)
Section 5005(b)(1) of title 39, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``(or where the Postal Service determines
that special conditions or the use of special equipment
warrants, not in excess of 6 years)'' and inserting ``(or
such longer period of time as may be determined by the Postal
Service to be advisable or appropriate)''.
(2) Section 5402(d) of such title 39 is amended by striking
``for a period of not more than 4 years''.
(3) Section 5605 of such title 39 is amended by striking
``for periods of not in excess of 4 years''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for part V of title
39, United States Code, is amended by repealing the item
relating to chapter 52.
SEC. 805. INVESTMENTS.
Subsection (c) of section 2003 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``(c) If'' and inserting ``(c)(1) Except as
provided in paragraph (2), if''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2)(A) Nothing in this section shall be considered to
authorize any investment in any obligations or securities of
a commercial entity.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `commercial
entity' means any corporation, company, association,
partnership, joint stock company, firm, society, or other
similar entity, as further defined under regulations
prescribed by the Postal Regulatory Commission.''.
SEC. 806. REDUCED RATES.
Section 3626 of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking all before paragraph (4)
and inserting the following:
``(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section,
rates of postage for a class of mail or
[[Page H6536]]
kind of mailer under former section 4358, 4452(b), 4452(c),
4554(b), or 4554(c) of this title shall be established in
accordance with section 3622.
``(2) For the purpose of this subsection, the term
`regular-rate category' means any class of mail or kind of
mailer, other than a class or kind referred to in section
2401(c).
``(3) Rates of postage for a class of mail or kind of
mailer under former section 4358(a) through (c) of this title
shall be established so that postage on each mailing of such
mail reflects its preferred status as compared to the postage
for the most closely corresponding regular-rate category
mailing.'';
(2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) For purposes of this section and former section
4358(a) through (c) of this title, those copies of an issue
of a publication entered within the county in which it is
published, but distributed outside such county on postal
carrier routes originating in the county of publication,
shall be treated as if they were distributed within the
county of publication.
``(4)(A) In the case of an issue of a publication, any
number of copies of which are mailed at the rates of postage
for a class of mail or kind of mailer under former section
4358(a) through (c) of this title, any copies of such issue
which are distributed outside the county of publication
(excluding any copies subject to paragraph (3)) shall be
subject to rates of postage provided for under this
paragraph.
``(B) The rates of postage applicable to mail under this
paragraph shall be established in accordance with section
3622.
``(C) This paragraph shall not apply with respect to an
issue of a publication unless the total paid circulation of
such issue outside the county of publication (not counting
recipients of copies subject to paragraph (3)) is less than
5,000.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(n) In the administration of this section, matter that
satisfies the circulation standards for requester
publications shall not be excluded from being mailed at the
rates for mail under former section 4358 solely because such
matter is designed primarily for free circulation or for
circulation at nominal rates, or fails to meet the
requirements of former section 4354(a)(5).''.
SEC. 807. HAZARDOUS MATTER.
(a) Nonmailability Generally.--Section 3001 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (n) as subsection (o); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (m) the following:
``(n)(1) Except as otherwise authorized by law or
regulations of the Postal Service, hazardous material is
nonmailable.
``(2) In this subsection, the term `hazardous material'
means a substance or material designated by the Secretary of
Transportation under section 5103(a) of title 49.''.
(b) Mailability.--Chapter 30 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3018. Hazardous material
``(a) In General.--The Postal Service shall prescribe
regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous material
in the mail.
``(b) Prohibitions.--No person may--
``(1) mail or cause to be mailed hazardous material that
has been declared by statute or Postal Service regulation to
be nonmailable;
``(2) mail or cause to be mailed hazardous material in
violation of any statute or Postal Service regulation
restricting the time, place, or manner in which hazardous
material may be mailed; or
``(3) manufacture, distribute, or sell any container,
packaging kit, or similar device that--
``(A) is represented, marked, certified, or sold by such
person for use in the mailing of hazardous material; and
``(B) fails to conform with any statute or Postal Service
regulation setting forth standards for a container, packaging
kit, or similar device used for the mailing of hazardous
material.
``(c) Civil Penalty; Clean-Up Costs and Damages.--
``(1) In general.--A person who knowingly violates this
section or a regulation prescribed under this section shall
be liable for--
``(A) a civil penalty of at least $250, but not more than
$100,000, for each violation;
``(B) the costs of any clean-up associated with each
violation; and
``(C) damages.
``(2) Knowing action.--A person acts knowingly for purposes
of paragraph (1) when--
``(A) the person has actual knowledge of the facts giving
rise to the violation; or
``(B) a reasonable person acting in the circumstances and
exercising reasonable care would have had that knowledge.
``(3) Separate violations.--
``(A) Violations over time.--A separate violation under
this subsection occurs for each day hazardous material,
mailed or caused to be mailed in noncompliance with this
section, is in the mail.
``(B) Separate items.--A separate violation under this
subsection occurs for each item containing hazardous material
that is mailed or caused to be mailed in noncompliance with
this section.
``(d) Hearings.--The Postal Service may determine that a
person has violated this section or a regulation prescribed
under this section only after notice and an opportunity for a
hearing. Proceedings under this section shall be conducted in
accordance with section 3001(m).
``(e) Penalty Considerations.--In determining the amount of
a civil penalty for a violation of this section, the Postal
Service shall consider--
``(1) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
violation;
``(2) with respect to the person who committed the
violation, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
violations, the ability to pay, and any effect on the ability
to continue in business;
``(3) the impact on Postal Service operations; and
``(4) any other matters that justice requires.
``(f) Civil Actions To Collect.--
``(1) In general.--In accordance with section 409(d), a
civil action may be commenced in an appropriate district
court of the United States to collect a civil penalty, clean-
up costs, and damages assessed under subsection (c).
``(2) Compromise.--The Postal Service may compromise the
amount of a civil penalty, clean-up costs, and damages
assessed under subsection (c) before commencing a civil
action with respect to such civil penalty, clean-up costs,
and damages under paragraph (1).
``(g) Civil Judicial Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--At the request of the Postal Service,
the Attorney General may bring a civil action in an
appropriate district court of the United States to enforce
this section or a regulation prescribed under this section.
``(2) Relief.--The court in a civil action under paragraph
(1) may award appropriate relief, including a temporary or
permanent injunction, civil penalties as determined in
accordance with this section, or punitive damages.
``(3) Construction.--A civil action under this subsection
shall be in lieu of civil penalties for the same violation
under subsection (c)(1)(A).
``(h) Deposit of Amounts Collected.--
``(1) Postal service fund.--Except as provided under
paragraph (2), amounts collected under subsection (c)(1)(B)
and (C) shall be deposited into the Postal Service Fund under
section 2003.
``(2) Treasury.--Amounts collected under subsection
(c)(1)(A) and any punitive damages collected under subsection
(c)(1)(C) shall be deposited into the Treasury of the United
States.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 2003(b) of title
39, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (8), by striking ``purposes.'' and
inserting ``purposes; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) any amounts collected under section 3018.''.
(2) The analysis for chapter 30 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``3018. Hazardous material.''.
(d) Injurious Articles as Nonmailable.--Section 1716(a) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
``explosives,'' the following: ``hazardous materials,''.
SEC. 808. PROVISIONS RELATING TO COOPERATIVE MAILINGS.
(a) Determination.--The Postal Regulatory Commission shall
examine section E670.5.3 of the Domestic Mail Manual to
determine whether it contains adequate safeguards to protect
against (1) abuses of rates for nonprofit mail and (2)
deception of consumers.
(b) Regulations.--If the Postal Regulatory Commission
determines that section E670.5.3 of the Domestic Mail Manual
does not contain adequate safeguards as described in the
preceding subsection, the Commission shall promulgate such
regulations as may be necessary to ensure such safeguards.
(c) Timing.--The Postal Regulatory Commission shall
complete the examination required by subsection (a) and the
promulgation of any necessary regulations required by
subsection (b) within one year after the date of the
enactment of this section.
SEC. 809. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Reimbursement.--Section 3681 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``section 3628'' and inserting
``sections 3662 through 3664''.
(b) Size and Weight Limits.--Section 3682 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 3682. Size and weight limits
``The Postal Service may establish size and weight
limitations for mail matter in the market-dominant category
of mail consistent with regulations the Postal Regulatory
Commission may prescribe under section 3622. The Postal
Service may establish size and weight limitations for mail
matter in the competitive category of mail consistent with
its authority under section 3632.''.
(c) Revenue Foregone, Etc.--Title 39, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in section 503 (as so redesignated by section 501), by
striking ``this chapter.'' and inserting ``this title.''; and
(2) in section 2401(d), by inserting ``(as last in effect
before enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement
Act)'' after ``3626(a)'' and after ``3626(a)(3)(B)(ii)''.
(d) Appropriations and Reporting Requirements.--
(1) Appropriations.--Subsection (e) of section 2401 of
title 39, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service'' each place it appears and inserting ``Committee on
Government Reform''; and
(B) by striking ``Not later than March 15 of each year,''
and inserting ``Each year,''.
(2) Reporting requirements.--Sections 2803(a) and 2804(a)
of title 39, United States Code, are amended by striking
``2401(g)'' and inserting ``2401(e)''.
(e) Authority to Fix Rates and Classes Generally;
Requirement Relating to Letters Sealed Against Inspection.--
Section 404 of title 39, United States Code (as amended by
section 102) is further amended by redesignating subsections
(b) and (c) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively, and by
inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Except as otherwise provided, the Governors are
authorized to establish reasonable
[[Page H6537]]
and equitable classes of mail and reasonable and equitable
rates of postage and fees for postal services in accordance
with the provisions of chapter 36. Postal rates and fees
shall be reasonable and equitable and sufficient to enable
the Postal Service, under best practices of honest,
efficient, and economical management, to maintain and
continue the development of postal services of the kind and
quality adapted to the needs of the United States.
``(c) The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes
of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against
inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform
throughout the United States, its territories, and
possessions. One such class shall provide for the most
expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter
by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic
origin shall be opened except under authority of a search
warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of
the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an
address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to
the authorization of the addressee.''.
(f) Limitations.--Section 3684 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by striking all that follows ``any
provision'' and inserting ``of this title.''.
(g) Miscellaneous.--Title 39, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in section 1005(d)(2)--
(A) by striking ``subsection (g) of section 5532,''; and
(B) by striking ``8344,'' and inserting ``8344'';
(2) in the analysis for part III, by striking the item
relating to chapter 28 and inserting the following:
``28. Strategic Planning and Performance Management.............2801'';
(3) in section 3005(a)--
(A) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking all
that follows ``nonmailable'' and precedes ``(h),'' and
inserting ``under section 3001(d),''; and
(B) in the sentence following paragraph (3), by striking
all that follows ``nonmailable'' and precedes ``(h),'' and
inserting ``under such section 3001(d),'';
(4) in section 3210(a)(6)(C), by striking the matter after
``if such mass mailing'' and before ``than 60 days'' and
inserting ``is postmarked fewer''; and
(5) by striking the heading for section 3627 and inserting
the following:
``Sec. 3627. Adjusting free rates''.
TITLE IX--POSTAL PENSION FUNDING REFORM AMENDMENTS
SEC. 901. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
(a) Termination of Obligation To Pay Government
Contributions.--Section 8334(a)(1)(B)(ii) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking all that follows ``be
equal to'' and inserting ``zero.''.
(b) Determination and Disposition of Postal Surplus or
Supplemental Liability.--Section 8348(h) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(h)(1) For purposes of this subsection, a Postal surplus
(or supplemental liability) is the amount, as estimated by
the Office, by which--
``(A) the actuarial present value of all future benefits
which are payable from the Fund under this subchapter to
current or former employees of the United States Postal
Service, or their survivors, and attributable to civilian
employment with the Postal Service, is less than (or greater
than)
``(B) the sum of--
``(i) the actuarial present value of deductions to be
withheld from the future basic pay of employees of the Postal
Service currently subject to this subchapter pursuant to
section 8334;
``(ii) that portion of the Fund balance, as of the date
such surplus or supplemental liability is determined,
attributable to payments to the Fund by the Postal Service
and its employees, plus the earnings on such amounts while in
the Fund; and
``(iii) any other appropriate amount, as determined by the
Office in accordance with generally accepted actuarial
practices and principles.
``(2)(A)(i) Not later than June 15, 2006, the Office shall
determine the Postal surplus or supplemental liability as of
September 30, 2005.
``(ii) If a supplemental liability is determined under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2005, the Office shall establish
an amortization schedule, including a series of equal annual
installments commencing September 30, 2006, which provides
for the liquidation of such liability by September 30, 2043.
``(iii) If a surplus is determined under this subparagraph
for fiscal year 2005, the amount of the surplus shall be
transferred to the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits
Fund by June 30, 2006.
``(B)(i) For each of fiscal years 2006 through 2038, the
Office shall determine the Postal surplus or supplemental
liability as of the close of such fiscal year, with each such
determination to be made by June 15th of the following fiscal
year.
``(ii) If a supplemental liability is determined under this
subparagraph for a fiscal year, the Office shall establish an
amortization schedule, including a series of equal annual
installments commencing on September 30 of the following
fiscal year, which provides for the liquidation of such
liability by September 30, 2043.
``(iii)(I) If a surplus of $500,000,000 or more is
determined under this subparagraph for a fiscal year, the
amount of the surplus shall be transferred to the Postal
Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund by June 30th of the
following fiscal year.
``(II) If a surplus of less than $500,000,000 is determined
under this subparagraph for a fiscal year, the surplus shall
remain in the Fund, subject to transfer in a subsequent
fiscal year under subclause (I) or subparagraph (C)(iii).
``(C)(i) Not later than June 15, 2040, the Office shall
determine the Postal surplus or supplemental liability as of
September 30, 2039.
``(ii) If a supplemental liability is determined under this
subparagraph for fiscal year 2039, the Office shall establish
an amortization schedule, including a series of equal annual
installments commencing September 30, 2040, which provides
for the liquidation of such liability by September 30, 2043.
``(iii) If a surplus is determined under this subparagraph
for fiscal year 2039, the amount of the surplus--
``(I) shall be applied first toward reducing the amount of
any supplemental liability described in section
8423(b)(1)(B); and
``(II) to the extent that any portion of such surplus
remains after the application of subclause (I), shall, not
later than June 30, 2040, be transferred to the Postal
Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund.
``(D) An amortization schedule under this paragraph--
``(i) shall be established in accordance with generally
accepted actuarial practices and principles, with interest
computed at the rate used in the most recent valuation of the
Civil Service Retirement System;
``(ii) shall supersede any amortization schedule previously
established under this paragraph; and
``(iii) shall not be taken into account, for purposes of
any determination of Postal surplus or supplemental
liability, except to the extent of any amounts under such
schedule actually paid.
``(E)(i) The Postal Service shall pay to the Office the
amounts due under any amortization schedule established under
this paragraph, to the extent not superseded or canceled.
``(ii) A determination under subparagraph (B)(i) or (C)(i)
that no supplemental liability exists shall cancel any
amortization schedule previously established under this
paragraph, to the extent of any amounts first coming due
after the close of the fiscal year to which such
determination relates.
``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
computing the amount of any payment under any other
subsection of this section that is based on 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) As used in this subsection, `Postal Service Retiree
Health Benefits Fund' refers to the Postal Service Retiree
Health Benefits Fund, as established by section 8909a.''.
(c) Provisions Relating to Amounts for Military Service.--
In the application of paragraph (2) of section 8348(g) of
title 5, United States Code, for fiscal year 2006, the Office
of Personnel Management shall include, in addition to the
amount otherwise computed under that paragraph, the amounts
that would have been included for fiscal years 2003 through
2005 with respect to credit for military service of former
employees of the United States Postal Service if Public Law
108-18 had not been enacted (including earnings thereon) and
the Secretary of the Treasury shall make the required
transfer to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
based on that amount.
(d) Review.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, any determination or redetermination made by
the Office of Personnel Management under this section shall,
upon request of the United States Postal Service, be subject
to review by the Postal Regulatory Commission. The Commission
shall submit a report containing the results of any such
review to the Postal Service, the Office of Personnel
Management, and the Congress.
(2) Response.--Upon receiving the report of the Postal
Regulatory Commission, the Office of Personnel Management
shall reconsider its determination or redetermination in
light of such report, and shall make any appropriate
adjustments. The Office shall submit a report containing the
results of its reconsideration to the Commission, the Postal
Service, and the Congress.
SEC. 902. HEALTH INSURANCE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in section 8906(g)(2)(A), by striking ``by the United
States Postal Service.'' and inserting ``first from the
Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund up to the amount
contained therein, with any remaining amount paid by the
United States Postal Service.'';
(2) by inserting after section 8909 the following:
``Sec. 8909a. Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund
``(a) There is in the Treasury of the United States a
Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (hereinafter in
this section referred to as the `Fund') which is administered
by the Office of Personnel Management. Any amounts
transferred to the Fund under section 8348(h)(2) shall yield
interest at a rate equal to the weighted average yield of all
the investments in the Civil Service Retirement and
Disability Fund as of the date of transfer. All other
investments of amounts in the Fund shall be made in
accordance with subsections (c)-(e) of section 8348.
``(b) The Fund is available without fiscal year limitation
for payments required by section 8906(g)(2).
``(c)(1) Not later than June 30, 2006, and by June 30 of
each succeeding year, the Office of Personnel Management
shall compute the net present value of the excess of future
payments required by section 8906(g)(2)(A) for current and
future United States Postal Service annuitants over the value
of the assets of the Fund as of
[[Page H6538]]
the end of the fiscal year ending on September 30 of that
year. The actuarial costing method to be used by the Office
and all actuarial assumptions shall be established by the
Office after consultation with the United States Postal
Service and must be in accordance with generally accepted
actuarial practices and principles.
``(2) Not later than September 30, 2006, and by September
30 of each succeeding year, the Office shall compute and the
United States Postal Service shall pay into such Fund--
``(A) the portion of the net present value described in
paragraph (1) attributable to the current year's service of
Postal Service employees; and
``(B) interest on the net present value described in
paragraph (1) for that fiscal year, at the interest rate used
in computing that net present value;
except that the amount otherwise payable by the Postal
Service under the preceding provisions of this paragraph by
not later than September 30, 2006, shall be reduced by the
total contributions made by the Postal Service under section
8906(g)(2) and attributable to fiscal year 2006 (as
determined by the Office).
``(3)(A) Any computation or other determination of the
Office under this subsection shall, upon request of the
Postal Service, be subject to review by the Postal Regulatory
Commission. The Commission shall submit a report containing
the results of any such review to the Postal Service, the
Office of Personnel Management, and the Congress.
``(B) Upon receiving the report of the Postal Regulatory
Commission, the Office of Personnel Management shall
reconsider its computation or other determination in light of
such report, and shall make any appropriate adjustments. The
Office shall submit a report containing the results of its
reconsideration to the Commission, the Postal Service, and
the Congress.
``(4) The Office shall promulgate, after consultation with
the United States Postal Service, any regulations it deems
necessary under this subsection.''; and
(3) in the analysis by inserting after the item relating to
section 8909 the following:
``8909a. Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund.''.
(b) Review.--
(1) In general.--Any regulation established under section
8909a(c)(4) of title 5, United States Code (as amended by
subsection (a)) shall, upon request of the Postal Service, be
subject to review by the Postal Regulatory Commission. The
Commission shall submit a report containing the results of
any such review to the Postal Service, the Office of
Personnel Management, and the Congress.
(2) Response.--Upon receiving the report of the Postal
Regulatory Commission, the Office of Personnel Management
shall reconsider its regulation in light of such report, and
shall take such action as it considers appropriate. The
Office shall submit a report containing the results of its
reconsideration to the Commission, the Postal Service, and
the Congress.
SEC. 903. REPEALER.
Section 3 of Public Law 108-18 is repealed.
SEC. 904. ENSURING APPROPRIATE USE OF ESCROW AND MILITARY
SAVINGS.
(a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``total savings'' means, for any fiscal year, the amount
equal to--
(1) the amount of contributions that the Postal Service
would otherwise have been required to make to the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund under subchapter III
of chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, for such fiscal
year if Public Law 108-18 and this Act had not been enacted,
minus
(2) the amount of amortization payments (if any) required
under section 8348(h)(2) of title 5, United States Code, for
such fiscal year.
(b) Calculations.--The following calculations shall be made
for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2015:
(1) Not later than January 31 of the fiscal year following
the fiscal year involved, the Office of Personnel Management
(in consultation with the Postal Service) shall determine the
total savings for the fiscal year.
(2) On the date of making its determination under paragraph
(1), the Office shall also determine (in consultation with
the Postal Service) the amount by which--
(A) the amount the Postal Service paid for that fiscal year
into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund in
accordance with 8909a(c)(2) of title 5, United States Code,
exceeds (if at all)
(B) the amount of payments made by the Postal Service for
that fiscal year from such Fund in order to satisfy the
requirements of section 8906(g)(2) of such title 5.
(c) Requirements.--
(1) If threshold is met.--If the amount calculated under
subsection (b)(2) for a fiscal year is greater than or equal
to two-thirds of the total savings in such fiscal year, no
further action under this section is necessary with respect
to such fiscal year.
(2) If threshold is not met.--
(A) In general.--If the amount calculated under subsection
(b)(2) for a fiscal year is less than two-thirds of the total
savings in such fiscal year, the Postal Service shall pay
into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund, by June
30 of the following fiscal year, an amount equal to the
difference.
(B) Allowable alternative.--
(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), and
subject to clause (ii), the Postal Service may instead use
the amount that it would otherwise be required to pay into
the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund for a year
(or any portion thereof) to reduce the postal debt.
(ii) Limitation.--Amounts used to reduce the postal debt
under this subparagraph may not exceed a total of
$3,000,000,000.
(3) Aggregation allowed.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), if
the amount calculated under subsection (b)(2) for a fiscal
year is less than two-thirds of the total savings in such
fiscal year, but the sum of the amounts calculated under
subsection (b)(2) for all fiscal years from 2006 to the
fiscal year involved is greater than or equal to two-thirds
of the sum of the total savings for such years, no further
action under this section is necessary with respect to such
fiscal year.
(d) Reporting Requirement.--The Office of Personnel
Management shall submit a report containing the results of
its calculations under subsection (b) to the Postal Service,
the Postal Regulatory Commission, and the Congress.
(e) Waiver Authority.--The requirements of subsection
(c)(2)(A) may, upon application of the Postal Service, be
waived by the Postal Regulatory Commission, to the extent
that the Commission determines that such waiver is reasonable
and equitable and necessary to enable the Postal Service,
under best practices of honest, efficient, and economical
management, to maintain and continue the development of
postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs
of the United States.
SEC. 905. EFFECTIVE DATES.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided, this title
shall take effect on October 1, 2005.
(b) Government Contributions.--Section 901(a) shall take
effect on the first day of the first pay period beginning on
or after October 1, 2005.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute is in order except those printed in House Report 109-
184. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 109-184.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Pence
Mr. PENCE. 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. Pence:
Page 73, strike line 7 and all that follows through page
74, line 2.
Page 74, line 3, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 74, strike all after ``Act'' on line 7 and before
``any'' on line 9, and insert ``or''.
{time} 2000
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis)
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to offer the Pence amendment to the Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act, and, along with several of my
colleagues, will endeavor to bring real reform and real enhancement to
a bill however well conceived and well intentioned by my colleagues. In
fact, I rise today to begin by thanking the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Tom Davis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the
author of this legislation, for their leadership on this measure and
their sincerity in attempting to ensure the ongoing vitality of the
U.S. Postal Service and the tradition that it has enjoyed in this
Nation, an invaluable part of our economy since before our Nation was
formed.
But before I get to the substance of the Pence amendment, Mr.
Chairman, I want to begin to address the reasons why the Bush
administration did today issue a Statement of Administration Policy
opposing significant portions of this legislation and, in fact,
suggesting that if this legislation did not achieve the objective of
budget restraint and fiscal reform, that the President's advisers would
encourage him to veto this legislation that will come before the House
today.
A few observations from the report on the President's Commission of
the United States Postal Service are in order. The Commission found
that the number one problem facing the United States Postal Service is
its complete inability to control costs, and ratepayers have been
paying the freight as
[[Page H6539]]
a result of that along with taxpayers, who recently financed nearly $7
billion in a Postal Service bailout just a few short years ago. Of that
uncontrollable cost, 80 percent of the United States Postal Service
costs are constituted in labor, this in a competitive marketplace where
its competitors like UPS and FedEx spend only 56 percent and 42 percent
of their cost on labor. Clearly the United States Postal Service is, as
the President's Commission found, desperately in need of flexibility to
achieve labor and workforce reforms.
The USPS is currently providing its workers roughly $870 million more
in benefits than Federal workers receive as a result of lucrative
health and life insurance benefits, and that is just the beginning.
H.R. 22 that we will consider today contains none of the main
collective bargaining proposals offered by the President's Commission.
It contains none of the reforms offered by the Commission to establish
a BRAC-style process to consolidate and shut down facilities that use
money. And while H.R. 22 does laudably contain a cap on postal rate
increases, many are highly skeptical about how that will work. The
Congressional Budget Office states that the USPS will ``increase rates
. . . more frequently than under current law, but by smaller
increments.'' In addition, the cap could be blown if such an increase
were ``reasonable and equitable and necessary'' for the continuation of
services. Such a cap hardly equips the U.S. Postal Service with the
tools to control costs and renegotiate its labor costs.
So we come today, a series of us, with the kind of reforms that we
believe will give the Postal Service the opportunity and the
flexibility to achieve reforms necessary to live within its means. That
is why I submitted an amendment to enact the Commission's
recommendation to ensure that health care and pension benefits ought to
be a part of normal collective bargaining. It was rejected and will not
be considered today. That is why the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McHenry) had offered an amendment to enact the Commission's
recommendation to reform the workmen's compensation reforms to align
more closely with the private sector. Unfortunately, these amendments
were made not in order.
In fact, today the Pence amendment will deal with a provision of this
legislation that, believe it or not, would set aside a seat on the
Board of Governors specifically for an individual unanimously approved
by all labor unions. More on that in a moment.
I say this with deep respect, Mr. Chairman. I understand why the
Democratic minority whip just said on this floor that this was ``a good
bill that should be passed this year.'' I just do not understand why a
Republican majority in Congress, with the firm and clear opposition of
a Republican President, would do likewise.
Let me get to the substance of the Pence amendment, if I may. The
Pence amendment essentially removes a provision of H.R. 22 that
requires that the first vacant slot on the Board of Governors literally
be filled by an individual with the unanimous backing of ``all labor
organizations.'' The headlines today would attest that it might be
difficult, depending on the definition of ``all labor organizations,''
to get all labor organizations to agree on anything these days.
Currently the Board of Governors consists of nine members with no
more than five from the same party. This bill would ensure that one of
these seats would be set aside to represent the interests of one
special interest group to the exclusion of other interests like mailers
or, dare I say it, taxpayers. It is this type of provision that we must
confront in this legislation, and the Pence amendment humbly seeks to
strike that.
And workforce is the issue. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Postal Service is
the second largest employer in the United States, second only to Wal-
Mart. And according to the President's Commission report, 3 out of
every $4 earned by the Postal Service went to pay wages and benefits of
its employees in fiscal year 2002. The unions have been extraordinarily
effective over the last 25 years, as has been said over and over again,
preventing layoffs and recently announcing having inked the second
largest pay increase in the unions' history. I believe that is why the
Statement of Administration Policy that was issued today simply read,
and I quote, ``Should the final bill have such an adverse impact on the
federal budget, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he
veto the bill.''
The Pence amendment is all about bringing the kind of reforms in this
bill that will allow the U.S. Postal Service to maintain its vitality
and its fiscal integrity for years to come. The Pence amendment in its
effort to strike section 401 is a modest effort to achieve that goal.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana described the
President's Commission on Postal Reform. Many of the broad outlines of
that Commission's recommendations are in the legislation before us
today.
The legislation before us today is supported by not Democrats, not
just Republicans, but by labor unions and management, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent
Businesses, Small Business Legislative Council, and the postal unions.
And I will not go through all of them, but all the newspapers, the
publishers, the mailers, all the people that look to the Postal Service
for their service.
This amendment, when we get right to what the amendment is all about,
is to take the one out of nine seats on the Board of Governors away
from a union representative. The Postal Service has 700,000 career
employees. They are the ones who make the system work. Are they not
entitled to have one representative on this board? This idea of giving
them representation is backed by labor, management, business. We have
all worked cooperatively together on postal reform legislation. They
have built trust and made compromises. That is why this legislation is
so broadly supported.
This amendment would undermine the consensus behind the legislation.
It singles out one group and says they lose, they lose their seat on
the Board. That may be good politics for people who want to say they
are antiunions, but it is not good for this legislation or for the
Postal Service.
So I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Pence amendment and to
support the bill, not to adopt this or any other amendment that would
undermine the consensus behind the legislation. And then let us move
forward. We will have to be talking to the other body. We will have to
be talking to the President and people in his administration in order
to get a law, but we have a consensus for a bill that we hope will
become law.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time.
This amendment that is proposed would remove a provision from a very
carefully crafted piece of legislation that would require the first
vacant slot on the Postal Service Board of Governors to be filled by an
individual with unanimous backing by labor unions. Currently there are
11 members. This bill would provide that one of those seats become a
labor seat, certainly not documented by labor. One seat would be a
labor seat.
The provision requiring the seat to become a labor seat has been in
the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act for 11 years. No group on
either side of the issue has ever expressed any opposition to the
change in statute, and I am unclear why this issue has actually risen
today. Simply requiring one of a nine-member Board speak on behalf of
thousands of employees in everyone's district here hardly seems to be
unreasonable or undoable.
H.R. 22 is a bill that we have heard many people on the floor say how
many years it has been worked on, well over decades. I urge my
colleagues to vote against this and other amendments under
consideration today that do not provide for any real improvements in
the underlying text of the bill that we have before us tonight.
[[Page H6540]]
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I want to be very quick here, and I certainly appreciate our
distinguished colleague's comments and deeply appreciate his concern.
Just a couple of points. As the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) said, I have to disagree with the gentleman's comments that
somehow the President's Commission is at odds with what this bill
entails. In fact, I think it is fair to say the President's Commission
adopted at least, at least, 80 percent of H.R. 22 as it was originally
crafted and continues to be contained therein.
He also spoke about the Statement of Administration Policy, the SAP,
and talked about labor representation as though the President has
opposed this. That is not true. The President's SAP does not address
this issue, and, in fact, the United States Postal Service has not
taken a position on this particular provision as well, which is the
context of the gentleman's amendment. So with all due respect, I think
that clarification is vital.
It also talked about Republican-Democrat. I do not think this is a
novel concept. Many major corporations from DaimlerChrysler, TWA, and
on and on have labor union representation on their boards. I would also
note that many organizations that are generally not considered liberal,
perhaps Democrat, not just support H.R. 22, but oppose the gentleman's
amendment. I will name just a few: American Express, Bank of America,
Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, the Citigroup, Financial Services
Roundtable. As I said, pretty conservative organizations that oppose
this amendment.
{time} 2015
The fact of the matter is, this is well accepted in the industry
sector. There will be one out of nine members of the Board of
Governors, and I do not think it is unreasonable to have such a labor-
intensive organization have a labor vote on that. While I do respect
the gentleman's intent, I think, as has been suggested, these are
issues that are much better dealt with in the context of the committee.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pence amendment.
It is important to remove this language in H.R. 22 that reserves one
seat on the Postal Board of Governors for a representative of labor
unions.
The U.S. Postal Service is a government-owned corporation and, as
such, is technically owned by the U.S. taxpayers. Reserving one space
exclusively for labor representatives confers preferential status and,
in my view, undue influence to one interest group at the expense of all
other stakeholders in postal operations, particularly first-class mail
users.
I think it is a good amendment. I think it is something that I
believe this kind of set-aside may not be in the Senate version of the
bill. It is certainly a topic that needs to be debated and taken up in
conference, and I would encourage my colleagues to accept it.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, one of the great accomplishments
of this legislation is the fact that it was able to bring labor and
management together, to bring both sides to the table and have them
agree. The gentleman from Indiana's amendment did not mention the fact
that four of the slots were designated for management. So certainly, if
management would have at least four slots pretty much designated, then
certainly labor ought to have one.
The other point is that throughout the deliberations, very seldom did
we hear much conversation about Democrats and Republicans. We really
talked about moving a postal system and a postal service forward. So I
would oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in support of his amendment.
As I understand it, if there are nine members of this board, no more
than five can be from the party of the President. Inasmuch as the
President is presently a Republican, that would mean that at least four
seats would be allocated to those who are members of the Democrat
party. The last time I looked, although perhaps some labor unions are
having a falling out amongst themselves, there has not been a falling
out between the labor union movement and the Democrat Party, so I would
think they would be well represented.
I think perhaps somebody that might be terribly underrepresented
tonight would be the poor beleaguered taxpayer. Given that there are
over 140 million of them, perhaps we should consider reserving at least
one seat for them, to make sure that their interests are represented
since, too often, so many of the aspects of this legislation that we
are discussing tonight ultimately could fall upon them. If there is
anybody who deserves special recognition, and not that all stakeholders
should not be considered, I would suggest that we reserve a seat for
the taxpayer.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time.
First of all, I cannot thank the ranking member and the chairman of
the full committee, and the ranking member of the subcommittee and
chairman of the subcommittee enough for such a thoughtful piece of
legislation. But with respect to this amendment, might I say the
composition of this board and the representation of one union member is
what you call consensus and what you call cooperation.
Just listening to the leadership of my local union, the letter
carriers, with the President, President Prissy Grace, and the American
Postal Workers Union, as well as the Postmaster General in my
congressional district, Ms. Green, they have had a working relationship
that can be exhibited by the structure in which this particular
legislation allows: representation of the workers, the workers who are
committed to delivering the mail, rain or shine. I think that to
eliminate this particular position really eliminates the voice of the
workers.
We are already saying that we are committed to the work ethic of the
postal workers in the postal system. This is a reform and reformation
of the postal system for the better, to make them efficient, to make
them productive, and to serve the American people. Having their work
represented on this board serves the American people, and I ask my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the members of the committee, especially the author of this
bill, for their sincerity of purpose and civility in this debate. I
also thank my colleagues who have risen in support of the Pence
amendment, which, again, simply removes the provision of H.R. 22 that
requires that the first vacant slot on the Board of Governors be filled
by an individual with unanimous backing by all labor organizations.
The Pence amendment is supported by National Right to Work, by
Americans For Tax Reform. We already have fairness on the board, Mr.
Chairman: five members of one political party, the party in power in
the White House, and four members appointed by the other political
party. We do not need a tie-breaker member that is selected by the
unanimous consent of all the labor unions.
If we are going to achieve the labor and workforce reforms necessary
to restore efficiency to the Postal Service and ensure its vitality in
the 21st century, we must ensure that those reforms are not stymied by
a reserved seat for labor unions on the postal board.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
[[Page H6541]]
I may consume. I thank my friend for offering his amendment. I am
unable to support it, but I understand the spirit in which he is giving
it to try to make this a better bill.
This is a carefully crafted bill in which Republicans and Democrats
have come together to try to work through a lot of issues, and moving
one part out really jeopardizes the total package.
The gentleman quoted the minority leader, or the minority whip, as
saying, This is a good bill and it should be passed this year; and he
understood that, but why would a Republican Congress do it.
A Republican Congress would pass this bill because we do not want a
2-cent rate increase next January. The only way we can forestall that
rate increase is by passing this legislation; and to pass this
legislation, we need to work together with Republicans and Democrats.
That means we give on some issues and we take on others.
The question was raised, well, we ought to have a taxpayer on the
board. I think everybody who is on the board is a taxpayer. The fact of
the matter is, there are four members of the board who are management,
but they are not postal management. There are two postal management
members of the board, and this would reserve one for the unions to
pick; and by the way, there are diversity among the postal unions. That
is a tough job to pick somebody because of competing interests over
mail handlers versus letter carriers and the like.
But this is good legislation, and I am afraid that this amendment, in
my judgment, despite I think the best intentions of its author, will
upset that delicate balance that we have created to this point. It is
not something that is new to corporate America to have a member of
labor sitting on corporate boards. It is actually done quite
frequently, particularly in the airline industry and a number of other
industries where this is fairly common at this point. And since the
postal workers have a lot to gain or lose by this as well, we think
their voice can be very constructive at the end of the day.
So for those reasons and the fact that this particular provision has
been in the bill since its introduction 11 years ago, and until this
amendment was filed, I do not think any objections have been raised. I
understand where the gentleman is coming from; but for those reasons, I
would ask my colleagues to reject the Pence amendment and to support
the final passage.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 109-184.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 120, after line 8, insert the following (and make such
technical and conforming changes as may be appropriate):
SEC. 712. PILOT PROGRAM TO TEST ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR THE
DELIVERY OF POSTAL SERVICES.
(a) Pilot Program.--The United States Postal Service may
conduct a pilot program to test the feasibility and
desirability of alternative methods for the delivery of
postal services. Subject to the provisions of this section,
the pilot program shall not be limited by any lack of
specific authority under title 39, United States Code, to
take any action contemplated or, to the extent specified in a
waiver granted by the Postal Service in accordance with
regulations under subsection (f), by any provision of law,
rule, or regulation inconsistent with any action contemplated
(any such waiver to be granted or denied in consultation with
the Attorney General, to the extent any provision of title
18, United States Code, is involved).
(b) Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Under the pilot program, alternative
methods for the delivery of postal services may be tested
only in those communities that submit an appropriate
application (together with a written plan) in such time,
form, and manner as the Postal Service by regulation
requires, and whose application has been duly approved. Any
such application shall include--
(A) a description of the postal services that would be
affected;
(B) the alternative providers selected and the postal
services each would furnish (or the manner in which those
decisions would be made);
(C) the anticipated costs and benefits to the Postal
Service and users of the mail;
(D) the anticipated duration of the community's
participation;
(E) a specific description of any actions contemplated for
which there is a lack of specific authority or for which a
waiver (as described in subsection (a)) would be necessary;
and
(F) such other information as the Postal Service may
require.
(2) Review boards.--Under the pilot program, the postmaster
or postmasters within a community may, in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Postal Service, establish a
postal performance review board (hereinafter in this section
referred to as a ``review board''). It shall be the function
of a review board to submit any application under paragraph
(1) on behalf of the community that it represents and to
carry out the plan on the basis of which any such application
with respect to such community is approved. A review board
shall consist of the postmaster for the community (or, if
there is more than one, the postmaster designated in
accordance with regulations under subsection (f)), at least 1
individual who shall represent the interests of business
concerns, and at least 1 individual who shall represent the
interests of users of the class of mail for which the most
expeditious handling and transportation is afforded by the
Postal Service. The postmaster (or postmaster so designated)
shall serve as chairman of the review board.
(3) Alternative providers.--To be eligible to be selected
as an alternative provider of postal services, a provider
must be a commercial enterprise, nonprofit organization,
labor organization, or other person that--
(A) possesses the personnel, equipment, and other
capabilities necessary to furnish the postal services
concerned;
(B) satisfies such security and other requirements as may
be necessary to safeguard the mail, users of the mail, and
the general public;
(C) submits a bid to the appropriate review board in such
time, form, and manner (together with such accompanying
information) as the review board may require; and
(D) meets such other requirements as the review board may
require, consistent with any regulations under subsection (f)
that may apply.
(4) Use of postal facilities and equipment.--Postmasters
shall at their discretion be permitted to allow alternative
providers the use of facilities and equipment of the Postal
Service, and any such proposed use shall, for purposes of the
competitive bidding process, be taken into account using fair
market value.
(c) Limitations.--The pilot program--
(1) may involve not more than a total of 20 communities;
and
(2) shall terminate not later than 5 years after the date
on which the program commences.
(d) Termination Authority.--Subject to such conditions as
the Postal Service may by regulation prescribe and the terms
of any written agreement or contract entered into in
conformance with such regulations, the participation of a
community in the pilot program may be terminated by the
Postal Service or by the review board for such community if
either determines that the continued participation of the
community is not in the best interests of the public or the
Government of the United States.
(e) Evaluations.--The Postal Service shall provide for an
evaluation of the operation of the pilot program within each
community that participates. Any such evaluation shall
examine, at least and if applicable, reliability of mail
delivery (including the rate of misdeliveries), timeliness of
mail delivery (including the time of day that mail is
delivered and the time elapsing from the postmarking to
delivery of mail), volume of mail delivered, and any cost
savings or additional costs to the Postal Service
attributable to the use of alternative providers. Data
included in any such evaluation shall be analyzed--
(1) by community characteristics, time of year, and type of
postal service;
(2) by residential, business, and any other type of mail
user; and
(3) on such other bases as the Postal Service may
determine.
Each such evaluation and an overall evaluation of the pilot
program shall be transmitted by the Postal Service to the
President and each House of Congress by not later than 90
days after the date on which the program terminates.
(f) Regulations.--The Postal Service may prescribe any
regulations necessary to carry out this section.
(g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
considered to affect the obligation of the Postal Service to
continue providing universal service, in accordance with
otherwise applicable provisions of law, in all aspects not
otherwise provided for pursuant to this section.
[[Page H6542]]
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is quite simple. It establishes a pilot program in at
least 20 test communities, which would sunset in 5 years, to allow the
U.S. Postal Service and the Congress to simply gather information. This
pilot program would test the feasibility and desirability of
alternative methods for the delivery of postal services.
The pilot program would test the current following assumptions about
the Postal Service: Are consumers better off if the Postal Service
remains a monopoly? Does the current postal infrastructure allow for as
many delivery offerings as possible? Is the total value of the
universal service model for postal delivery worth the expense?
Now, universal service by the Postal Service would continue to be
provided, but participating postmasters would not be limited by the
current monopoly statutes on first-class delivery and the use of postal
mailboxes. If the postmaster so chooses, alternative providers, such as
commercial enterprise, nonprofit organization, or a labor organization
that satisfies a strict set of criteria could serve as an alternative
provider for postal services. They would also be able to use the
equipment and facilities of the USPS at the discretion of the
postmaster for fair market value.
Mr. Chairman, with the dramatic reduction in first-class mail volume,
coupled with the inability of the Postal Service to control costs, the
Postal Service and Congress must have many well-tested alternatives for
the future of mail delivery in the U.S.
Many European countries are well ahead of the U.S. on some new
innovative ideas for structuring their respective postal delivery
services. The pilot program is simply a test program to provide the
Postal Service and Congress with useful information to make future
changes to postal services, if needed.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, we know that some changes are needed. We
are running into deficits; and every 4 years, we are bailing out the
USPS. I do not want to be here 4 years from now doing the same thing.
So let us test some alternatives. Let us see what else works. Let us
see what other countries are doing that we might adopt to control costs
and improve quality.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand this amendment is to do
something on a pilot project basis with the idea that we are going to
promote innovation in the delivery of the mail. Well, I support that
goal.
H.R. 22 has many provisions to promote flexibility and innovation;
but this amendment, maybe it was not intended this way, but it is
drafted in a way that is an open invitation to abuse. It allows a local
postmaster to contract out the delivery of the mail to private
companies; and in the course of that amendment, it provides that any
provision of Federal law that might otherwise apply to these contracts
and the delivery of mail can be waived.
Well, that is incredibly far-reaching. It would mean a local postal
official could set up his own company. He can ask his brother-in-law to
set up another company and then contract with that company to do the
job of delivering the mail. It is certainly a blatant conflict of
interest.
But even criminal laws could be waived under this amendment. There
would be no prohibition against under-the-table kickbacks. The
provision could allow the waiver of the privacy of first-class mail.
This could lead to a lot of unforeseen problems.
That is why the postmasters of this country, the National League of
Postmasters, which represents the local postmasters, has said that the
postmasters very strongly oppose the amendment: ``The Congressman's
approach would be harmful to universal service.''
So it is not just that this amendment goes against the compromise
that has brought this whole bill together, but I do not think it has
been thought through, and I do not think we ought to adopt something
that has so many possible ramifications to it that we would certainly
regret.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I should point out to the gentleman that postmasters would have full
authority under this legislation, under this amendment to actually
contract out or not. They can disband the alternative at any time.
Now, under the law, only the government can do it right, and we ought
to take over the entire economy. If we do not trust the private sector
to deliver services more effectively and more efficiently than the
government can, shoot, why do we not get in every business.
We know that that is not the case. We know the private sector
typically can do it better, faster, cheaper, smarter than government.
Every 4 years, we are back in again to bail out the USPS. This simply
says, why do we not try something, try some alternatives that are
working in other countries; try some things that might work, that might
lower the cost, that might be more taxpayer-friendly than this. That is
what this amendment is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
We are not bailing out the post office every 4 years; it is like
every 35 years, since the last act. We did come out with some
additional money because of anthrax and because of the added burdens
that we put on the post office at that point, but the post office has
to operate under its own budget; and right now, the only thing they can
rely on is rate increases, and rate increases drive mail away into
other areas, which is why we are working this bill tonight.
I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, but I think it is
unnecessary. The Postal Service already has considerable authority to
test and implement different methods of providing services to the
public. Nothing in the current law, I repeat, nothing in the current
law or in H.R. 22 prevents the Postal Service from employing
contractors in providing mail service.
The post office has a long history of doing so, starting with the
Pony Express. For most of its history, the Postal Service has relied on
dedicated contractors to manage small post offices, often in rural
communities. Almost 8 percent of all of the post offices are operated
under contract, not by postal employees; 8 percent.
Also, for 160 years, the Postal Service has relied on private
contractors for the transportation and delivery of mail. Star route
carriers today continue to operate, transporting mail efficiently and
effectively nationwide, even delivering the mail to over 2 million
homes 6 days a week. In many rural communities, those served by both
contract postal units and star route carriers, the Postal Service's
entire relationship with their customers is already handled by
contractors, not employees.
{time} 2030
For these longstanding and successful postal contract arrangements,
this amendment is at best unnecessary. At worst it adds a new layer of
procedures that will place burdens on expanding these programs into
newer areas. One puzzling aspect is its provision allowing the Postal
Service to waive laws, rules and regulations, including sections of the
criminal code, which I am not sure I understand. Maybe the gentleman on
his time will explain.
But the Service does not need this waiver to contract the provisions.
In fact, it only serves to remove needed protections safeguarding the
sanctity, privacy and security of the mail. Do customers really want
their mail delivered by contractors to whom no laws apply?
In short, the Postal Service has been conducting pilot tests of these
ideas since the 19th century. I would say the evaluation phase is over,
the results are in, they work. Let us not mess them up with a new,
unnecessary, convoluted regulation. Both postmaster organizations
oppose this.
And so I would urge that we defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H6543]]
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, before yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana, let me just say that asking the Postal Service to give up
what might lead to giving up their monopoly or a portion of their
monopoly is unreasonable. We need to prime the pump a little. No
private business would in their self-interest do that either. That is
why this amendment is important.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake amendment. There
are 38,000 post offices, stations and branches in the U.S. Postal
Service. The Flake amendment contemplates a pilot program that would
affect 20 communities.
By my bad math, that is about \1/20\ of 1 percent of the communities
that are served by 38,000 post offices, stations and branches. But that
is an unacceptable reform.
I rise with great respect to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), who has been a champion of postal reform for much longer than
I have been in Congress. I do respect the gentleman and have great
respect for the chairman. It is lost on me why we cannot say, in the
name of reform, in the greatest free-market economy in the history of
the world, that we will allow for competition in 20 pilot programs to
run out inefficiencies and to bring innovation and new ideas to the
delivery of postal services.
The Flake amendment is just simply that; 38,000 post offices,
stations and branches. The Flake amendment asks humbly that we identify
20 communities to test the feasibility and desirability of alternative
methods of delivery of postal services, and this reform bill and its
reformers oppose that pilot program.
Let us bring real reform to reform. If we cannot, let us introduce a
pilot program where reform and the ideas of reform might be able to
take hold to create a truly diverse 21st century postal delivery system
for America.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, a couple of comments. The gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) said you cannot expect the Postal Service to give
back any of its monopoly powers. With all due respect, the Postal
Service has agreed to this bill. In this bill there is a substantial
reduction in the monopoly scope on first class mail.
Right now first class mail and monopoly is whatever the Postal
Service says it is. Under this bill there is a bright line
determination; it is six times the rate of the first class stamp, which
is a substantial give-back.
I also have to underscore the distinguished chairman's concerns about
the suspension of title 18. You can argue about the needs for reform in
pilot tests and such, but maybe it was an inadvertent step, but the
fact still remains the amendment before the committee today will be a
suspension of the criminal code, which would empower, rightly or
wrongly, those who would be entrusted with the mail of the United
States Postal Service to be totally absolved under criminal
responsibility.
Now, I can leave it to the imagination of the Members what that could
potentially mean for identity theft and on and on and on. I doubt that
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) meant it, but regardless, that
is what this reform calls for.
The last thing I would say is I think that a concern is about a new
model for the Postal Service, and I would agree, and this bill
understands that as well. We specifically negotiated with the
administration a study to be conducted under the auspices of GAO. They
will hire a contract specialty firm that will look at establishing a
future business model that, in part, and I will quote from the bill,
``seeks to study the maintenance of the Postal Service in its current
form as an independent establishment in the executive branch; and, two,
transforming the Postal Service into an ordinary corporation, wholly
owned by the government or wholly owned by private shareholders or
partly by the government and partially by private shareholders.''
This bill admits we have to take a careful look at the future of the
business model of the Postal Service. That is why this amendment should
be rejected.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I do want to add
my voice to those congratulating the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman
Tom Davis) for his good work, and I know that the job has been very
tough to try to reconcile all of the differing interests and opinions
that are brought to bear. But I find it very difficult to believe that
we have something to fear from a pilot program in 20 communities out of
38,000. It appears that something is not working, or we would not be
here this evening.
Many, many years ago when I was in high school, I played both
football and tennis, and I was equally poor at both, but I remember
something a tennis coach once told me: There are many ways to lose at
tennis. Try them all.
Well, we are losing here tonight if we are contemplating rate
increases and imposing $6 billion on the taxpayers. Maybe we should try
something new. Maybe we should try some pilot programs. Maybe we should
get some more experimentation, some more innovation, some more
competition into the system, and maybe we can find ways to start
winning at this.
And because of that, I do rise in strong support of the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say this: On the $6 billion figure floating
around, it is important to understand that the reason the Congressional
Budget Office scores this as an increase is because they have
contemplated and put into their figuring that there will be rate
increases. Our legislation takes away those rate increases, so that is
not coming into the Treasury. So if you do not have a rate increase, it
scores.
When you sit here and say it is going to cost the taxpayers, that
means they do not have to go with a rate increase. We are being
penalized because we are not doing rate increases, and it scores
against us. We need to understand that. And that is why this
legislation is being passed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
The Postal Service delivers to 140 million sites, and there is about
a million new sites every year. It provides universal service.
When I hear my colleagues talk about fine-tuning this bill, that is
what we have been doing for the last 10 years. This is a bill that has
been fine-tuned, and it has been fine-tuned in a way that has gotten
support from disparate parts.
The employees who work at the postal system know that more than
200,000 jobs are going to be lost. That is why we opposed the first
amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) because we need
employee buy-in.
The reason why we opposed this amendment, it seems to fail to
understand that there is competition with FedEx, with UPS, with DHL and
many more things. They are also competing with the newspapers.
We are trying to provide flexibility to the postal system. So I
understand the concept of fine-tuning, but I would dispute
significantly the failure to recognize that the bill has been fine-
tuned. And when I am hearing my colleagues offer their amendments, I
feel like they have not read the bill, because the bill allows for
competition, it allows for flexibility, and it has buy-in in all of
these disparate parts.
This amendment needs to be defeated if we are going to pass this
bill.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. I
will go ahead and wrap up.
Labor costs consume 80 percent of the Postal Service revenue, whereas
UPS and FedEx spend only 56 and 42 percent of their revenues on labor.
I
[[Page H6544]]
know there are differences. It is a little different animal when we are
talking about first class mail delivery, and what FedEx and UPS do, but
80 percent versus 56 and 42 percent respectively.
I think we ought to be questioning ourselves, what are they doing
that we are not? What can we do so we will not have either more money
out of the general fund or a rate increase? Whether it is paid by the
consumer with monopoly service or the taxpayer is the same. It is both
money coming out of the taxpayers' or consumers' pockets.
And I do not want to be here, like I said, 4 years from now talking
about another rate increase or talking about more money from the
general fund because we simply have not done anything about making sure
that competition drives improvement in service and it controls cost. We
know that from everything we know about the economy. We know that from
education reform. We know that in other areas as well. Competition and
choice controls costs and improve quality. This is what we are trying
to jump-start here. That is the purpose of this amendment.
As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) mentioned, this is hardly
revolutionary. A fraction of 1 percent would be allowed to actually
test this proposition, that maybe competition would help control cost
and improve quality, a fraction of 1 percent of all of the sites out
there, of all of the systems running.
So this is a very modest amendment. I think it is important.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the
universal service obligation of the post office gives it a burden in
requirements that some of the other facts and figures alluded to do not
have to meet.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remaining time to my colleague, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, where I come from, there is an
old saying: If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a
duck, talks like a duck, then it is a duck. And it seems to me that the
bottom line is this is an attempt to privatize the Postal Service,
which would decimate the concept of universal service. There could be
no universal service if this amendment is passed.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will
be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 109-184
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Hensarling of Texas
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
Page 138, line 13, strike ``(h)(1)'' and insert
``(h)(1)(A)''.
Page 138, line 16, strike ``(A)'' and insert ``(i)''.
Page 138, line 22, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(ii)''.
Page 138, line 23, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(I)''.
Page 139, line 1, strike ``(ii)'' and insert ``(II)''.
Page 139, line 7, strike ``(iii)'' and insert ``(III)''.
Page 139, after line 10, insert the following:
``(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).
Page 142, strike line 21 and all that follows through page
143, line 7.
Page 143, line 8, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 147, lines 12 through 13, strike ``ESCROW AND
MILITARY'' (and make such technical and conforming changes as
may be appropriate).
Page 148, line 2, strike ``for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2015'' and insert ``for fiscal year 2006 and each
fiscal year thereafter''.
Page 148, line 24, strike ``two-thirds of''.
Page 149, line 6, strike ``two-thirds of''.
Page 149, line 25 through page 150, line 1, strike ``two-
thirds of''.
Page 150, line 4, strike ``two-thirds of''.
Page 150, strike lines 13 through 21.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening some Members rose in support of
postal workers. Other rose in support of large postal customers. This
is good, and this is well, and I respect that.
But tonight I wish to rise in support of the taxpayer. Today our
Nation is riding a wave, an impending fiscal tsunami, that threatens to
drown our children and grandchildren in a sea of red ink.
Since 2000, the amount that government spends annually per household
has risen from $18,000 to over $20,000 in 2004. This is only the fourth
time in our Nation's history that spending exceeded $20,000 per
household. It also represents the largest expansion of the Federal
Government since the Vietnam era.
The Federal debt now stands at a staggering $7.8 trillion, or roughly
$26,600 for every man, woman and child in America. And the Nation's
financial challenges are about to get markedly worse over the next
decade.
Without reforms we know that Medicare will grow at a rate of 9
percent, Medicaid 7.8 percent and Social Security at 5.5 percent a
year, far outstripping our country's economic growth or our ability to
pay for them. Where will it all end?
{time} 2045
According to the GAO, if we ignore the runaway growth of government
spending, we will have to double taxes, double taxes on our children
and grandchildren just to balance the budget by the year 2040. If this
occurs, we stand to become the first generation of Americans to leave
our children with a lower standard of living, not to mention a legacy
of limited freedom and unlimited government.
Now, day after day Member after Member comes to this floor to decry
the Federal deficit and the legacy of debt that we are leaving our
children. Rarely have so many of us spoken so passionately against the
Federal deficit and yet done so little about it.
Today, I wish to provide us with an opportunity to change that. In
1970, the fundamental principle of postal reform was established, that
the Postal Service would become a self-financed entity. According to
title 39 of the U.S. Code: ``Postal rates shall be established to
apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the
mail.''
Simply put, the U.S. Postal Service is supposed to pay its own
freight; but according to the Congressional Budget Office, and I
understand that the chairman of the full committee respectfully
disagrees with their score, the CBO says H.R. 22 will actually place us
further in debt by almost $6 billion over 10 years. And who should pay
for that $6 billion?
It either must be paid by those who use the Postal Service or the
taxpayers. I vote for those who actually use the service. Now, some of
my colleagues have argued that the Postal Service faces unique
responsibilities and thus taxpayers must subsidize them. It is true.
The Postal Service does have some unique responsibilities, but they
also enjoy a host of unique benefits that private businesses do not.
The Postal Service pays no Federal, States, or local taxes. They are
immune from most regulations such as zoning, motor vehicle
registration, and even parking tickets.
The Postal Service can borrow from the Treasury at below-market rates
and is immune from anti-trust laws despite the fact that it can compete
against private companies.
The number one problem facing the United States Postal Service is not
the lack of a taxpayer subsidy. It is their seeming inability to
control costs. Labor costs consume 80 percent of the
[[Page H6545]]
Postal Service's revenue, whereas UPS and Fed Ex spend only 56 percent
and 42 percent of their revenues on labor.
The Postal Service has been unable to close existing facilities or
consolidate new operations. In fact, Mr. Chairman, over half of its
38,000 facilities do not generate enough revenue to cover their costs.
Mr. Chairman, again, I want to state that I respect the hard work
that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. McHugh) have done on this bill. And I do understand that
many different opinions had to be reconciled to get a postal reform
bill to the floor. But I believe that we need to stand with President
Bush, we need to stand with the American taxpayer and make this a
budget-neutral bill. Instead, if we want to make the Postal Service
more cost competitive, what we really need to do is enact all of the
Presidential commission's workforce reforms.
In 2003, Congress decided that the Postal Service was on a course to
possibly overpay its civil service retirement system costs. Rather than
let the Postal Service spend the money, it retained it and an escrow
account was created within the U.S. Treasury.
H.R. 22 releases that escrow account to pre-fund Postal Service
health care liabilities. I agree this is a sound use of funds, but it
is unfortunately incomplete. Under H.R. 22, only two-thirds of the
funds would be used to fund the health care liabilities letting 2 to $3
billion a year slip back to the Postal Service for other expenditures.
With the Postal Service currently facing an unfunded health care
liability of roughly $75 billion, I believe every dollar in the escrow
account should be used to offset this growing concern. If not,
taxpayers will surely be called upon to make up this tremendous
shortfall.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the cost of H.R. 22
substantially by ensuring that 100 percent of the civil service
retirement system savings will be directed to the Postal Service's
unfunded health care liability. In addition, this amendment would
maintain the Postal Service's financial responsibility for paying the
civil service retirement system costs associated with military service
credits, instead of passing the cost on to the Treasury and the
American taxpayer.
Again, the question is not whether but who will pay, the customers
that use the Postal Service or the American taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I want the Postal Service to become more efficient, and
I believe we can do so by enacting more of the President's initiatives.
Let us not pass the buck to American taxpayers yet again. Let us not
pile further debt upon our grandchildren. Let us ensure the United
States Postal Service continues to pay its own freight. I do appreciate
the good work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), but let
us make H.R. 22 budget neutral. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate where the gentleman is trying to go with
this, but even the White House does not want to have this scored
neutrally under CBO numbers. They have asked for the Office of
Management and Budget numbers because the Congressional Budget Office
ends up counting rate increases that have not taken effect as already
being part of revenue. And to the extent that we can stave off stamp
tax rate increases, what the gentleman's amendment would do, not stave
it off but it includes it, to the extent we do that, then it counts
against the budget.
The other problem in terms of budget neutrality comes from the
President's own commission on the Postal Service which recommended that
the military years of service for postal employees under the CSRS
retirement program, that those years be paid for by the military like
they are for every other agency of government instead of having postal
patrons for that. This was the President's commission which recommended
that.
What I have talked about, we save money, not take money away. But the
question is why should rate payers have to pay for military service in
an agency where you have veterans hiring preference? It is not fair to
rate payers. It is driving up rates.
Finally, let me say, it is not two-thirds of the escrow funds that is
funding health care. Ninety percent of the escrow funds over the next 5
years are to fund health care. That is more than any other agency in
government. Not enough for some Members, I am sure; but this is the
appropriate way in my opinion for the post office to operate.
We have committed to the White House. We are going to work to try to
get this as budget neutral as we can as we move forward to the
conference working with OMB, but the Congressional Budget Office's
arcane scoring rules make it virtually impossible to get here in this
particular case.
Once again, let me remind everyone, what is the alternative? The
alternative to this legislation is rate increases, postal rate
increases, a stamp act, on every man, woman and child that mails a
letter in this country. That is what we are trying to stave off,
because as rate increases go up, people quit using the post office; and
it gets this downward spiral that will lead to the demise of the post
office as we know it. That is why this legislation has such broad
support from such diverse groups in the private sector and in the
public sector.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I join my chairman in opposing this
amendment. It sounds like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) has
some vision of postal reform. Well, I just think that is great, except
we cannot pass it.
The alternative to this, as the chairman has pointed out, is going to
be the existing system and undesirable increases on rates.
So what is the amendment before us? It is not a different version of
reform of the Postal Service. It would micro-manage the Postal
Service's use of money that is now in an escrow and will tell them they
have to use most of that money to prefund health benefits.
Well, we say they must use some of that money for that, but if they
shift the money for that purpose, then to run the Postal Service they
are going to have to ask for an increase in rates. That is why in
amendment would certainly be opposed by all the people who use the
Postal Service, the mailers, the enterprises, the businesses in this
country that rely on the Postal Service for their success.
Now, the amendment does something else, and I just have to underscore
it. As the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform mentioned, it
would require the Postal Service to pay for the pensions for those who
served in the military before they went to work for the Postal Service.
If you were in the military and went to work for any other agency of
government, that agency would not be required to pay for your military
pension. They might be required to pay for the pension accrued from
service in that agency.
Why should the Postal Service have to pay for the military pensions?
It does not make sense. And the consequence of it would be that the
Postal Service would have to ask for an increase in rates because they
have this extra financial burden to pay for military pensions. That is
why this amendment is one that I think it to be a poison pill for the
legislation.
You could imagine the groups that oppose this legislation like the
National Association of Manufacturers and NFIB and others opposing this
because they do not want higher rates. I urge opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for his work on this amendment and, of course,
our chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, who has worked so
diligently on this bill and for years has worked to be able to move it
to the body.
[[Page H6546]]
Mr. Chairman, you know, we are hearing a lot about the military
benefits. From my service on the Committee on Government Reform, I
think I remember that there was in 2003 $103 billion overpayment in
pension benefits that was refunded to the Postal Service, and as a part
of that agreement they were made responsible for the military pension
costs of the employees. And this bill would reverse those provisions.
I think it is also worthy to notice that the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling) has pointed out in 1971 the reform efforts put in
place at the Postal Service, it would be a self-financing agency, and
with that mandate they were given certain exemptions and advantages
such as tax and anti-trust. And they are obliged and obligated to
manage their finances in a manner that covers its full costs.
We must continue to encourage the Postal Service to be self-
sufficient and not be subsidized by the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues
to vote in favor of the amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Let me just note for the record that we did agree at that point as a
condition of releasing overpayment by the Post Office Department into
pension funds that they, for a temporary period of time, fund the
military for CSRS retirees. But we awaited studies; and the President's
own commission, which has been quoted here, came back and recommended
that in point of fact the post office should not be making these
payments, that it should to go to the general fund side of the ledger.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
McHugh).
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, a couple points with respect to the
gentlewoman's comments about the 1971 legislation. She is right, but
she is also a little behind because that is why we are making changes.
H.R. 22, in fact, applies anti-trust provisions against the Postal
Service, overturning the 1971 bill. We require taxes paid on the
business computations for the competitive products portion of the
Postal Service, again overchanging the 1971 bill. So that is what this
is all about. I am glad I had the opportunity to update the
gentlewoman's perspective on that.
The other thing I would note is that, again, this would be the only
Federal agency treated in this manner, the only Federal agency. And
there is really no justification for it. I have heard a great deal
about budget scoring, and I cannot speak as to the author of this
amendment, but I suspect he along with others including myself, stood
in the well of this House many, many times and spoke about the moronic
perspective of scoring when it came to tax cuts. We did not want that
kind of scoring, the same kind of scoring that is applied here. We
wanted dynamic scoring, and if we were dynamically scoring, I think we
would be referring to the statistics provided by others including the
Envelope Manufacturing Association that says if this amendment were to
pass, it would result in the loss of $64 billion in tax revenues from
those firms that use the Postal Service for mailing and such that pay
sales taxes and others; 245,000 jobs would be impacted just in the
first year; and 3.5 million jobs would be impacted over 10 years, all
of whom are taxpayers.
So if we are dynamically scoring, as all of us who were so strongly
in support of it when it came to the tax cuts, this would not be even
an issue.
Let me just state, here is what the Postal Service says about this
particular amendment: ``If the Hensarling amendment is adopted, the
Postal Service will be in worse financial situation then it occupied
before the CSRS overfunding was identified and corrected. If the
Hensarling amendment is adopted, the total of these four payments would
be $97 billion over the next 10 years.'' That is a tax on the American
mailing public, and I think we ought to resist this amendment.
{time} 2100
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in
favor of the amendment introduced by my friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), that would encourage fiscal responsibility by
the U.S. Postal Service. I, along with others, support the Postal
Service that is staffed by thousands of resourceful and hard-working
individuals who I believe have the ability, by themselves, to adapt and
create a smoothly functioning postal system that can really be a world
leader for us all.
I support the Postal Service and the valuable contribution that it
provides to our economy, and the common-sense bill before us will move
the U.S. Postal Service in the right direction so it will no longer be
a drain on the U.S. taxpayer. This amendment will encourage the Postal
Service to move forward, to take responsibility for its own
liabilities, just as other large corporations have to do.
Recently Fortune Magazine ranked the Postal Service as the 44th
largest corporation in the world and looked at the many assets that
they have. Unfortunately, the Postal Service has not taken advantage of
those assets and its potential. Instead, it has not moved in the
direction of other industrialized nations in providing us with a mail
system of innovation, financial soundness, and quality of services.
That study also looked at nine different postal services, two private
and seven from industrial nations, and in seven out of those nine
categories found the U.S. Postal Service ranked last.
I believe that the Hensarling amendment will change that. It will
move the Postal Service of this country in the right direction, make it
more efficient, and, most importantly, take the burden off the U.S.
taxpayer.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support
the gentleman from Texas in his amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I certainly appreciate the intentions of my
good friend from Texas in his amendment tonight, but this amendment
would do absolutely nothing to stop a stamp rate increase for next
year. In fact, it seems very clear this amendment would have the
opposite impact. In fact, it would trigger large increases in the
postal rates.
These rate increases would be caused by denying the Postal Service
access to billions of dollars which are set aside in their escrow
accounts, because the Postal Service will be forced actually to
completely finance the escrow requirement as well as the annual health
benefit premium for all of their retirees. This will not stop what we
are all trying to stop, and that is a postal rate increase, which is
really a tax. I guess you can call it a stamp tax, if you want, on the
American people.
This amendment is not fiscally conservative. In fact, if you are an
individual who just mails a couple of letters a year, I suppose it does
not matter if you have a tax increase, a stamp tax increase, of 1 or 2
cents a letter. However, think if you are a catalogue mailing company
or a large user of the Postal Service.
This amendment would also require the Postal Service to spend all of
their savings released under H.R. 22 on paying the Postal Service's
unfunded health care liability rather than giving the Postal Service
some much-needed flexibility to use on other pressing issues.
This underlying bill is based on the premise of making the Postal
Service more cost-effective, more cost-efficient, making it run in a
more businesslike, user-friendly type of way, and this amendment, I
believe, is a step backward. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
this amendment and also to support the underlying bill, which is a
great bipartisan effort and a great bipartisan piece of legislation.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the argument for budget-neutral
reform reminds me of the teaching of Frederick Douglass when he said
that he understood one thing, if he did not understand anything else;
and that is that in this world we may not get everything that we pay
for, but we most
[[Page H6547]]
certainly will pay for everything that we get.
As the Comptroller General has pointed out, respected accounting
principles indicate that the burden for payment for service belongs to
the beneficiary. The U.S. Government benefited from military service,
and it should cover the cost.
To ensure predictable rate increases, H.R. 22 employs strict rate
caps at the subclass level, prohibiting rate increases at a rate
greater than CPI. These restrictions, however, make it important that
the Service have access to the one-third of its own money to help cover
operational costs if need be. Otherwise there is no alternative but to
accumulate debt.
Mr. Chairman, the Hensarling amendment would have us embedded in
debt. I oppose it.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago the Postal Service was here asking for $7
billion from the taxpayer. They come here tonight asking for $6 billion
from the taxpayers. Again, I ask the question: Where will it all end?
If we do not change the way we do business in Washington, we will
have to double taxes on future generations just to balance the budget.
Somehow, somewhere, some way, someday we must stop the madness of the
spending.
I agree with many of my colleagues that there are only two choices:
Either ratepayers or taxpayers are going to pick up this tab. I vote
for ratepayers.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this.
First of all, the Postal Service is self-operating. What it raises, it
spends. The increased money that was added was because of the anthrax
issue. It was a national security issue.
This amendment is bad for the economy. We are talking about 8 percent
of GDP now having at least a 2 percent increase. In fact, under this
amendment, it would not just be a rate increase, this would be
basically a rate shock to Americans. It would be far in excess of that.
This hurts Americans' competitiveness, it is bad for the economy, and
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hensarling
amendment.
This amendment would strip critical provisions contained in the
underlying bill.
The gentleman's amendment would require the Postal Service to
continue to be responsible for the military retirement costs of its
employees.
No agency other than the Postal Service is responsible for the
military retirement costs that Treasury pays for all other Federal
employees.
It is absolutely essential to the long-term survival of the Postal
Service to relieve it and postal customers of this $27 billion burden
by returning that responsibility to the Treasury.
Additionally, his amendment would mandate that 100 percent, rather
than \2/3\, of the Civil Service Retirement System savings that
resulted from the fix Congress enacted 2 years ago and are currently in
an escrow account, must go to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund.
This provision would have the effect of increasing postal rates by
preventing the USPS from using these savings to help keep postal rates
stable.
If Congress had not fixed this formula, the Postal Service's required
share of this Federal government retirement fund would have resulted in
a long-term overpayment of more than $70 billion.
These savings were intended to provide the Postal Service with much-
needed fiscal relief and a promise of stable postal rates until 2006.
A vote for this amendment would undermine the very reason why this
bill is on the Floor today . . . to enact long overdue reforms of the
Postal Service.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report number 109-184.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order: Amendment No. 1 offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and amendment No. 2 offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Pence
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 82,
noes 345, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 428]
AYES--82
Aderholt
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonilla
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Buyer
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Culberson
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Feeney
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Mack
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McMorris
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sessions
Shadegg
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
NOES--345
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
[[Page H6548]]
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Cooper
Gibbons
Hinojosa
Miller, George
Obey
Oxley
{time} 2128
Messrs. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, UDALL of Colorado, STUPAK, RAMSTAD,
Ms. HARMAN, Ms. CARSON, Mrs. NORTHUP, and Ms. HART changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MACK and Mr. KIRK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 428, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 51,
noes 379, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 429]
AYES--51
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Buyer
Carter
Chocola
Conaway
Cox
Culberson
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Harris
Hayworth
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Kingston
Kolbe
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Otter
Paul
Pence
Poe
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sessions
Shadegg
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Weldon (FL)
Wilson (SC)
NOES--379
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--3
Gibbons
Miller, George
Oxley
{time} 2136
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes
remain in this vote.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bass) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 22) to reform
the postal laws of the United States, pursuant to House Resolution 380,
he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
[[Page H6549]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3339.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 410,
noes 20, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 430]
AYES--410
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--20
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Chocola
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Feeney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Gohmert
Hensarling
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Musgrave
Nussle
Otter
Paul
Pence
Royce
Shadegg
Weldon (FL)
NOT VOTING--3
Gibbons
Miller, George
Oxley
{time} 2154
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________