[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H811-H815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           USPS FAIRNESS ACT

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend 
the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2382) to amend title 5, United States 
Code, to repeal the requirement that the United States Postal Service 
prepay future retirement benefits, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2382

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``USPS Fairness Act''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIRED PREPAYMENT OF FUTURE POSTAL 
                   SERVICE RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

       Subsection (d) of section 8909a of title 5, United States 
     Code, is repealed.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Meadows) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise 
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure 
before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, the U.S. Postal Service Fairness 
Act, which I am a very proud cosponsor, would make a small but very 
important change to help address the dire financial condition of the 
Postal Service.
  Common law requires the Postal Service to prefund the healthcare 
costs of its future retirees decades into the future. We are aware of 
no other entity, public or private, that faces this type of onerous 
financial burden. This mandate has cost the Postal Service billions of 
dollars since it was first imposed 14 years ago. The Postal Service has 
not made a payment into this fund since 2012.
  This bill won't solve all the Postal Service's financial problems. 
Eliminating the mandate will take some paper liabilities off the books 
of the Postal Service, but it will do nothing to improve its cash 
position.
  Without major structural reforms, the Postal Service will run out of 
cash in about 4 years. At that point, it will not be able to pay its 
own workers, and mail delivery would simply cease.
  The Postal Service has taken significant steps to control its costs, 
including shrinking its workforce by close to 300,000 employees over 
the past 20 years. Yet, it has incurred net annual losses for 13 
straight years.
  The Postal Service currently funds universal mail service to nearly 
159 million delivery points solely through the sale of postage. It is 
required to expand its network to deliver mail to approximately 1 
million new addresses every year, even as the volume of mail continues 
to decline by a projected 45 billion mail pieces over the next decade.
  So while I support this bill, more must be done to stabilize the 
finances of this important American institution on which so much of our 
population relies.
  The Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Congressman Connolly in 
particular, is working on comprehensive legislation to do just that. We 
will continue to work on comprehensive legislation after this bill 
passes.
  Finally, I thank my good friend, Mr. DeFazio, for his tireless, 
passionate advocacy for this bill. I also thank Mr. Reed and Mr. 
Fitzpatrick, on the other side of the aisle, as well as Ms. Torres 
Small, for all of their hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and rise in opposition to the bill. No one has invested more time than 
perhaps Mr. Connolly or myself on postal reform. But I think it was 
Winston Churchill who said that no matter how beautiful the strategy, 
we must occasionally look at the results. And the results of this bill 
will do nothing to stop the post office from hemorrhaging money.
  As we look at this prefunding--and I would agree with the 
gentlewoman--part of our solution, part of the bipartisan solution in 
the previous Congress, was to look at this prefunding issue and to try 
to address it. But to do it as a standalone bill, Mr. Speaker, is 
certainly not what the doctor ordered. Because even with this, the 
Postal Service continues to lose money each and every day.
  I would say that if this was the bomb that solved their problem, it 
would have already been solved because they haven't been making the 
payments.
  What the American people need to understand is, they are wanting 
relief from a payment that they are not making, and it is going to make 
zero difference in terms of the viability of the Postal Service.
  Now, we can all agree that there need to be major reforms, but this 
particular bill, and the way that it is being put forth, would actually 
hurt the potential progress we have in addressing real reforms. With 
that, I sadly rise in opposition to this bill, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the author of the 
legislation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, in a Christmas Eve bill with no legislative 
consideration, an otherwise noncontroversial bill, a provision was 
stuck in to say that the Postal Service should prefund 75 years of 
health benefits for retirees.
  Now, think about that. That means people who have not yet been born, 
who have not yet gone to work for the Postal Service for a career and 
then might retire, we are paying for their healthcare now. Name one 
other entity in the United States of America, corporate or government, 
that does anything like this. It is nuts. And it is a piggybank.
  The money isn't being put into a trust fund to pay for their health 
insurance. It is going into the maw of the Treasury. Who knows where it 
goes. It maybe makes the debt look a little smaller. That was why 
President Bush pushed for it. But it is accounting for the majority of 
the losses at the Postal Service.

                              {time}  1515

  So, yes, this will help relieve pressure on the Postal Service and on 
rates. And I think there are a lot of Americans who would like not to 
see the postal rates keep going up.
  Now, there are 300 bipartisan cosponsors. There aren't too many 
things around here these days like that because I think many people 
realize this doesn't make much sense.
  And the Postal Service is a critical service. It is not a government-
run business to make a profit. It is the U.S. Postal Service.
  Star routes don't make money. If you represent a rural area, you 
can't make money out there. FedEx and UPS won't go out there. They get 
the Postal Service to take the stuff out there. If we dismantle the 
Postal Service, then everybody in rural America is out of luck.
  And there are a whole heck of a lot of other people who are dependent 
upon this: newspapers, rural newspapers, small businesses.
  Many years ago, when I first started working on this, I posted 
something on the website: Tell me if you need the Postal Service.
  People from all the small towns all around my very large district 
said: I sell on eBay. That is how I make a living out here in Powers, 
Oregon, or in

[[Page H812]]

other little places around my district. I couldn't afford UPS or FedEx. 
I get the one package price.
  So this is critical.
  And, every day, hundreds of thousands of our veterans get their drugs 
delivered by the United States Postal Service, many of them in rural 
areas, hard to serve, and, sure as heck, hard for them to get to the VA 
hospital or get into town.
  So we need to stop burdening the Postal Service with something that 
makes no sense. Are there other things that need to be reformed? Yes.
  But once we take this $5 billion a year burden off them--they have 
already put $50 billion into a theoretical account to pay for 
healthcare for future postal employees who haven't been born yet, who 
might work there, might retire some day, and might get health benefits. 
That is more than enough.
  And, by the way, this doesn't score in any way. So that is why we 
have 300 bipartisan sponsors.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues at long last to undo this 
stupidity.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I love the passion. The only problem is it 
is misplaced.
  I can tell you that, if this bill would truly solve the business 
model that the Postal Service has, I would rise and support it. If this 
is all we are going to do, hallelujah. Let's do it and get it done. But 
the gentleman is wrong. This does not solve the problem.
  You can give them a pass on $5 billion a year, and they are still 
losing money. That is the whole issue. That is the crux of the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
North Carolina. I agree with my colleague from North Carolina, let us 
not confuse what we are talking about here today.
  I very much appreciate the postal employees who deliver the mail to 
my house. When I go into a post office and need to mail things, they 
are wonderful people and give great service. That is not the issue 
here. The issue is: Are we going to fund, properly, the retirement and 
healthcare services?
  I am not necessarily opposed to addressing the United States Postal 
Service's requirement to prefund its retiree health benefits. Doing so, 
though, in this manner would be disastrous for the American taxpayer. 
This bill's elimination of the prefunding requirement without 
instituting any reforms to tackle its fiscal status, as my colleague 
has said, would simply mean that Congress continues to play the game of 
kicking the can down the road.
  The fact is that there is already a long history of public retirement 
accounts that have either dramatically cut retiree benefits or had to 
rely on a taxpayer bailout as a result of not fully prefunding their 
plans.
  This is a snowball going down the hill that is going to pick up 
steam.
  The only way to pay off the unfunded liabilities created by the U.S. 
post office retiree health benefits--without enacting cost-saving 
reform to the U.S. Postal Service, which this bill does not--would be a 
taxpayer bailout.
  That is why President Trump's Task Force on the United States Postal 
System issued formal opposition to removing the prefunding requirement. 
To quote the task force: ``The task force does not believe that this 
general policy should change or that the liability for USPS retiree 
health benefits should be shifted to the taxpayers.''
  Mr. Speaker, I agree, to be clear, this bill moves taxpayers one step 
closer to a bailout of the USPS, and we should oppose this change on 
the taxpayers' behalf.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and distinguished 
chair of the Oversight and Reform Committee.
  Boy, what you just heard from my friend from North Carolina couldn't 
be further from the truth. This is not a taxpayer bailout. Quite the 
opposite. It is exactly what Mr. DeFazio, my friend from Oregon, 
described.
  This is righting a wrong Congress created in the dead of night in a 
lameduck session in 2006 in putting a burden on the Postal Service no 
other entity on the planet is required to meet. And we have an 
obligation, having created that problem, to fix it. That is what we are 
trying to do with this bill.
  It is not a panacea. That is why we are working on bipartisan 
legislation to have a comprehensive reform bill that will address a 
significant amount of time for the Postal Service to build a new 
business model.
  My friend, my other friend from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows)--I was 
referring to the other North Carolinian--has been working diligently 
with us on a bipartisan basis for many years to try to find just the 
right fix. I am looking forward to that bipartisan solution.

  But that doesn't mean we stop everything and fix nothing. This may 
not return the Postal Service to solvency, but it takes a liability off 
the books that is real, that hurts them, that makes it harder for them 
to recover and to figure out how to adjust to changes in technology and 
the marketplace, and that is why I support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to its passage on a bipartisan basis, and 
I hope that we will fold this bill, the concept of this bill, into a 
larger, more comprehensive bill. As the distinguished chairwoman said, 
we need a comprehensive approach to the Postal Service after we address 
and fix this problem that Congress created.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, and I 
want to highlight his work on this particular issue, and I agree with 
him that this, ultimately, will be part of what has to be dovetailed 
into anything we do to fix the Postal Service.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rodney Davis) in the spirit of letting my colleagues express their 
full-throated support of this bill.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my 
good friend, Mr. Meadows. We have been working on issues like this 
relating to the long-term solvency of our Postal Service for many 
years, and I look forward to standing on this floor with him in the 
near future when we come up with a good, comprehensive solution that 
addresses issues like this.
  I thank him for his leadership and his support of the Postal Service 
and the great postal workers who make up one of the greatest services 
that we have in our country.
  Unfortunately, the Postal Service today is forced to play by a 
different set of rules, and those are unfair. This bill corrects this 
by repealing the 2006 mandate that the Postal Service prefund future 
retiree health benefits.
  In 2006, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act mandated that 
the Postal Service prefund retiree health benefits decades in advance, 
something no other public or private enterprise is forced to do. Over 
the years, this mandate has caused severe cuts and damaged the Postal 
Service's ability to invest in even new delivery vehicles.
  I have always been a steadfast supporter of the Postal Service and 
its workers. In fact, after speaking to many of the postal unions in my 
district, like the Letter Carriers and the Rural Letter Carriers', I 
proudly cosponsored this piece of legislation.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue and other 
important pieces of legislature that impact our postal unions, such as 
opposing the privatization of the Postal Service and protecting the 6-
day delivery, door-to-door service, and our rural post offices.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to work together. We need to make sure that our 
Postal Service remains viable. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and 
I look forward to working with everyone in this institution in the 
future.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and 
I would also join him. We have got a number of great unions that I have 
had the privilege of getting to know over this time as we looked at 
comprehensive reform, and his acknowledging them and his willingness to 
look at something that actually solves the problem is to be applauded.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 
to

[[Page H813]]

the gentlewoman from the great State of Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2382. 
This legislation is a positive first step--and I emphasize first step--
to address a significantly more complex issue at hand: the financial 
solvency crisis plaguing the United States Postal Service.
  After a 30-year career in the Postal Service--and I think I am the 
only member of Congress who is actually a letter carrier--I come to 
Congress with the intention of helping USPS return to a strong 
financial standing through legislative reform.
  While decreased mail volume plays a role, there are other actions 
Congress must take to provide the Postal Service with the flexibility 
needed to reverse and mend the downward financial trend.
  For the last few years, I have worked with several colleagues on the 
Oversight Committee, including Representatives Connolly, Lynch, 
Meadows, and the late, amazing Chairman Elijah Cummings, to 
introduce comprehensive postal reform.

  As the House stands poised to pass H.R. 2382, I look forward to 
continuing to work with my colleagues on the committee to introduce a 
comprehensive postal reform package that will provide the Postal 
Service with the reform needed to help lessen the financial battle.
  I want to thank Chairwoman Maloney for her leadership on this issue, 
and I look forward to the continued work to build the Postal Service 
Fairness Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support H.R. 
2382, the USPS Fairness Act. I have led, with my colleagues, this 
important legislation that ends the unfair prefunding mandate for the 
Postal Service and also solves the most pressing financing problem 
facing our letter carriers and post offices across the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, the USPS is the only Government entity--the only one--
which is mandated to prefund its retirees' health benefits. 100 percent 
of the Postal Service's financial losses over the past 6 years--100 
percent--are directly due and linked to this requirement.
  This is an outdated policy which has forced the Postal Service into a 
horrible financial position, which has prevented it from investing in 
resources that would benefit all of our communities, no matter where we 
live.
  Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this legislation has widespread support from 
the National Association of Letter Carriers, the American Postal 
Workers Union, and the National Postal Mail Handlers Union.
  This bipartisan bill will restore USPS' financial health by shoring 
up that funding and ensuring that it has the resources to improve the 
Postal Service for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to support this legislation. This is the priority for our postal 
workers, in addition to 6-day delivery as well as door-to-door service. 
We have to get all three done for our postal workers, our letter 
carriers, and our post offices that serve all of our communities.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2382, the USPS 
Fairness Act.
  The United States Postal Service is an essential part of American 
life. It was established more than 231 years ago and has delivered on 
its promise every one of those years.
  Benjamin Franklin was the first Postmaster General in the United 
States. And they have--while I understand it is not an official slogan, 
I think we have all heard this: ``Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor 
gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their 
appointed mission.''
  So we know that with more than 100 billion pieces of mail delivered 
each year, and a 90 percent approval rating, that we must do all that 
we can to support them.
  Today, Members of Congress are taking the important step to help 
support over seven million U.S. postal workers across the country.
  Since 2006, U.S. postal employees have been forced to prefund retiree 
health benefits 75 years in advance, making them the only government 
agency that must prefund future employees that have not been born yet.
  This ridiculous law has caused the U.S. Postal Service to lose 
billions of dollars each year and has caused postal employees' 
uncertainty in their work. This cannot continue.
  So I agree with over 300 of my colleagues that we must reverse this 
absurd policy. The United States Postal Service Fairness Act will 
repeal the prefunding that is mandated and allow the United States 
Postal Service to return to its pay-as-you-go system as used before.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate all the points that my friends opposite are making. In 
fact, I have made some of the very same points when we talk about 
reform bills.
  The problem is, all the wonderful things that they are talking about 
in this bill do not exist. They are not making the payments. They 
haven't made a payment since 2010.
  So how does giving relief from a payment you are not making suddenly 
make the Postal Service viable? It doesn't.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Bost), who will give you an opposing view from our side.
  Mr. BOST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The United States Postal Service has a history as old as our Nation. 
Our Nation's Founders believed that it was so important that they put 
it in the Constitution and many people back home don't realize that. Of 
course, you know, that is the most quoted, least read document around 
here.
  The rural communities in southern Illinois and across our country 
depend on the Postal Service. It is often the only means for small 
businesses to engage in commerce, and for rural residents to receive 
packages.
  The Postal Service is facing many challenges, but it is taking 
several important steps to provide new services mandated by the modern 
economy. Unfortunately, it can't accomplish these reforms with one hand 
tied behind its back.
  The Postal Service is the only entity with this requirement. I doubt 
that any Federal agency would be able to meet its goals and obligations 
to citizens and taxpayers if they were likewise required to prefund 
their health benefits.
  The underlying legislation helps correct this. It does not impose 
additional costs on taxpayers, and it will help ensure the Postal 
Service can continue to serve our communities as it has since our 
Nation's founding.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on this bill. I feel very strongly about 
this.
  The United States Postal Service moves almost half the world's mail. 
It is the most popular Federal agency, highest ratings. And, in fact, 
if you look at the interaction that we have with postal workers, in my 
community and elsewhere, they are deeply beloved.
  I had a father-in-law who was a postal worker. In the holiday season 
he was burdened down with cookies and fruitcake and brandy that was 
given to him by the people on his route.
  What we have seen, unfortunately, since 2006, is part of an assault 
on the finest Postal Service in the world. You have heard it said 
before on the floor; this is the only--not just the only Federal 
agency, I don't think there is any entity in the United States that is 
required to prefund health benefits for people who haven't yet been 
born but might be employed 20, 30, 40 years from now. This is part of 
an effort on behalf of some who literally have a jihad against the U.S. 
Postal Service.
  I had a session in my community 2 weeks ago where we heard about a 
bizarre experiment on casing mail, taking that away from the letter 
carriers,

[[Page H814]]

and it has resulted in a serious disruption in our community by people 
who are disconnected from the actual service that is given.

  Postal jobs are the best jobs in many rural and small American towns. 
And there are some who feel, well, they are paid too much. They have 
too generous benefits or retirement. That is hogwash.
  They provide that foundation in much of rural and small-town America; 
a beloved service, a service that provides an essential connection for 
virtually the entire country, 6 days a week, and, in fact, if we get 
our act together, there is more benefit that can be provided.
  Get rid of this stupid prefunding and give them more flexibility 
about the services they can provide. Why aren't we using the U.S. 
Postal Service to help us with the census? These people know who lives 
in the neighborhood. Why are we hiring temporary employees?
  Why can't we use the Postal Service to deal with problems in the 
future, if we have an outbreak of an anthrax-sort of activity in terms 
of lethal threats. Use the Postal Service. Give them the flexibility to 
provide more service. Respect the men and women who work there, and 
stop this stupid effort to undercut the finest Postal Service in the 
world.
  I appreciate the committee bringing this legislation forward. I 
appreciate the bipartisan support, and maybe it is time we get our act 
straight to help them fulfill their full potential.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do need to correct a few things that the gentleman from Oregon just 
addressed. This is not--support or being against this bill is not an 
attack on the Postal Service.
  I mean, there is no one who has invested more time--I can promise 
you, when I came to Congress, fixing the Postal Service was not on my 
bucket list. And as we have invested time, and I see my good friend, 
Mr. Lynch, my good friend, Mr. Connolly, let me just tell you, we have 
invested days, if not weeks and months, to try to address this.
  But the gentleman from Oregon is just not correct. This particular 
bill, while it may be part of a solution, gives them no flexibility. It 
gives them no additional cash flow. They are still going to go out of 
business if we do not come together and get something worked out for 
all of us to make sure that, not only do we have a postal system that 
works, but one that is not a mere shadow of its former self.
  I will say this: I want to make sure that my postal unions and all of 
those that are watching very intently, you have made an impact on this 
Member from North Carolina.
  Mr. Speaker, they have let me know exactly how important this is. And 
yet, at the same time, I am afraid I cannot support this bill because 
it does not do what we need it to do, and that is, address the problem 
today. This just kicks the can down the road. And unfortunately, it 
doesn't even kick it down the road long enough to allow the postal 
workers to depend on the very system that employs them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), my good friend and 
colleague.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her kindness and 
the courtesy afforded to me.
  I do want to say that, like some other Members in this Chamber, I 
think at one count, I had 17 of my relatives, including my mom, several 
of her sisters, two of my sisters, my brother-in-law, all my cousins, 
who worked for the United States Postal Service, sort of the family 
business.
  And I do thank the gentleman from North Carolina. We spent, you know, 
days, if not weeks, if not months, arguing over the contours of this 
legislation.
  I want to thank Mr. DeFazio. And I rise in strong support of his 
bill.
  I also thank my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) for his work 
on this as well. And our dear colleague, Elijah Cummings, who worked on 
this, put his heart and soul into finding a solution.
  Look, I do agree with the gentleman from North Carolina's comments, 
that this does not solve everything. It does not. But it is an 
important element of a bill that we, Republicans and Democrats, passed 
out of committee unanimously, without any dissent in a previous 
session. So it is a very important element of what we are trying to do.
  There is no dispute with the gentleman from Oregon's earlier remarks 
that we don't ask any other group within government to fund their 
retiree health benefits this way. This was an idea that, I think, came 
out of a time when, before email and before the use of social media, 
the volume of mail within the Postal Service being delivered every 
single day, could sustain the current configuration of retiree health 
benefits.
  Those days are long gone, and we have to figure out a way that will 
keep the Postal Service viable going forward.
  This does not solve everything but, boy, I will tell you, this solves 
a lot. It buys us time to craft those other pieces that need to come 
together as well.
  So I would argue that we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy 
of the good. This is a solid change here.
  This is something that I think people need to understand that what we 
are requiring of the Postal Service right now is that, when a new 
employee comes into the Postal Service, we have to set aside the money, 
on day one, for their eventual retirement; while every other collective 
bargaining agreement and pension system periodically reassesses what 
the demands are as that person gets closer to retirement. That is the 
critical time to know whether or not there are sufficient resources and 
a guarantee that certain resources are there for that person to enjoy 
the retirement and the benefits and the health benefits that they have 
earned.
  So I just ask my colleagues to vote in support of this bill. I 
support Mr. DeFazio's bill wholeheartedly, and I thank the Speaker for 
his courtesy.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I know that everybody is tuned in in their offices, paying attention 
to this unbelievable debate, and so for all of you that are tuned in on 
C-SPAN, and as we debate this, I think it is important that I share a 
couple of sentences from the U.S. Postal Service. So it is not from my 
colleagues opposite. It is not from my point of view; but this is what 
they have to say about this bill: ``It would neither reduce the 
underlying RHB liability nor improve our cash flow or our long-term 
financial position. It would not impact the liquidity crisis that we 
have.''
  These are not my words, Mr. Speaker. These are the words of those 
that are closest to the financial responsibility, the Postal Service 
themselves.
  So if the gentlewoman is prepared to close, I will just recommend to 
my colleagues a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are further reminded to address 
their remarks to the Chair, not to a perceived viewing audience.

                              {time}  1545

  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of 
H.R. 2382, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2382, the 
U.S.P.S. Fairness Act, introduced by my colleague, Representative Peter 
DeFazio of Oregon.
  I'd like to commend Mr. DeFazio and the other bipartisan sponsors of 
this bill--Mr. Reed of New York, Ms. Torres-Small of New Mexico, and 
Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania--for their leadership in addressing the 
serious fiscal challenges facing the United States Postal Service. I'd 
also like to recognize the relentless and united effort on the part of 
our postal employee unions, management associations, and other 
stakeholders to advance this commonsense legislation.
  With the support of over 300 bipartisan cosponsors, the U.S.P.S. 
Fairness Act would repeal a misguided provision in current law 
requiring the postal service to fully fund its health care costs for 
future postal retirees decades before it is necessary--that's an annual 
average cost of over $5.5 billion dollars. This is a requirement that 
federal law does not impose on any other government agency--especially 
one that receives zero tax dollars and instead relies on the revenue 
generated by its own stamps, products, and services to fund its 
operations. It is no surprise that the postal service has not been able 
to make these exorbitant annual payments since 2011.

[[Page H815]]

  The elimination of the so-called ``pre-funding mandate'' is a 
sensible first step towards improving the financial viability of the 
postal service. This bipartisan bill should also guide our approach to 
developing comprehensive postal reform legislation going forward. In 
stark contrast to the more partisan and sweeping reform proposals that 
have been presented to our committee in recent years, H.R. 2382 will 
immediately place the postal service on more sound financial footing 
while preserving its core public service mission to ``provide postal 
services to bind the nation together through the correspondence of the 
people.''
  And contrary to the degradation of postal delivery services, or the 
wholesale privatization of the postal service itself, H.R. 2382 is the 
end product of bipartisan cooperation and the subject of broad 
consensus among our diverse postal stakeholders. As we develop 
additional postal reform legislation, it is imperative that we continue 
to identify fundamental and practical areas of agreement.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2382.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________