[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8793-8801]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   POSTAL CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM FUNDING REFORM ACT OF 2003

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the 
House of April 7, 2003, I call up the Senate bill (S. 380) to amend 
chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, to reform the funding of 
benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System for employees of the 
United States Postal Service, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of April 
7, 2003, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of S. 380 is as follows:

                                 S. 380

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Postal Civil Service 
     Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 8331 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (17)--
       (A) by striking `` `normal cost' '' and inserting `` 
     `normal-cost percentage' ''; and
       (B) by inserting ``and standards (using dynamic 
     assumptions)'' after ``practice'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (18) to read as follows:
       ``(18) `Fund balance' means the current net assets of the 
     Fund available for payment of benefits, as determined by the 
     Office in accordance with appropriate accounting standards, 
     but does not include any amount attributable to--
       ``(A) the Federal Employees' Retirement System; or
       ``(B) contributions made under the Federal Employees' 
     Retirement Contribution Temporary Adjustment Act of 1983 by 
     or on behalf of any individual who became subject to the 
     Federal Employees' Retirement System;''; and
       (3) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (27), by 
     striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and 
     inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the end the following:
       ``(29) `dynamic assumptions' means economic assumptions 
     that are used in determining actuarial costs and liabilities 
     of a retirement system and in anticipating the effects of 
     long-term future--
       ``(A) investment yields;
       ``(B) increases in rates of basic pay; and
       ``(C) rates of price inflation.''.
       (b) Deductions and Contributions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 8334(a)(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)(1)(A)'';
       (B) by designating the matter following the first sentence 
     as subparagraph (B)(i) and aligning the text accordingly;
       (C) in subparagraph (B)(i) (as so designated by 
     subparagraph (B)), by striking ``An equal'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in clause (ii), an equal''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) In the case of an employee of the United States 
     Postal Service, the amount to be contributed under this 
     subparagraph shall (instead of the amount described in clause 
     (i)) be equal to the product derived by multiplying the 
     employee's basic pay by the percentage equal to--
       ``(I) the normal-cost percentage for the applicable 
     employee category listed in subparagraph (A), minus
       ``(II) the percentage deduction rate that applies with 
     respect to such employee under subparagraph (A).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 8334(k) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``the first sentence 
     of subsection (a)(1) of this section'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)(1)(A)'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) by striking ``the second sentence of subsection (a)(1) 
     of this section'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) of 
     subsection (a)(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``such sentence'' and inserting ``such 
     subparagraph''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2)(C)(iii), by striking ``the first 
     sentence of subsection (a)(1)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (a)(1)(A)''.
       (c) Postal Supplemental Liability.--Subsection (h) of 
     section 8348 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(h)(1)(A) For purposes of this subsection, `Postal 
     supplemental liability' means the estimated excess, as 
     determined by the Office, of--
       ``(i) the actuarial present value of all future benefits 
     payable from the Fund under this subchapter attributable to 
     the service of current or former employees of the United 
     States Postal Service, over
       ``(ii) the sum of--
       ``(I) the actuarial present value of deductions to be 
     withheld from the future basic pay of employees of the United 
     States Postal Service currently subject to this subchapter 
     pursuant to section 8334;
       ``(II) the actuarial present value of the future 
     contributions to be made pursuant to section 8334 with 
     respect to employees of the United States Postal Service 
     currently subject to this subchapter;
       ``(III) that portion of the Fund balance, as of the date 
     the Postal supplemental liability is determined, attributable 
     to payments to the Fund by the United States Postal Service 
     and its employees, including earnings on those payments; and
       ``(IV) any other appropriate amount, as determined by the 
     Office in accordance with generally accepted actuarial 
     practices and principles.
       ``(B)(i) In computing the actuarial present value of future 
     benefits, the Office shall include the full value of benefits 
     attributable to military and volunteer service for United 
     States Postal Service employees first employed after June 30, 
     1971, and a prorated share of the value of benefits 
     attributable to military and volunteer service for United 
     States Postal Service employees first employed before July 1, 
     1971.
       ``(ii) Military service so included shall not be included 
     in the computation of any amount under subsection (g)(2).
       ``(2)(A) Not later than June 30, 2004, the Office shall 
     determine the Postal supplemental liability as of September 
     30, 2003. The Office shall establish an amortization 
     schedule, including a series of equal annual installments 
     commencing September 30, 2004, which provides for the 
     liquidation of such liability by September 30, 2043.
       ``(B) The Office shall redetermine the Postal supplemental 
     liability as of the close of the fiscal year, for each fiscal 
     year beginning after September 30, 2003, through the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2038, and shall establish a new 
     amortization schedule, including a series of equal annual 
     installments commencing on September 30 of the subsequent 
     fiscal year, which provides for the liquidation of such 
     liability by September 30, 2043.
       ``(C) The Office shall redetermine the Postal supplemental 
     liability as of the close of the fiscal year for each fiscal 
     year beginning after September 30, 2038, and shall establish 
     a new amortization schedule, including a series of equal 
     annual installments commencing on September 30 of the 
     subsequent fiscal year, which provides for the liquidation of 
     such liability over 5 years.
       ``(D) Amortization schedules established under this 
     paragraph shall be set in accordance with generally accepted 
     actuarial practices and principles, with interest computed at 
     the rate used in the most recent dynamic actuarial valuation 
     of the Civil Service Retirement System.
       ``(E) The United States Postal Service shall pay the 
     amounts so determined to the Office, with payments due not 
     later than the date scheduled by the Office.
       ``(F) An amortization schedule established under 
     subparagraph (B) or (C) shall supersede any amortization 
     schedule previously established under this paragraph.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     computing the amount of any payment under any other 
     subsection of this section that is based upon the amount of 
     the

[[Page 8794]]

     unfunded liability, such payment shall be computed 
     disregarding that portion of the unfunded liability that the 
     Office determines will be liquidated by payments under this 
     subsection.
       ``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, any determination or redetermination made by the 
     Office under this subsection shall, upon request of the 
     Postal Service, be subject to reconsideration and review 
     (including adjustment by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil 
     Service Retirement System) to the same extent and in the same 
     manner as provided under section 8423(c).''.
       (d) Repeals.--
       (1) In general.--The following provisions of law are 
     repealed:
       (A) Subsection (m) of section 8348 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (B) Subsection (c) of section 7101 of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 8348 note).
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be considered to affect any payments made before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act under either of the provisions of 
     law repealed by paragraph (1).
       (e) Military Service Proposals.--
       (1) Proposals.--The United States Postal Service, the 
     Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Personnel 
     Management shall, by September 30, 2003, each prepare and 
     submit to the President, the Congress, and the General 
     Accounting Office proposals detailing whether and to what 
     extent the Department of the Treasury or the Postal Service 
     should be responsible for the funding of benefits 
     attributable to the military service of current and former 
     employees of the Postal Service that, prior to the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, were provided for under section 
     8348(g)(2) of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) GAO review and report.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the Postal Service, the Department of the Treasury, and the 
     Office of Personnel Management have submitted their proposals 
     under paragraph (1), the General Accounting Office shall 
     prepare and submit a written evaluation of each such proposal 
     to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate.

     SEC. 3. DISPOSITION OF SAVINGS ACCRUING TO THE UNITED STATES 
                   POSTAL SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Savings accruing to the United States 
     Postal Service as a result of the enactment of this Act--
       (1) shall, to the extent that such savings are attributable 
     to fiscal year 2003 or 2004, be used to reduce the postal 
     debt (in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury), 
     and the Postal Service shall not incur additional debt to 
     offset the use of the savings to reduce the postal debt in 
     fiscal years 2003 and 2004;
       (2) shall, to the extent that such savings are attributable 
     to fiscal year 2005, be used to continue holding postage 
     rates unchanged and to reduce the postal debt, to such extent 
     and in such manner as the Postal Service shall specify (in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury); and
       (3) to the extent that such savings are attributable to any 
     fiscal year after fiscal year 2005, shall be considered to be 
     operating expenses of the Postal Service and, until otherwise 
     provided for by law, shall be held in escrow and may not be 
     obligated or expended.
       (b) Amounts Saved.--
       (1) In general.--The amounts representing any savings 
     accruing to the Postal Service in any fiscal year as a result 
     of the enactment of this Act shall be computed by the Office 
     of Personnel Management for each such fiscal year in 
     accordance with paragraph (2).
       (2) Methodology.--Not later than July 31, 2003, the Office 
     of Personnel Management shall--
       (A) formulate a plan specifically enumerating the actuarial 
     methods and assumptions by which the Office shall make its 
     computations under paragraph (1); and
       (B) submit such plan to the Committee on Government Reform 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
       (3) Requirements.--The plan shall be formulated in 
     consultation with the Postal Service and shall include the 
     opportunity for the Postal Service to request reconsideration 
     of computations under this subsection, and for the Board of 
     Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement System to review 
     and make adjustments to such computations, to the same extent 
     and in the same manner as provided under section 8423(c) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Reporting Requirement.--The Postal Service shall 
     include in each report rendered under section 2402 of title 
     39, United States Code, the amount applied toward reducing 
     the postal debt, and the size of the postal debt before and 
     after the application of subsection (a), during the period 
     covered by such report.
       (d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that--
       (1) the savings accruing to the Postal Service as a result 
     of the enactment of this Act will be sufficient to allow the 
     Postal Service to fulfill its commitment to hold postage 
     rates unchanged until at least 2006;
       (2) because the Postal Service still faces substantial 
     obligations related to postretirement health benefits for its 
     current and former employees, some portion of the savings 
     referred to in paragraph (1) should be used to address those 
     unfunded obligations; and
       (3) none of the savings referred to in paragraph (1) should 
     be used in the computation of any bonuses for Postal Service 
     executives.
       (e) Postal Service Proposal.--
       (1) In general.--The United States Postal Service shall, by 
     September 30, 2003, prepare and submit to the President, the 
     Congress, and the General Accounting Office its proposal 
     detailing how any savings accruing to the Postal Service as a 
     result of the enactment of this Act, which are attributable 
     to any fiscal year after fiscal year 2005, should be 
     expended.
       (2) Matters to consider.--In preparing its proposal under 
     this subsection, the Postal Service shall consider--
       (A) whether, and to what extent, those future savings 
     should be used to address--
       (i) debt repayment;
       (ii) prefunding of postretirement healthcare benefits for 
     current and former postal employees;
       (iii) productivity and cost saving capital investments;
       (iv) delaying or moderating increases in postal rates; and
       (v) any other matter; and
       (B) the work of the President's Commission on the United 
     States Postal Service under section 5 of Executive Order 
     13278 (67 Fed. Reg. 76672).
       (3) GAO review and report.--Not later than 60 days after 
     the Postal Service submits its proposal pursuant to paragraph 
     (1), the General Accounting Office shall prepare and submit a 
     written evaluation of such proposal to the Committee on 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
       (4) Legislative action.--Not later than 180 days after it 
     has received both the proposal of the Postal Service and the 
     evaluation of such proposal by the General Accounting Office 
     under this subsection, Congress shall revisit the question of 
     how the savings accruing to the Postal Service as a result of 
     the enactment of this Act should be used.
       (f) Determination and Disposition of Surplus.--
       (1) In general.--If, as of the date under paragraph (2), 
     the Office of Personnel Management determines (after 
     consultation with the Postmaster General) that the 
     computation under section 8348(h)(1)(A) of title 5, United 
     States Code, yields a negative amount (hereinafter referred 
     to as a ``surplus'')--
       (A) the Office shall inform the Postmaster General of its 
     determination, including the size of the surplus so 
     determined; and
       (B) the Postmaster General shall submit to the Congress a 
     report describing how the Postal Service proposes that such 
     surplus be used, including a draft of any legislation that 
     might be necessary.
       (2) Determination date.--The date to be used for purposes 
     of paragraph (1) shall be September 30, 2025, or such earlier 
     date as, in the judgment of the Office, is the date by which 
     all postal employees under the Civil Service Retirement 
     System will have retired.
       (g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       (1) the savings accruing to the Postal Service as a result 
     of the enactment of this Act shall, for any fiscal year, be 
     equal to the amount (if any) by which--
       (A) the contributions that the Postal Service would 
     otherwise have been required to make to the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund for such fiscal year if this 
     Act had not been enacted, exceed
       (B) the contributions made by the Postal Service to such 
     Fund for such fiscal year; and
       (2) the term ``postal debt'' means the outstanding 
     obligations of the Postal Service, as determined under 
     chapter 20 of title 39, United States Code.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become 
     effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, except 
     that the amendments made by section 2(b) shall apply with 
     respect to pay periods beginning on or after such date.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider the amendment printed in the Congressional 
Record, if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), or 
his designee, which shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 10 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a 
division of the question.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the 
bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

[[Page 8795]]




                             General Leave

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks on the Senate bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 380, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System 
Funding Reform Act of 2003, is a bipartisan bill in the Senate. Its 
House counterpart is sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis), myself and others. It reforms the way the Postal 
Service funds its obligations to the Civil Service Retirement System. 
It prevents the Postal Service from overfunding its obligations to CSRS 
and postpones a rate increase for the American people and postal 
ratepayers.
  Last year the Office of Personnel Management, at the request of GAO, 
reviewed the status of the Postal Service's funding of its CSRS 
benefits. OPM found that based on payments currently required by law, 
the Postal Service would overfund its CSRS benefits by more than $70 
billion. OPM proposed a legislative solution modeling the Postal 
Service's payments to CSRS after its payments to the current Federal 
Employee Retirement System. This would result in a reduction in the 
Postal Service's annual obligation to CSRS, allowing the Postal Service 
to delay its next rate increase beyond 2004 to at least fiscal year 
2006.
  The bill we are considering today, S. 380, differs from OPM's 
proposal in that it places tight restrictions on how the Postal Service 
uses the savings. The bill requires the Postal Service to work with the 
Department of the Treasury to apply the funds saved to pay down its 
debt to Treasury in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 and directs the Postal 
Service to use the savings in 2005 to delay an anticipated rate 
increase. Subsequently, the Postal Service and OPM are to calculate the 
difference between the cost to fund CSRS under the bill and under the 
current law.
  The Postal Service will develop a proposal for the use of the funds. 
Without congressional action on the Postal Service proposal, the funds 
would be placed in escrow.
  This legislation will also require the Postal Service to fund the 
portion of retirement benefits attributable to the prior military 
service of postal employees which, again, models the Postal Service's 
payments to CSRS after the current Federal Employee Retirement System, 
or FERS.
  I think this is an issue that demands further study because no other 
agency in the Federal Government that I am aware of funds its CSRS 
military obligations within the department. It may ultimately be unfair 
to make postal customers and ratepayers fund military retirement 
benefits.
  Working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), my ranking 
member, I prepared an amendment to the House version of the bill, H.R. 
735, requiring the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Personnel 
Management, and the Postal Service to develop proposals on this issue. 
So this is an issue that will be revisited.
  The Committee on Government Reform and the Senate Committee on 
Government Affairs will look at those proposals and revisit the issue. 
This amendment was incorporated in S. 380, so we do not need to offer 
it today. I also understand the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
will be offering and withdrawing an amendment on this subject in a few 
moments in order to further highlight its importance, and I thank and 
congratulate him for his leadership in highlighting this issue and 
pledge to him that we will continue to work on this; and this is, in my 
judgment, not the end of the matter.
  Many people do not know this, but the Postal industry, including 
ancillary businesses, represents approximately 9 percent of the gross 
domestic product, the GDP. The industry has been hit hard in the last 
several years, first by the economic slowdown and then by events of 
September 11, 2001 and subsequent anthrax attacks. During this same 
period, postal rates increased three times within 18 months. The Postal 
industry needs relief.
  The Postal Service will be able to hold off on a rate increase if 
this legislation passes. This gives money back to the Postal customer 
and allows us all to hold on to our 37-cent stamps for 2 more years. It 
also stabilizes the Postal Service financially, securing the jobs of 
nearly 9 million people in the postal industry.
  Postal consumers have implored us to address this problem before it 
is too late. The United States Postal Service, all four postal unions, 
the postal management associations, and a very broad coalition of 
postal customers support this bill. I hope that we can pass it 
expeditiously and put off the next rate increase until at least 2006.
  Mr. Speaker I urge adoption of S. 380.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time that I may consume.
  I rise in support of the legislation before us. As the ranking member 
of the Committee on Government Reform, I support this bill, S. 380, and 
before I begin my remarks on the bill, I would like to commend my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. McHugh) for the time and effort they have spent in refining this 
proposal. The bill in S. 380, is identical to the version of the bill 
we reported out of committee with the exception of a provision 
requiring a new study on military pensions that I worked out with the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis). This is a very positive 
bipartisan start for our committee.
  I would also like to commend our Senate colleagues, Senators Susan 
Collins and Joseph Lieberman, for their work on this issue.
  The bill we are considering today corrects the calculation of the 
Postal Service's contributions to its pension fund and provides 
immediate and needed financial relief to the Postal Service. The 
legislation would credit the Postal Service for the real value of Civil 
Service Retirement System contributions it made in the past and change 
how contributions will be computed in the future. Under S. 380, the 
Postal Service will save $9 billion over the next 3 years and $36 
billion over the next 10 years. S. 380 divides the money saved by the 
Postal Service into two parts. For the savings received in fiscal years 
2003, 2004, and 2005, the bill provides that the Postal Service will 
use the money to pay down the debt and hold postage rates stable. This 
will allow the Postmaster General to keep his commitment to hold off on 
any rate increases through the year 2006.
  For fiscal years beyond 2005, the bill requires the Postal Service to 
submit to Congress a plan for using the savings. This plan must then be 
reviewed by the General Accounting Office and approved or modified by 
Congress. The planning provisions contained in the bill provide an 
opportunity for Congress to review how the Postal Service will use the 
savings to address a number of long-term challenges facing the service 
such as its debt load, underfunded capital projects, and unfunded 
liabilities for post-retirement health care.
  This legislation is being acted upon quickly because without it, the 
Postal Service faces an increasing financial crisis. In fact, the 
Postmaster General and the Postal Board of Governors have indicated 
that in the absence of such a change, the Postal Service will be forced 
to apply for a rate increase later this year.
  S. 380 has broad support among the postal community and it deserves 
our passage today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) who has been the former chairman 
of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service and one of the real experts 
on this issue to address this issue and put his stamp of approval.

[[Page 8796]]


  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The puns notwithstanding, I deeply appreciate his very kind comments, 
and, Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this chance in the next 5 minutes 
to add my words of great appreciation and approval to I think a very 
important piece of legislation and certainly one that I hope bodes well 
for the future, because we have before us here today a bipartisan 
agreement, as the ranking member so correctly stated, one that sets and 
bodes very well a brighter future for this full committee, and, I am 
hopeful, as someone who has had the honor and opportunity to delve into 
postal issues over the past several years, a fine start to continued 
bipartisan cooperation in terms of our continuing efforts to modernize 
the Postal Service in even broader measures. And I, too, deeply 
appreciate the great leadership, the very hard work of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the standing committee; 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member; and my 
long partner in these postal issues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis) for their very concerted effort to bring this very necessary 
and, as the ranking member and the chairman both said, very timely 
piece of legislation to the floor at this moment.
  Both the chairman and the ranking member, I think, have struck on the 
major points of importance here, very eloquently and very 
appropriately. But let me just highlight for a moment the very critical 
nature of what we are doing. Certainly to the Postal Service's future 
viability, its ability, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
said, to dedicate these savings that will accrue from what I hope the 
House is about to do here today toward all of those issues to ensure 
even better mail delivery service, to ensure their continued viability, 
to say to those some 800,000 dedicated Postal employees that we 
understand the great challenges that they face, that where the 
opportunities present themselves we are not just willing, but here 
through this bill apparently able to assist in that very worthy effort.
  But this is an important piece of economic development legislation as 
well, Mr. Speaker. Just as way of illustration, the Postal Service, the 
entire postal delivery sector today represents some $635 billion 
annually in direct economic activity in the production of mail and 
delivery services. Mail advertising alone generates some $725 billion 
in economic activity each and every year. And the parcels handled by 
the Postal industry, including all postal and parcel carriers, have a 
value exceeding $850 billion.
  A lot of us spend a lot of time, understandably and rightfully so, 
delving into the issue of what we can do to stimulate this economy, and 
this bill today in supporting those significant segments of our 
economic activity and our economic sector certainly would go a long way 
towards boosting the economic activities of this Nation as a whole into 
the future, and they certainly speak of the absolutely essential nature 
of this bill, S. 380. And my compliments to Ms. Collins and to Mr. 
Lieberman, our colleagues in the Senate, for their leadership and their 
great work.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said it, and he is 
absolutely right. Time is of the essence. Without this initiative it is 
likely, in fact absolutely certain, the Postal Service would be forced 
to impose a potential rate increase in postage rates within a matter of 
weeks, and through this action we can forestall that, as has been said 
here repeatedly on the floor, until at least the fiscal year 2006 to 
help the Postal Service expand its declining mail volumes, to help it 
become even more viable into the future.
  And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and others have 
said, rarely do we have a chance on this floor to support a piece of 
legislation so uniformly supported by all the affected parties. The 
Postal Service, the administration, the postal unions, the very vital 
mail industry throughout this Nation all see this as the proper thing 
to do.

                              {time}  1630

  I want to just say for the record, I understand and in large measure 
support what both the ranking member and the chairman have said with 
respect to the treatment of military pay. I think we do have to take a 
look at that.
  I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for not clouding 
the issue at this particular moment, but there are others who have 
differing opinions, and I think we need to have a full discussion on 
that. So I urge the full support of the House on this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the ranking 
Democrat on the Postal Task Force of the Committee on Government 
Reform.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Government Reform's Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight, I 
rise in support of S. 380, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System 
Funding Reform Act of 2003. As an original cosponsor of the House 
version, H.R. 735, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the 
consideration of S. 380, legislation which will correct the way 
payments are made to the Civil Service Retirement System.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank especially the chairman of 
this committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for their 
ability to come together in a unified, bipartisan way, to reach 
agreement and bring to the floor this legislation in a very timely 
manner.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who 
has provided leadership on postal issues for a number of years, and all 
of their staffs, as well as my staff, for the enormous time and effort 
spent in crafting H.R. 735.
  I am particularly proud of the fact that we have worked together in a 
productive, constructive, and bipartisan manner. We have begun the 
108th Congress on a very positive note, and we look forward to the 
continuation of that in our committee.
  I would also like to thank the Senate for striking their language and 
substituting the language from our bill, H.R. 735, and including the 
military study language of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Since the introduction of the House postal pension bill and 
throughout the committee's markup process, I received hundreds of 
letters from members of the business mailing community expressing 
support of the legislation and urging quick action. I was pleased to 
have been contacted by so many businesses in the Chicago area and 
within the State of Illinois.
  In the face of a depressing economy and a swift and steady decline in 
mail volume, businesses and consumers are in no mood for postage rate 
increases. To that end, I am pleased that the bill before us not only 
corrects the calculation of the postal service's contributions to the 
CSRS fund, it will also allow the postal service to hold off on rate 
increases for at least 2 years, while allowing the postal service to 
reduce its $11.9 billion debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for 
this important legislation. Although this is a good bill, it is not a 
perfect bill. At the appropriate time, I certainly expect to express 
support for the military amendment of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman), an amendment which would retain current law with respect 
to Treasury paying the costs related to the military service of 
employees in the Civil Service Retirement System.
  Practically all of the postal service's stakeholders are in support 
of this legislation: printers, mailers, the unions, and the consuming 
public. It is a good bill. I urge its passage.
  Again, I commend the chairman and ranking member for their 
leadership.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the former chairman of the full 
committee and a leader in postal reform.

[[Page 8797]]


  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  I agree with what my colleague with the great voice, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Davis), just said; and I rise in support of the 
Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003. I 
commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) on our side of 
the aisle for guiding this bill through this legislative body at this 
time.
  It is very important that we have a strong and viable postal service, 
and that is why during the last Congress I was disappointed when we did 
not pass the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. McHugh) and others worked very hard on that 
legislation, and it would have helped a great deal.
  As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) just said a few 
minutes ago, there are a lot of problems with the postal service that 
need to be addressed, but this is a very important one; and that is why 
I am happy to see this bill before us today.
  Why is immediate action needed? Because, if we do not do anything, 
that simply is not an option. If Congress does not correct the 
retirement benefit formula in current law, postal rates will probably 
increase in the not-too-distant future, and everybody who deals with 
the postal service and has businesses understands how important that 
is. Such an increase in postal rates in the current economic 
environment threatens the postal service, its employees and the entire 
country, as well as the mailing industry.
  Congress has a duty to ensure that the U.S. Postal Service is on a 
sound fiscal footing and to protect the American postal customers from 
unstable rates. Changing the way the U.S. Postal Service retirement 
payments are made is going to go a long way toward accomplishing that 
goal. Without this change, businesses throughout the country will 
continue to be unfairly taxed by having postal rate increases.
  This bill is very, very needed and will ensure stable postal rates 
into the foreseeable future, and I think will help facilitate an 
economic recovery in many sectors of the economy.
  Once again I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom 
Davis) for his hard work on this. He is doing a great job as a new 
chairman, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), a very important 
member of our committee.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Tom Davis) and certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for their fine work on this bill.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) has worked tirelessly on 
postal issues for several years. S. 380 contains the same language as 
H.R. 735. As such, I am pleased to support S. 380, a bill that goes a 
long way to ensure the viability of the postal service.
  This bill provides financial relief to the postal service by reducing 
the amount that the postal service has to pay into the Civil Service 
Retirement System. The postal service will save $9.1 billion over the 
next 3 years and $35.6 billion over the next 10 years.
  I am also pleased that S. 380 contains language that calls on the 
postal service and other Federal agencies to study the military 
pensions and report back to the Congress. Currently, the postal service 
is paying billions of dollars more into CSRS each year than is needed 
to fully fund its pension obligations. The Office of Personnel and 
Management determined that by changing the funding formula the postal 
service could reduce the amount of money needed to pay into the fund. 
The funding formula would be more like the one used in the Federal 
Employees Retirement System.
  This bill requires the postal service to work with the Treasury 
Department, applying the saved funding to pay down its debt in the 
first 2 years. In fiscal year 2005, the bill allows for the money saved 
to be used to keep postal rates stable through 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill enjoys broad support from the postal service, 
postal labor unions, mailing industry representatives, and postal 
consumers. Passage of this legislation will ensure that the postal 
service pays down its debts and will forestall the need for another 
postage rate increase until 2006. This legislation strengthens the 
postal service, lowers the postal service's debts, and protects postal 
consumers. I urge all of my friends in the Congress to vote in favor of 
S. 380.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member on the 
Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 380, 
which contains the same language as H.R. 735. This legislation, as has 
been said earlier, is critically important to our Nation's economy, 
especially in these uncertain times.
  S. 380 is good for the American consumers because it means that we 
will be able to hold the line on postal rate increases for at least 2 
more years. It also relieves pressure on those who rely heavily on the 
postal service to deliver their products, allowing them to reinvest 
that savings into their local communities and provide more jobs. Most 
importantly, by freezing rates for 2 years, the postal service and its 
customers are afforded great stability in their mailing and long-term 
planning budgets.
  As has been said earlier, this involved the support of all of the 
postal service customers, the unions, the administration; and it 
involved a great deal of compromise for those folks to come on board, 
setting the tone for long-term structural reform of the postal service.
  The bill buys everyone valuable time to develop a comprehensive long-
term solution to the post office's solvency, while avoiding the 
temptation to micromanage post offices.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. McHugh), a congressional leader on postal issues, and my 
chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), for his hard 
work bringing the bill so swiftly to the floor. The gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) has demonstrated his leadership in 
legislative capabilities as chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform in a very short period of time, and I appreciate his work on 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue and so many 
others, and, of course, thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis) and subcommittee minority member, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Davis), for their work on this important bill.
  I rise in strong support of S. 380, the Postal Civil Service 
Retirement System Funding Program. As a member of the Committee on 
Government Reform's Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight and a 
cosponsor of H.R. 735, the House companion, I am very pleased that the 
House is taking up this very important legislation today that is 
important to the postal service and important to the American consumer.
  With the postal service facing $11 billion in debt over the next few 
years and the General Accounting Office listing the postal service on 
their high-risk list, S. 380 and its stabilizing effects on the postal 
service is very good news for our country.
  S. 380 corrects the formula used to determine the amount of annual 
lump-sum payments the postal service makes to the Civil Service 
Retirement System. If current law remains unchanged, the postal 
service-required share of this Federal Government retirement fund will 
result in a very significant long-term overpayment of more than $70 
billion.

[[Page 8798]]

  S. 380 will credit the postal service for its past payments, which is 
only fair, to seed SRS, and change how contributions will be made in 
the future. The bottom line is that the postal service will get some 
very needed fiscal relief, a cash inflow of money, and the American 
people get a promise of stable postal rates until 2006. The American 
public and all postal customers will enjoy a 3-year rate freeze on the 
cost of postage because of this fix.
  I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh), along with others, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) 
and, of course, the chairman and ranking member, as well as the postal 
service and the very diverse coalition of postal, labor unions, 
management groups, business and industry and other postal consumers, 
all of whom support this legislation.
  The mailing industry is tremendously important to the economy of our 
Nation. The United States Postal Service is the second largest civilian 
employer in the Nation, employing over 770,000 talented and dedicated 
workers, workers who lately have had to do their job under tremendous 
pressure with the threat of anthrax attacks and terrorist attacks.

                              {time}  1645

  The mail industry is 8 percent of our GNP, a $900 billion industry 
that includes not only the Postal Service, but also 9 million Americans 
in the private sector who work in this industry. I represent many 
businesses that rely greatly on the Postal Service, and this bill will 
not only benefit the Postal Service directly, but because this will 
stabilize the rates, and this is very important, because it will help 
struggling and ailing businesses like the magazine industry, which 
happens to be headquartered in the district that I represent. And they 
have seen many longtime popular magazines fail, like Mademoiselle, 
Mode, and Brill's Content shut down operations because of the tough 
economy and also because of the escalating postal rates. All USPS 
customers need the best service possible from the Postal Service, and 
certainly a healthy Postal Service is vital to a healthy economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the House is taking action today 
to help strengthen the Postal Service.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Macomb County, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  The Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003 
is a very, very long name, but appropriately so, because it addresses 
reform that is certainly very long overdue. The Postal Service, in 
fact, has not seen any real reform since 1971 when the Congress passed 
the Postal Reorganization Act. Since then, of course, the Postal 
Service has dramatically expanded.
  Consider some rather startling numbers. Today, the mailing industry 
accounts for 9 million jobs, $900 billion in commerce, and 9 percent of 
the United States gross domestic product. S. 380, as approved by the 
Senate, is really nearly identical to H.R. 735 which was passed by the 
Committee on Government Reform under the extraordinary leadership of 
our great chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  The purpose of this legislation is to change the manner in which the 
Postal Service pays into the Civil Service Retirement System.
  This legislation is so very necessary because under current law, the 
Postal Service will overpay its obligations to the Civil Service 
Retirement System by more than $70 billion. In effect, the Postal 
Service would be forced to subsidize the retirement obligations of 
other Federal agencies.
  The net result is that the Postal Service has to continually 
implement rate increases which would otherwise be unnecessary.
  S. 380 does not affect the payment of retiree benefits. It has no 
negative impact on retirees. It simply addresses how those benefits are 
funded.
  The anticipated savings from this bill would be utilized in two ways: 
first of all, to pay down the total debt that the Postal Service 
currently has with the Department of the Treasury; and secondly, to 
delay any rate increases on consumer and commercial mailings until 
fiscal year 2006.
  Certainly, for most of us if one has a postal rate increase, it might 
just be a nuisance, just 1 cent or 2 cents. That kind of an increase 
might not mean too much if you send only a few letters per month. 
However, if you are a business who is sending literally millions of 
pieces of mail, this is a tremendous increase in your costs, and we can 
just think about the impact that a postal rate increase has on the mail 
order catalog businesses or on magazine businesses or so many 
businesses that rely on the United States Postal Service to conduct 
their business.
  If the 108th Congress does not act on this legislation, it will 
necessitate a postal rate increase, and we will, in effect, be levying 
an unfair tax increase on the American consumer.
  Passage of this bill would be very much the first stage of 
substantial postal reform that will bring the service into the 21st 
century. I think it is important that this Congress demonstrate to the 
citizens of our Nation that it will be committed to improving the cost-
effectiveness and the efficiency certainly of government, and this 
legislation is an excellent first step in that direction.
  No other governmental entity serves its customers more directly than 
the Postal Service. Almost every citizen of our Nation is impacted at 
varying degrees by the Postal Service. Customer service should not be a 
novel concept within the Federal Government. It should be an operative 
phrase for us.
  S. 380 will allow post offices to better serve their customers and, 
by voting in favor of this legislation, Congress will be voting to fix 
a wrong that has hampered the Postal Service for years. I certainly 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 380.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Janklow), former Governor.
  Mr. JANKLOW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and 
clearly the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for taking the 
leadership to move forward on this.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual day in America when people can look to 
the Congress and understand that we may really solve a problem. If we 
can agree on something being a problem, it should not be hard to fix 
it. The debate ought to be around what does it take to bring about a 
solution, but we have to agree there is a problem.
  There is no question but that when one charges more for a monopoly 
like the Postal Service, when one charges more money for something than 
one is supposed to, then that is an unfair tax on the people, just as 
if the Congress had passed the tax. Two, it has a stifling effect on 
the economy and all of those businesses, but just as importantly, all 
of those individual human beings that use the Postal Service for 
everything from mailing their monthly bills to mailing out anniversary 
and Christmas cards. Three, they have not been able to figure out in 
the past how to take care of funding the Civil Service Retirement 
System adequately.
  It is a red letter day when the Republicans and Democrats can come 
together on a bill that they agree solves a problem.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what we have here today. We have had anthrax in 
the Postal Service, we have had the situation of rate increases in the 
Postal Service, we have had the situation in the Postal Service where 
we are dealing with a down economy, but this is a real shot in the arm 
for this organization. One, we are going to be able to use the excess 
monies to go into funding the operational aspects for fiscal years 03, 
04 and 05. The second thing we are going to be able to do is to fix the 
Civil Service Retirement System. And the third thing we are going to be 
able to do is to move the Postal Service more towards a sound financial 
setting.

[[Page 8799]]

  I have heard from the mail carriers, I have heard from the 
postmasters, I have heard from the newspaper organizations and the 
magazine organizations. The one group that I have not heard from are 
the consumers of America, the individual people, because they have not 
been aware that this problem has been going forward.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is really an exciting day, truly an exciting day 
when people can come together in this Congress, in this House, and 
solve problems.
  Now, having said that, I think we all have to recognize that this 
gives the Postal Service a couple additional years of opportunity to 
look at their organization, to look at the things they have to do, to 
make this a more efficient, more effective service. It is the largest 
single business in this country. There is no business bigger. We always 
talk about the Fortune 500 or the top 100 or whatever. There is no 
business in this Nation that is as large as the U.S. Postal Service in 
terms of its economic impact, its economic might, and its economic 
power. It can also be an economic drag, because this Nation cannot run 
without that service.
  So to the extent that we are able to find billions of dollars and 
move them into the operational side, move them into the side to reduce 
the capital expenditure demands for increased funding, there is no 
question but what that does is give us the ability to be able to more 
effectively deal with the economy of this country.
  This is a couple billion dollars a year, but the cumulative effect 
would have been $70 billion, 7 followed by 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. 
As Senator Dirksen once said, If you take a billion here and a billion 
there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
  So what we are doing today is taking the first giant step towards 
solving a real money problem for the American people. What we are doing 
today is starting the long-range fix of the problem in the Postal 
Service to the benefit of the employees, to the benefit of the 
consumers, to the benefit of the users, and to the benefit of the 
economy of America.
  I say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), I sincerely applaud 
you as the chairman of the committee that has drafted this in the first 
couple of months in the Congress. The gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman) has done the same thing. They have come together in a committee 
that had historically a lot of contention. They have come together to 
move forward on something that is for the good of all of the people of 
this great country, and so I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh) for having planted the seed and kept the tree nurtured until 
the others could seize upon it.
  This is a red letter day for the people of America, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it unanimously.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I 
thank everybody involved with this legislation for their efforts. I 
think this is a bill that we can all look at with pride.
  Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time on our side, so I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests at 
this time. I would urge adoption of this measure.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 
380, the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 
2003. This legislation provides financial relief to the Postal Service 
in a time of great need. By enacting this legislation, we will help the 
Postal Service carry out its stated mission of providing universal 
service--the idea that mail service in our rural areas should be as 
speedy, efficient, and inexpensive as mail service in our largest 
cities. In my district in New Mexico where there are numerous rural 
communities, this mission is especially important. Additionally, by 
providing relief for the Postal Service, we can keep postal rates 
stable until 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the steps this Congress has taken 
toward helping the Postal Service to carry out their vital services. I 
thank my colleagues for showing their support not only for the Postal 
Service and its many employees, but for all communities throughout the 
country.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time having been yielded, 
it is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in the 
Congressional Record by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Waxman:
       In section 8348(h)(1)(B)(i) of title 5, United States Code 
     (as proposed to be amended by section 2(c) of the bill), 
     strike ``include'' and insert ``exclude''.
       In section 8348(h)(1)(B)(ii) of title 5, United States Code 
     (as proposed to be amended by section 2(c) of the bill), 
     strike ``included shall not'' and insert ``excluded shall''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of April 
7, 2003, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support S. 380. The bill strengthens the Postal 
Service, lowers their debt, and protects postal consumers. The 
legislation, however, is not perfect. In particular, I do not believe 
that requiring the Postal Service to pay the pension costs associated 
with the military service, the previous military service of their 
employees, is a good idea.
  Under current law, the Department of the Treasury pays the costs of 
retirement benefits related to military service for employees who are 
part of the Civil Service Retirement System. My amendment would 
maintain the status quo, keeping the responsibility for paying these 
costs with the Federal Treasury where they have always been, and where 
they belong.
  In contrast, S. 380 shifts the burden of paying these costs from 
Treasury to the Postal Service. The legislation even has the effect of 
requiring the Postal Service to reimburse the Treasury for payments 
that have already been made. This shift will require the Postal Service 
to pay billions more than it otherwise would have to pay.
  I believe it is wrong and unfair to require the Postal Service to 
shoulder this burden.
  Many believe that the Postal Service should run more like a private 
business, yet no private business, including the Postal Service's 
competitors, is required to pay benefits for military service. S. 380 
would also make the Postal Service the only entity in the Civil Service 
Retirement System that has to pay for military benefits.
  I will not seek a vote on this amendment because, for reasons that I 
do not understand, the White House has signaled that it would oppose 
this legislation if my amendment were included. Thus, the result of 
adopting the amendment would be to bring down a bill that has many 
other worthwhile components.
  Instead of pursuing this amendment, S. 380 contains language that we 
worked out with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) that 
calls for a study of whether the Department of the Treasury or the 
Postal Service should be responsible for pension costs associated with 
military service with reports to the Congress. I do not believe this 
study language is as good as my amendment, yet at least it preserves 
this issue for further consideration.
  Under the language of the study provision, the submission and 
evaluation of the proposals regarding military pension are timed to 
coincide with our review of the Postal Service's proposed use of the 
savings resulting from this legislation. I hope that at that point in 
time, we will reconsider our approach toward military costs.

                              {time}  1700

  At the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, I will seek to withdraw this 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.

[[Page 8800]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, I agree in principle with the 
concept behind the gentleman's amendment. This bill, which adopts the 
administration's approach on the treatment of military funding, would 
make the postal service the only agency responsible for the military 
costs of the CSRS retirees. I do not think it is right. I do not think 
it is fair to postal rate payers. Unlike other agencies in government, 
this is an enterprise fund that is paid for by the rate payers who 
should not have to bear this burden. I think it puts strains on the 
post office that should not be there.
  The postal service's mandate is to charge rate payers for its 
operating and overhead expenses and to break even over time. While the 
postal service does pay for military benefits for its FERS employees, 
it has never been required to for its CSRS employees, and neither is 
any other agency in government.
  However, the administration is categorically opposed to any treatment 
of military funding other than the FERS model that they propose. The 
bill's principle sponsor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), is 
going to speak on this more fully in just a moment. But with so much at 
stake in this legislation, I think we have to move forward on what we 
can agree on and follow the administration's approach at this time.
  We will carefully consider the results of the studies that we have 
mandated in this bill. But still, I want to thank my colleague from 
California (Mr. Waxman) for highlighting this important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
McHugh).
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Let me express my appreciation, as well, to the ranking member, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for raising this issue. I think 
it is a very appropriate question, and it needs full and total debate, 
and also for having the diplomatic position of withdrawing it because 
of the problems.
  And I am certainly one who would support any measure that brings an 
added $18 billion or even more to the postal service and all the good 
that that could accrue. But I think it is important for the House to 
know as we set the stage here for future debate that, as the chairman 
said, the administration has serious concerns about this. And their 
argument is simply that if we are going to use the FERS model, which is 
indeed what applies here and accrues the nearly over-$70 billion in 
savings, that the FERS modeling should indeed be applied across the 
board, which under FERS does require military retirement to be paid by 
the agency instead of by the Federal Treasury.
  I should note as well, whether or not we agree with them, the OPM 
has, in meetings that all of us sat in on, our staffs, that if this 
provision were to be included, they would strongly recommend a veto 
which I think underscores again the gentleman from California's (Mr. 
Waxman) willingness to deal with this particular issue of the funding 
question and then get on to the equally important debate with respect 
to the military obligation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again the chairman and the ranking 
member for working this out. And certainly I am hopeful we can work 
with the administration to try to bring about an agreement that accrues 
to the most possible good for the postal service and its customers.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I simply rise in support of the 
Waxman amendment. But I also rise in support of the agreement that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) have been able to arrive at.
  I think once again this is an indication of the manner in which the 
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform have 
been able to provide leadership that moves us from the discussion point 
to the position of being able to actually do something. And so I 
commend both of the gentlemen for their diplomacy, for their 
leadership, and for their legislative skill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we have made our point on this amendment. We 
will have this issue out there for further consideration at another 
time; but in the interest of moving this legislation forward and 
getting a good bill enacted into law, I will withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The amendment is withdrawn.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of April 7, 2003, the previous 
question is ordered on the Senate bill.
  The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time and was read the 
third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question on the passage of the Senate 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that further proceedings 
on motions to suspend the rules and agree to House Resolution 170 and 
House Resolution 149, postponed earlier today, will resume tomorrow.
  The Chair announces that this vote will be followed by three 5-minute 
votes on the motion to suspend the rules related to H.R. 205, House 
Resolution 179, and H.R. 1584, as amended.
  This is a 15-minute vote on passage of S. 380.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 424, 
nays 0, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 115]

                               YEAS--424

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind

[[Page 8801]]


     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Combest
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Hyde
     Jenkins
     Lucas (OK)
     McCarthy (MO)
     Payne
     Smith (MI)
     Stupak


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes left in this vote.

                              {time}  1724

  So the Senate bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of April 
7, H.R. 735 is laid on the table.

                          ____________________