National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act of 2003

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, to streamline and strengthen the way we help our States, communities, and first responders protect our homeland. I am pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues including Senators Carper, Rockefeller, Voinovich, Feingold, Sununu, Coleman, Pryor, Allard, and Akaka.

Last year, the Senate spent nearly three months on the Homeland Security Act, yet the law contains virtually no guidance on how the Department is to assist State and local governments with their homeland security needs. In fact, the 187-page Homeland Security Act mentions the issue of grants to first responders in but a single paragraph. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security currently allocates billions of dollars of grant funds according to formulas borrowed from the USA Patriot Act. The Homeland Security Act left the decisions on how Federal dollars should be spent or how much money should be allocated for another day. Today is that day.

Much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the shoulders of State and local officials across America, especially our first responders--the firefighters, police officers and ambulance crews on the front lines. Over the past months, the Committee on Governmental Affairs has listened to them describe the challenges associated with constructing effective homeland security strategies. We have also listened to State and local officials as well as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. This series of three hearings looked at the issues from a variety of perspectives and helped shape the legislation we introduce today.

At our first hearing, we heard from first responders: our firefighters, law enforcement officials, and emergency medical technicians, who discussed the challenges they face protecting our communities.

Arlington Fire Chief Ed Plaugher, the incident commander at the Pentagon on September 11, told the Committee that he had received little homeland security funding since 9-11. Chief Paugher also underscored the gaps in the homeland security planning process. Many law enforcement officials shared Chief Plaughter's concerns. Portland, ME, Police Chief Mike Chitwood, for example, expressed his frustrations about the roadblocks to accessing Federal funding and the lack of coordination by Federal agencies with local jurisdictions.

Secretary Ridge testified at our second hearing. He discussed the ongoing challenges involved in providing Federal resources to States, communities and first responders. He also outlined ways we can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of homeland security grant programs to help first responders get the resources they need.

Secretary Ridge's comments underscored the need to improve the way the Department of Homeland Security's first responder grant programs are organized within the Department, and the way the Department distributes these grants.

The Committee's third hearing featured State and local officials who expressed their support for more flexibility, coordination, and simplification of Federal homeland security grant programs.

Maine's emergency manager, Art Cleaves, said the current maze of homeland security programs has caused so much paperwork that States may be forced to hire additional staff just to deal with a multiplicity of forms and planning documents.

Other witnesses, including Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, outlined the need for coordinating homeland security funding across the Federal Government. Their comments underscored how communities can access funding for interoperable communications equipment through six different Federal programs, including the FIRE Act, COPS, two Department of Health and Human Services' bio-terrorism grant programs, FEMA's Emergency Management Performance Account, and ODP's State homeland security grant program. Despite the unified goals of these grants--to purchase interoperable equipment--Federal agencies are under no requirement to coordinate their efforts.

While State and local officials agreed on the need to coordinate programs and make it easier to apply for grants, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Governor Romney commented on the differences between States and localities regarding how best to allocate funds, through States or directly to the local level.

I am pleased that these hearings have helped to build a consensus on this issue. Yesterday, I received a letter from State and local organizations including the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National Governors Association, which have come together in support of our approach, to provide funds through States, but to require that eighty percent be passed through to the local level.

Our legislation will provide a map that will better connect our front-line protectors with the funding they need. It will eliminate duplicative homeland security planning requirements; make it easier to apply for grants; coordinate the many grant programs that provide homeland security funds; and promote a community-based approach to homeland security funding. I would like to briefly describe the approach we have taken.

The first provision of our legislation would promote the same kind of coordination among Federal agencies that we require of our States and localities. It would require Federal agencies to build a clear, well- marked path that would lead our first responders to the funding that enables them to do what they do best: prepare for and respond to emergencies.

Second, the legislation would coordinate government-wide homeland security funding by promoting one-stop-shopping for homeland security funding opportunities. It would establish an information clearinghouse to assist first responders and State and local governments in accessing homeland security grant information and other resources within the new department. The clearinghouse would improve access to homeland security grant information, coordinate technical assistance for vulnerability and threat assessments, provide information regarding homeland security best practices, and compile information regarding homeland security equipment purchased with Federal funds.

The legislation also recognizes the importance of building on existing successful programs, such as the FIRE Act, which provides funding directly to fire departments for equipment and training on a competitive, peer reviewed basis. It would allow the FIRE Act to continue to be administered in its current form, but would coordinate its activities with other Federal programs. For example, it would make sure that two neighboring jurisdictions receiving funding from the FIRE Act are aware of industry standards regarding the interoperability of communications equipment.

The third provision of our legislation would strengthen the Office for Domestic Preparedness's State Homeland Security Grant Program by simplifying the grant process, promoting more local input in homeland security funding, and promoting more flexibility in the use of funds.

The lack of guidance in the Homeland Security Act has forced State and local governments and first responders to engage in a 12-step odyssey to obtain funding from ODP's State homeland security grant program. And this program is just one of several homeland security grant programs to which a State, locality, police, or fire department can apply.

The legislation distills the homeland security grant process from twelve steps to two. First, State and local governments and emergency responders will develop a three-year homeland security plan that outlines vulnerabilities and capabilities, and a process for allocating resources to meet State and local needs. This plan will also require the development of

measurable goals and objectives, such as increasing the number of local jurisdictions participating in local and statewide exercises. Second, States and communities will apply for funds based on this plan, which they can revise each year pending approval from the Secretary.

This legislation would ensure that local government officials and first responders have a louder voice in the homeland security planning process and can access homeland security dollars and equipment in an efficient manner. It would also require that eighty percent of these resources reach the local level within sixty days of the grant allocation.

When I met with the Maine fire chiefs, they expressed concerns about the lack of flexibility in homeland security funding, especially in the area of overtime costs for training. They told me that since homeland security funds cannot be used for most overtime costs, some of Maine's firefighters have been forced to turn down training opportunities at the National Fire Academy. Because there was no funding to pay the overtime costs for someone to fill in while the firefighter trained at the Academy, they had to forego this valuable training opportunity.

Our legislation would address their concerns by allowing funds to be used not only for planning, equipment, exercises, and training, but also for certain overtime costs associated with training activities.

Our legislation also recognizes that certain high threat areas have critical vulnerabilities that must be addressed immediately. This legislation will direct the Secretary to use ten percent of total funding for this program to address these critical vulnerabilities. While this provision provides flexibility, it requires that any direct funding be consistent with the State plan. Furthermore, this legislation formally authorizes the Emergency Management Preparedness Grant, which provides resources to the backbone of our emergency management structure, and ensures an adequate level of funding under this program.

While some States and communities face a more imminent threat, our Nation must provide for the safety of all of our citizens. This grant program maintains the current baseline level of homeland security assistance to each State. It then allocates the bulk of the funds not based solely on population, as is the case now, but on risk assessments undertaken for each State.

Right now, States and localities must complete numerous homeland security plans, each with its own set of questions and benchmarks. Terrorists will not be deterred by paperwork or by communities answering the same question six different ways.

That's why our legislation would streamline the planning process by requiring a single set of cooperatively developed performance standards to help States and localities evaluate homeland security plans.

When I met with officials of Maine's Emergency Management Agency, they told me that the rigid structure of many homeland security grant programs frustrates their efforts to help first responders secure communities across our State.

In past years, for example, the Office for Domestic Preparedness's homeland security grant program allocated the same percentage of each State's funds for training, equipment, exercises, and planning, thus leaving no room to accommodate different States' priorities. In allocating funds this way, the Federal Government effectively said that Maine must spend exactly the same portion of its homeland security dollars on training as Hawaii. Moreover, States cannot transfer surplus funds from one category to another to meet their needs.

As a result, Maine may be forced to return some of the Homeland Security funds allocated for exercises. This one size fits all formula used in past homeland security funding makes no sense. I believe all States and communities should have the flexibility to spend homeland security dollars where they are most needed. That is why this legislation would allow flexibility in homeland security funds that have already been appropriated but remain unspent.

The current homeland security grant structure is unacceptable. Secretary Ridge has done an admirable job distributing billions of dollars of homeland security funds based on borrowed authorities and with no real guidance. It is time to deal the Secretary a full hand of cards and give our States, localities, and first responders a straight path to homeland security programs, not a maze. We must topple the mountain of paperwork. We must help, not hinder, our front-line defenders.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation to build a stronger and better homeland security partnership in the months and years ahead.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) who has been the former chairman of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service and one of the real experts on this issue to address this issue and put his stamp of approval.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the former chairman of the full committee and a leader in postal reform.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a member on the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Macomb County, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Janklow), former Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests at this time. I would urge adoption of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, I agree in principle with the concept behind the gentleman's amendment. This bill, which adopts the administration's approach on the treatment of military funding, would make the postal service the only agency responsible for the military costs of the CSRS retirees. I do not think it is right. I do not think it is fair to postal rate payers. Unlike other agencies in government, this is an enterprise fund that is paid for by the rate payers who should not have to bear this burden. I think it puts strains on the post office that should not be there.

The postal service's mandate is to charge rate payers for its operating and overhead expenses and to break even over time. While the postal service does pay for military benefits for its FERS employees, it has never been required to for its CSRS employees, and neither is any other agency in government.

However, the administration is categorically opposed to any treatment of military funding other than the FERS model that they propose. The bill's principle sponsor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), is going to speak on this more fully in just a moment. But with so much at stake in this legislation, I think we have to move forward on what we can agree on and follow the administration's approach at this time.

We will carefully consider the results of the studies that we have mandated in this bill. But still, I want to thank my colleague from California (Mr. Waxman) for highlighting this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time that I may consume.

I rise in support of the legislation before us. As the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, I support this bill, S. 380, and before I begin my remarks on the bill, I would like to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for the time and effort they have spent in refining this proposal. The bill in S. 380, is identical to the version of the bill we reported out of committee with the exception of a provision requiring a new study on military pensions that I worked out with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis). This is a very positive bipartisan start for our committee.

I would also like to commend our Senate colleagues, Senators Susan Collins and Joseph Lieberman, for their work on this issue.

The bill we are considering today corrects the calculation of the Postal Service's contributions to its pension fund and provides immediate and needed financial relief to the Postal Service. The legislation would credit the Postal Service for the real value of Civil Service Retirement System contributions it made in the past and change how contributions will be computed in the future. Under S. 380, the Postal Service will save $9 billion over the next 3 years and $36 billion over the next 10 years. S. 380 divides the money saved by the Postal Service into two parts. For the savings received in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, the bill provides that the Postal Service will use the money to pay down the debt and hold postage rates stable. This will allow the Postmaster General to keep his commitment to hold off on any rate increases through the year 2006.

For fiscal years beyond 2005, the bill requires the Postal Service to submit to Congress a plan for using the savings. This plan must then be reviewed by the General Accounting Office and approved or modified by Congress. The planning provisions contained in the bill provide an opportunity for Congress to review how the Postal Service will use the savings to address a number of long-term challenges facing the service such as its debt load, underfunded capital projects, and unfunded liabilities for post-retirement health care.

This legislation is being acted upon quickly because without it, the Postal Service faces an increasing financial crises. In fact, the Postmaster General and the Postal Board of Governors have indicated that in the absence of such a change, the Postal Service will be forced to apply for a rate increase later this year.

S. 380 has broad support among the postal community and it deserves our passage today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I support S. 380. The bill strengthens the Postal Service, lowers their debt, and protects postal consumers. The legislation, however, is not perfect. In particular, I do not believe that requiring the Postal Service to pay the pension costs associated with the military service, the previous military service of their employees, is a good idea.

Under current law, the Department of the Treasury pays the costs of retirement benefits related to military service for employees who are part of the Civil Service Retirement System. My amendment would maintain the status quo, keeping the responsibility for paying these costs with the Federal Treasury where they have always been, and where they belong.

In contrast, S. 380 shifts the burden of paying these costs from Treasury to the Postal Service. The legislation even has the effect of requiring the Postal Service to reimburse the Treasury for payments that have already been made. This shift will require the Postal Service to pay billions more than it otherwise would have to pay.

I believe it is wrong and unfair to require the Postal Service to shoulder this burden.

Many believe that the Postal Service should run more like a private business, yet no private business, including the Postal Service's competitors, is required to pay benefits for military service. S. 380 would also make the Postal Service the only entity in the Civil Service Retirement System that has to pay for military benefits.

I will not seek a vote on this amendment because, for reasons that I do not understand, the White House has signaled that it would oppose this legislation if my amendment were included. Thus, the result of adopting the amendment would be to bring down a bill that has many other worthwhile components.

Instead of pursuing this amendment, S. 380 contains language that we worked out with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Davis) that calls for a study of whether the Department of the Treasury or the Postal Service should be responsible for pension costs associated with military service with reports to the Congress. I do not believe this study language is as good as my amendment, yet at least it preserves this issue for further consideration.

Under the language of the study provision, the submission and evaluation of the proposals regarding military pension are timed to coincide with our review of the Postal Service's proposed use of the savings resulting from this legislation. I hope that at that point in time, we will reconsider our approach toward military costs.

At the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, I will seek to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

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.

Mr. President, I rise today as Ranking Member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to introduce the Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act of 2003, which is the companion bill to H.R. 1387, which bears the same name and was reintroduced in the House by Congressman Robert Brady of Pennsylvania earlier this year.

I want to commend Representative Brady for his hard work on behalf of small businesses not just from his home State of Pennsylvania but for every trades industry entrepreneur that has ever attempted to open his or her own business.

Often Americans who work in the trade sector--construction, plumbing, electrical work etc.--enter these professions with the goal of one day starting a business; however many of these aspiring business owners who partake in career training or vocational training in certain trades, unfortunately, fail to obtain the necessary education in the successful growth and development of their newly formed business. This initiative would develop a program that allows workers within the trades industry to move toward starting a new business.

The purpose of the Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act is to assist in the development of curricula that will encourage the successful growth of small businesses. This legislation passed the House last Congress on October 2, 2001 and was subsequently taken up and passed by this Committee last Congress, but was not taken up by the full Senate.

The bill, in a business-education partnership, establishes a ``vocational entrepreneurship development demonstration program,'' under which the SBA would provide grants, through the Small Business Development Centers program, to provide technical assistance to high school and technical career institutes, Vo-Tech schools, to promote small business ownership in their curriculum.

The SBDC program is designed to deliver such up-to-date counseling, training and technical assistance in all aspects of small business management and is the ideal candidate to provide such a program. Each grant awarded under this program will be worth over $200,000--which, in today's environment where Vo-Tech programs get short-changed in government education budgets, can do a great deal to help rebuild a worker-strapped trades industry.

I urge all of my colleagues to support Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator John Ensign, and the cosponsors of our legislation in reintroducing the National

Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act.

The bill we are reintroducing today is the same Cleland-Kerry legislation that was introduced last Congress, and it is the companion to Congressman Sweeney's bill, H.R. 205, which bears the same name as our legislation. The Sweeney bill recently passed the House overwhelmingly, 417-4, with the strong support of the House Committee on Small Business, as it did in the 107th. Our Senate version, which is nearly identical to the Sweeney bill, passed the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship last year but was not taken up by the full Senate. Because Senator Ensign and I are fully committed to helping small business owners understand and navigate complicated government regulations, we are reintroducing this legislation, the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act.

Small businesses, particularly small businesses with very few employees, often face an overwhelming task when seeking advice on how to comply with Federal regulations, especially when implementation varies for different regions of the country, or from state to state. Many small businesses fail to comply with important and needed labor and environmental regulations not because they want to break the law, but because they are unaware of the actions they need to take to comply. Often, small businesses are afraid to seek guidance from Federal agencies for fear of exposing problems at their businesses.

One important way to help small businesses comply with Federal regulations is to provide them with free, confidential advice outside of the normal relationship between a small business and a regulatory agency. The Small Business Administration's, SBA, Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, are in a unique position to provide this type of assistance.

Our bill establishes a pilot program to award competitive grants to 20 selected SBDCs, two from each SBA region, which would allow these SBDCs to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses. The SBA would be authorized to award grants between $150,000 and $300,000, depending on the population of the SBDC's state.

Under our legislation, the SBDCs would need to form partnerships with Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training activities and offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small business owners. Further, the measure would guarantee privacy to those who receive compliance assistance, which is integral to the reaching out to as many small businesses as possible. This privacy provision has also been extended to all small businesses that seek any assistance from their local SBDC.

The legislation we are reintroducing today uses only SBA funds and will serve to complement current small business development assistance as well as existing compliance assistance programs. Versions of this legislation introduced in previous Congresses used Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, enforcement funds to pay for these grants.

Small businesses can succeed when it comes to complying with Federal regulations, if provided with the necessary tools and information. The National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will go a long way toward assisting our Nation's small businesses that want to comply with Federal regulations.

I am pleased to say that we have the full support of the Association of Small Business Development Centers, which has been working closely with us since January of last year to draft the Senate version of this legislation, as well as support from National Small Business United, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and Congressman Sweeney.

I want to express my sincere thanks to Senator Ensign for his hard work and continued support on this issue. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

The puns notwithstanding, I deeply appreciate his very kind comments, and, Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this chance in the next 5 minutes to add my words of great appreciation and approval to I think a very important piece of legislation and certainly one that I hope bodes well for the future, because we have before us here today a bipartisan agreement, as the ranking member so correctly stated, one that sets and bodes very well a brighter future for this full committee, and, I am hopeful, as someone who has had the honor and opportunity to delve into postal issues over the past several years, a fine start to continued bipartisan cooperation in terms of our continuing efforts to modernize the Postal Service in even broader measures. And I, too, deeply appreciate the great leadership, the very hard work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the standing committee; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member; and my long partner in these postal issues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for their very concerted effort to bring this very necessary and, as the ranking member and the chairman both said, very timely piece of legislation to the floor at this moment.

Both the chairman and the ranking member, I think, have struck on the major points of importance her, very eloquently and very appropriately. But let me just highlight for a moment the very critical nature of what we are doing. Certainly to the Postal Service's future viability, its ability, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said, to dedicate these savings that will accrue from what I hope the House is about to do here today toward all of those issues to ensure even better mail delivery service, to ensure their continued viability, to say to those some 800,000 dedicated Postal employees that we understand the great challenges that they face, that where the opportunities present themselves we are not just willing, but here through this bill apparently able to assist in that very worthy effort.

But this is an important piece of economic development legislation as well, Mr. Speaker. Just as way of illustration, the Postal Service, the entire postal delivery sector today represents some $635 billion annually in direct economic activity in the production of mail and delivery services. Mail advertising alone generates some $725 billion in economic activity each and every year. And the parcels handled by the Postal industry, including all postal and parcel carriers, have a value exceeding $850 billion.

A lot of us spend a lot of time, understandably and rightfully so, delving into the issue of what we can do to stimulate this economy, and this bill today in supporting those significant segments of our economic activity and our economic sector certainly would go a long way towards boosting the economic activities of this Nation as a

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.

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. 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.