Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003

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 appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Monday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the week. Any votes called on these bills will be rolled until 6:30 p.m. on Monday.

On Tuesday, we expect to consider several additional bills under suspension of the rules, including legislation that will provide relief from student loan payments to our men and women currently serving in the Middle East. We would also hope to go to conference on the 2004 budget resolution.

For Wednesday and the balance of the week, we have several measures that we will consider under a rule. Those include H.R. 522, a bill to reauthorize the Federal Deposit Insurance Program; H.R. 735, which would alter the method used to calculate Postal Service contributions to the Federal Employee Pension System; and H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act.

Finally, next week, we hope to be considering the Fiscal Year 2003 War Supplemental that was requested by the President earlier this week. I believe that the Committee on Appropriations has tentatively scheduled a markup of this legislation for Tuesday.

Now, Members should be aware, while I remain hopeful that we could consider this legislation on the floor on Thursday, I know that this schedule would disrupt the traditional 3-day layover practice by the Committee on Appropriations, but if the supplemental is not available for floor consideration on Thursday, Members should be advised we would be in session next Friday to consider this very important bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct. If we can get the supplemental passed by the House by Thursday, we would not be in on Friday. But Members need to be advised that the President has asked the bipartisan leadership to try to get the supplemental to his desk before the Easter break, and we have to get it done next week in order to accomplish that.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

We are hoping to go to conference and name conferees on Monday, if we can get the papers from the Senate. Right now we could have done it today, but we are waiting for the papers to come over from the other body, and they tell us it will be very difficult to get those papers to us by Monday. But if we can get everything straight, then we will go to conference on Monday. If not, we will have to wait until Tuesday.

I thank the gentleman for his comment, Mr. Speaker. We want to make sure that the minority protects their rights and reserves their rights to proceed to a motion to instruct.

My assumption is that we will have what we need to go to conference on the floor of this House no later than Tuesday, and we have every anticipation that we will be going to conference on Tuesday, but we would like to go a day earlier. As the gentleman knows, there is a lot of legislation we would like to do in the next 2 weeks, and floor time is at a premium.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, we will inform the leadership of the minority as soon as we know. We are urging the other body to move quickly, and we will keep the leadership of the minority informed at every step of this process so their side will have plenty of notice. Hopefully, we will have this decision done by tomorrow, and the gentleman will have plenty of time to do his planning.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is correct, unless we try to go to conference on the budget. We would have a motion to instruct.

If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that certainly, with the gentleman's agreement, that we could start the process around 5 or 5:30 and wait on the votes until we have finished voting on the suspensions; or we could start the debate on the motion to instruct after the vote on the suspensions. We will be glad to work with the gentleman on how we do that, whatever is most convenient to the Members.

If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, the Committee on the Judiciary reported this legislation out early this week. We would like to consider this bill in the very near future, but, as I mentioned earlier, over the next 2 weeks floor time is going to be at very much a premium. We would like to do it, but it looks like in trying to assess what the needs of the House are for the next 2 weeks we are not going to be able to get to this bill before the Easter break. It is more likely that we will consider the bill in May.

If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, he may remember that last week during our discussion I mentioned that we are trying to move forward on a product under a very tight time frame that all Members could support. We really would like to see this bill come to the floor in a bipartisan way.

I understand the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), have had daily, if not hourly, discussions on this legislation and at times have become very close to a compromise that all Members could likely support. The bill was pulled from consideration this week primarily because the interested parties believe that the differences on the issues are minimal now and that more time could in fact yield a reasonable compromise.

I would just note for the gentleman that this is a relatively small authorization for a fund that would serve a very targeted community, and usually the House considers legislation of this nature under suspensions of the rules. I would hope that we could bring this bill under suspension as soon as possible.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I do understand his concerns. We are working very, very hard on this bill. I think we can bring this bill to the floor. It is needed.

Frankly, we have been working on it for way too long. It should have been passed weeks ago. I have every confidence that we can bring a bill to the floor that will get an overwhelming vote by this House.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows we are sort of at the mercy of the other body. The quicker we can complete a conference report on the budget, the quicker we can move the economic growth package. We are working as hard as we can to convince the Committee on the Budget, the budget committees of both houses, to work through the weekend, work all through next week, so we can bring the conference report to the floor.

If that happens, then we know what we have to deal with; and I would hope

that this House could bring the economic growth and jobs creation package to the floor before the Easter break.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring of the schedule of the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information.

Following up on what he said at the end of his statement, am I to understand that if the supplemental is passed on Thursday, it is the gentleman's expectation we will not be in next Friday?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I would say to the distinguished majority leader, having talked to the ranking member and former chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), I think if we can reach a bipartisan agreement, we too want to make sure that we provide the appropriate resources for our men and women in harm's way to assure them that there is going to be no reluctance on our part to accomplish that effort. But I emphasize that my belief is that if we can reach a bipartisan agreement, and I am hopeful, I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) can accomplish that; and if the leadership would help in accomplishing that objective, I think that would be a worthy objective for our country and for this House.

The budget conference and conferees, does the gentleman know when they will be appointed? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Leader, the reason I was looking to staff, obviously, as the gentleman well knows, if we are not going to go in until 6:30 and we will probably do suspension bills that night, clearly, if we go to conference, a motion to instruct would be in order; and I think it would be our intention to offer such a motion.

Therefore, having notice at this juncture, or I understand the gentleman's not having specific knowledge of when the papers are going to come over, but I might say to the gentleman that if we can have some specificity, and apparently Tuesday we will have the papers, the gentleman is reasonably confident, perhaps we could agree that it would be then Tuesday so that on our side we could plan to have the motion to which we would be entitled ready and available at that time.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's view. I share that view. We want to try to get this done. I am going to ask him about the week following.

I understand floor time is at a premium, but we are not going to meet, apparently, on Friday if we get the supplemental done in a timely fashion, so we are not going to be using that time.

My only point is that if we do not know until Monday at noontime or Monday at 10 o'clock, it makes it more difficult for us. Frankly, I think it would be appropriate if the gentleman could perhaps agree that this will be on Tuesday, because he is not sure it is going to get over on Monday. I think that puts us in a little better shape.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

Reclaiming my time again, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to beat this dead horse too badly, but on Monday my presumption is that the only votes at 6:30 are suspension votes; is that correct?

Would we do that subsequent to the vote on the suspensions, or in the afternoon? Obviously, the problem with the afternoon is most Members, as the gentleman knows, come back in time for the vote, Members flying from the West Coast. So there are those complications.

Would the gentleman inform me as to what the intent would be, either before the 6:30 suspension votes or after?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. We will discuss this with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member. I am sure the gentleman will want to discuss it with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) as well. Hopefully, we can reach an agreement so all Members can be accommodated to participate in that important debate.

Mr. Leader, the partial birth abortion bill, I understand that was marked up yesterday. Does the gentleman know when that will be coming to the floor? Is it going to be next week or the week after?

I thank the gentleman for that response.

The smallpox vaccination compensation bill, I know there are ongoing discussions. It is my understanding, from what I have heard the gentleman say, that the expectation is that is not going to be on the calendar next week.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the leader, and we have had this discussion before, we are all hopeful, I think, that the discussions between the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who is on the floor, who has been such a leader in this legislation, and others on the gentleman's side of the aisle could come and reach agreement.

However, if an agreement could not be reached, the problem is with the Suspension Calendar that it allows no amendments and therefore allows of no alternative possibilities to be considered by the whole House.

We would hope that if this matter cannot be resolved, and we are hopeful that it can, and I know I speak for the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), she is hopeful that it can, and I think I speak for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) as well, that they would like to reach agreement; but if agreement cannot be reached, I would urge the majority leader to bring this bill to the floor with the procedure that allows for alternative proposals to be considered by the whole House.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. We all agree that this bill is needed. We also all know that the President's expectation of the number of people who would have gotten the smallpox vaccination at this point in time, particularly as it relates to first responders, nurses, police, emergency medical technicians, would have been far higher than it has been to date, so we are trying to facilitate that.

Clearly, the passage of this bill would be facilitated by having a bipartisan agreement that will not be contentious. But of course, as the gentleman knows, at the nub of this issue is how substantively we can accomplish the objective of getting as many of our nurses and police and emergency response personnel to voluntarily participate in this vaccination process.

So, again, I would urge the gentleman, if we cannot reach agreement, let the floor consider alternatives and let them decide, the floor, the Members of this House, as to what procedures and process and compensation will best facilitate that end. I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the leader, regarding the tax bill, I know the gentleman mentioned it, but when does he anticipate that coming to the floor?

I thank the gentleman for his comments, Mr. Speaker.

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. 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.