Recognizing the 40th anniversary of the sinking of the U.S.S. Thresher.

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. 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.

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.

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. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am, indeed.

Mr. Speaker, the section that the motion to recommit would strike is section 3(b) of the bill, which reads as follows: ``A qualified civil liability action that is pending on the date of the enactment of this act shall be dismissed immediately by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.''

The effect of that language is to make this bill not only applicable to what happens from today forward or from the passage and enactment of the bill forward, but to make it have retrospective impact.

We estimate that there are upwards of 300 pending lawsuits in various stages throughout the country. Those lawsuits were filed by plaintiffs thinking that the state of the law was as it existed prior to this bill being enacted, if in fact it is. So the effect of the bill would be to an ex post facto law, which we think would make the bill unconstitutional; but even if it did not make it unconstitutional, would certainly make it unfair to people who have filed their lawsuits in court and, in some cases, have proceeded with trial.

Some of those cases are on appeal. This bill would require their dismissal, whether they are in discovery, whether they had just filed a complaint, whether they had gone through the trial process, or whether they are pending in the Court of Appeals. They may be pending in the United States Supreme Court. This bill would say those cases would have to be dismissed.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that neither the committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, nor this House has done any evaluation of those pending lawsuits.

There have been no hearings about what they entail. We do know that one of them that would be involved involves a police officer by the name of Lemongello who testified at the hearing that we had on this bill, and his lawsuit would be one of those that would be dismissed.

The facts of his case indicate that he was the victim of a gun shot by an individual, who a dealer sold the gun to a female companion of that individual, knowing full well that the gun was not to be used by that female companion. And as soon as they got out the door with the gun, they were so suspicious of what was going on, they had immediately called the ATF about that.

We think that the sniper case that is pending would be in jeopardy of being dismissed by this lawsuit by this bill if this amendment or motion to recommit is not adopted. And even my colleagues last year when this bill was being advanced through the House, upon recognizing what was going on in our community with the sniper incidents, said we are not going to consider this bill at this time. But here we are a year later saying that we are going to pass a bill that could eliminate potential civil liability on the part of the dealer, who should have known that the gun that was out there which they were not keeping accurate track of in their inventory, should have known that that gun was being distributed and sold, and that case would probably be dismissed.

There are a number of other instances where cases would be dismissed if this bill goes forward in its current form. It is unseemly that this House would pass a bill that would have retroactive effect. It is one thing to say, okay, today, starting today we are putting you on notice that this is the law from this point forward. It is entirely another thing to say to people who have filed their lawsuits that the law is one thing that we are going to change and make this bill retroactive to you. I ask for my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.