United States Postal Service Financial Relief Act of 2009

I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. King, for not only yielding me time to talk about our former colleague and the great Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, but I also thank the gentleman for his leadership on behalf of the State of New York. He really cochaired that responsibility and leadership in so many respects with the gentleman John McHugh.

As we see John's friends who have come to the floor this evening to talk about this great man John McHugh from New York--our former colleague, the gentleman from the 24th District of New York--and as his colleagues come to the floor to tout the attributes of service and respect and admiration that we have for John McHugh, I think it's important to note and to amplify how we believe that the men and women of the United States Army and every person who wears the uniform of the United States military will recognize this man who is from our body--a man who in service to his congressional district, to his State and to his country embodied the highest of skillsets, of personal accomplishment and the best wishes.

If I can for a minute, I'd like to talk about John McHugh, the man, as we have all taken the pleasure of doing. We just heard the gentleman Mr. LaTourette talk about how he worked with John McHugh on the Government Reform Committee. In fact, I arrived in Congress in 1997, and immediately found myself on the Government Reform Committee. I was a freshman who was eager to take part in the endeavors that lay ahead of us.

One of the subcommittees at that time, which I believe the gentleman Mr. LaTourette spoke about, was the Postal Subcommittee. The Postal Subcommittee had this bright, young person who was the subcommittee chairman. He was John McHugh, the gentleman from New York. John made sure, as my subcommittee chairman, that I was there at all the meetings--I was expected to be as a freshman--but more importantly, that I understood the substance and the issues that would be before us.

John took very seriously, as he always has, the duties and responsibilities that were there, presented to him and that he accepted. John made sure that I was well-versed on postal issues, talking about not just the compromises but the opportunities that lay ahead for us, making sure that the challenges were properly taken care of. I developed a deep and abiding relationship with John that I cherish even today--although, I'm sure he wants to forget a few of those meetings that we had that went on and on. It was all in the spirit of our service and in the need to make sure that we appropriately and properly did our duty.

I also had a chance to run across John McHugh as the left fielder for our baseball team. John McHugh played left field in college. John McHugh is a little, skinny runt who probably weighed about 115 pounds-- if he had a bat in his hand, maybe 120--but that old guy could catch flies out in left field. Some of the most fun activities

and times that I had here in Washington were on the baseball field in Alexandria. As Republicans, we would prepare for our baseball games and for the charity game that we do every year, Republicans against Democrats. John McHugh showed up every darned day. I, some days, wanted him not to be there because I wanted a chance to play in the ball game.

John started in left field. I didn't understand how this old guy, who was probably five or six years older than I am--and I was old at the time--could be a skinny runt with little legs that could carry him and how he could catch all the balls.

He was very kind to me. He showed me, really, how to dodge all of the mud puddles that were out in left field. That was when we had an amazing rain in about the year 2000, maybe '99, 2000, 2001. John had it down. As people across this country are hearing about this great guy John McHugh, John had his position down once again, and John in left field could walk out in the midst of all the mud that was outside there, play three or four innings, come back in, and not have a piece of dirt on him. I went out there and found the mud puddle as I was running, trying to catch the fly, staying up with just catching.

There were two ducks that were out there in the mud puddle in left field with us. John made friends with the ducks. The ducks got along with him, but when I went out there, I was in trouble. I remember diving and sliding and walking back and John just looking at me and laughing. He's not just a fun and kind guy. He found a way to allow me to play in the game. He allowed me to share in that endeavor, and we had a good time--always at my expense, I'm sure--but that just spoke volumes about the kind of man that he was early on in my career as we worked together.

John and I found lots of activities with each other, and John always included me, not just because of my thought processes of wanting to know what I was thinking but because of how we could work together and how we could make things work.

Well, when 9/11 came, Pete King, John McHugh and other members of the New York delegation who were hit and hit hard--Sue Kelly was in that group, John Sweeney and some others--really worked with members of other delegations to talk with them about the needs of New York and about what we needed to do. John McHugh was a strong advocate. He felt very strongly about the men and women who would be called also into harm's way as a result of 9/11. He understood firsthand those families.

John, as we know, ended up taking some 10 visits to Iraq and 4 visits to Afghanistan. He sat on the West Point or the U.S. Military Academy Board of Visitors. He knew that I went to the graduations at West Point and enjoyed them immensely. He knows that I have had and that virtually every Member of this body has had several young men or young women who are students at the Academy from all over this Congress and from all over this country. John had a strong sense of responsibility about believing in the mission and purpose, and knew that I felt that way, and looked at other Members the same way.

He was a co-Chair of the House Army Caucus. He understood firsthand not just the men and their missions but their families and their lives after coming back home. He spoke very passionately, he and I, about the needs of our returning vets who sometimes still need more in additional help. He has indicated that he will go and take this job. He is fulfilling this duty to do his best for the men and women of the United States Army--a branch of a service that he not only strongly identifies with but has worked with in his congressional duties.

John McHugh is a friend. He is a friend of anyone who has balance about trying to solve problems. John McHugh is a kind man. Many times in the midst, when lots of us are hurried in making decisions, John McHugh listens to the facts of the case. John McHugh has in this body exemplified himself. He has stood out as a person who can be trusted, who can make a wise decision and who cares about other people.

So, tonight, as this body honors the gentleman John McHugh, I would say to the men and women of the United States Army, to the spouses, to the children, and to the families that John McHugh is taking the place of Pete Geren. Pete Geren grew to have a strong reputation that the Army could count on, not only in discipline and leadership but in doing the right thing. John McHugh is that kind of man also. John McHugh will lead with honor and distinction. John McHugh will also do the right thing.

So, for our colleague who was tapped by the President of the United States to go and lead, for our colleague who worked with us day in and day out and year after year with honor and distinction, for our colleague John McHugh who will leave this body, knowing that he still had fight left in him, to go and still lead for the best, for this young man John McHugh, who has lots of friends here who wish him not only the very best but who want to see him again, for our friend John McHugh, who is serving with distinction and who will do well, we say:

John McHugh, we thank you. We thank you for who you are and for what you are. Don't change. Sure, get better, but go ahead, and do just what you've done all these years. Do this for the right reason.

The gentleman from New York, as I go to conclude here, I would like to read something which was part of John McHugh's statement as he left this body.

He said in July, I have been so struck how these heroes facing pain and loss and uncertainty asked one question, What else can I do to serve? He challenged himself when he said, We can ask no less of ourselves.

I would say to the men and women of the United States Army, you have a kind, gracious leader who will care about you. You have a man that understands that it is you who will be asked to sacrifice, but you will also have a man that will never ask you to do anything that he does not honestly believe in that is in the best interest of freedom and opportunity in the United States of America.

And as we hear these stories of bravery and heroism, as we see these men suffer, as we see their families well up, not only in pride, but also in fear for their families, we would offer one of our own from this body to say, We have confidence that you will lead, you will lead to the best; and we're going to miss you, but we're very, very proud of you.

From my left field buddy from congressional baseball, good luck with the New York Yankees against the Philadelphia Phillies, because you guys are going to need it.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 772, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2918) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2918.

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

Madam Speaker, the conference agreement which we present to the House today for the fiscal year 2010 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill authorizes a total of $4.6 billion for the operations of the House and the Senate and for the operating budgets of the legislative branch support agencies. The overall amount is $254 million above the 2009 enacted level and $500 million below the request. The net increase over the enacted level is 3.5 percent.

This is the first freestanding conference agreement for the Legislative Branch bill since 2005, and the first since I became Chair of the subcommittee. I am pleased to report that the agreement preserves all of the priorities of the House, and that the Legislative Branch bill is on time and under budget. Madam Speaker, this package was developed in full cooperation with the minority and represents a fully bipartisan agreement.

The principal responsibility of our subcommittee is to serve as stewards of the legislative branch, its institutions, and its employees. In fulfilling these goals, the 2010 Legislative Branch bill provides funding for the routine and recurring costs of paying our hardworking staff, maintaining and repairing the buildings in which we work here in Washington and in our districts, securing the Capitol complex from threats, and for the technologies which we depend on to communicate among ourselves and with our constituents.

Key investments in this category include $1.369 billion for the operations of the House. This includes basic pay and benefits for employees as well as a number of technology improvements, including funds to replace the aging electronic voting system in the House Chamber. It includes $328 million for the Capitol Police to protect the Capitol, the Members, and our visitors; $602 million for the Architect of the Capitol to support ongoing operational costs to the Capitol complex and to fund key initiatives to repair and upgrade these facilities; $643 million for the Library of Congress, which is an increase of $36 million over 2009, or 6 percent. This includes $15 million, as requested, to accelerate improvements in the Library's IT infrastructure, the Librarian's top priority for 2010.

Madam Speaker, this bill is about more than just maintaining the status quo; it includes a number of new investments intended to provide for the long-term health of the Congress, and especially for the House of Representatives. It includes important security funding to protect the employees, visitors, and the institution itself. Let's not forget that one of the planes piloted by terrorists on September 11, 2001, was purported to be headed for the Capitol. A few weeks ago, a brave Capitol Police Officer engaged in a shoot-out with an individual brandishing a gun. Last year, a bomb was found in a car confiscated by the Capitol Police in the underground garage of the Government Printing Office. The legislative branch budget may seem trivial and unimportant, but it funds the greatest democratic institutions in the world.

Madam Speaker, the Legislative Branch bill also funds our most important assets: the dedicated employees who staff our offices, committees, and support teams. We have endeavored to provide adequate funds for their compensation and benefits, but must do more if we are to continue to be able to recruit and retain the high-quality workforce which each Member depends upon. I am pleased that this conference agreement retains a House priority--funding for new childcare and tuition assistance programs which are currently being considered by the Committee on House Administration.

We also must take care of and preserve for future generations the grand buildings of the Capitol complex, many of which are aging and badly in need of repair. I am pleased that the conference agreement retains $50 million of the $60 million approved by the House in June to initiate a long-term effort to provide for the revitalization of the iconic buildings of the Capitol complex.

The new House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund will allow us to spread the cost of very expensive renewal projects, such as the 100-year-old Cannon House Office Building rehabilitation, evenly over the next decade. It allows the Congress to deal with these requirements in a more thoughtful and deliberate way. I am very proud that this bill steps up Congress' effort to deal with its aging infrastructure in a more forward-thinking manner.

Madam Speaker, this conference agreement also includes the fiscal year 2010 continuing resolution. I fully support this action. There are just 5 days until the start of the new fiscal year, and a continuing resolution is necessary to continue basic government services. It is a clean continuing resolution which follows the same pattern used in previous years, in particular, the fiscal year 2007 continuing resolution which was added to the Defense Appropriations bill by our friends on the other side of the aisle when they were in the majority. The only differences that have been added above the current rate are important increased investments in veterans' health care and funding in preparation for the 2010 census.

Before concluding, Madam Speaker, I want to take a minute to thank the minority, particularly my friend and ranking member, Mr. Aderholt from Alabama, for their very strong contributions to this conference agreement. I also want to thank my colleagues on the subcommittee, Vice Chairman Mike Honda, Representative Betty McCollum, Representative Tim Ryan, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, Representative Ciro Rodriguez, Representative Steven LaTourette, and Representative Tom Cole. They all made important contributions to this product, and I truly appreciate their friendship and their effort.

I also want to thank our staff for the work that they have done throughout the year. They have put in long hours and have been very helpful to the Members. This includes Mike Stephens, our subcommittee clerk; Liz Dawson, the minority clerk; Shalanda Young, who has just joined the subcommittee staff; Jenny Kisiah, from the minority; Dave Marroni; and Matt Glassman, from the Congressional Research Service. And I want to thank my own associate staff, Ian Rayder, and the associate staff of all the Members on the subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present this conference agreement to the House and urge the support of all Members.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I will continue to reserve.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to point out that with the greatest respect to the gentleman from Kentucky, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill before us being used as a vehicle for the continuing resolution was the most ready to go. There were no outstanding issues at all.

The gentleman from Wisconsin has just indicated a number of issues remaining on the Homeland Security bill. We are 5 days from the end of the fiscal year with an intervening weekend included in those 5 days. It is simply a matter of making sure that we are not shutting the government down.

I appreciate the good work of my colleague, Mr. Aderholt, and the members of the minority on getting this bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill, in the best possible position to serve as a vehicle to keep the government open.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Madam Speaker, I want to again thank the gentleman from Alabama and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as well as the members of our subcommittee, for the good work that they have done on developing this Legislative Branch appropriations bill.

We have a good solid product to make sure that we can move the legislative branch institutions forward and to preserve the legacy of the Capitol complex and its institutions for future generations. We also are going to make sure that we keep the government running.

I am hopeful that my colleagues, both on the other side of the aisle as well as on my side of the aisle, will vote for this bill. A vote against this bill would jeopardize the security and safety of our citizens. Shutting the government down is not a responsible action.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Madam Speaker, our principal obligation on this bill is simply to keep the government open. We've got enough problems in the economy right now without adding to people's uncertainty. We had concluded that the least disruptive way to do that and the way with the least delay was to attach this continuing resolution to the one appropriation bill that was ready to be conferenced, the Legislative Branch Appropriation bill.

This is a relatively straightforward and unadorned CR. As far as funding levels are concerned, we are simply allowing agencies to continue fiscal 2009 levels, with three exceptions:

First, we are following the House's lead when it voted 388-32 to allow the postal service to cover a budget shortfall by postponing a payment intended to prefund its retiree health benefits;

Second, we're funding the census at a somewhat higher rate to allow it to ramp up activities so the 2010 census can proceed. The calendar is not going to change to suit congressional convenience;

Third, we are providing additional funding for the Veterans Health Administration. The VA expects to treat

over 6 million patients in 2010, including almost 420,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The CR also extends a number of authorizations that would otherwise expire: transportation programs, child nutrition, stop-loss payments to our troops, E-Verify, and various other programs.

So, as I said, this is a relatively routine CR which keeps the government open for the next 30 days.

Outside of those items, we make no policy judgments. We change no existing policy except that, in accordance with the House vote last week, we also say no more funds for this 30-day period for ACORN. There have been some objections by the minority to this process. They claim it is procedurally outrageous because we are attaching the continuing resolution to a specific appropriations subcommittee bill. This is certainly not out of the ordinary.

In fact, in September of 2006, our friends on the other side of the aisle, when they controlled this House, attached the continuing resolution to the defense bill. I have the roll call on that if anyone cares to take a look at it. If you do, you would find out there were only two Members of the other party who voted against it, and in the Senate, the vote was 100 to nothing in support of it.

So there is no difference in what we are doing today, but there is a difference in how we do it. We are up front with what we are doing. We included this action in the conference notes, and voted on it in the conference. That was certainly not the case in 2006 when the action of adding the CR was not flagged or noticed in any way during the conference or in the conference notes. I have a copy of those conference notes here if anyone wishes to see them. So the action that was taken then was simply taken after the fact in contrast to our doing it up front and in full view. So I believe that, in comparison to that, this action is, certainly, totally transparent.

Now I need to take this opportunity to note one other point: Until last night, we were not in a position to move other appropriations bills because of a dispute between the House and the Senate over how to deal with for-profit earmarks. As I think the membership knows, we have put in place in the last few years significant reforms to the earmark process. When we took over control of the Congress in 2007, we put in place a moratorium on earmarks for that year until we could reform the process and make it much less susceptible to wasting taxpayers' money. Since then, including this year's bills, we have cut the dollar amount of earmarks by 50 percent. We require every Member to request earmarks publicly, ending the practice of anonymous earmarks in the House, and to certify that they have no financial interest.

This year, we have gone one step further. Recognizing the potential for abuse in sole-source contracting, we have insisted that all House earmarks designated for for-profit entities must undergo a competitive bidding process. We still allow those entities to be named so we can help, for instance, small businesses get a foot in the door so that they can be noticed by Federal agencies, which all too often simply notice people with whom they are familiar in their inside processes, but we nonetheless require that those entities still submit a bid and compete in a fair competition.

The Senate did not do that this year, and up until last night, was objecting to even allowing the House to follow this policy. Last night, we reached an agreement that will allow us to proceed with House earmarks subject to that new policy.

There is still one small area of disagreement that remains. There are a small number of projects, approximately 5 percent, which have been included in both the House and Senate bills. Until last night, the other body was refusing to allow those to be competed. Under the agreement we reached this year and this year only, those projects will be dealt with according to Senate policy. Next year and thereafter, they will be managed by House policy. So they, too, will be subjected to competition next year.

We reached this agreement because the other body insisted that, because they had proceeded all year under their policies, it was too late to change the rules of the game for them. We recognize that changing policies at this point would be a procedural problem for the other body. We do appreciate their agreement that, starting next year, we can all agree on how to handle for-profit projects and that they will be handled in accordance with the House procedures.

This will enable us to now proceed to conference on a number of other appropriations bills which have been passed by the Senate: We have had a motion to go to conference on energy and water. We expect next week, after two small matters are resolved, to also be able to go to conference on the Agriculture bill. We hope that, within a week, we will be able to resolve a few remaining differences on the Homeland Security bill and to also go to conference on that and other bills as the Senate grinds through them in their processes.

So, having reported that to the House, I would simply urge an ``aye'' vote for the legislation before us, and would simply note that, given the calendar, a vote against this proposition would be a vote to shut down the government.

With that, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Would the gentleman yield for a question?

Madam Speaker, I would simply note, in light of the gentleman from Kentucky's comments, there are at least seven outstanding issues on homeland security that, to my knowledge, have yet to be resolved. One is the border fence. Another is the National Bio and Agricultural Defense Facility. There is an argument about where that's supposed to go. We have the Gitmo issue. We have immigration issues. We have FEMA.

If the gentleman wants to resolve those by agreeing with our position on each of them, I would be happy to see them go to conference right now.

The fact is that no one has suggested that they delay the Homeland Security bill in any manner whatsoever. We are noting that there are significant substantive differences. Under the rules of the body, we can't bring a conference bill back to this House until we've reached agreement on all of those differences.

So I think it's patently preposterous to suggest that this bill is being delayed in any way.

The only thing that is delaying it is honest disagreement and, until last night, the disagreement that we had with the Senate which precluded us from bringing up virtually any other bill. Thankfully, that is now gone.

No, I will not. The gentleman would not yield to me. I don't see any reason to yield to him.

Madam Speaker, what we just heard came from a Member of the then-majority party, which turned $6 trillion in inherited projected surpluses into a $2 trillion deficit. We heard that from a Member of the party that provided $2 trillion in tax cuts primarily aimed at the wealthiest people in the country, all paid for with borrowed money, from the same folks who gave us almost $1 trillion in spending on the most ill advised war in the country's history, also paid for with borrowed money.

They ran the country's economy into the ditch with record collapse of consumer spending and record collapse of unemployment. Then they are now complaining when Mr. Obama and the majority party are now trying to pull the country out of the ditch.

Someone else can take that seriously if they want, but I won't be one of them.

Madam Speaker, I proudly rise on the House floor tonight to manage a Special Order on behalf of our former colleague and the present Secretary of the Army, former Congressman John McHugh, now Secretary John McHugh.

Madam Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) who does have to leave, and I would recognize him for 2 minutes.

I thank the gentleman from Illinois.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York, who actually served in the State legislature with John McHugh back when John was a senator and the gentleman was an assemblyman, Mr. Tonko from Upstate New York.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his very gracious remarks.

In your remarks, you demonstrated the same bipartisan spirit that personified John McHugh's career here in the House of Representatives, and I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Now I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his remarks.

Madam Speaker, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania referenced, Congressman McHugh did go on a number of congressional delegations to Iraq. I was privileged to go on one that he led in 2004. But just to show that Congressman McHugh is not perfect, he did have one person on the trip who really didn't fit in at all, but Congressman McHugh, being the wonderful person that he is, brought him along with a sense of charity and compassion.

With that, I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, Mr. McCotter.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his remarks.

Now I will yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), who served in the New York State legislature with John McHugh when John was a senator and Mr. Hinchey was in the New York State Assembly. And I believe that Mr. Hinchey and Mr. McHugh came to Congress in the same year, in 1992. It was quite a year, Mo.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his remarks.

I now yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his remarks. I must say, I agree with him completely that Congressman McHugh had a level of sophistication and sartorial splendor which you and I certainly lack. We all try to emulate John but come nowhere close.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who also served in the New York State Legislature, in the assembly when Congressman McHugh was at that time a State senator. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio, a good friend of Secretary McHugh, Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Ohio for always managing to get something good out of whatever happens. He gets John McHugh as Secretary of the Army, and Steve LaTourette has a good parking place, so all is right with the world.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, Mr. Sessions.

Thank you, Congressman Sessions.

We have seen tonight people from all regions of the country, from both sides of the aisle, come forward. No one personifies that more than the dean of the New York delegation, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank Chairman Rangel for his remarks.

It's very appropriate, I believe, that Congressman McHugh has become Secretary of the Army, and these remarks tonight by Mr. Rangel were made by someone who has such a distinguished record in the United States Army in the Korean War. That's the type of person that John McHugh will be representing as Secretary of the Army, heroic men such as Congressman Rangel who certainly put their life on the line and answered their nation's call.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a large number of people coming out tonight to speak on behalf of Secretary of the Army John McHugh. I was fortunate to be elected to the United States Congress in 1992, the same year as John McHugh. I knew John McHugh from his outstanding service in the New York State Senate, I knew that he was a legislator's legislator; and from the moment he arrived here in the Congress, John always to me exemplified what a Member of Congress should be. I don't know how many times you would walk out that door and see John sitting there at a chair and desk studying the legislation.

People say that Members of Congress don't read their legislation. I can tell that you John McHugh was constantly reading legislation, constantly studying up on what had to be done, constantly trying to find bipartisan solutions to problems.

It was mentioned tonight that he served on the Postal Subcommittee, where he did author reform legislation of the Postal Service, a very, very difficult job.

We talked about the trips he took, the 10 visits to Iraq, the four to Afghanistan that he took as a member of the Armed Services Committee. Then earlier this year he reached the culmination of his congressional career when he was elected as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee where, again, he worked very closely with Chairman Ike Skelton in a bipartisan way, always putting the troops first. I remember during his early years here in Congress when there was an attempt to close down Fort Drum and the work that John put in around the clock doing what he could and successfully doing what he could to save Fort Drum from being closed down.

These are just some examples of the type of dedication that John McHugh had. As Congressman Rangel said, there was something else; there was no meanness, there was no bitterness, there was no anger in John McHugh.

John wanted to find a way to get things done. He had strong principles. He had strong beliefs. But he also recognized that people on the other side of the aisle and people in his own party also had very strong beliefs, and they may be different from his, but he respected them.

I wish John the very best as Secretary of the Army. President Obama made an absolutely superb selection when he picked John McHugh. I can't think of anyone who would dedicate himself more to the men and women of the United States Army than John McHugh.

As was mentioned, having traveled with John to Iraq, I would see him sit with the generals, the two-star generals, the three-star generals, the four-star generals. He would sit with the ambassadors. He would sit with all of the high-ranking people. But he always found time to spend most of his time with the enlisted men, the enlisted women, the PFCs, the sergeants, the first lieutenants, second lieutenants. He realized that it wasn't just the people at the top, but it was people at all levels, the people who really did the heavy lifting, who put their lives on the line, who were the people who made the most impression on him and to whom he had the greatest responsibility.

John, I certainly wish you the best. We look forward to your service for the United States, for the United States Army. I know that more even than the feeling you are going to receive from the Members of Congress, it's the men and women of the Armed Forces, of the United States Army, who appreciate you the most, because they are going to be the greatest beneficiaries of your dedication, your patriotism and your hard work.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this bill on January 6, the first legislative day, was appropriate. This is a problem for an organization, the United States Post Office, which is, in fact, 15 times larger than General Motors. The United States Post Office is not only a constitutional obligation but, in fact, an organization which has existed for the service of the United States of America since our founding.

But since the 1970s, the United States Post Office has had a problem. The problem is our own success. Alternate efficiencies have reduced the need for the United States Post Office to deliver mail. Invoices, payments, and certainly many other emails instead of paper mails are being delivered electronically today. The United States Post Office is also suffering from a recession that we all are suffering under.

Therefore, the committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to recognize that we must reform the post office again. Having just passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act in 2006, we are faced with another crisis; but rather than having that crisis lead to haphazard reductions, the chairman and I have worked together with Members on both sides of the aisle, as the chairman said, 339 cosponsors, to create a soft landing for the post office.

It will not be that soft, Mr. Speaker. It will, in fact, require that they accelerate the reduction in their force. It will require that they look at all costs and services. It will require without a doubt the closing of post offices around our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, these are difficult decisions. They are both financial and they're political. They impact the communities who have for so long allowed people to go to their corner post office to maintain a postal mailbox, to do other services. These services will be further away in the future.

So for that reason, although I would have preferred a major reform, I would have preferred that we were able to do some of these hard steps, I'm supporting an alternate course, one in which we use these last 2 weeks and only these last 2 weeks of the fiscal year to move this bill with a cost, as the chairman said, of zero because there is so little time left in the year. However, we are committed on this side of the aisle and I know the chairman shares this, to work with the postal service to find ways to reduce their costs, their overhead, and many of the legacy items that today make it difficult.

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat something the chairman said because it's noteworthy for my conservative friends. The post office's money that we are talking about today is the money they have put aside. This is the only agency that works in this way. So

although this could have scored, it does not score, and although people will often say that we are being fiscal conservatives if we vote against this, the truth is the postal service operates within its own funds. The funds that will be used in H.R. 22 are their funds. Ultimately the American people will look to the post office to make the corrections. This committee on a bipartisan basis will oversee the post office to see that they come in line for the future so they continue to operate on their own revenue and not on any revenue provided by Congress.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope my friends are listening. I hope this will go far behind the 339 cosponsors, and I hope that everyone on both sides of the aisle will put down their mark today to make sure that we commit ourselves working with the post office to do the necessary reforms so we will not be back here again in the same way next year.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I would like to comment on the Delegate's statement because it is quite true. Just in the last approximately 18 months, we have added almost 200,000 net Federal workers on the Federal side. The post office is continuing to reduce its workforce, anticipating reducing its workforce by about 30,000, or more than 5 percent per year. We have to do better.

I look forward to working with the majority on finding ways that we can integrate more postal workers into other Federal opportunities so we can retain these good Federal servants, but at the same time right- size the post office.

Having said that, it is very clear, as Ms. Norton said, that only the post office is really cutting itself in the Federal Government, and that is an unusual situation. They are right-sizing themselves, and I hope all of our Members will be sensitive that we have to right-size them at a rate that allows our high quality service to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire from the chairman how many more speakers he has.

I reserve the balance of my time to close before the chairman closes.

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

All that need be said has more or less been said. This is necessary. It scores no cost. It is a reality of our recession and the ongoing reduction in the number of pieces of mail being carried by the post office. I might note in closing, the United Parcel Service, FedEx, DHL and others have experienced even greater reductions in their package carrying. That is part of this recession. This recession will end. But when this recession ends, the use of email and advertising over the Internet rather than your mailbox will continue.

So I look forward to working with the chairman. He and I have forged a very good relationship on these bipartisan issues. We need to create the right size postal system. We need to convert and retain postal workers as Federal employees where there are opportunities. That is what we really need the time to do.

As the chairman and I close, I want to urge all of my colleagues to understand, I am putting down a marker here today that I will not be bringing back the exact same bill next year simply to forestall it. We will monitor the usage at the post office and work with them, work with the Postmaster, and we will work with each other to make sure that we begin in a very, very quick order the kinds of reforms that may cost money but ultimately will right-size the post office.

That is a commitment the American people expect us to make and one we will make. But at the same time, I recognize that the postal service is right-sized to perform an incredibly important constitutional duty, one that none of us would want to see go away. Certainly at a time when a number of States have gone to postal voting, they now represent a key element of democracy even beyond what they have historically done.

I thank the chairman for this bipartisan work, and I thank Mr. McHugh who could not be here today for his relentless support and work. I urge strong support that we vote this out of the House on a unanimous basis.

I yield back the balance of my time.