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…
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.