John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has spoken very eloquently about the Defense authorization bill and instruction. Will the gentleman tell me how this motion to instruct has anything to do with the defense authorization bill? If the gentleman will answer the question I just posed, because I am confused, which happens often.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would say I appreciate the gentleman's comments. My question was predicated upon the gentleman's assertion that this motion to instruct was related to this Defense bill when, in fact, it is not. The gentleman may wish to interject arguments about whether or not it is important or is not. My single point was this has nothing, with a capital N, to do with the Defense authorization bill. It is a motion to instruct another committee to do something that this committee does not have jurisdiction over.

Mr. McHUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my point was not to debate the process, not to disagree with the substance, but rather to talk about the accuracy of the gentleman's words which were inaccurate.

Mr. McHUGH. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time, I do not disagree with the gentleman that the Senate, as the Senate does, has done something that should not be done. It is something inappropriate and something totally based upon the rule of no rule. I agree with the gentleman. However, the gentleman from Hawaii's context was to the House bill, which has no application, no provision, to this. That was the relevancy in my comments. That is all I was questioning was his comment relevant to the House bill. There is no provision, as there should have not have been, because this is not relevant to the House bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just say to him that I never accused him of being against veterans. What I said was, I find it incredible that the gentleman would be against this provision that opened this park, and I named the specific park, to disabled veterans. Does the gentleman disagree? Are you against that?

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. McHUGH. Then you are against it. I respect your opinion.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To my friend from Arkansas, who is the ranking member on the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, the subcommittee on which I chair, I would simply say that I find it somewhat incredible that he would be calling into question provisions in the Armed Services authorization bill that provides in the Santa Rosa Channel Islands chain the opportunity for disabled veterans to have recreational opportunities. I would say as the chairman of that subcommittee, the question is not why we have done it. The question is, why has it taken us so long to do it, and I cannot believe that if a vote were up today to whether or not we should authorize that kind of activity in that area, the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas would vote no, and yet he questioned it. Let me say that at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is misplaced, it is misguided, and, quite frankly, it is political. Let me just read to you the opening lines of the reference to the Senate bill that is contained in this instruction. It says: ``The President shall ensure that the United States Government continues,'' continues, as if the President would not, ``continues to comply with the authorization, reporting, and notification requirements in title V of the National Security Act of 1947.'' I have stood here, Mr. Speaker, and listened to the entire debate. Not once did any speaker on the other side suggest, imply, accuse the President, anyone in the administration of not abiding by that provision. And yet they are here tonight trying to suggest in a bill that has no jurisdiction over the Intelligence Committee that somehow we should instruct that Intelligence Committee to comply and require that the President do something that he is already doing. This is, sadly, Mr. Speaker, politics at its worst. There is nothing really substantially wrong in what this instruction requires, except that this House, this floor, at a time of war, on the very day the Iraqi people went, over 10 million strong, to vote for democracy, we should be casting a vote that somehow calls into question the integrity of this administration, an administration that has freed 50 million people between Afghanistan and Iraq, an administration that today, with the support of this Congress on a bipartisan, bipartisan level, agreed and supported that. This instruction should be rejected not on its substance but on its politics. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHUGH. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McHUGH. The gentleman from Washington suggested I did not know the rules. Is it not within the rules for a Member to ask another Member to yield?

Mr. McHUGH. So in the context of the gentleman's response, I did know the rules; is that correct?

Mr. McHUGH. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the high energy costs are having a very negative effect on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and many State LIHEAP programs are expecting a major increase in applications and need for additional funding immediately to help ensure low-income families and seniors can afford to heat their homes. I recently joined with more than 100 of my colleagues in writing to the Committee on Appropriations Members requesting $1.276 billion in additional LIHEAP funding, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you would work with me and other Members who share those concerns to make sure this very important assistance program will be available to those who need it in the upcoming winter heating season.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, today, obviously, represents a critical step in what has to this point been a journey of more than 10 years, a decade and a half of hearings and meeting, of negotiations followed by more hearings, more meetings, more negotiations, to rewrite and rewrite again and again a piece of legislation that will serve as the first true serious reform of the sector known as the United States Postal Service, that since 1970. In that length of effort, Mr. Chairman, that incredible commitment to the issue speaks directly to the critical importance of the Postal Service of this Nation and the complexity of this system that each and every day and each and every year delivers some 206 billion pieces of mail going through 38,000 postal facilities to 143 million addresses in virtually every community in every State in this Nation, 6 days a week, day in, day out, week in and week out. So since 1775 this is the service that American people and American businesses alike have come and grown to expect. Universal service at a uniform price, no questions asked. No one in this country, Mr. Chairman, goes to his or her mailbox or his or her local post office wondering if the mail will be there. It is always there. It has always been there. But the true question, the question that this bill seeks to answer with a resounding yes, I might add, is will the mail always be there? I am concerned that truly without this legislation the answer might well be far different than that resounding yes. Postal service of today is far removed from that of 30 years ago when reform was last enacted. Unlike then, the mail stream of today has diminished by such things as e-mails and faxes and cell phones and text messages, largely electronic means of communication that replace mail. They replace stamps. And thus they replace the revenues necessary to operate our key mail delivery system. Some ask, if people are choosing to communicate in different ways, why do we need to change things at all? Some even go so far as to suggest that the time of the Postal Service has passed, that we ought to let the private sector take over. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, for all the challenges the Postal Service of the 21st century faces, it still retains its traditional place as a key cog in how American businesses conduct their affairs and how Americans all across this land communicate. The postal business sector of this Nation, as we have heard the distinguished chairman of the full committee clearly state, represents a $900-billion-a-year industry, with 9 million jobs, and more than 8 percent, nearly 9 percent, of our entire Nation's economy. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, if the Postal Service did not exist here in 2005, we would have to invent it. That is why more than 200 major companies in this country have strongly endorsed this measure, 200 companies representing the lifeblood of the economy of this Nation. That is why virtually every major labor organization within the Postal Service has endorsed it, why even those companies that compete against the Postal Service have endorsed H.R. 22, including United Parcel Service, including FedEx, and others. Now, I have no doubt there are going to be those who believe they have a better idea, those who will say they can improve this bill by adding or diminishing its provisions. And, Mr. Chairman, speaking honestly, as someone who has been involved from day one for more than 10 years, probably some, if not all, of these critics may be right. But what I would urge my colleagues to resist this day is the understandable temptation to make the perfect the enemy of the good. This bill's formation has taken more than a decade for some very good reasons. It is, frankly, based upon the complexity of the system itself. We have considered those interests of the people who manage it, those who man it, the businesses that rely upon it, those who compete against it, those who depend upon it, so many interests whose input and whose needs are all carefully balanced in this bill. Perfection? No, perhaps not, but a solution nevertheless, a solution to the challenges that provide the United States Postal Service with the necessary tools to operate in a manner that most of us expect, like a modern, flexible, nimble business competing on a fair playing field, operating in an efficient and professional manner. Mr. Chairman, at the risk of sounding immodest, I am very, very proud of this legislation. I am proud of its vision, I am proud of its construct and its provisions, but I am truly prouder still of those organizations and those special people, those individuals involved in those organizations and in this reform effort that have been there from the start. They say a year in government and politics is a lifetime, and if that is true, 10 years has to approach infinity. But through it all, we have had special people devoted to extraordinary efforts in a singularly vital cause. And our thanks, and clearly my thanks, are owed to so many to even begin to list at this moment. Many of them are cited on the page that I just held up, all those more than 200 interests who strongly support this. Many, if it were appropriate under the House rules, I would note are in the gallery today. But seeing as how it is not appropriate to say that under the House rules, I will resist the temptation. But without naming them specifically, I owe them thanks. At perhaps the risk of offending many, I have to acknowledge a particularly special few: The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the two ranking members who first began to help us move this issue forward. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) has been a stalwart, a ranking member who lost focus at no time and never lost faith. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the full committee ranking member, who put aside partisanship, not an easy thing to do in Washington these days, for the simple reason he understood and deeply cared about the conclusion of this challenge. Bill Clinger, followed by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the first and second chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, who continued to bring our attention to it and keep us focused. And our current chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who might have, who might have, but thankfully did not, let this effort die; who urged us forward; whose political skills, intellectual depth, and administrative acumen have really advanced us to this threshold of success. These are all important folks, but I want to say, as much as I deeply indebted for those efforts, in my opinion the success of today's consideration is predicated largely upon the efforts of one very special, very dedicated man: Robert Taub. Through it all, Robert has been the intellectual and spiritual glue that has held this effort together. He was always willing, even anxious, to my amazement, to do one more meeting, one more effort to advance reform. And when others saw failure, Robert saw a challenge. When others lost hope, Robert remained focused. When others remained angry, including myself, Robert remained calm. He has been the eye of the storm in a torrent of conflict, of divergent and seemingly irreconcilable differences. I am very, very proud that the payroll lists this very extraordinary man as my chief of staff. I am prouder still that in my heart I consider him a friend, and I am deeply in his debt particularly. So I will, with again a thanks to Chairman Davis for all that he has done, look forward to the passage of this bill.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to be very quick here, and I certainly appreciate our distinguished colleague's comments and deeply appreciate his concern. Just a couple of points. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) said, I have to disagree with the gentleman's comments that somehow the President's Commission is at odds with what this bill entails. In fact, I think it is fair to say the President's Commission adopted at least, at least, 80 percent of H.R. 22 as it was originally crafted and continues to be contained therein. He also spoke about the Statement of Administration Policy, the SAP, and talked about labor representation as though the President has opposed this. That is not true. The President's SAP does not address this issue, and, in fact, the United States Postal Service has not taken a position on this particular provision as well, which is the context of the gentleman's amendment. So with all due respect, I think that clarification is vital. It also talked about Republican-Democrat. I do not think this is a novel concept. Many major corporations from DaimlerChrysler, TWA, and on and on have labor union representation on their boards. I would also note that many organizations that are generally not considered liberal, perhaps Democrat, not just support H.R. 22, but oppose the gentleman's amendment. I will name just a few: American Express, Bank of America, Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, the Citigroup, Financial Services Roundtable. As I said, pretty conservative organizations that oppose this amendment. The fact of the matter is, this is well accepted in the industry sector. There will be one out of nine members of the Board of Governors, and I do not think it is unreasonable to have such a labor- intensive organization have a labor vote on that. While I do respect the gentleman's intent, I think, as has been suggested, these are issues that are much better dealt with in the context of the committee.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, a couple of comments. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said you cannot expect the Postal Service to give back any of its monopoly powers. With all due respect, the Postal Service has agreed to this bill. In this bill there is a substantial reduction in the monopoly scope on first class mail. Right now first class mail and monopoly is whatever the Postal Service says it is. Under this bill there is a bright line determination; it is six times the rate of the first class stamp, which is a substantial give-back. I also have to underscore the distinguished chairman's concerns about the suspension of title 18. You can argue about the needs for reform in pilot tests and such, but maybe it was an inadvertent step, but the fact still remains the amendment before the committee today will be a suspension of the criminal code, which would empower, rightly or wrongly, those who would be entrusted with the mail of the United States Postal Service to be totally absolved under criminal responsibility. Now, I can leave it to the imagination of the Members what that could potentially mean for identity theft and on and on and on. I doubt that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) meant it, but regardless, that is what this reform calls for. The last thing I would say is I think that a concern is about a new model for the Postal Service, and I would agree, and this bill understands that as well. We specifically negotiated with the administration a study to be conducted under the auspices of GAO. They will hire a contract specialty firm that will look at establishing a future business model that, in part, and I will quote from the bill, ``seeks to study the maintenance of the Postal Service in its current form as an independent establishment in the executive branch; and, two, transforming the Postal Service into an ordinary corporation, wholly owned by the government or wholly owned by private shareholders or partly by the government and partially by private shareholders.'' This bill admits we have to take a careful look at the future of the business model of the Postal Service. That is why this amendment should be rejected.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, a couple points with respect to the gentlewoman's comments about the 1971 legislation. She is right, but she is also a little behind because that is why we are making changes. H.R. 22, in fact, applies anti-trust provisions against the Postal Service, overturning the 1971 bill. We require taxes paid on the business computations for the competitive products portion of the Postal Service, again overchanging the 1971 bill. So that is what this is all about. I am glad I had the opportunity to update the gentlewoman's perspective on that. The other thing I would note is that, again, this would be the only Federal agency treated in this manner, the only Federal agency. And there is really no justification for it. I have heard a great deal about budget scoring, and I cannot speak as to the author of this amendment, but I suspect he along with others including myself, stood in the well of this House many, many times and spoke about the moronic perspective of scoring when it came to tax cuts. We did not want that kind of scoring, the same kind of scoring that is applied here. We wanted dynamic scoring, and if we were dynamically scoring, I think we would be referring to the statistics provided by others including the Envelope Manufacturing Association that says if this amendment were to pass, it would result in the loss of $64 billion in tax revenues from those firms that use the Postal Service for mailing and such that pay sales taxes and others; 245,000 jobs would be impacted just in the first year; and 3.5 million jobs would be impacted over 10 years, all of whom are taxpayers. So if we are dynamically scoring, as all of us who were so strongly in support of it when it came to the tax cuts, this would not be even an issue. Let me just state, here is what the Postal Service says about this particular amendment: ``If the Hensarling amendment is adopted, the Postal Service will be in worse financial situation then it occupied before the CSRS overfunding was identified and corrected. If the Hensarling amendment is adopted, the total of these four payments would be $97 billion over the next 10 years.'' That is a tax on the American mailing public, and I think we ought to resist this amendment.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, H.R. 2475. As the distinguished chairman so graciously recognized, I am one of the newer members of this committee; and I must say in that respect, I am enormously impressed by the bipartisan attitude that all the members bring to this very important issue, that of national security and its interface with our intelligence communities. That is a tribute to all of the members, Democrat and Republican alike, but I think it is a particular tribute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Hoekstra) and also the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), ranking member, who have worked so well together and provided that leadership of bipartisanship. The chairman noted, Madam Speaker, that I am a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, and in that capacity I have the honor of serving as chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee; and as such, I have been particularly interested in programs that aid the warfighter, those brave men and women who are putting their lives on the line each and every day for our freedoms and for our interests. And I am pleased to report that this legislation contains very important increases in funding for military intelligence programs. In particular, H.R. 2475 includes significant increases in funding for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, for the global war on terrorism, and thereby decreases the reliance on supplemental budgeting. Budgeting by supplemental, at least in my opinion, Madam Speaker, is inefficient; and it hinders the effective planning of our intelligence operations. And this bill very importantly takes a major step away from reliance on those supplementals and seeks to provide full funding to fight terrorism and for intelligence operations in Iraq. There is also increased funding for critical initiatives such as foreign language training for our troops in the field and for greater numbers of defense intelligence analysts. This intelligence authorization bill builds upon actions already taken by the House Committee on Armed Services dictating a career path for military linguists, and we should be very proud of this initiative in these regards. The net result, Madam Speaker, is that our intelligence personnel and our military will be better trained and equipped to perform their invaluable missions. These are important steps, and they have been taken with the necessary consultation with the Committee on Armed Services. And I am happy to report that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has worked very closely with the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), distinguished ranking member, with respect to our authorizations. And I would certainly argue that they complement one another very closely. To the extent that there are differences, and I think differences are and will continue to be inevitable, I know all of us on both sides of the aisle and in both committees will work to constructively breach those differences and bring about agreements on remaining issues as the authorization process continues. So I urge unanimous support of this very fine piece of legislation.