John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

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

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly want to start by thanking the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership on his side of the aisle in helping us to move this very important piece of legislation through the process. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the words spoken in the last minutes on this floor say very eloquently the high regard and the deep love that this body holds toward our departed colleague. Frank Tejeda was elected to this body as the first Representative from the 28th Congressional District in Texas in 1992. He was known simply as a quiet, dedicated, and independent-minded Representative who always voted his conscience first in the interest and concerns of his constituency. We have been told here today time and again he was a staunch defender of veterans, active duty and military personnel and installations and expressed that concern through his service on the Committee on National Security and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It has been mentioned twice here, I believe, Mr. Speaker, by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett], that indeed our departed colleague took as one of his final actions on this floor to see that a postal installation in Texas in Elmendorf was named after Amos F. Longoria, who was, like Frank, a war veteran and a native son of Texas, a gentleman who lost his life in service to his country. I think perhaps we should take the lead from Frank's efforts in that regard and very appropriately go forward in adopting this worthy piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], a leader in this House, the majority leader.

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

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 499) to designate the facility of the U.S. Postal Service under construction at 7411 Barlite Boulevard in San Antonio, TX, as the ``Frank M. Tejeda Post Office Building.''

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McHUGH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us was introduced by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] and supported by the Texas House Delegation. H.R. 499 designates the facility of the U.S. Postal Service being constructed at 7411 Barlite Blvd., San Antonio, TX as the Frank M. Tejeda Post Office Building. Mr. Speaker, this legislation honors our colleague Frank Tejeda, who died at the age of 51 at his home in San Antonio, TX on January 31 after succumbing to a 17-month battle with a malignant brain tumor. Frank was born on October 2, 1945 in San Antonio, TX and grew up in that city's south side. He did not finish high school, having been told not to return after an incident with a school counselor. Frank then joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 1963 during the Vietnam conflict, and 2 weeks before his scheduled return home from Vietnam in 1966, he was ambushed and struck in his leg by shrapnel. Frank Tejeda was awarded the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, the Commandant's Trophy, the Marine Corps Association Award, and many others for his valor and for his soldiering skills. Just recently, Mr. Speaker, he was posthumously awarded the Silver Star. Mr. Speaker, I have a very extensive statement on the many achievements of this fine American and of this man whom we all knew and loved very deeply, and I would like to enter that more full statement into the Record in its entirety. Frank Tejeda loved the Marine Corps; even as a Member of Congress, Frank continued to serve in the Marine Corps Reserve. When attending officer candidate school, Frank maintained a 99.6 academic average, the highest in the history of the Marine Corps. After leaving the Corps, Frank earned his undergraduate degree in government from St. Mary's University in San Antonio, a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley in 1974, a master's degree in public administration from Harvard in 1980, and a master of law from Yale in 1989. He served in the Texas House in Austin from 1977 until 1986 when he was elected to the Texas Senate where he remained until 1992. He was the leader of the south side political coalition in San Antonio. Frank Tejeda left his imprint on workers' compensation reform, business initiatives for minorities and women, housing for veterans, protection of crime victims, and he promoted measures to ensure voting rights for minorities. He became known for his investigation into the malfeasance of two members of the Texas Supreme Court, who were disciplined. The result of this investigation was the enmity of the State's trial lawyers. Frank Tejeda was elected the first Representative to Congress from the 28th District of Texas in 1992. He was known as a quiet, dedicated, and independent-minded Representative, voting his conscience and the concerns of his constituency. He was a staunch defender of veterans, active duty personnel and military installations and he served on the Committees on Veterans Affairs and National Security. Coincidently, Mr. Speaker, toward the end of the 104th Congress, on October 9, 1996, the President signed Public Law 104-255, the designation of the Amos F. Longoria Post Office Building in Elmendorf, TX, introduced by Frank Tejeda, honoring Elmendorf's native son who lost his life in service to his country during World War II. It is fitting that this House now remembers one of its own by designating a new post office building in San Antonio as the Frank M. Tejeda Post Office Building. Mr. Speaker, I urge all our colleagues to support the measure before us. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to other Members who have gathered here in the House to pay honor to this great American, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his very appropriate remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], the primary sponsor of the bill. (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his very thoughtful and kind remarks. I think it is important to note that, as we all know, the progress of legislation can often be a tortuous one, but I think this body owes a particular word of thanks to the chairman and to his staff for assisting in helping to expedite this bill being before us here today. It was a kind of gesture that really does endorse the very kind words that the gentleman just spoke about the man we have gathered to honor this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I am now honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the chairman of the full committee, for some comments on this bill.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sessions].

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 499, the bill just passed.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to an issue of great importance to the defense posture of the United States which takes on an even greater significance as the Department of Defense undertakes a study of the military of the future. An August 1996 Congressional Budget Office report, ``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,'' and specifically section [DEF- 17] entitled ``Reduce the Number of Light Infantry Divisions,'' is seriously flawed in both its analysis and conclusions. I believe it is imperative that the facts be known as to why we cannot afford to eliminate one light infantry division. I am also compelled to set the record straight regarding CBO's assertions about the 10th Mountain Division's role in Somalia. To let CBO's assumptions go unchallenged would be a disservice to our Nation and those men and women in uniform who risk their lives to defend it. Mr. Speaker, I believe the facts presented in the following January 16 letter to the Director of the CBO will provide a solid basis for future consideration of such important issues. I am especially pleased that in her response, which also follows, the Director has pledged to ``be more explicit about the advantages and merits attributable to light infantry divisions'' in future editions of the report. Mr. Speaker, I submit the exchange of correspondence for your interest and commend it to our colleagues for their thoughtful review. U.S. Congress House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 16, 1997. Ms. June E. O'Neill, Director, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC. Dear Ms. O'Neill: I call to your attention the August 1996 CBO report, Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options and specifically the section (DEF-17) entitled ``Reduce the Number of Army Light Divisions.'' At the onset, I want to thank you for your response to my August letter in which I asked for the data supporting the conclusion that the number of divisions be reduced. DEF-17 asserted that the Department of Defense could save over $16 billion in six years by eliminating one light infantry division (LID) and an airborne division by consolidating the airborne and air assault divisions into one division. The remaining light infantry divisions would consist of one light infantry division and one airborne division of two air assault brigades and one airborne brigade. Having reviewed the matter carefully, I must emphatically disagree with CBO's conclusions. I have found many of the assertions contained in DEF-17 to be faulty and without merit. As a Member of the National Security Committee, I well understand the need to spend every defense dollar wisely. It is in that context that I believe our light infantry divisions are one of our best national security investments. They have enabled us to meet the ever-increasing demands on the United States in this post-Cold War era. That having been said, I feel compelled to provide you with facts as to why we cannot afford to eliminate one light infantry division. I also believe it imperative that I set the record straight regarding the 10th Mountain Division's role in Somalia. To let DEF-17 go unchallenged would be a disservice to our men and women in uniform. One of the primary lessons of military history is that to accurately predict the timing and location of future conflicts is nearly impossible. It is, therefore, essential to have military forces capable of being tailored for a variety of scenarios. Even in the mid-1980s military planners visualized a need for forces to protect our national interest in other than the European theater, forces that must be prepared to conduct low- to mid-intensity conflicts. Heavy units need lighter forces to operate between and among them on terrain not suitable for heavy vehicles: forests, mountains, urban and other areas. The Army needs traditional general-purpose light infantry utilizing light infantry tactics: forces that could be used in a wide variety of environments and provide the National Military Strategy with its rapid and mobile strategic punch or show of force to deter or compel potential adversaries. Light infantry divisions can be lifted into any region in the world with just 500 sorties of C-141s vs. over 2,300 for the Army's mechanized divisions (first units are loaded in 18 hours). In the paragraphs which follow, I challenge the CBO assertions with the facts. CBO Assertion: Recent history indicates that the United States may not need those divisions. Between 1945 and 1991, about 120 incidents--excluding major conflicts such as those in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq--required commitment of U.S. ground forces. Of those, the Army was involved in about a third and, even then, generally not in large numbers. Fact: I have found your assertion that light infantry forces were used very little from 1945 to 1991 to be a misleading statement. The infantry units in question were created in the mid-1980s, covering only six years of the CBO study. According to an October 1996 study by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), light infantry units have been deployed in battalion or larger force a total of 13 times in the last 15 years. During five of these deployments, a division or larger light infantry force was used (URGENT FURY--Grenada 83; JUST CAUSE--Panama 89; DESERT SHIELD/STORN--SWA 90; RESTORE/CONTINUE HOPE--Somalia 92; RESTORE/UPHOLD DEMOCRACY--Haiti 94) CBO Assertion: The light infantry divisions have limited firepower and tactical mobility once deployed. Fact: Light infantry divisions, by their very nature do not have the firepower or mobility existing in the U.S. mechanized divisions because they are, in fact, tailored for other missions. Light infantry divisions must be offensive, capable of using stealth and attacking by infiltration, air assault, ambush and raids. These forces, by virtue of the terrain in which they are required to operate, do not have the capability to carry high caliber weapons. To offset a lack of firepower the LID dismounted company size is near double the size of a mechanized dismounted company force; around 120 in light company and about 68 in a mechanized company. A recent study by SAIC for the 21st Century concludes that, in the future, more conflicts will be fought in densely populated, urban environments. Heavy forces are not as well designed to combat infantry in urban environments where it takes time and manpower to clear buildings and blocks. These capabilities together with its strategic projection capability offer excellent balance to the full spectrum Army. CBO Assertion: The Defense Department made a strong statement about the utility of the LIDs in combat when it failed to use any light infantry forces during Operation Desert Storm. Fact: Your report states that the Department of Defense failed to use any light infantry forces during Operation Desert Storm (ODS). This is totally an inaccurate statement. Both the 82nd Airborne and the 101st Airborne (AASLT) were deployed in ODS. Although the 82nd Airborne Division did not parachute into the area of operations, it was the first U.S. ground force rapidly projected to Saudi Arabia to show U.S. military commitment and resolve to the region. The highest demonstration of U.S. resolve to defend Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein was to put soldiers on the ground as quickly as possible. The 82nd Airborne was on the ground within 24 hours. This action drew the line in the sand and allowed time for the heavier units to arrive in the Area of Responsibility (AOR). The 101st was utilized not only in Desert Storm by air assaulting 153 miles into the enemy rear and securing key tactical objectives along the Euphrates River, but also early in Desert Shield as a covering force in defense of Saudi Arabia. It should also be noted that the light infantry divisions remained in the continental U.S. to provide the U.S. with a strategic reserve to react to any threats seeking to capitalize on the U.S. deployment. CBO Assertion: The 10th Mountain Division's firepower and protection proved to be inadequate against even the unsophisticated and poorly equipped troops in Somalia. Fact: The 10th Mountain Division deployed to Somalia in 1992 with the mission of providing protection to the relief workers as they distributed food to the hungry. During the entire time the 10th Mountain Division was deployed to Somalia it accomplished its mission of protection and food distribution without any soldiers losing their lives. Mission creep (an evolving escalating requirement) redefined the U.S. role in Somalia and the forces were not re-tailored. As a result of this mission creep, Special Operating Forces (SOF) were deployed to key objectives to disrupt enemy command and control nodes. During one of the operations, the SOF operating in a different AOR required immediate support and regrettably none was available. After this operation it became apparent that the mobility and protection that armor forces have were necessary in the region if the U.S. was to pursue its redefined mission. CBO Assertion: There have been no division size parachute assaults involving an entire division since World War II. Additionally, paratroop-qualified units exist in the special forces branch of the Army, and it is not obvious that the Army needs an entire division designed to be dropped by parachute. FACT: While CBO correctly stated that there has been no division level airborne insertions since 1944, the capability for an airborne division insertion still exists. Special Operating Forces, in this case the Rangers, are required to have the capability for initial forced entry. The only reinforcement we have to expand lodgment is to assault airland; to insert vertically; of if tactically feasible to air assault. Assault airlanding places vulnerable Air Force Strategic lift assets on the ground and can be accomplished only if the insertion unit can secure an airfield and if the airfield is not damaged. In fact, many plans require airborne engineer units to build an airstrip to establish an aerial port of debarkation. Airborne insertion is by far the fastest way to mass combat power for initial entry. The standard airborne force package requires a brigade task force. In order to maintain a brigade on two hour notice and capable of deploying in 18 hours to any AOR, the division must rotate the duty among two other brigades. The necessitates three airborne brigade task forces. The balance of the current Army force structure is based upon the commitment of the U.S. around the world and the requirement to execute the National Military Strategy. The Army has four divisions which are strategically fixed; two in Germany for our NATO commitments, one in Korea for deterrence by treaty arrangement, and one in the Pacific to support USCINCPAC requirements. The Army must also be prepared to commit two corps of at least three divisions to Major Regional Conflicts (MRCs) in the East and West. Accepting that, at least one division will be forward deployed in the region and the Army must deploy five additional divisions for a total of ten divisions. The light infantry divisions offer the capability of rapid strategic mobility and a balance to the Army's total force. They are designed to be utilized in low- to mid-intensity conflicts with limited support; to integrate with armor forces in high-intensity conflicts, and to fight where armor cannot. I believe the above analysis clearly indicates that DEF-17 is faulty in its assertions. Surely this is not characteristic of the type of thoughtful work we have come to expect from the Congressional Budget Office. In the future, I hope that your military analysts will be more careful in their study of such important issues. Sincerely yours. John M. McHugh, Member of Congress.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation to reform the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Reform Act of 1997 is substantially identical to H.R. 3717 which I introduced in the 104th Congress and continues to represent the first comprehensive reform effort involving the U.S. Postal Service since its formation in 1970. When I introduced this measure in the previous Congress, I intended to make clear that this legislation represented the first step in a lengthy legislative process aimed at ensuring the future existence and financial viability of the United States Postal Service. The legislation was the subject of four extensive hearings during the 104th Congress and I plan to continue the hearing process into this new year. This legislation, as introduced, is substantially identical to the former H.R. 3717 as considered during the previous Congress. Any differences between this measure and its predecessor reflect the legislative reform enacted into law at the close of last year's legislative session. I again emphasize that the reintroduction of this measure represents my commitment to facilitating the reform process with all areas of the legislation subject to review. Consequently, I encourage those with interests in the legislation to continue to engage the Subcommittee in a constructive manner as the legislative process continues. During the 104th Congress the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, which I chair, conducted indepth and lengthy hearings on the U.S. Postal Service and the issue of postal reform. During the oversight phase of our hearings we heard from more than 60 witnesses representing all facets of the postal community. Further, I had the opportunity to meet with a variety of individual postal customers, postal employees, and business leaders regarding these matters. I attempted to listen and absorb the comments and interests put forth on and off the record during those meetings and address them with the introduction of H.R. 3717 on June 25, 1996. Continuing with the Subcommittee's desire to receive the full range of public comments we held four hearings last year specifically on H.R. 3717 and the issue of postal reform. Witnesses at these sessions ran the gamut from the Postmaster General; Chairman of the Postal Rate Commission; representatives of the direct mail and newspaper industries; private sector business partners; employee unions and associations, and for the first time, the Chief Executive Officers of the two largest private sector competitors of the USPS, Federal Express, and United Parcel Service. One thing became clear as we conducted our oversight functions and met with interested parties: that 26 years after the establishment of the United States Postal Service, postal customers across the spectrum want to maintain a viable universal mail delivery system. To achieve this goal, Congress must revisit the legislative infrastructure of the Postal Service to assist it in meeting the changing market conditions and advances in communications technology. Maintenance of a universal postal system must be the cornerstone of any postal reform measure. I strongly believe universal service at reasonable rates remains the primary mission of the U.S. Postal Service. However, shifting mail volumes and stagnant postal revenue growth require Congress to reexamine the statutory structure under which our current postal system now operates if we are to maintain this important public service mission. During the conduct of our oversight hearings, the Subcommittee heard many witnesses describe means of communications that were not imaginable in 1970. At that time, who could have foreseen the explosion of personal computers, the Internet and facsimile machines in our everyday lives? There has been a steady erosion of what used to be personal correspondence, protected by the postal monopoly, moving through the U.S. Mail that now moves electronically or via carriage by a number of private urgent mail carriers. According to Reports of the General Accounting Office, the U.S. Postal Service controlled virtually all of the Express Mail market in the early 1970's; by 1995 its share had dropped to approximately 13 percent. Similarly, the Postal Service is moving considerably fewer parcels today than 25 years ago. In 1971 the Postal Service handled 536 million parcel pieces and enjoyed a 65 percent share of the ground surface delivery market. Compare this to 1990 when the Postal Service parcel volume had dropped to 122 million pieces with a resulting market share of about 6 percent. Even the Postal Service's ``bread and butter'' mail, first-class financial transactions and personal correspondence mail, is beginning to show the effect of electronic alternatives. Financial institutions are promoting computer software to consumers as a method of conducting their billpaying and general banking, while Internet service providers and online subscription services are offering consumers the ability to send electronic messages to anyone around the world or just around the corner. Similarly, many of us have become accustomed to the immediacy of the facsimile machine. These new communication technologies all carry correspondence that formerly flowed through the Postal Service. These former sources of revenues supported a postal infrastructure dedicated to the mission of universal service. This shift in postal revenues will have a negative long-term effect on the financial well being of the Postal Service. Should the Service continue to labor under the parameters established by the 1970 Act, its inability to compete, develop new products and respond to changing market conditions jeopardizes its future ability to provide universal service to the diverse geographic areas of our Nation. We must make adjustments to the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 which will allow the Postal Service more flexibility in those areas in which it faces competition while assuring all postal customers of a continued universal mail service with the protection of reasonable rates that can be easily calculated and predicted. My legislation attempts to meet this goal by replacing the zero-sum game that has driven postal ratemaking for the last 25 years with a system that reflects today's changing communication markets. Mr. Speaker, I propose to allow the U.S. Postal Service the opportunity to make a profit and remove the break-even financial mandate of existing law that promotes the wide, yearly, swings of postal profit and deficit and weeks of negotiations on arcane economic assumptions for ratemaking purposes. I propose to divide the product offerings of the Postal Service into two primary categories. The first, the ``non-competitive mail'' category, represents all single piece letters, cards and parcels as well as those classes of users without significant alternatives. The class will utilize a postage rate ``cap'' process by which the associated customers can easily determine postal rates. The second category will be the ``competitive mail'' category and will include those mail classes, products and services the Postal Service provides through the competitive marketplace. Within the category the Postal Service may set its rates according to market forces subject to an annual audit provided to the Postal Rate Commission to assure that rates are reflective of costs while providing a contribution to the overhead of the U.S. Postal Service. In addition, it would allow the Postal Service freedom to experiment with new offerings for a period of three years before requiring the Postal Rate Commission to permanently place it in either the competitive or non-competitive mail categories. This legislation grants significant freedom and flexibility to the Postal Service. Consequently, other changes are needed to reflect this status. I propose to attempt to level the playing field by changing the relationship between the U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Treasury. Several postal competitors view financial access to the Treasury as an unfair advantage of the Postal Service, while the Postal Service views it as a restriction on its financial flexibility. Similarly, I propose to apply the anti-trust laws of our nation to the Postal Service products offered in either the competitive mail or the experimental market test categories. I am also proposing that the Postal Service conduct a demonstration project that will provide us with the data needed to determine the continued necessity of providing the Postal Service with sole access to individual private mailboxes. Mr. Speaker, last Congress when I introduced my bill I included a provision intended to settle once and for all the nagging problem of an agency's chief law enforcement officer and member of postal management serving as its Inspector General by establishing an independent Inspector General for the Postal Service. A provision of Public Law 104-208, adopted in the closing days of the 104th Congress, addressed that issue by mandating the establishment of an independent office of the Inspector General. The Subcommittee is monitoring the progress of this office and has high expectations for this new Inspector General. Also, the bill directs stringent reporting requirements to the Congress and to the U.S. Postal Rate Commission by providing the Commission with the ability to issue subpoenas, manage proprietary documentation and procure necessary information. This legislation places significant responsibilities on the Commission and, reflective of that, directs that the Commission will have for the first time its own Inspector General. My proposal, Mr. Speaker, also increases the penalties for repeated mailings of unsolicited sexually oriented advertising as well as the mailing of hazardous materials and controlled substances. It protects workers on the job by making it a felony to stalk, assault or rob a postal employee. Just this past month we saw a letter carrier killed while on duty in our nation's capital and we cannot allow those that would harm or rob postal carriers to go without significant punishment. My proposal addresses this serious situation by increasing the penalties for such acts of violence. I stress that significant areas of current law remain intact. This legislation does not affect the existing collective-bargaining process. However, the Subcommittee recognizes that serious problems exist between postal management and labor. To address this dire situation, I propose to form a Presidentially appointed Commission made up of non- postal union and corporate representatives as well as those well known in the field of labor-management relations. The Commission would be charged with addressing these issues in detail and provide guidance to the Congress and the Postal Service on any needed changes. Mr. Speaker, this bill is, indeed, far-reaching in its scope. Some have said there is no consensus for reform while others have requested reform, due to the fact that the USPS has had two years of financial success and high delivery satisfaction numbers. My response is that this is precisely the time to consider this issue. Reforms of this scope and magnitude are best enacted outside an atmosphere of crisis. Our failure to consider these reforms in a timely manner will leave the Postal Service ill-equipped to operate in a 21st Century environment. Without such action, Congress and the Postal Service will ultimately face conditions where thoughtful reforms and a deliberative process will be unachievable. Mr. Speaker, my bill offers the Postal Service, its customers and employees--and the American people--the opportunity to equip one of our Nation's most valued institutions with the requisite tools to remain a viable and fiscally sound entity well into the next century.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3610, the Omnibus Appropriation bill for fiscal year 1997. There are many good provisions in this measure and I am pleased that the Congress and the administration could work together in producing this necessary spending measure while avoiding a shutdown of government services. Contained in this measure are specific provisions affecting the structure of the United States Postal Service. Specifically, section 662 of title I provides for the creation of an independent Office of Inspector General, a long needed and important postal reform. This provision is similar in scope to provisions contained in my legislation H.R. 3717, the Postal Reform Act of 1996. H.R. 3717 has been the subject of four legislative hearings this term and a proposal for creating an independent Office of Inspector General received House support during the 103d Congress. Through this omnibus package, this important measure will be seen through to fruition. The need for an independent Office of Inspector General was highlighted by the General Accounting Office in its recent report to my Subcommittee on the Postal Service. Specifically, the GAO found that the current structure compromised the ability of the Postal Service Inspector General with respect to investigations and audits of the Postal Inspection Service. Current law provides that the Postal Service Inspector General and the Chief Postal Inspector are one and the same. This system is the product of the 1988 amendments to the inspector general statutes when the Postal Service first fell under the purview of the Inspector General Act. The General Accounting Office found that: The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (IG Act), requires that IGs conduct audits in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require IGs to be organizationally independent of the operations they audit. Because the Postal IG is the Chief Postal Inspector and therefore not organizationally independent of law enforcement operations, the Postal IG can not audit these operations in accordance with the required standards. Section 662 of title I of H.R. 3610 corrects this systemically flawed structure by mandating an independent Office of Inspector General. The Postal Service currently enjoys revenue fast approaching the $60 billion mark. It touches each and every one of us 6 days a week and provides universal mail service in order to bind together our geographically diverse country. The Postal Service is far too important for Congress and our constituents to leave the important role of agency watchdog to be compromised by a flawed management structure. Pursuant to these provisions, the Inspector General will be appointed by the Governors of the Postal Service and may only be removed, for cause, upon the written concurrence of seven of the Governors. Following appointment by the Governors, the bill directs the IG to submit a 5 year strategic plan outlining the goals and staffing requirements for this new office. The transfer of authorities from the Postal Inspection Service to the IG will include all specific IG authorities as contained in the Inspector General Act of 1978. Importantly, the position of Chief Postal Inspector will remain a statutory position within section 204 of title 39. The amendment directs that the Chief Postal Inspector will report to, and be under the supervision of, the Postmaster General. The PMG will be required to notify the Governors and both Houses of Congress should he remove or transfer the Chief Postal Inspector to another position within the Postal Service. Further, these provisions will not require the support of the taxpayer funds as the Postal Service is self- supporting and is not included in the omnibus federal budget. Mr. Speaker, these amendments are common sense, practical reforms and should prove to make our Postal Service more respective and accountable. Hopefully, these amendments will represent the first step that Congress will take toward tackling the arduous issues surrounding postal reform and I am optimistic that, in the next Congress, we may be able to further address these complex issues. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the conference report on H.R. 3610.

Mr. McHUGH

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

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this bill was passed and amended by this body on July 30, 1996 under suspension of the rules, as the gentleman from Maine just noted. It does what I certainly believe and I hope all our colleagues agree is a very worthwhile step in creating certain mailing rights for very worthy organization involved in educational activities. I would note for the record, Mr. Speaker, that a preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office reports that the enactment of the amendment as placed in this bill by the Senate would result in a cost to the U.S. Postal Service. However, as the Postal Service is classified as off budget, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. Mr. Speaker, I would urge our colleagues to support this bill as amended by the Senate. I think it is a worthy initiative that would do this House proud and I certainly hope for its passage.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2700), to designate the building located at 8302 FM 327, Elmendorf, TX, which houses operations of the United States Postal Service, as the ``Amos F. Longoria Post Office Building,'' with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2153) to designate the United States Post Office building located in Brewer, Maine, as the ``Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain Post Office Building,'' and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his comments and also his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, as was just noted, this legislation, which is important to note was introduced by both the Senators from the great State of Maine and is supported both by the gentleman whom we have just heard from but also the entire House delegation, does indeed honor a Civil War hero by naming a post office building located in Brewer, ME as the Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain Post Office Building. In addition to being known as a man of remarkable valor in that war and a great man in history, Joshua Chamberlain was also the president of Bowdoin College, and a scholar. I cannot think of a more fitting tribute to this great American than following through on the adoption of this bill as just suggested by the gentleman from Maine, and I would urge all our colleagues to accept this unanimous-consent request at this time.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. 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 amendment to H.R. 2700.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3877) to designate the U.S. Post Office building in Camden, AR, as the ``Honorable David H. Pryor Post Office Building,'' as amended.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3877, as amended.