[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 56 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2462-S2476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  GSA

  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I come to the floor today to highlight 
an issue I fight for every day; that is, jobs in Nevada. In Nevada, 
having a strong tourism industry means more jobs in the State. Las 
Vegas, Henderson, Lake Tahoe, and Reno have long been favorite 
destinations for millions of visitors both domestically and, more 
increasingly, internationally. The entire

[[Page S2463]]

southern Nevada economy is heavily dependent on the hotel, gaming, and 
convention industry, which employs over one-quarter of the region's 
labor force. Plain and simple, tourism is the lifeblood for business 
and job creation in Nevada.
  Like many taxpayers, I was shocked and disappointed to read the GSA 
inspector general's report that found inappropriate spending at the 
2010 Western Regions Conference that was held in Nevada. This 
conference was excessive, wasteful, and it completely ignored Federal 
procurement laws and internal GSA policy on conference spending.
  I believe it is appropriate for Congress to exercise its oversight 
authority on GSA to look into the agency's practices and provide 
corrective oversight to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely 
by this administration. However, I want to be clear: This is not an 
issue about location, this is the result of poor decisionmaking and 
leadership by the GSA. Las Vegas is one of the greatest locations in 
the world for a conference, a meeting, or a vacation. With over 148,000 
hotel rooms and 10.5 million square feet of meeting and exhibit space 
citywide, it is ideally suited to host companies and organizations both 
large and small. In fact, this past January Las Vegas hosted the 
Consumer Electronics Show, which had more people attend than the Iowa 
caucuses. I fully agree that it was inappropriate for the GSA to waste 
taxpayer dollars, but it is not inappropriate to come to Las Vegas for 
conventions and meetings.
  The actions of GSA should not reflect negatively on Las Vegas, and I 
am asking all of my colleagues to be mindful of that as they conduct 
their investigations. The viability of the economy in Nevada is 
dependent upon the volume of visitors to our State. Last year nearly 39 
million visitors came to Las Vegas alone. These visitors came because 
Las Vegas continues its reign as the No. 1 trade show and convention 
destination in North America. Las Vegas hosts thousands of meetings and 
conventions annually and generates billions in revenue.
  It is no secret that Washington politicians and this administration 
have had a negative impact on the Las Vegas economy due to their 
comments issued publicly. For example, in 2009 attendance at 
conventions and meetings in Las Vegas fell by 13.6 percent. The 
following year attendance fell by another 7.2 percent. In total from 
2009 to 2010, Las Vegas lost 1.4 million convention attendees. While I 
recognize that it is unfair to blame total decline on a few ill-advised 
lines in a speech, there is no doubt that spoken words by politicians 
clearly have an impact on the Las Vegas economy. Las Vegas and the 
great State of Nevada should not be political targets because of GSA's 
misconduct. Las Vegas is an excellent destination for conferences, and 
I am proud of my State's ability to entertain and accommodate 
businesses, organizations, and individuals from all over the world.
  Again, while several congressional committees investigate this issue, 
I would respectfully advise my colleagues that it is not the location 
that can be blamed for the misuse of taxpayer funds. The convention 
services my State offers are the best in the world. And no town in 
Nevada should be singled out due to poor judgment by the GSA. It is my 
hope that all of my colleagues will focus on the misconduct of the GSA 
and push for a new initiative that spurs growth in the tourist industry 
instead of blaming Nevada for the mistakes of incompetent government 
bureaucrats.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Postal Reform

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to address an issue that 
goes to the very heart of our rural communities--our post offices.
  First, let's set the context. Our Postal Service is facing a 
challenging and difficult situation, no doubt. Americans' habits with 
first-class mail have changed, and there is greater competition for 
packages with groups such as FedEx and UPS. But perhaps the biggest 
wound to the post office's bottom line is one that Congress imposed: a 
$5.5 billion yearly financing of health care costs 75 years into the 
future. That is health care costs not just for folks who aren't yet 
employed with the post office but for future employees who have not yet 
been born. So, yes, the post office system must restructure, and it 
should start with Congress reversing the $5.5 billion yearly 
requirement for advanced yearly health care payments.
  Let's go to the other end of the spectrum, which absolutely does not 
make sense, and that is to close our rural post offices. In a rural 
town, the post office is the only place where nearby residents can send 
and receive mail. But it is more than that: It is a shipping center for 
the small businesses of the communities. It is the pharmacy for seniors 
and others who need medicines through the mail. It is the community 
center where folks gather and exchange information. In short, it is the 
very heart of our rural communities.
  Let's start by examining the critical role of rural post offices on 
small businesses. Virtually every small town is home to a host of small 
businesses that take orders through the mail and ship their products 
through the mail. What would happen to the efficiency of a small 
business if it had to drive an additional 50 miles per day in order to 
pick up orders and mail products? Well, quite obviously, it would 
destroy their efficiency, and they would think about shutting down or 
they would think about moving.
  What would happen to the profit margin of a small business if they 
had to spend three or four times more on gas--very expensive gas, as we 
all know? Obviously, it would do a lot of damage to their bottom line 
and, again, they would think about shutting down or moving.
  What would the impact be to that small community of the small 
businesses shutting down and moving? Well, it would do enormous damage. 
I think no one would dispute that. So we need to be clear that when we 
are talking about shutting down rural post offices that are many miles 
from the next possible opportunity to receive orders and ship products, 
we are talking about destroying the economic heart of our small towns. 
It is economic havoc, and it is unacceptable.
  Here is the irony. Folks come to the floor of the Senate and talk 
about economic development. They talk about creating jobs. They talk 
about how small businesses are the job factory. And they are right on 
every single point. So if there were no post office in a small 
community, the very first thing we would do for economic development is 
to create one so the small businesses can pick up their orders and ship 
their products. So how is it possible we are considering a bill that is 
going to shut down these rural post offices that are so essential to 
small businesses across rural America?
  Another powerful role of rural post offices is to deliver critical 
medicine to America's seniors. What happens if seniors cannot receive 
their medicines through the mail? One of my colleagues glibly said: 
Well, of course, they get it from FedEx.
  Well, I beg to differ because FedEx uses the postal system to deliver 
medicines the last mile and to deliver packages the last mile. So, no; 
they simply can't get their medicines through FedEx. Now they are 
driving roundtrip 50 miles, sometimes on impassable roads, in order to 
get critical medicines? Well, they will start thinking about moving.
  Then there is the fact that these post offices are the places where 
citizens gather, where they exchange information, where they find out 
what is going on. Indeed, sometimes even the last small store has 
closed in these communities of 200 or 300 families, so then it is the 
post office that is the heart of communication. So if we take away the 
small business, we take away the seniors, we take away the 
communication hub, and we do enormous damage. Why is that bill being 
considered with this clause on the floor of the Senate? We must change 
that.
  That is why a number of us are putting forward an amendment to say, 
no;

[[Page S2464]]

this is absolutely wrong--wrong on economic development, wrong on 
service to our senior citizens, and wrong in understanding the cultural 
heart of our rural communities.
  I am going to focus on some comments from two communities in Oregon--
two that are on the list of 41 post offices the Postmaster General said 
were slated for possible consideration for closing. This is a picture 
of the Tiller Post Office. It is 16 miles from the next nearest post 
office. Now, imagine being 5 miles from Tiller or 10 miles from Tiller 
and another 16 miles from the next post office. Now we are talking 
about 40 to 50 miles roundtrip every single day to pick up orders, ship 
products, and get medicines. It doesn't make sense.
  Here is a letter from Diana Farris, a former postmaster in Tiller. 
She writes:

       Tiller is one such community, where in many ways, time 
     stands still and new technology is beyond their grasp. In 
     Tiller, cellular phone service is unavailable. DSL and cable 
     internet service are unavailable, satellite service is 
     overpriced with the majority of residents unable to afford it 
     and there is no Wi-Fi access in the area.

  Diana continues:

       Dial up Internet is available (when the poorly maintained 
     telephone service is operational) at top speeds of 
     approximately 24 to 26k, so slow that many websites, 
     including USPS--

  That is the U.S. Postal Service--

       time out before you can access needed info.

  She continues:

       The unemployment rate has risen to 13 percent in Douglas 
     County--

  That happens to be the county where I was born in rural southern 
Oregon--

       and the lowest gas price in Tiller in the last few months 
     has been $3.95 per gallon. For communities like this, the 
     local Post Office remains the only option.

  That is the end of her letter.
  In Tiller, the nearest post office, if Tiller were to close, is 16 
miles away. It would mean, a roundtrip, a full hour's drive through 
winding mountain roads, and that is assuming the best weather and road 
conditions.
  Because of that difficult drive, closing the Tiller Post Office would 
have a devastating impact on small businesses that rely on the Postal 
Service to ship their goods.
  Here is a letter from Alexandra Petrowski who owns a small business 
with her husband in Tiller called Singing Falls Mohair. She writes:

       We utilize the services of the U.S. Post Office 
     extensively. I would estimate that between 3 and 5 packages 
     go out from our home to destinations all over the world on a 
     daily basis.
       We sell our products on Ebay and the business is 
     flourishing! Our growing market is worldwide using the U.S. 
     mail system every day of the week excluding Sundays. In the 
     Ebay marketplace, timely mailing is an integral part of good 
     customer service.
       As it is, the Tiller Post Office is seven miles from our 
     rural mountain ranch. A closure of the Tiller Post Office 
     would require a 45-mile round trip journey that would 
     severely impact our modest profit margin.

  Alexandra concludes:

       We have been engaged in this business for 30+ years. We are 
     seniors and rely extensively on our cottage industry to 
     sustain our ranch operation. Would closing Tiller's Post 
     Office mean effectively an end to our business? The answer at 
     this point in time is that it would seriously jeopardize our 
     business.

  Now let's turn to Malheur County and the town of Juntura. This is a 
picture of Juntura Post Office, approximately 19 miles, or 20 miles if 
we round it off, to the nearest additional post office. I have a report 
from a citizen of Juntura named Laura Williams. She details the 
negative impacts that closing Juntura Post Office would have on the 
community. Her report is 42 pages long, an incredibly researched and 
detailed study of the impact that closing this modest modular post 
office would have on the rural community of Juntura.
  Let me read a little bit from her report. She writes:

       Juntura residents will either have to drive to Drewsey, to 
     the west, to mail packages, buy money orders and complete a 
     variety of other transactions, or they'll have to drive east 
     to Harper, 34 miles away, a route that winds through a river 
     canyon dangerously choked with deer during the winter months. 
     In essence, Juntura is between a rock and a hard place.

  She notes in her letter that 25 percent of Juntura's post office 
users are seniors who would be particularly impacted by these changes 
as they rely heavily on the Postal Service to receive medication and 
may have difficulty driving the long distances required in the 
particularly hazardous winter months. There is just one word in bold on 
the front page of her report, and it sums up the closure of the Juntura 
Post Office. The word is ``disastrous.'' That is how she sums up her 
42-page report. The impact would be disastrous on this town of Juntura, 
this modest structure open a couple of hours a day, serving the 
citizens, providing the money orders, providing the stamps, providing 
the ability to receive orders and to send packages. Every part and role 
it plays she has detailed.
  These are just a few stories from rural post offices across America, 
but these comments are far from being isolated. I think we would find 
very similar comments from every single small town where these towns of 
modest size depend on these post offices for critical services.
  I have heard these comments all across Oregon. Two weeks ago I 
visited Fort Klamath, which is also on the closure list. Residents 
converged once word went out that I was at the post office. People 
started arriving, cars started arriving, people started sharing their 
stories, and I would like to share a couple of them.
  I want to start with Jeanette and Bob Evans. Bob is a veteran who 
receives medication through the mail that often needs to be scanned and 
signed for. They would need to take a 30-mile trip to pick up 
medications if Fort Klamath Post Office closes. Jeanette and Bob 
pointed out that they have a rental business that must follow State law 
requiring many documents be sent via first-class mail verifying the 
date of notification. Again, closure would force them to take 30-mile 
trips to Chiloquin to process this mail correctly.
  Fort Klamath is a seasonal community, and the post office is the only 
place during the winter months where the people gather and meet each 
other. Without the post office, friends and neighbors will be traveling 
snowy, icy roads to get mail 15 miles away.
  Heidi McLean comes to the Fort Klamath Post Office. She shared these 
comments. She is a proprietor of the Aspen Inn in Fort Klamath that 
operates seasonally. She uses the post office daily as they send out 
packages to everyone interested in staying with them during the season. 
They could get by with fewer days or partial days, but they feel very 
strongly they need access to a local post office. A 30-mile roundtrip 
to Chiloquin would be a serious problem for their small business.
  That is why, in partnership with a number of my colleagues, I am 
offering an amendment to this bill that would create a 2-year 
moratorium on the closure of rural post offices and would ensure that 
future closures meet certain conditions.
  Under those conditions, no rural post office could be closed unless 
seniors and persons with disabilities will receive the same or 
substantially similar service, including access to prescription 
medicine through the mail; businesses in the community will not suffer 
economic loss, and the economic loss to the community resulting from 
the closure will not exceed the savings the Postal Service obtains by 
closing the rural post office--and that, by the way, goes to a key 
point which is, it is much more efficient in terms of the economy to 
have a common mail service in the heart of a small town than to ask 
hundreds of families to drive 50 or more miles daily to obtain their 
mail. That makes no sense. It is an enormous waste of citizens' time, 
an enormous cost in gasoline, in both cases devastating and 
economically idiotic.
  Let any Member come to the floor and defend shutting down a rural 
post office, requiring hundreds of families to drive 50 miles every day 
to get their mail, when for a couple hours a day you could have a post 
office open, and they can access it and support their small businesses, 
support their access to medicines.
  Let's be clear: This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is 
about critical infrastructure for our small towns. I thank Senator Lee, 
who has worked on this issue in brainstorming with me, Senator 
McCaskill, Senator Tester, Senator Baucus, and others, who are all 
working on this issue.
  I agree that we do need to reform the Postal Service for the 21st 
century.

[[Page S2465]]

Conditions have changed, and we need to start by reversing the $5.5 
billion advance payment for folks yet unborn for health care payments. 
But we must not carve the heart out of our rural communities.
  So for the citizens of Tiller, for the citizens of Juntura, for the 
citizens of Fort Klamath, and for the citizens of small towns across 
our Nation who depend on these rural post offices, I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment I and others are offering.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Acting President pro tempore.
  Madam President, I thank my friend from Oregon for his excellent 
statement, really. Senator Collins and I want to work with the Senator 
and the other cosponsors of the amendment.
  I want to say a couple things. The first is, the particular examples 
Senator Merkley gave of the importance of post offices in small towns 
and in rural America make a larger point to those who have said--those 
within the Senate and those outside--that in the age of the Internet, 
the Post Office is a relic we cannot afford, and we have to cut, cut, 
cut, cut.
  Well, there is no question that because the Postal Service is running 
big deficits--up to about $13 billion over the last 2 years--there has 
to be economizing and we have to look at a different business model. 
But to draw an easy conclusion that in the age of the Internet the post 
office and the Postal Service do not have a role to play and are not 
playing a role anymore is wrong. I think the Senator's examples, in 
very personal ways, show that.
  I said yesterday about three times--and I am going to say it again 
today--notwithstanding the drop in mail volume because of the Internet 
today, every day the U.S. Postal Service delivers 563 million pieces of 
mail, and a lot of the things the Postal Service is delivering are 
critically important to people. An awful lot of the prescription drugs 
people are getting today, in an increasing number, are coming through 
the mail. It is an example the Senator cited. The same is true for 
small businesses with a particular urgency or dependency in small-town 
and rural America.
  So the Senator makes a good point. That does not mean everything that 
exists has to exist forever. It means we cannot reach an easy 
conclusion that because the Internet exists we do not need the post 
office or the Postal Service anymore. The fact is, a lot of people 
depend on the Postal Service every day, and we want to respect that 
reality, which is important to the quality of life people live and to 
the health of our economy overall.
  I look forward to working with the Senator on his amendment. The 
existing bill tried to recognize this problem and contains within it, 
S. 1789, a number of steps that are aimed at ensuring the post offices 
in rural areas and towns are protected and appropriate weight and 
consideration is given to the importance of such post offices in their 
communities.
  This was done in large part in our committee thanks to a bipartisan 
amendment offered by Senators Tester and Moran. That was strengthened, 
we think, in the substitute amendment we are now considering. It 
includes retail service standards, standards for possible post office 
closings, and what the standards would be on appeal to the PRC. But I 
do not believe this is a perfect document and I accept, therefore, the 
Senator's amendment as a thoughtful attempt to do even better on what 
we are trying to do. I say to Senator Merkley, I look forward to 
working with you to see if we can reach common ground on this issue.
  I will say something else, to put this in a different sort of hard 
numbers context. The Postmaster General set as a goal at the outset to 
try to cut about $20 billion from the annual operating expenses of the 
Postal Service. That is a tough number. That is over the next 3 or 4 
years. We think this bill--and the Postal Service seems to agree--does 
not quite do that, but it gets pretty close to it. It certainly is 
somewhere in the $15 billion to $20 billion range.
  Some of the elements in the bill that save a lot are the money we 
provide for incentivizing postal workers to retire early. That is an $8 
billion annual savings. There are significant savings in terms of the 
mail processing facilities--in the billions.
  The reality is, interestingly enough, as I think my friend from 
Oregon knows, the amount of money saved if the Postmaster General 
actually closed the 3,700 post offices that he put on the list of 
possible closings is relatively small. It is not nothing, but we are 
talking about $150 million to $200 million if we closed all of them.
  So as compared to the billions in the other items we are doing, and 
in relating that number to what the Senator described in the examples 
he has given and what we heard in our committee, I think this is an 
area in which I personally believe we have to tread cautiously.
  I thank Senator Merkley for his thoughtful statement. I look forward 
to working with him. I know Senator Collins does too, and the other 
sponsors of the amendment, to see if we can reach an agreement so we 
can find a way to accept the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut. 
I appreciate him addressing this issue and I look forward to working 
with him.

  I understand efforts were made to identify issues the Postal Service 
must consider before closing a post office. But the key is not simply 
to have them consider an issue but to have a standard by which it can 
be evaluated whether that standard has been met. That is the critical 
distinction, which then allows the review commission, which the 
Senators have appropriately included in the bill, to have a standard; 
simply: Did the Postal Service consider this? They will say, yes, they 
did consider it. But did it have a substantial impact in damaging the 
local economy? Now there is a standard for the review commission.
  I look forward to working with the Senator and thank him so much. And 
I thank Senator Collins and Senator Carper, who have been working to 
help address this issue as well.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise to speak on the postal reform 
bill and to offer constructive suggestions. I know Senator Collins was 
scheduled to speak. I am going to take this time. She is in a meeting, 
and it is agreeable to her we follow this sequencing.
  There is no doubt that the Postal Service is in need of reform, and I 
support the concept of reform. I salute the architects of the bill, 
Senators Lieberman and Collins, on the framework they have proposed. I 
think it was thoughtful and robust and even ambitious. I wish to 
compliment them on the process that is the hallmark of this committee.
  If I could have the attention of the Senator from Connecticut for a 
moment, I say to Senator Lieberman, I want to comment that we know you 
are about to retire, and we are going to miss you because here we are 
having a civilized, rational, thoughtful, data-driven type of 
conversation, and I think it is a hallmark of the way you and Senator 
Collins have functioned to bring this bill to our attention. The Senate 
ought to do more of it.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership, though I disagree with some 
of the parts in this bill. But that is the way the Senate should be.
  Let me talk about postal reform, and first about the post office. The 
post office is not a business. It is a public utility, and we need to 
think of it as a public utility; that which provides universal service 
to keep the juice and electricity of our economy going. If we think of 
it as a public utility mandated by a national interest to provide 
universal service, then that is the way we should think about it. Will 
it require subsidy? Yes. Does it require an open checkbook? No. Does it 
require reform? Yes.
  But the Postal Service has reformed itself from the days of the Pony 
Express to the present. They had to face the challenge when they 
invented Western Union. They faced the challenge when we got 
telephones. Why do we need the Postal Service? Time and time again, the 
Postal Service has needed to reform. It is time to reform again. But if 
we are going to reform, we need to make sure we provide safeguards to 
protect rural communities,

[[Page S2466]]

to protect small businesses, and to protect vulnerable populations that 
do not have access to the Internet.
  We have a digital divide in the United States of America. We do not 
have a universal superinformation highway in the United States of 
America. We do have a digital divide, and the divide is because of both 
geography and income. Not everybody walks around with these cool 500 
devices. So people rely on the post office for correspondence, for 
paychecks, for the delivery of products that have been ordered over the 
Internet--those e-Bay entrepreneurs we know about. Small business 
relies on it for time-sensitive business documents and the time-
sensitive delivery of products.
  This is even more important for rural areas. Rural areas have a 
unique geography, and that can complicate mail delivery or create 
delays. I represent the mountain counties of western Maryland. At times 
that weather is so rugged up there you need a snowmobile to get 
through. Then there is the Eastern Shore--the beautiful, dynamic, 
charming Eastern Shore. But it is nine counties stretching over 150 to 
close to 200 miles. Sometimes in places they do not even have cell 
phone coverage. Reductions to delivery standards, closing a post 
office, and, most of all, closing a processing center would have a 
Draconian impact. So in my State we are very concerned about this.
  We are willing to do reform. We were willing to close a processing 
center in western Maryland and work with Pennsylvania and West 
Virginia--bordering States--to do this. But now they want to close the 
Easton Mail Processing Center. It is the only processing center on the 
Eastern Shore. It is the only mail processing center serving nine 
counties. To use the processing center in Baltimore, it is miles away 
and across the Bay Bridge.
  Then there is this whole issue of merging it with Delaware. Delaware 
is nine counties away from Somerset County--over 150, close to 200 
miles. The operation of this Eastern Shore postal processing facility 
is absolutely crucial.
  Everybody says: Oh, we love the Eastern Shore. Well, I love it too. 
But I want it to have business. I want my senior citizens to be able to 
get their prescription drugs by mail, and get them on a timely basis. 
It is a community of small business. That is what the Eastern Shore is. 
Even our big business of poultry and seafood is made up of small 
entrepreneurs involved in this. They need the Postal Service, and they 
need to have it accessed on the Eastern Shore.
  So last February, the Postal Service, in its unique way, announced 
the closing. Senator Cardin and myself asked for hearings. The Postal 
Service responded in a very dismissive way. They dismissed not only 
Cardin and Mikulski, but they dismissed a half a million residents who 
live on the Eastern Shore and who rely on this.
  When I asked them if they would even hold a hearing so farmers and 
small businesses and seniors could voice their opinions, they said they 
heard all they needed. They had no intention of holding a hearing. My 
constituents have a right to be heard. They have a right to standards 
of delivery service and they have a right for me to fight for them and 
I am going to fight for them. But I am also going to fight for postal 
reform. The way Senator Merkley wants to improve the bill, so do I.
  I have four amendments pending to get the post office to make sure 
they not only look at what they are doing--right now they look at what 
is the impact of what they are doing on the post office. Senator Barb 
looks at the impact they are having on the customer and on the 
community. Remember, think of it as a public utility, and we are 
turning the lights off on the Eastern Shore.
  My first amendment says: No processing center can be closed unless a 
Governor from the State certifies that a closure will not harm the 
community or disrupt commerce.
  My second amendment says: No processing center can be closed unless 
an independent third party, such as the Commission, talks about the 
impact on jobs, the unemployment rate and small business and to make 
the study public.
  My third maintains the standard of delivery for overnight. On the 
Eastern Shore, my veterans need their medical care, my seniors need to 
be able to get their Social Security checks, and also business--even 
live birds come through this processing center. Are they going to sit 
around and go back and forth to Baltimore? Man does that ruffle my 
feathers. I can tell you that right now.
  Fourth, it is strictly ZIP Code politics. I will offer an amendment 
to prevent the closing of the Easton Post Office. If my other three 
amendments prevail, I think we have it. It is not just my criteria; it 
is what Senator Merkley and all of us are talking about. The post 
office is a public utility. We look at the impact of closing, not only 
the impact of what the post office saves but what the community loses 
and if is it worth the cost. I do not want to turn the lights out on 
the Eastern Shore, but I do want to keep the lights of the post office 
going.
  In the spirit of compromise and conversation and civility that marks 
the leadership of this committee, I want to work with the leadership 
and see if I can be accommodated. I wish to again congratulate Senators 
Collins and Lieberman on their leadership and on their whole civilized 
way and also to Senator Sanders for doing this.
  I think I have made my point. Next time, the post office should 
listen more to the people or they will hear more from Senator Barb.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, before my friend and colleague from 
Maryland leaves the floor, I wish to thank her for her passionate 
advocacy on behalf of her constituents. I have a similar problem in my 
home State of Maine, where a processing center has been targeted for 
closure that would have an extraordinarily detrimental impact on mail 
delivery for two-thirds of the State of Maine. It makes no sense 
whatsoever. It would do away with overnight delivery, as the Senator 
has indicated.
  I would encourage her to continue to work with us and also to look at 
the specific provisions we have put into the substitute that reflect 
the input we have had from her and many other concerned Senators. One 
of those standards deals with the overnight delivery and the need to 
maintain that standard of service.
  This is an advantage the Postal Service has, and it helps it keep 
customers. In my view, to do away with overnight delivery would be 
foolhardy, and it would actually cause more mailers to leave the Postal 
Service, which would produce a further decline in volume and, thus, 
revenues would plummet still further.
  I understand a lot of the concerns the Senator from Maryland has 
raised. I do think we have taken care of some of her concerns in the 
new substitute we have proposed on a bipartisan basis. But we look 
forward to continuing to work with her to address her concerns.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If I may respond to the Senator, first of all, I do 
thank the Senator for the substitute. I think it does make substantial 
improvements in the bill. It demonstrates that the Senator is listening 
to colleagues and also to people who are affected.
  I am familiar, when we worked on home health care, and the Senator 
and I teamed up, that in parts of Maine and parts of western Maryland, 
we had visiting nurses on snowmobiles and they were not going to be 
reimbursed. So we have an understanding of these rural, rugged 
communities. I do want to work with Senator Collins. In the spirit and 
tone represented by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, perhaps we 
could have an additional conversation.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, if I may just briefly, thanks to 
Senator Mikulski for her kind words but also for her directness about 
her concern about the processing facility she talked about and overall 
and to thank her for her willingness to work with us to see if we can 
work out something acceptable.
  As Senator Collins said, we have made some changes in this substitute 
that will still require overnight delivery--less broadly than before 
because we are trying to deal with how to responsibly react to the 
precipitous drop in mail volume because of the Internet, yet not reduce 
the quality of service so much that people leave the mail system even 
more.
  I used an analogy yesterday which is probably not exact, but way back 
when

[[Page S2467]]

I was in the State senate in Connecticut, we had a crisis in the 
financing of our public bus system. One of the things that was done 
that seemed quite logical at the time was to raise the price of the bus 
fare. What does the Senator think happened in response to that?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. They left.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Fewer people were riding the buses and the fiscal 
problem got worse. There is a reality here. The mail volume has dropped 
so much that we have to close some of the mail processing facilities 
or--and Senator Collins and I feel very strongly about this--we have to 
thin out the number of personnel working at the facilities.
  We put this in as a condition which we thought originally was what 
the Postmaster was going to be interested in. Do not just precipitously 
close a lot of mail processing facilities. First--and we require this 
now--they have to consider a plan to reduce the capacity of a 
particular facility and presumably the number of people working there 
before they absolutely close it.

  Anyway, bottom line, thanks to Senator Mikulski. We look forward to 
working with her to reach a mutually agreeable result.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I wish to discuss in more detail a key 
provision of the postal reform bill that is before us; that is, the 
provision that would refund to the Postal Service an $11 billion 
overpayment that the Postal Service has made to the Federal Employee 
Retirement System.
  This is the key provision of our bill because part of the money from 
that refund would be used to finance the buyouts and retirement 
incentives the Postmaster General has estimated would allow him to 
decrease the size of the workforce, in a compassionate way, by about 
100,000 workers.
  The Postal Service has about 600,000 workers, just to give an idea of 
how many we are talking about. So it is about 18 percent. That would 
help the Postal Service right size. It is patterned on the practices 
many private corporations use when they find they need to downsize. 
They provide a little incentive for people to retire early or to 
retire. If they are eligible for retirement, it gives them a little 
incentive to take advantage of that.
  I am convinced this will work because more than 33 percent of postal 
employees are eligible for retirement right now. We use the standards 
that are in current laws. The retirement incentive cannot exceed 
$25,000. That is in current law for Federal agencies to use, and we 
would extend that so it is capped to postal employees.
  We also would allow the Postal Service to give 1 year of retirement 
credit for someone who is 1 year short of the necessary number of years 
under the old Civil Service Retirement System, 2 years under the newer 
FERS system.
  But yesterday I heard one of our colleagues describe this refund of 
$11 billion as being an overpayment that will come from taxpayer 
pockets. That is not an accurate statement. I realize this bill is very 
complex. So I wish to provide to my colleagues some additional 
information. They do not have to just take my word for it; they can 
take the word of the inspector general of the U.S. Postal Service.
  The FERS system does have tax dollars in it from Federal agencies 
that are paying in for their employees and, of course, the employees 
also contribute to the system. But when it comes to the Postal Service, 
the money is not coming from taxpayers. The contributions are not 
coming from taxpayers. They are coming from postal employees 
themselves, and they are coming from the Postal Service, which is using 
its revenue from postage and other services and, thus, it is the 
ratepayers' money.
  The inspector general makes this very clear in his letter. I ask 
unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Office of Inspector General,


                                 United States Postal Service,

                                                 February 2, 2012.
     Senator Joseph Lieberman,
     Senator Susan Collins,
     Senator Tom Carper,
     Senator Scott Brown,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Lieberman, Collins, Carper, and Brown: In 
     response to your request, I am providing the following 
     information. The postal surplus for the Federal Employees' 
     Retirement System (FERS) has been projected to be $11.4 
     billion for fiscal year (FY) 2011. The Office of Personnel 
     Management (OPM) made this projection as of September 30, 
     2011. In addition, OPM has projected the postal surplus of 
     the Civil Service Retirement System to be $1.7 billion for FY 
     2011.
       The source of the FERS funding comes from two streams of 
     revenue: (1) the U.S. Postal Service contributes 11.9 percent 
     of employee salaries to the fund and (2) the employees 
     contribute 0.8 percent. The Postal Service contribution comes 
     from revenue paid for postage, and this money comes from the 
     ratepayers. The employee contribution, as with all federal 
     employees, is made in exchange for a defined benefit.
       If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me or Mohammad Adra or Wally Olihovik in my office.
           Sincerely,
                                                David C. Williams,
                                                Inspector General.

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first of all, the inspector general 
verifies the amount of the overpayments. His letter to Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Carper, Senator Scott Brown, and myself, dated 
February 2, 2012, says:

       The postal surplus for the Federal Employees Retirement 
     System (FERS) has been projected to be $11.4 billion for 
     fiscal year 2011. The Office of Personnel Management made 
     this projection as of September 30 of 2011.
       In addition, OPM has projected the postal surplus of the 
     Civil Service Retirement System to be $1.7 billion for fiscal 
     year 2011.

  We are not trying to deal with that; we are only dealing with the 
FERS surplus. Here is the key paragraph.

       The source of the FERS funding comes from two streams of 
     revenue: (1) the U.S. Postal Service contributes 11.9 percent 
     of employee salaries to the fund and (2) the employees 
     contribute 0.8 percent. The Postal Service contribution comes 
     from revenue paid for postage, and this money comes from the 
     ratepayers. The employee contribution, as with all Federal 
     employees, is made in exchange for a defined benefit.

  This could not be more clear. This is not taxpayers' money. No matter 
how many times some of our colleagues may say this is a taxpayer 
bailout or this is taxpayers' money, it is not true. It is not an 
accurate understanding of how the system works. I am going to circulate 
this letter widely, and I hope my colleagues will take the time to read 
it.
  I can understand the confusion, because if it were a Federal agency, 
a regular Federal agency, it would be taxpayer money. But it is the 
Postal Service and it is not taxpayer money, and that is important.
  The other important point I wish to make is that this is a real 
overpayment. It has been verified by an independent board of actuaries. 
This is not something the Postal Service came up with or that our 
committee came up with. This has been verified by the OPM Board of 
Actuaries, an independent body comprised of private sector actuaries 
that advises the Office of Actuaries within OPM and reviews annual 
reports.
  So it is not even OPM's actuaries. It is an independent board of 
private sector actuaries that has verified that this is, in fact, an 
overpayment and it is $11.4 billion.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
the Office of Personnel Management which explains the independent 
boards.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           United States Office of


                                         Personnel Management,

                                 Washington, DC, February 3, 2012.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and 
         Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On February 2 and 3, 2012, you 
     contacted my office requesting information regarding the 
     amount of surplus contributions made by the U.S. Postal 
     Service to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability (CSRD) 
     Fund for its employees who participate in the Federal 
     Employees Retirement System (FERS).
       My staff has contacted the U.S. Office of Personnel 
     Management (OPM) Office of the Actuaries (OA). In an email 
     exchange and follow-up discussions on February 3, 2012, the 
     OA indicated to us that its most recent determination of the 
     Postal Service's projected FERS surplus is $10.9 billion as 
     of September 30, 2010.
       We have also confirmed that this figure appears on page 20 
     of the ``Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund Annual 
     Report: Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011'', which is 
     attached. This report is issued annually by the OA and OPM's 
     Office of the

[[Page S2468]]

     Chief Financial Officer. The OPM Board of Actuaries, an 
     independent body comprised of private sector actuaries that 
     advises the OA, reviews the annual reports.
       If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate 
     to contact David Cope, the Assistant Inspector General for 
     Legal Affairs, or Susan Ruge, Attorney-Advisor.
           Sincerely,
                                             Patrick E. McFarland,
                                                Inspector General.

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, the Government Accountability Office 
has also looked at this issue and found that OPM's Actuary did assess 
that there was an overpayment--what GAO calls a surplus.
  There is one paragraph in the GAO letter that I particularly want to 
bring to my colleagues' attention because it is a call for action. The 
Comptroller General says:

       We have also reported that Congress and USPS urgently need 
     to reach agreement on a comprehensive reform package to 
     address the Postal Service's financial problems. Congress 
     could consider a one-time return of some, or all, of the FERS 
     surplus as part of a broader package tied to specific actions 
     on the part of USPS to help it address its financial 
     problems. These actions could include prefunding its retiree 
     health benefit obligation, reducing its $13 billion debt, or 
     developing incentives to reduce its workforce.

  Madam President, that is what our bill does. We are following the 
advice of the GAO to do this one-time refund of the overpayment and 
dedicate it specifically to the incentives to reduce its workforce and 
to reducing the debt the Postal Service owes to the Treasury. We also 
deal with the prefunding of the retiree health benefit issue in our 
bill as well.
  My point is that there is agreement that this is not taxpayers' 
money. There is agreement that this is a true overpayment. And we have 
GAO suggesting that we do exactly what this bill does, which is the 
one-time refund of the overpayment, tied to reform to address the 
USPS's financial crisis and specifically mandating that the money be 
used to develop incentives to reduce the size of the workforce and pay 
down its debt.
  I wanted to take this time today to explain this issue because I am 
very concerned that there are Members who are operating on the basis of 
a complete misconception that somehow this is a taxpayer bailout or 
that it is taxpayer funds that are being used to repay this 
overpayment. That is not accurate.
  This bill is very complicated, and I hope we can stick to the facts 
as we debate it. People may have different views on the way forward or 
the path forward, but I hope we can keep this free from 
mischaracterizations about the bill. I understand how it is going to 
happen because it is a complex matter. That is why we have spent, on 
our committee, so many months carefully studying this issue and getting 
help and expertise from GAO, OPM, and outside parties to make sure--and 
from the IG--we fully understand the provisions of the bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I note the presence of my friend from 
Tennessee on the floor. Before he speaks, I would like to spend a 
moment responding to Senator Collins, and then I will quickly yield to 
him.
  I thank Senator Collins. She made a quite complicated subject very 
understandable. It is a misunderstanding--really a misstatement--to say 
the money the Postal Service will be refunded is taxpayer money. It is 
not. It is the return of money collected, as the Senator said, by the 
post office from ratepayers and from their own employees which was 
mistakenly put into this retirement fund. This is no more a bailout 
with taxpayer money than in the case--which happens--where an 
individual or a business overpays taxes to the Federal Government. When 
that miscalculation or error is discovered, they can ask for a refund. 
That is exactly what has happened here with the Postal Service.
  It is critically important to this bill and to the future of the 
Postal Service because we are requiring in the bill and authorizing 
that the money refunded not be used for more spending but be used to, 
one, pay down the debt and, two, make investments by incentivizing the 
retirement of employees, which will have an enormously important effect 
on the annual Postal Service budget.
  The Postmaster believes that with the money he receives back--really 
not a majority of it--he can incentivize the retirement of 
approximately 100,000 current employees of the Postal Service, which is 
the goal we set for them in this bill. That will result in a savings of 
over $8 billion a year for the Postal Service. So this is not only a 
refund of the Postal Service's own money--not taxpayer money--but it is 
going to be used to save $8 billion a year, which is the largest 
savings component of the proposal we have made.
  Again, I thank my friend from Maine.
  I yield to my friend from Tennessee.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator from Tennessee yield briefly?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
following the Senator from Tennessee.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Maine 
and the Senator from Connecticut for letting me take a few minutes, and 
I congratulate them on their hard work on this bill. This is a 
bipartisan bill that has some bipartisan amendments and suggestions 
about a big problem. It is the kind of thing we ought to be working on.
  I hope that--while we ran into a little obstacle yesterday, in terms 
of our ability to move forward with relevant amendments to the Postal 
Service bill, I hope we can move back in that direction so we can have 
a good debate.
  I thank the Senator from Maine for her full explanation of the 
refund, which is an essential part of the bill.


          Tribute to Franklin Namon Watson and Lowell Russell

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, my late friend Alex Haley, the author 
of ``Roots,'' lived his life by these six words: ``Find the good and 
praise it.''
  Occasionally, I come to the floor and cite an example of a Tennessean 
or some circumstances in my State that fit those six words.
  A few weeks ago, I came here to talk about 91-year-old Tennessean 
Bill Hoffman, a resident of Memphis, who turned down a Purple Heart in 
1944 when he was wounded in Germany because there were so many other 
people who were hurt worse than he was. His son thought, since his 
father is now 91, that maybe it is time that he does get it, and he 
contacted our office, and we got in touch with the Army. Lo and behold, 
he not only deserves the Purple Heart, he turns out to be one of the 
last three surviving rangers who scaled the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc on 
D-day, which was one of the most daring and courageous acts of World 
War II. President Reagan talked about it in his 40th anniversary 
speech, ``The Boys of Pointe du Hoc.''
  Last week in Memphis, the Army presented Bill Hoffman not only with 
his Purple Heart but with the Bronze Star and a ``V'' for valor, and 
they gave him a special ranger cap to go along with it. That was a good 
day.
  I am here today to talk about another story, two extraordinary 
Tennesseans who are united by both their friendship and their courage--
LCpl Franklin Namon Watson, who sacrificed his life for our freedom, 
and his devoted friend and mentor, Tennessee Highway Patrol Sergeant 
Lowell Russell, who is recovering from critical injuries he sustained 
while on duty.
  LCpl Franklin Namon Watson, or ``Frankie'' to everyone who knew him 
in East Tennessee, enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve in 2010. 
Last year, in September, at the age of 21, Frankie was killed while 
serving our country in Afghanistan, sweeping for improvised explosive 
devices in the Helmand Province.
  Frankie, the son of Stacy Couch and Troy Watson, didn't shy away from 
difficult or dangerous work when he was back in Tennessee. He was a law 
enforcement officer in the police department of Madisonville in East 
Tennessee, just a few miles down the road from my hometown. The chief 
deputy of the Monroe County Sheriff's Department, Brian Graves, 
described Frankie as ``very upbeat and focused on what he wanted to 
do.'' What he wanted to do was be a peacekeeper and a law enforcer. 
Family members say his dream was to join the Secret Service and protect 
the President.
  Madam President, I will read from a letter to the editor of the 
Knoxville

[[Page S2469]]

News Sentinel written by a prominent Knoxville attorney, Billy Stokes. 
He wrote about the escort of Frankie's body, delivered by a small 
airplane to the National Guard base and transported by a six-person 
military detail to a hearse, which then traveled from the airport to 
Madisonville in East Tennessee. Billy was one of the several hundred 
motorcyclists who road behind the police cars. This is what he said:

       All along the route were thousands of well-wishers, many 
     holding American flags. Lots of them were veterans, proudly 
     holding crisp salutes as the processional passed. A 
     significant number of those folks were crying. As we got 
     closer to Madisonville, many young men and women were 
     obviously grief stricken. I suppose they were school friends 
     of Watson's.
       I saw thousands of East Tennesseans trying to honor and 
     respect a young man who has given his all for this country. 
     Watson was a wonderful young man by all accounts from those 
     who knew him best.
       I am an Army veteran but did not experience the horrors of 
     combat. I do know that we have an all-volunteer force 
     protecting our liberty and freedoms every day. I am so glad 
     that we don't seem to take them for granted. I've never been 
     prouder to be an American and an East Tennessean than I was 
     that day.

  Another law enforcement officer, Tennessee Highway Patrol Sergeant 
Lowell Russell, helped raise Frankie and was a devoted friend and 
mentor. Not long ago, Lowell talked with a member of my staff in 
Knoxville, Jane Chedester, and told her about Frankie. He said that 
Frankie's love of serving the Madisonville Police Department was great. 
He told her about Frankie's dedication to honoring his State and his 
country.
  Then, in March, Sergeant Russell was critically injured in a 
collision on Interstate 40 in West Knoxville when a tractor trailer hit 
his squad car as he sat on the shoulder finishing up some paperwork 
after a traffic stop. Earlier this month Lowell was discharged from the 
University of Tennessee Medical Center to continue his recovery in a 
rehabilitation facility.
  Lowell is beloved by his community. A Facebook page dedicated to 
``Prayers for Sergeant Lowell Russell'' is filled with loving prayers 
for Lowell. They call him ``a wonderful man.'' They talk about his 
``huge heart.'' One says that ``Lowell has done so much for everyone 
else.''
  Numerous efforts are being made to raise money to help Russell and 
his family with expenses.
  Tennessee's General Assembly passed a resolution to honor Lowell, 
noting his ``immeasurable contributions to his community as a Tennessee 
Highway Patrolman . . . who exhibits superior standards of professional 
conduct and ethics.'' It also says that ``Sergeant Russell is wholly 
committed to noble precepts of public service that have earned 
Tennessee recognition as the 'Volunteer State,' and he should be 
specially recognized for his courage and gallantry as an esteemed 
member of the local law enforcement.''
  I add my great appreciation for Lowell to that expressed by our 
Governor and our general assembly. Honey and I pray for his strength in 
recovery and for strength for his family and friends during this very 
difficult time.
  So Frankie Watson and Lowell Russell, we are proud of you. Find the 
good and praise it.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to address the pending legislation before I go 
into a morning business speech--the Postal Reform Act that is before 
us. It is my understanding that we have an opportunity----
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate is currently considering 
the motion to proceed to the Violence Against Women Reauthorization 
Act.
  Mr. DURBIN. Well, I renew my request to speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Postal Reform

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, coming before us soon on the Senate 
floor will be the Postal Reform Act. This is a matter which is timely 
because we understand our Postal Service is in a situation where it is 
currently losing millions of dollars every single day. Because many 
things have changed in America--the use of the Internet, e-mail, bill 
payer--fewer people are using the Postal Service. Less revenue is 
coming into the Postal Service. So they are trying to reconcile today's 
demands with the actual costs they face.
  Several years ago we said to the Postal Service: We think the day 
will come soon when you will have more retirees than actual workers, so 
start banking money for retirement and health care for those who will 
need it in years to come. We set a number--about $5 billion a year--and 
they kept up with it for several years but then found they couldn't 
meet that requirement. So the Postmaster General came through with a 
sweeping plan in terms of cutting costs to the Postal Service. I 
understand the imperative to do that, although I question the premise 
of his statement because this is one of the first things he said: We 
are going to change the Postal Service, and the first thing we will do 
is slow down delivery.
  If there is ever a marketing technique designed to fail, it is the 
announcement you are going to slow down the delivery of your product. 
Yet that is what he said, and I am sorry he did.
  So now we are in the predicament or situation where we are trying to 
find alternatives to the Postmaster General's proposals. We have been 
given until May 15. At a meeting in my office, which the Presiding 
Officer and the Senator from Vermont and others attended, the 
Postmaster General said: Yes, I will give Congress its chance to pass a 
bill to save money that might be different than my own suggestions.
  Well, now is our chance. Unfortunately, we are tied up on the floor 
of the Senate. That is not a headline because it happens to be the 
normal state of affairs in this body. But imagine, if you will, that 
Senator Reid, the majority leader, comes to the floor and says: We have 
this important Postal Service reform bill before us, and I think we 
should move forward on it and we should consider amendments that are 
relevant to that subject. In other words, if you have an amendment that 
is about the Postal Service and how to make it better, save money, make 
it operate in the black, come forward with that amendment.
  There was an objection from the junior Senator from Kentucky. He 
said, no; he thought the Postal Service reform bill should be used to 
debate foreign aid to Egypt--foreign aid to Egypt. Not that foreign aid 
to Egypt is not an important issue; it is. But here is an issue that is 
timely and important and affects every single American, where the 
Senate has a responsibility to step up and do its job, with a deadline 
looming of May 15, and one Senator has said: No, not unless I can bring 
to the floor whatever I want to bring.
  It is his right to make that request, and he has bottled things up 
pretty handily at this point. I hope he will reconsider.
  I wish we could take up this bill right now and have a debate on the 
floor of the Senate about an amendment. How about that--have people 
disagree and actually have a vote. It would be like the good old days 
in the Senate. But, no, we are lurching from quorum call to quorum call 
and cloture vote to cloture vote, and those newcomers to the Senate may 
wonder if there was ever a day we debated issues.
  We need to get this postal reform right. It is one of the most 
important institutions in America. It is protected and embodied in the 
Constitution. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women who are 
serving us in the Postal Service, one-fourth of them veterans who have 
served our country and have gone to work for the government.
  When we ask people across America which function of government do you 
respect the most, the Postal Service comes out on top because we know 
our local letter carriers. In my neighborhood it is David Lasley. David 
has been my buddy for 20 years. I have known him for that long or 
longer, and he is a friend of my family. He is not just the person who 
brings the mail. Others before him, the same way. It is a personal 
relationship with government that very few people have. But the letter 
carriers, the postal folks, the folks who do the processing and 
distributing are doing an important job.

[[Page S2470]]

  The Postal Service has an amazing history. Just as a reminder, on May 
7, 1833, there was a 24-year-old young man who was named postmaster 
general of a small town in central Illinois. It wasn't his last 
government job. The town was New Salem, IL, and the young man was 
Abraham Lincoln, who got his start in the Postal Service, which has a 
tradition that goes back even before then.
  We need to work together on a bipartisan basis. I am glad Senator 
Collins and Senator Lieberman are on the Senate floor. They have worked 
so closely together on a bipartisan basis to move us forward. Let's 
build a Postal Service that will serve us in the 21st century. Let's 
try to make certain we find new ways to cut costs that are reasonable, 
to enhance revenue that makes sense, and make certain in the process 
that we don't damage the brand. The U.S. Postal Service is the best in 
the world, the most affordable in the world, and we can make sure it 
continues to serve our Nation and our economy.
  It is critically important to those of us who represent States with 
small towns. I know every small rural post office cannot survive--many 
of them have failed in the past--but we have to understand what a 
critical element that rural post office is to the culture of these 
communities, to the identity of these communities and, in some cases, 
to their very existence. So let's find flexible ways to reduce costs 
and still recognize that reality.


                             The DREAM Act

  Madam President, 11 years ago I introduced the DREAM Act. At the 
time, Senator Hatch of Utah was my cosponsor. It was a bipartisan 
measure called to the floor of the Senate and, at one time, we had 12 
Republican votes. The last time it was called we had 3. Unfortunately, 
over the years, it has not passed the Senate. I think it has received a 
majority every time we have called it but not the 60 votes which are 
now the norm in the Senate.
  As a result, for 11 years I have been striving to change the law when 
it comes to immigration for a specifically small group of people. We 
are talking about people who came to the United States as children. 
They have been U.S. residents for a long period of time. They have good 
moral character. They have graduated from high school, and they are 
prepared to either serve in our military or to complete at least 2 
years of college. This is a special group of people who, unfortunately, 
fall through the cracks in our current immigration laws.
  I have met hundreds, maybe thousands of them now in the 10 years I 
have been working on this issue. I know they dream of the day when they 
will have a country. Currently, they do not; they are undocumented. The 
only country they have ever known is the United States, but they just 
can't go forward. When it comes to college or a university, they get no 
help from the government unless the State they live in has a special 
arrangement but certainly no help from the Federal Government.
  When they finish school many of them can't be the teachers, nurses, 
engineers, or doctors they want to be because it requires citizenship, 
which they do not have. We are trying to give them that chance.
  I have come to the floor time and time again to introduce some of 
these young people to America so they can put a face with a name to the 
DREAM Act. The person I want to speak about today is named Yaniv 
Steltzer.
  Yaniv was brought to the United States by his parents from Israel 
when he was just 3 years old. This is a photograph of Yaniv. Today he 
is 25. He grew up in America. Like every other American child, he 
believes this is home. In 2010, he graduated from Richard Stockton 
College in New Jersey with a bachelor of science degree in hospitality 
and tourism management. In college, he was chair of the Jewish Student 
Union/Hillel Club and was an active volunteer with several other 
student groups.
  Yaniv's dream is to open a restaurant. He wrote a letter to me, and 
here is what he said:

       I fell in love with cooking in high school when I took a 
     home-economics class and I knew this is what I wanted to do 
     for the rest of my life. I would love to give back to America 
     by opening my own restaurant, creating jobs, contributing to 
     the economy, and becoming a citizen in the country I love.

  Now, let me tell you Yaniv's challenge. He can't become a citizen. 
His father was born in the United States, but Yaniv was born in Israel, 
so he is not an American citizen. Yaniv's father applied for Yaniv to 
become a citizen, but because the process took so long he became 
ineligible. Under our immigration laws, once Yaniv turned 21 his father 
could not petition for him to become a citizen any longer.
  So Yaniv has lived in this country since he was 3 years old, his 
father is an American citizen, and he is undocumented. The only 
solution for him is the DREAM Act.
  Here is what Yaniv told me about his situation:

       America is the only country I know. I grew up here, all my 
     family and friends are here and everything I know is in 
     America. The DREAM Act is important to me and many others 
     like me who are in the same situation. We have the resources 
     to help this country greatly, but don't have that piece of 
     paper that allows us to do this. I have high hope and 
     optimism that Congress will do the right and humane thing, 
     put all political issues aside and pass the DREAM Act.

  Yaniv is right. I ask my colleagues, would America be a better place 
if we deported Yaniv Steltzer? Of course not. This young man grew up in 
our country. He has overcome the odds to achieve great success. He 
doesn't have a criminal background or any problems that we should be 
concerned about. He is no threat to us. He would make America a better 
country, a stronger country if we just gave him a chance.
  Yaniv is not an isolated example. There are thousands of others like 
him around this country. Over the Easter break, I went out to Los 
Angeles and got a cab from the hotel to the airport. I looked at the 
cab driver's name and saw that his last name was Ark. I asked him: 
Where are you from?
  He said: Take a guess.
  So I said: France.
  He said: No; I am from Belarus. My father was in the Soviet Army, and 
15 years ago I came to the United States with my wife. She is a 
registered nurse, speaks English. I didn't speak a word of English when 
I got here, but I was able to come as a refugee from Belarus, which, of 
course, is where the last dictator in Europe presides--Lukashenko. He 
said: I came here and I started learning English. I just spoke Russian.
  I asked: How in the world did you ever get a license to drive a cab?
  He said: I had to work at it. I not only had to learn enough English 
to be able to have a successful business as a cab driver in Los 
Angeles, but I had to learn these streets and freeways and everything 
that came with it. He said: I did it, and now the son we brought as a 
citizen--my two kids--are now Americans, and 15 years later I own three 
cabs.
  What a story. But it is not unique. It is the story of America, of 
people who said: I am sick and tired of where I am, and I have no 
chance here, but I know there is a place that will give me a chance. 
That was the story of my family. My mother was an immigrant to this 
country. I think it is the story of America.
  So why do we, in this day and age, in the 21st century, have such a 
negative feeling about what immigration has brought, the diversity and 
strength it has brought to this country, and why can't we see the most 
fundamental question of justice when it comes to these children, these 
kids brought here as infants who only want a chance to do what this 
refugee from Belarus was able to do: make America a better place, build 
a life for himself, create a family that would be part of the American 
family.
  I will continue this battle because I know all over the country there 
are people such as Yaniv Steltzer and many others who are waiting to 
see if the Senate can rise to this occasion, put politics aside, and do 
what is important for this country: show fairness, show justice, and 
give these young people a chance.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Durbin for a moving 
statement and for his persistence in introducing the DREAM Act, which 
it has been my honor to cosponsor with him, among many others, and to 
support its passage. It is about basic fairness.
  I think it also describes the reality, and the Senator reminded me of 
my own situation. We lived in my grandmother's house most of my 
childhood--

[[Page S2471]]

my mom, dad, sisters, and I--and she was always one of the most 
patriotic Americans I ever met because she had something to compare 
America to. She was an immigrant from Central Europe. Particularly 
important to her was freedom of religion, and the respect she got from 
her neighbors for her religious observance, and, of course, the dream 
that her children and grandchildren would do better in this country, 
which was realized.
  But I was moved by the Senator's report of his conversation with the 
cab driver. Maybe all of us need to do that. But when I get the 
immigrant cab drivers and they are a little older, I always ask: What 
are your kids doing? And it is quite amazing because they have the kind 
of excitement and sense of gratitude about the opportunity that America 
provides that sometimes people who have been here for a while, 
unfortunately, may lose. Their kids are all working hard, achieving, 
and contributing to this country.
  We are at a time in our history where a lot of people are down about 
their future and down about America, which was never the case when the 
Senator and I were growing up--and I started growing up a little before 
the Senator from Illinois.
  But when we think about these stories, it makes one feel good about 
how unique this country is. I know, because illegal immigration--people 
may take what I am about to say the wrong way. But I always say one of 
the great market measurements of the greatness of America today is that 
there is not another country in the world that more people are trying 
to get into--legally, I am talking about--and fewer people are trying 
to get out of than the United States of America. I think the DREAM Act 
recognizes that reality and is totally consistent with the values of 
our country.
  I thank the Senator for his persistence. One day, I hope not too far 
from now, we are going to get that adopted into law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                       Violence Against Women Act

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to join a strong and growing 
group of my colleagues in support of the Violence Against Women Act, a 
commonsense bill that since it was first signed into law has always 
been an issue we could build a consensus around, both Democrats and 
Republicans alike. The reason for this is quite simple.
  There is no room for tolerance of violence against women in the home 
anywhere in our society, and when we are talking about the safety of 
our families, there is simply no space for partisanship. That is why I 
am calling on my colleagues to not seek to block or delay this 
important piece of legislation any further. To do so is a disservice to 
the families so deeply affected by domestic violence every single day.
  Anyone who is guilty of domestic abuse should be held accountable to 
the fullest extent of the law. Any victim of abuse should be empowered 
to speak out and to have access to help and support. Keeping women and 
families safe is a basic commonsense principle and one we have easily 
found agreement on since the bill was first passed, and we should be 
able to again agree on it today.
  Every day an average of three women are murdered by a husband, a 
boyfriend, a partner. Every single day 600 women are raped or sexually 
assaulted. Millions of women and families rely on the help and support 
that the Violence Against Women Act provides to keep them safe. It is 
outrageous to turn the Violence Against Women Act into a political 
circus. When we allow ourselves to get bogged down in politics as 
usual, we are telling women and families across the country that their 
safety can wait for the next election.
  Let's do better. Let's be better. Let's agree that women deserve 
access to basic justice and basic safety, and let's show the American 
people that we, as a body, can do what is right.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Postal Service Reform

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by once again thanking 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper and Senators Collins and Brown for 
their long and hard work on this issue, which is of enormous 
consequence to the American people.
  Sometimes what people inside the beltway perceive as opposed to what 
people outside the beltway perceive are two different worlds. I can 
tell you that back in Vermont--and I suspect in rural areas and States 
all over this country--people want to save the post office. They know 
how important it is for small businesses, for our economy, and for 
their own needs. So the issue we are dealing with is a very significant 
issue, and I hope that as a Senate we can show America that we can come 
together regardless of political ideology. This is not a progressive 
issue, a conservative issue, Republican, Democratic or Independent. 
This is an issue that impacts tens of millions of Americans, and I hope 
we can move together as we should.
  I wish to say a few words on the Postal Service and finances today. 
Everybody knows the Postal Service is, in fact, facing significant 
financial difficulties. Revenue at the Postal Service has gone down 
from about $75 billion in 2008 to $66 billion last year. In the midst 
of the digital revolution, first-class mail has gone down 
significantly--no debate about that--and it has been replaced and will 
continue to be replaced by e-mail usage and the Internet. There is no 
question but that this is a real issue that has to be addressed.
  But let me be very clear that in terms of the revenue problems facing 
the Postal Service, the major problems we have are not just the decline 
in first-class mail. It is an issue that happens not to be the major 
issue. The major issue, in fact, is that the Postal Service has seen a 
significant loss in mail volume and revenue due to the most severe 
recession our country has faced since the 1930s. As the Postal Service 
indicated on May 30, 2010, ``The effects of the recession account for 
two-thirds of the mail volume decline.''
  The first point we want to understand is, yes, decline of first-class 
mail is a real issue. But second of all, similar to businesses all over 
this country, revenue is being impacted by the recession. How we can 
get our country out of the recession, create more jobs, put more money 
into the hands of working people is, of course, a major issue we must 
address.
  In that regard, I do wish to say that in the middle of this terrible 
recession, when real unemployment--real unemployment; it is not 8.2 
percent but, in fact, is closer to 15 percent, counting those people 
who have given up looking for work, those people working part time--it 
would seem to me this body wants to do everything we can not to see 
200,000 jobs slashed at the U.S. Postal Service, many of them decent-
paying jobs, many of them union jobs.
  We may not be able to save every one of those jobs; we want the 
Postal Service to be efficient. But on the other hand, I would hope we 
see as a significant priority that in the midst of a recession, we do 
not want to downsize a major American institution by 200,000 jobs--many 
of them, by the way, jobs belonging to veterans.
  A couple months ago there was a whole lot of debate about how do we 
create jobs for veterans. I can tell you one thing we don't do is 
downsize the Postal Service by 200,000 workers, many of them being 
veterans.
  We talked about the decline in first-class mail being important. We 
talked about the recession being important. But I wish to raise another 
issue that I think many people are not familiar with and that has 
nothing to do with first-class mail, nothing to do with the recession 
or, in fact, e-mail or the Internet; that is, to a very significant 
degree, the major reason the Postal Service has been running a deficit 
since 2007 is due to accounting issues.

  For example, everybody has to understand this issue if we are going 
to have an open and honest debate about the future of the Postal 
Service: Due to a law passed in 2006, the U.S. Postal Service--uniquely 
in America, uniquely within government, Federal, State, local, uniquely 
in terms of the private sector--has been forced to prefund 75

[[Page S2472]]

years' worth of future retiree health benefits in just 10 years--
seventy-five years' worth of future retiree health benefits in just 10 
years. There is no other agency of government that comes close to that 
onerous requirement, nor are there any companies in the private sector 
that have been asked to do that. This mandate costs the U.S. Postal 
Service between $5.4 billion and $5.8 billion per year.
  So what I beg of my colleagues is when they look at the financial 
problems facing the Postal Service--which are real--do not forget that, 
because of this 2006 legislation, the Postal Service needs to come up 
with approximately $5.5 billion every single year to prefund retiree 
health care. This is an important point, and I hope my fellow 
colleagues in the Senate are listening. One hundred percent of the 
Postal Service's $20 billion debt from 2007 to 2010 is the result of 
this prefunding mandate. Let me repeat it. One hundred percent of the 
Postal Service's $20 billion debt from 2007 to 2010 is the result of 
this $5.5 billion per year prefunding mandate. Without this mandate, 
the Postal Service would have made a $700 million profit from 2007 to 
2010.
  Let me repeat that, because these are facts that have not often been 
introduced into this debate. We have folks coming up here who are 
saying the Postal Service is collapsing financially and so forth and so 
on. But it is important to understand the facts, and the facts are that 
despite the worst recession--which we are currently in--since the 
1930s, despite the competition from e-mail and the Internet, the Postal 
Service would have made a $700 million profit from 2007 to 2010 if it 
was not forced to prefund future retiree health benefits.
  In addition--and I hope people listen to this as well--during the 
first quarter of 2012, a few months ago, the U.S. Postal Service would 
have generated a $200 million profit had it not been required to 
prefund its future retiree health benefits.
  I think as we debate these issues about the future of the post 
office, it is absolutely imperative that we understand the role of the 
$5.5 billion every single year that the Postal Service has to come up 
with to prefund retiree health benefits.
  A few months ago I asked the Inspector General of the Postal Service, 
whose name is David Williams, David C. Williams--he is the Inspector 
General of the Postal Service--I asked him to talk a little bit about 
what this prefunding of health benefits meant. I ask unanimous consent 
to have printed in the Record a copy of his letter, which is dated 
February 6, 2012.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Office of Inspector General,


                                 United States Postal Service,

                                                 February 6, 2012,
     Senator Bernie Sanders
     Dirksen Building, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Sanders: For several days last week, I met 
     with you and your staff to discuss solutions to the current 
     financial crisis within the Postal Service. At the conclusion 
     of those discussions, you requested that our office focus on 
     one of the solutions that we presented which examined an 
     option to address the current benefit fund financing. This 
     proposal would eliminate the requirement for the Postal 
     Service to make annual $5.5 billion payments into its retiree 
     health benefit fund, and allow the $44 billion currently in 
     the fund to grow with interest. No payments would be made 
     from the fund until it is deemed to be fully funded, and the 
     Postal Service would continue to directly pay the healthcare 
     premiums for retirees. An additional element of the proposal 
     would allow current overpayments of $13.1 billion in the 
     Postal Service pension funds to be refunded to the Postal 
     Service. Any future overpayments would also be refunded in 
     the year of occurrence.
       Our analysis of this proposal shows that if it were 
     adopted, the amounts in retiree healthcare fund would grow 
     from $44 billion to the $90 billion estimated current 
     liability, in 21 years. This $90 billion projected liability 
     is not a static or precise figure, as there are forces that 
     will increase and decrease the liability. Historically, the 
     figure has risen, but we note that the $90 billion has not 
     changed significantly over the last 3 years ($87 billion in 
     2009, $91 billion in 2010, and $90 billion in 2011).
       This solution is one option to provide needed short-term 
     flexibility for the Postal Service to address its current 
     financial crisis. It would alleviate payments due of nearly 
     $30 billion over the next 4 years, and provide an additional 
     $13 billion to address current needs. Though this would 
     provide substantial relief, additional actions would be 
     necessary to address remaining financial gaps between 
     projected revenues and expenses during the next four year 
     period.
       To put the pension and retiree health funding issue into 
     perspective, my office has conducted benchmarking to evaluate 
     the Postal Service's prefunding levels as compared to both 
     the public and private sector. The Postal Service has 2 
     significantly exceeded pension and retiree healthcare 
     benchmarked funding levels of both public and private sector 
     organizations. Using ratepayer funds, it has built a war 
     chest of over $326 billion to address its future liabilities, 
     prefunding combined pension and retiree healthcare 
     obligations at 91 percent. This is an astonishingly high 
     figure for a company with such a large employee base.
       For example, the Postal Service is currently over 100 
     percent funded in its pension funds. The federal government 
     is funded at a much lower 42 percent level, and the military 
     is funded at 27 percent. The average Fortune 1000 pension 
     plan is funded at 80 percent, and only 6 percent of the 
     Fortune 1000 companies have pension plans that are 100 
     percent funded.
       Prefunding retiree healthcare is rare in the public and 
     private sectors. We have been unable to locate any 
     organization, either public or private, that has anything 
     similar to the Postal Service's required level of prefunding 
     of retiree healthcare benefits. The Postal Service is 
     currently funded at 49 percent of its estimated current 
     liability. The federal government does not prefund its 
     retiree healthcare liabilities at all, and the military is 
     funded at a 35 percent level. Only 38 percent of Fortune 1000 
     companies who offer retiree health care benefits prefund the 
     expense at all, and the median funding level for those 
     organizations is 37 percent.
       I appreciate the opportunity to analyze this proposal, and 
     describe it further. If you have any questions, please do not 
     hesitate to call me or Wally Olihovik.
           Sincerely,
                                                David C. Williams,
                                                Inspector General.

  Mr. SANDERS. If I might, because I think this is an important letter, 
I wish to report a significant part of it. I hope people appreciate 
what the Inspector General of the U.S. Postal Service is saying. This 
is a guy who knows something about the Postal Service. This is a letter 
to me.

       Dear Senator Sanders:
       For several days last week I met with you and your staff to 
     discuss solutions to the current financial crisis within the 
     Postal Service. At the conclusion of those discussions you 
     requested our office focus on one of the solutions that we 
     presented, which examined an option to address the current 
     benefit fund financing. This proposal would eliminate the 
     requirement for the Postal Service to make annual $5.5 
     billion payments into its retiree health benefit fund, and 
     allow the $44 billion currently in the fund--

  Let me talk about that. There is right now, as a result of these 
funding payments, $44 billion currently in the fund--``to grow with 
interest.''
  What he is saying here, what happens if you have $44 billion and it 
accrues, as it does, interest between 3 and 4 percent a year. Then he 
continues. If you did that:

       No payments would be made from the fund until it is deemed 
     to be fully funded, and the Postal Service would continue to 
     directly pay for the health care premiums for retirees. An 
     additional element of the proposal would allow current 
     overpayments of $13.1 billion in the Postal Service pension 
     funds to be funded to the Postal Service.

  This is also a point that has not been discussed at all. In fact, we 
do address it in the current legislation. That is, not only is the 
Postal Service being asked to come up with an onerous $5.5 billion a 
year to prefund future retiree health benefits, it is generally 
acknowledged--I think by everybody who has studied the issue--that the 
Postal Service has made overpayments of $13.1 billion into the Federal 
Employees Retirement System and the Civil Service Retirement System, 
adding those two together. This is what he said, the Inspector General 
of the U.S. Postal Service:

       Our analysis of this proposal shows that if it were 
     adopted,the amounts in retiree healthcare fund would grow 
     from $44 billion to the $90 billion estimated current 
     liability in 21 years. This $90 billion protected liability 
     is not a static or precise figure--

  It varies a little bit is what he is saying--but essentially he says 
that if you don't add another nickel into the $44 billion, it will grow 
to $90 billion in 21 years and essentially take care of the payments it 
has to take care of.
  The point I want to make clear is that in terms of future retiree 
health benefits, we already have $44 billion in the account. In my view 
and in the view of people who know more about

[[Page S2473]]

this issue than I do, it is not necessary to put more money into that 
account. That is an issue that this legislation attempts to address.
  Let me conclude by saying the issue we are dealing with is of 
enormous consequence to our country. It is imperative, in my view, that 
we not shut down 3,700 rural post offices. I commend the Postmaster 
General. We have been working with him and he has moved away from that 
position. In my view, we have to do everything we can to make sure that 
we maintain very high standards for mail delivery in this country. So 
when a business puts a package in the mail, they know it will be 
delivered in a reasonable time. That is one of the strengths of the 
Postal Service. In my view, we do not want to shut down, as in the 
Postmaster General's original proposal, half the processing plants in 
this country which would slow down mail delivery service. In my view, 
we do not want to end Saturday mail. I think it is an important part of 
maintaining mail delivery standards.
  But the main point I want to make today is, yes, the Postal Service 
faces financial problems. But not to understand the significant role--
the causation of those problems that are a result of the $5.5 billion 
in prehealth funding for retirees--is to miss a very significant part 
of this debate. I think it is fair to say in this bill we are beginning 
to address that issue and also address the issue of the overpayment 
from the Postal Service to the Federal Employees Retirement System.
  Let me conclude by thanking Senators Lieberman, Collins, Carper, and 
Brown for the work they have done. I hope we can have an intelligent 
and constructive and kind of nonpartisan discussion as we go forward, 
with good amendments that are relevant, from both sides of the aisle.
  The bottom line is that saving the Postal Service is enormously 
important for our economy and certainly for the tens of thousands of 
workers who are out there every day doing a great job for us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for 
his statement but more broadly for his real steadfastness and the hard 
work he has done to improve the bill. It has been a pleasure to work 
with him.
  Before Senator Collins came to the floor, and not counting the 
occupant of the chair, I was reveling in the fact that the only 
Senators on the floor were Independents.
  Anyway, I thank Senator Sanders. We have tried to deal with this 
problem. In the postal reform of 2006, Senator Sanders is quite right, 
for various reasons which we need not go into the Postal Service was 
required to make payments into the retiree health benefit fund that 
were beyond what most any business or other governmental entity is 
doing, more than was necessary to sustain the payments and in a much 
shorter period of time, as the Senator from Vermont said.
  I would say, to state it as bluntly as I can, maybe too bluntly, the 
people advocating this were, frankly, concerned that the Postal Service 
might get to a point where it defaulted, it was no longer able to 
operate, and then the fear was that the government, the U.S. Treasury, 
the taxpayers would at some point in the future be forced to pick up 
the cost of the retiree health benefits. So this uniquely demanding 
responsibility for payment now was put on the Postal Service.
  I think everybody agrees, particularly in light of all the real 
problems the Postal Service has now, that is not sensible or fair. I do 
want to point out that in the underlying bill, S. 1789, we have 
attempted to ease the Postal Service's prefunding requirements for 
retiree health benefits by immediately beginning a stretched-out 40-
year amortization schedule for these payments and we require the Office 
of Personnel Management, when determining how much the Postal Service 
has to put into the retiree health benefit fund every year, to use the 
same discount rate that is used to calculate the Federal Government's 
pension obligations to the Federal Employees Retirement System and the 
Civil Service Retirement System. The Postal Service thinks this 
accounting change will reduce their unfunded liability for the retiree 
health benefits plan by literally billions of dollars.

  The other change made here is that right now the health benefits of 
retired employees come out of the operating expenses of the Postal 
Service. That was going to be the case until a day later in this 
decade. But there is enough money in the fund that it can pick up money 
that the Postal Service has put in, that it can pick up the cost of 
health benefits for postal retirees now. So we require that. I want to 
state for the record we are trying to deal with that reality in the 
bill as it is and of course I state my intention to continue to work 
with Senator Sanders to make this bill as good as we can, both in 
accomplishing the purposes we all have, which is to keep the Postal 
Service alive and well because so many people depend on it, and to do 
so in a much more fiscally responsible way, in every way in which that 
term might be understood, including the fairness of payments under the 
retiree health benefits plan, than has been the case before.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I, too, want to comment on this issue of 
the prefunding for the health care benefits of future retirees. I think 
it is important to note that when the 2006 law was written, the Postal 
Service supported this provision because it recognized that it had a 
huge unfunded liability for future health benefits and it knew it was 
important to start putting money aside to ensure that at the time those 
retirees needed to claim those benefits, the money would be there and 
the promises would be kept.
  It was also important because we wanted to avoid the possibility of a 
system going into default and taxpayers having to step in to keep the 
promises the Postal Service has made.
  The fact is the current liability is about $46 billion for those 
retiree health benefits, the future retiree health benefits. That 
liability is a very real one. It is not going away. Nevertheless, we 
have taken steps in our bill, as Senator Lieberman has described, to 
ease the funding by setting up a 40-year amortization schedule and by 
changing the discount rate. So those two provisions should save the 
Postal Service approximately $2 billion--the exact number would be 
determined--each year, and that is obviously very welcome.
  But I do want to address what I believe is another misconception, and 
that is that the funding for future retirees' health benefits is 
somehow the cause of the Postal Service's financial crisis. It is not. 
The fact is that the Postal Service has not made its payment of $5.5 
billion that was due to this fund in either of the last 2 fiscal years. 
Yet the Postal Service lost billions in both of those years, despite 
not paying the $5.5 billion that was due to this fund. In total, the 
Postal Service has made only $6.9 billion of the $16.4 billion that was 
required in prefunding payments for the past 3 years, but has posted 
losses, total losses for those 3 years of $26.9 billion. So it is 
certainly true that we can and should ease the funding requirement in 
light of the problems of the Postal Service. It is also true that we 
don't need to fund to 100 percent, which the 2006 law requires. If my 
memory serves me correctly, I believe we have lowered the funding level 
to 80 percent. Those provisions all have a substantial impact on 
lowering the annual payment.

  I have two final points I want to reiterate. The prefunding 
requirement is not the cause of the Postal Service's financial crisis; 
and second, that $46 billion liability is very real and it is not going 
away. Indeed, stretching out the amortization schedule, which I believe 
we should do, is going to actually cause that liability to increase 
because we will be paying it over a longer period of time.
  Nevertheless, I think the changes that have been made in the funding 
for future retirees' health benefits make sense. I think they are 
financially responsible and they will provide some needed relief to the 
Postal Service without exposing taxpayers to the possibility of having 
to pick up the tab and without breaking the promise that has been made 
to postal employees.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S2474]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The Senator from 
Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes 
as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            A Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this being tax week, people all around 
the country are sending in their tax returns. The deadline just passed 
yesterday--April 17--so people are focused a lot on what happens in 
Washington. They think about the IRS. They think about the money being 
sent and how that money is being spent. As people pay their annual tax 
bills, I wish to remind Americans about how the Obama administration is 
actually spending tax dollars on the President's unpopular health care 
law. That is why I come to the floor, as I have every week since the 
health care law passed, with a doctor's second opinion about the health 
care law.
  I said at the time it was passed that there would be some new 
revelation, some unintended consequence, something new that people 
would learn week after week. As someone who has practiced medicine for 
almost a quarter of a century taking care of families in Wyoming, I 
wanted to offer a doctor's second opinion, because I felt from the 
beginning that in spite of the many promises the President made, the 
bill that was actually passed and signed into law is one that is bad 
for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take 
care of those patients--and terrible for taxpayers.
  So I come to the floor because it seems to me that instead of using 
much of the money to improve medical care in America, this 
administration is devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to what--the 
Internal Revenue Service. In fact, The Hill newspaper reported on April 
9 of this year that the Obama administration is quietly sending an 
additional $500 million to the IRS--the Internal Revenue Service. The 
headline is: ``Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement 
healthcare reform law.''
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From The Hill, Apr. 9, 2012]

   Obama Administration Diverts $500M to IRS To Implement Healthcare 
                               Reform Law

                             (By Sam Baker)

       The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 
     million to the IRS to help implement the president's 
     healthcare law.
       The money is only part of the IRS's total implementation 
     spending, and it is being provided outside the normal 
     appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for 
     several key provisions of the new law, including the 
     unpopular individual mandate.
       Republican lawmakers have tried to cut off funding to 
     implement the healthcare law, at least until after the 
     Supreme Court decides whether to strike it down. That ruling 
     is expected by June, and oral arguments last week indicated 
     the justices might well overturn at least the individual 
     mandate, if not the whole law.
       ``While President Obama and his Senate allies continue to 
     spend more tax dollars implementing an unpopular and 
     unworkable law that may very well be struck down as 
     unconstitutional in a matter of months, I'll continue to 
     stand with the American people who want to repeal this law 
     and replace it with something that will actually address the 
     cost of healthcare,'' said Rep. Denny Rehberg (R Mont.), who 
     chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee for healthcare 
     and is in a closely contested Senate race this year.
       The Obama administration has plowed ahead despite the legal 
     and political challenges.
       It has moved aggressively to get important policies in 
     place. And, according to a review of budget documents and 
     figures provided by congressional staff, the administration 
     is also burning through implementation funding provided in 
     the healthcare law.
       The law contains dozens of targeted appropriations to 
     implement specific provisions. It also gave the Department of 
     Health and Human Services (HHS) a $1 billion implementation 
     fund, to use as it sees fit. Republicans have called it a 
     ``slush fund.''
       HHS plans to drain the entire fund by September--before the 
     presidential election, and more than a year before most of 
     the healthcare law takes effect. Roughly half of that money 
     will ultimately go to the IRS.
       HHS has transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the 
     past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million 
     this year, according to figures provided by a congressional 
     aide.
       The Government Accountability Office has said the transfers 
     are perfectly legal and consistent with how agencies have 
     used general implementation funds in the past. The $1 billion 
     fund was set aside for ``federal'' implementation activities, 
     the GAO said, and can therefore be used by any agency--not 
     just HHS, where the money is housed.
       Still, significant transfers to the IRS and other agencies 
     leave less money for HHS, and the department needs to draw on 
     the $1 billion fund for some of its biggest tasks.
       The healthcare law directs HHS to set up a federal 
     insurance exchange--a new marketplace for individuals and 
     small businesses to buy coverage--in any state that doesn't 
     establish its own. But it didn't provide any money for the 
     federal exchange, forcing HHS to cobble together funding by 
     using some of the $1 billion fund and steering money away 
     from other accounts.
       The transfers also allow the IRS to make the healthcare law 
     a smaller part of its public budget figures. For example, the 
     tax agency requested $8 million next year to implement the 
     individual mandate, and said the money would not pay for any 
     new employees.
       An IRS spokeswoman would not say how much money has been 
     spent so far implementing the individual mandate.
       Republicans charged during the legislative debate over 
     healthcare that the IRS would be hiring hundreds of new 
     agents to enforce the mandate and throwing people in jail 
     because they don't have insurance.
       However, the mandate is just one part of the IRS's 
     responsibilities.
       The healthcare law includes a slew of new taxes and fees, 
     some of which are already in effect. The tax agency wants to 
     hire more than 300 new employees next year to cover those tax 
     changes, such as the new fees on drug companies and insurance 
     policies.
       The IRS will also administer the most expensive piece of 
     the new law--subsidies to help low-income people pay for 
     insurance, which are structured as tax credits. The agency 
     asked Congress to fund another 537 new employees dedicated to 
     administering the new subsidies.
       The Republican-led House last year passed an amendment, 246 
     182, sponsored by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R Mo.) that would have 
     prevented the IRS from hiring new personnel or initiating any 
     other measures to mandate that people purchase health 
     insurance. The measure, strongly opposed by the Obama 
     administration, was subsequently dropped from a larger bill 
     that averted a government shutdown.

  Mr. BARRASSO. This money is transferred outside the normal 
appropriations process. That is a concern. The money is transferred 
outside the normal appropriations process. It goes to the very tax 
agency that is responsible for implementing many of the key provisions 
of the health care law. One would think that maybe we would have 
doctors and nurses implementing many of the provisions of the health 
care law. No, we have the IRS. This includes the controversial and 
unprecedented mandate that all Americans must buy a government-approved 
product--health insurance.
  We remember the Supreme Court just held hearings on this 
unprecedented mandate. Seventy percent of Americans believe it is 
unconstitutional. They believe that either part or all of the health 
care law ought to be ruled unconstitutional. Yet the article says that 
the Obama administration's Health and Human Services Department has, to 
date, transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past 2 years 
and plans to send another $300 million this year. These secretive 
transfers hide the true cost of the health care law. They also make it 
difficult for Congress to perform the agency oversight that is part of 
our obligation.
  So I look at this and I say this law is bad. It is bad, I believe, 
for our patients and providers and taxpayers. I look at the way it has 
been structured and the way this money is being transferred and I think 
it highlights the problems with the law. What does the IRS intend to 
do? They want to hire more than 300 new employees next year to 
implement the Tax Code changes, such as the taxes imposed on drug 
companies, device manufacturers, and health insurers. This bill is a 
laundry list of taxes and fees. The IRS also has to implement and 
monitor the laws of the priciest component--the exchange subsidies. For 
this, the IRS is asking Congress to fund another 537 new employees 
dedicated to administering just the subsidies.
  Last week Ways and Means Committee Chairman Camp sent a letter to

[[Page S2475]]

the IRS Commissioner asking that the Commissioner provide specific 
details about these reports.
  Chairman Camp specifically asked the IRS Commissioner to tell the 
committee how many employees are being hired and which tax increases 
the agents will be working on. The American people deserve to know how 
their dollars are being spent, where these tax dollars are being used, 
what the IRS is doing with the money. They deserve to know because the 
health care law actually increases the IRS's power to insert itself 
into the American people's lives.
  How is it the health care law increases the IRS's power to insert 
itself into Americans' lives? By, one, having the IRS verify that 
Americans have acceptable government-approved insurance; also by having 
the IRS penalize Americans if they do not have acceptable government-
approved insurance; also by having the IRS confiscate Americans' tax 
refund dollars if they do not have government-approved insurance; and, 
finally, by having the IRS have additional power in terms of auditing 
our American citizens' lives.
  This is all included in the health care law. This is not health care 
reform. The IRS should never be allowed to intrude into the private 
health care decisions of the American people. The American people 
deserve to know how this alleged $500 million transfer is being spent 
and how many additional IRS agents will be hired to investigate their 
private health care decisions.
  When Americans send their hard-earned dollars to Washington, they 
want to make sure their money is being spent wisely. The American 
people want to know they are getting value for their tax dollars. They 
do not want their dollars to create more bureaucracy and further invade 
their privacy.
  So I come to the floor, as I have over the last couple years since 
the health care law has been passed, with a doctor's second opinion. 
This health care law did not provide the American people with what they 
wanted, which was the care they need, from a doctor they want, at a 
price they can afford. Instead, what they are seeing is the President's 
promises have been broken.
  The President promised if someone likes their care, they can keep it. 
We now know that is not going to be true for many Americans. The 
President promised health care costs would actually go down instead of 
going up and he told Congress and he told others the health care 
insurance costs would drop $2,500 per family. Instead, what families 
across the country have seen is that their health care premiums have 
gone up by about $2,100 a year since the health care law has gone into 
effect, rather than going down. So we hear the President's promises and 
we see the reality on the ground.
  When I travel Wyoming and talk to folks and ask: How many of you 
believe under the health care law your own costs--your own costs--are 
going to go up, despite the President's promises they are going to go 
down, every hand goes up. When I ask the question: How many of you 
believe the quality of your own care--which is what people are 
concerned about: their own care, their own family--how many of you 
believe the quality of your own care will go down, again, every hand 
goes up. That is not what Americans want: paying more and getting less. 
That is why it is time to repeal and replace this terrible health care 
law.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Postal Service Reform

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss this postal reform bill. 
The Postal Service keeps rural America connected. It helps Montana 
seniors receive everyday necessities such as medicines, it allows our 
small businesses to conduct business, and it even makes sure our 
election ballots get counted on time. That is why this reform bill is 
so critically important all across rural America.
  First, I wish to thank my colleagues on the committee for their hard 
work on the substitute amendment to the postal reform bill. I want them 
to know how much I appreciate their efforts to work across the aisle 
with my colleagues and me to address several of our concerns with this 
bill. This bill has come a long way from the version I opposed in 
committee. But there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to 
make sure it works for rural America.
  I have been working for several months on some changes, such as 
preserving the requirement for overnight delivery and providing better 
protection for rural communities that could lose their post offices. 
But we need to go further to find more ways to keep rural post offices 
open and functioning. That is why Senator Franken and Senator Levin and 
I have submitted an amendment to prevent the Postal Service from 
closing a post office if it leaves rural communities without sufficient 
access to Postal Services, from buying stamps to regular mail service.
  Our amendment gives the Postal Regulatory Commission more teeth in 
being able to reject the Postal Service's efforts to close post offices 
and mail processing facilities if the Postal Service does not follow 
the criteria laid out in the bill.
  The Postmaster General is seeking to close around 3,700 post offices 
and over 200 mail processing facilities in this country.
  This bill will result in the reduction of another 100,000 postal 
employees. It will rewrite the rules of workers' compensation across 
the entire Federal Government. In short, it will change the lives of 
many people--to say nothing of the millions of Americans who will be 
impacted by a change in mail service.
  With this in mind, I think it is critically important that the upper 
management at the Postal Service and the Board of Governors lead by 
example. That is why I am offering an amendment to reduce the number of 
Governors on the Postal Board of Governors from nine to seven. The 
Board is currently not at capacity, and it should be encouraged to work 
with the six Governors who presently sit on the Board.
  Governors receive compensation for expenses and a stipend of about 
$30,000 a year, with total compensation up to about $42,600. It seems 
like a small savings. However, reducing up to $80,000 a year by cutting 
two positions could save three post offices in my State: For example, 
in Dupuyer or Wyola or Coffee Creek.
  We need to make sure everyone is tightening their belts, not just the 
folks who depend on mail service or the employees who will be forced 
into retirement or laid off over the next few years.
  My final amendment limits the six most senior postal executives--
including the Postmaster General--to a base salary of not more than 
$200,000, which is what a Cabinet Secretary makes.
  I know there are some folks who think the Postal Service should be a 
private enterprise and that the pay of the postal executives should 
reflect that. But the reality is, the Postal Service is a public 
service. It is right there in the Constitution that the Congress has 
the power to establish post offices. You cannot get much more public 
than that.
  Again, the savings from this amendment may seem like a drop in the 
bucket, but saving just $200,000 a year in reduced executive 
compensation is the same savings we would get from the closure of the 
mail processing centers in Helena, Montana's State capital, and Havre, 
an important town in north-central Montana.
  To me, the choice is simple. If the Postal Service is out of money 
and painful cuts have to be made, they need to be felt up at the top as 
much as at the bottom.
  I hope we get a chance to consider these amendments. They are 
relevant to the bill. This is a debate that is long overdue. It is time 
to have a serious debate in the Senate about what we want the Postal 
Service to look like. That is why I voted to begin the debate on a bill 
I cannot support yet. I want to get to the point where we have a bill 
that is going to save the Postal Service and not lead to its 
dismantling.
  So let's have the debate, let's look at amendments, and let's start 
voting.
  I'd like to add one additional point that is of critical importance 
to rural America.

[[Page S2476]]

  I have expressed my concern that the Postal Service is rushing to 
close rural post offices, and I have asked the Postmaster General to 
find alternatives to this effort.
  Many people aren't aware that, in rural America, nearly 90 percent of 
postal facilities are owned by private parties and leased to the Postal 
Service, rather than the Postal Service owning those facilities itself. 
Across the nation as a whole the Postal Service leases more than one-
third of its facilities.
  Without the Postal leasing program, the Postal Service would not be 
able to meet its mandate of universal service. It would not be able to 
provide mail service to huge swaths of our nation in rural America. By 
partnering with the private sector, the Postal Service has facilities 
and provides service without the enormous expense of constructing, 
owning and maintaining its own buildings.
  More than 40 of the postal facilities in Montana are leased by the 
Postal Service. In all, more than 3,000 private property owners lease 
facilities to the USPS across America. Without the Postal leasing 
program, the infrastructure to serve many parts of America either would 
simply not exist or would require massive expenditures on building 
facilities that the Postal Service cannot afford.
  As the Postal Service explores options about the future of rural post 
offices across America, I urge it to look carefully at the leasing 
program and to realize the role it plays in saving money and providing 
universal mail service. Both of those roles are critically important. 
So as we make the tough choices about the how we can preserve rural 
post offices, I hope that the Postal Service will continue to consider 
the leasing program as part of its future.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________