[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 58 (Monday, April 23, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2560-S2568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1925,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to S. 1925, a bill to reauthorize the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Schedule
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it has been announced by the clerk that
the Senate is now considering the motion to proceed to S. 1925, the
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.
At 2 p.m. this afternoon, the Republican leader or his designee will
move to proceed to S.J. Res. 36, a resolution of disapproval regarding
the NLRB election rule. The time until 4 p.m. will be equally divided
and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.
At 5 p.m., the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider
the nomination of Brian Wimes to be a U.S. district judge in Missouri.
There will be a rollcall vote on confirmation of the Wimes nomination
at 5:30 p.m.
Postal Reform
Mr. President, as you and our colleagues know, after a lot of work
and good-faith negotiations, we reached a bipartisan agreement last
week to complete action on the bipartisan postal reform bill tomorrow,
with an agreement that includes almost 40 amendments--39, I believe, is
the number--to be voted on tomorrow.
Although, we--and particularly our staffs--have been working with
sponsors of the amendments, we expect that probably more than half of
them will be negotiated to agreements, modified, and/or accepted. But
there still will be a significant number of rollcall votes,
[[Page S2561]]
which will begin tomorrow afternoon after the respective party
caucuses.
There was a good amount of debate on the postal bill last week.
Tomorrow, once we go from S.J. Res. 36, the resolution on the NLRB
election rule, to the postal bill in the afternoon to begin voting on
the amendments, there will not be much time for debate.
As announced last week, last Thursday after this agreement was
achieved, Senator Collins will be here from now until 2 p.m. when we go
to the NLRB rule. We will be here from 4 to 5, the next open block
before we go to the judicial nomination, and we are prepared to stay
this evening after the judicial nomination for as long as proponents or
discussants of the various amendments want to come to the floor to
engage in debate and discussion on them. I hope our colleagues will do
that.
As Senator Reid said, this is an important piece of legislation.
Nobody denies that the U.S. Postal Service is an iconic American
institution which millions of people depend on not just for the mail
but for their jobs, both directly working for the Postal Service and
indirectly--but not too indirectly because they work for related
businesses that depend on the mail.
We simply can't turn aside, do nothing, and let the Postal Service
continue a fiscal spiral downward. The Postal Service, as we said over
and over last week, lost $13 billion in the last 2 years. It is going
to go over its debt limit later this year. The Postmaster has been very
clear that if we don't give him some authority to find a new business
model, to economize, he will have to take very aggressive action,
potentially closing--on one list he put out there were 3,700 post
offices and approximately 250 mail processing facilities, which would
be extremely disruptive both to the post office and to the personal
life and commercial life of our country.
This bill Senator Collins and I, along with Senators Carper and Scott
Brown, offered to our colleagues offers a sensible but tough way
forward to preserve the U.S. Postal Service, but also to acknowledge
that it has to change to stay alive forever, certainly through the 21st
century. Because of the impact of e-mail, it has dropped the volume of
mail in the last 5 years by more than 20 percent. When that kind of
revenue is lost, we have to find ways to economize and a different kind
of business model, including different ways to raise revenue, all of
which is authorized in this bill.
I know some people think our bill doesn't do enough. They are ready
to basically close down a lot of the Postal Service as we know it. Some
people think our bill does too much. We naturally think we have struck
a sweet spot or a point of common ground. In fact, the Postal Service
told us they believe if our bill is enacted, it would save--after fully
implemented over the next 2, 3 years--between $15 billion and $20
billion a year, to be conservative--probably closer to $15 billion.
That is a significant amount of money. It creates a series of
incentives to alter the business model of the post office, including
authorizing the post office to get into some businesses it has not been
in before as a way to take advantage of its unique assets and raise
more money.
So this is a moment of truth for the Senate. In some sense, it is a
somewhat smaller version of the larger moment of truth we are going to
have to face sometime about our Federal budget overall, but here is a
great American institution that is in real fiscal trouble.
We have the ability with this legislation to get it back on a path of
balance, stability, and even growth. Some post offices will be changed
under this bill. Mail processing facilities--some of them will be
closed. The Postmaster says he wants to have that happen.
We have authorized a significant amount of money to be spent to
incentivize 100,000 postal employees to retire. They are eligible for
retirement with an incentive. We think they will, and that itself would
save the Postal Service approximately $8 billion a year.
This is not one of those bills that people enjoy voting on, but it is
our responsibility. It is necessary we face the crisis the Postal
Service is in and help it stay alive and flourish throughout this
century.
That is what is on the line in the bill. The amendments cover a range
of topics. This was a very broad bipartisan agreement on the
amendments. There are some that make the bill tougher, some make it
softer. They all deserve a good debate, and that is what Senator
Collins and I are here to do now.
Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 2327
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I understand that S. 2327 is at the
desk and due for a second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title for the second time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2327) to prohibit direct foreign assistance to
the Government of Egypt until the President makes certain
certifications related to treatment of nongovernmental
organization workers, and for other purposes.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings
with respect to the bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bill will
be placed on the calendar under rule XIV.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield for my distinguished ranking member, Senator
Collins.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the chairman.
Mr. President, we are going to resume debate today on the postal
reform legislation our committee, on which the Presiding Officer
serves, has worked very hard to produce and to do so in a bipartisan
way. As Chairman Lieberman has indicated, last week, we labored very
hard to produce a list of amendments that will allow Members to work
their will on this legislation.
There are many different viewpoints on the path forward for the
Postal Service, but there can be no doubt about one fact: The Postal
Service has lost more than $13 billion in the last 2 years. Despite
being relieved from a payment that is required under law toward the
health benefits of future retirees, it still lost billions of dollars.
If we fail to act, if we turn down this bill, the Postal Service will
not survive as we know it today, and that is a fact. The Postal
Service, later this year, will have great difficulty even meeting its
payroll if we do not act. The Postal Service will max out on its credit
that it can borrow from the Treasury if we do not act. The Postal
Service will be forced to resort to dramatic and Draconian service cuts
that will drive still more customers from the system if we do not act.
So just closing our eyes and pretending somehow the Postal Service will
find a way through this, without our legislation, is not a realistic
option.
As I have indicated, there are a variety of views on both sides of
the aisle on what the appropriate path forward should be, and we will
have a vigorous debate today--we started it last week--on what the best
option is for the Postal Service. For me, the bottom line is this: The
Postal Service will not survive if it pursues a course that risks
alienating the remaining customers it does have. So resorting to
widespread closures of postal processing plants, which would
essentially do away with overnight delivery of mail, and raising prices
so big mailers pursue alternatives to using the Postal Service for
delivery are not the solutions to the Postal Service's woes.
On the other hand, the Postal Service clearly cannot continue to do
business as usual. It has to innovate. It has to look for new sources
of revenue, and we have given some very specific ideas in our bill by
allowing, for example, the Postal Service to provide services and share
space with Federal, State, and local governments and to also ship beer
and wine with a signature from the customer, just as its competitors,
FedEx and UPS--United Parcel Service--are able to do. We also do not
prohibit the closure of all post offices, nor do we mandate a certain
number be closed; instead, we set standards. We set service standards,
and those service standards would govern the decisions the Postal
Service would make. I think that is the appropriate way to approach the
very difficult issue of how to reduce the infrastructure of the Postal
Service.
But the fact remains--and it is a painful fact--that 80 percent of
the Postal Service's budget is workforce related. It is always
difficult to recognize when a workforce, particularly one as dedicated
as the American Postal Service workforce, is simply too big
[[Page S2562]]
for the volume of work the Postal Service now has. But there are
compassionate ways to deal with this workforce problem, and our bill
allows for a refund of an $11 billion overpayment the Postal Service
has made to the Federal Employees Retirement System--known as the FERS
system. This is an overpayment that has been verified by an independent
board of private actuaries the Office of Personnel Management relies
upon. It has also been verified by the Government Accountability
Office. This overpayment, in part, can be used and would be directed to
be used by the Postmaster General to offer retirement incentives and
buyouts up to and capped at $25,000, the exact same number that is used
in buyouts in Federal agencies to reduce the workforce.
More than one-third of the Postal Service's employees are eligible
for retirement today. That is why the Postmaster General believes, if
he provides a bit of an incentive, he can reduce the size of the Postal
Service workforce by more than 100,000 workers. That is about 18
percent of the entire workforce. That approach of using retirement
incentives, buyouts, and incentives such as that is very similar to the
approach the private sector uses, that large corporations use when they
are faced with the painful task of having to downsize their workforce.
The rest of the overpayment refund would be used to pay down debt,
something the Postal Service desperately needs to do as it approaches
that $15 billion line-of-credit cap.
I wish to stress--because there is going to be a lot of discussion
about this, perhaps very shortly--these are not tax dollars being
refunded to the Postal Service. I read from a letter from the inspector
general on the floor last week that verifies the revenues for the FERS
payment come from two sources: They come from the postal employees
themselves who contribute to the FERS system, and the revenues come
from the Postal Service's own revenues, which are from selling stamps,
mailing packages, and the other services the Postal Service provides.
This is not a taxpayer bailout. It is not a refund of taxpayer
dollars. This is a refund of a substantial overpayment of money from
the Postal Service's employees and the Postal Service itself, from
revenues it generated, to the FERS system that never should have
occurred. That is another whole issue--of how it occurred. This
overpayment has been confirmed by the GAO and by an independent board
of actuaries hired by the Office of Personnel Management.
That is a very important part of this bill. If the Postmaster General
is successful--as I believe he will be if he aggressively implements
these provisions in compassionately reducing the size of the
workforce--the estimates are that provision alone would save about $8
billion a year, and it would allow the Postmaster General to right size
many of the processing plants. Some of the processing plants are too
big for the volume they now have.
But the answer is not to close them altogether because that has such
a detrimental impact on the delivery of mail, and that leaves rural
America behind. That would result in there no longer being overnight
delivery for first-class mail.
Let me give an example from my State, where the Postmaster General
has unwisely proposed closing one of only two processing plants we have
in a State as large as the State of Maine. He would keep the one in the
southernmost tip of the State but close the one in Hampden, ME, which
serves northern, central and eastern and parts of western Maine. It
serves about two-thirds of the geography of the State. If that postal
processing plant were to close, mail from northern Maine--being sent
from one community in northern Maine to another--would have to undergo
a more than 600-mile round trip to the one remaining processing plant
in Maine. I can't imagine how many days that would take, but I am
certain it would cause people to stop using the mail, and, thus,
revenue would decline still further because there would be no
possibility of overnight delivery of bill payments, for example, or
bill delivery.
This is not the answer. So what is the answer? That plant could be
downsized, not closed. We need to preserve the service.
If the plant is too large now for the volume of mail that goes
through the plant, why doesn't the Postal Service rent out part of the
plant? I am sure a mailer in the area--perhaps several mailers in the
area--would welcome the opportunity to rent space in that building and
be right next to the postal processing plant. That would work very
well.
There are so many options, but the Postmaster General, in my view,
has not pursued those options. When it comes to rural post offices,
there are so many options. For example, a post office could be open in
a rural community, say, from 7:00 to 9:00 in the morning and 5:00 to
7:00 at night so that individuals going to and from work could stop and
do their business, but the Postal Service would still be able to save
funds by not having the post office open the entire day. A small post
office could be colocated in a retail facility--the local pharmacy,
perhaps, or the local grocery store.
There are possibilities which need to be explored--and which our bill
directs the Postmaster General to explore--in order to avoid the
widespread closure of post offices in rural America that will have a
detrimental impact on the individuals and the businesses located there.
Our bill in essence forces more creativity on the Postal Service by
again setting standards with the Postal Regulatory Commission, which is
the regulator in this case, and then ensuring that the actions of the
Postal Service with regard to infrastructure meet those standards.
This bill has many other provisions that we discussed at length last
week, so I am not going to repeat them now, but let me reiterate the
point I made at the beginning of my remarks.
We have been able to negotiate, with the cooperation of both the
majority leader and the Republican leader and with a lot of hard work
by the members of the committee and the floor staff and our staff, a
very fair process that will allow many amendments to be offered,
expressing a wide variety of philosophies and views on the proper road
ahead. But what we cannot do is fail to act. If we do not act, that
will be a death sentence for the Postal Service--an American
institution enshrined in our Constitution that is the linchpin of a $1
trillion mailing industry that employs 8.7 million Americans.
This debate is not just about rural post offices, important though
they are. It is about our economy and not delivering a death blow to an
institution that is the center of much of our economy. I hope Members
keep that in mind as they come to the floor with proposals, for
example, to essentially privatize the Postal Service or to do away with
most of its infrastructure because if those amendments prevail, they
will deliver a crushing blow to our economy at a time when we can least
afford it, and they will jeopardize that trillion-dollar mailing
industry that includes everything from paper manufacturers, to magazine
publishers, to newspapers, to financial services--all of these
industries that are so dependent on the U.S. Postal Service--and that
is an outcome we must avoid.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss S. 1789,
the 21st Century Postal Service Act. I regret to say there is a
fundamental problem with this bill that we have to address. I wish it
weren't so, but I am afraid it is. The bill would increase the Federal
deficit by $34 billion. This violates the deficit neutrality provisions
for spending that we adopted as part of the Budget Control Act just
last summer. As a result, there are at least five budget points of
order that lie against the bill, and I, the ranking Republican on the
Budget Committee, will be raising points of order at the appropriate
time. That means it would take 60 votes of our 100 Members in the
Senate to say we don't want to agree and follow the law we passed last
summer.
Under the Senate rules, no committee can bring a bill to the floor
that spends even one penny more than already is going to be spent under
the current law or increases the deficit more than it would increase
under current law. Current law is the Budget Control Act of last
summer, and it was passed, as we all recall, as part of a major debate
over raising the debt ceiling, so we could continue to borrow money.
Borrowing at the rate of--about 40 cents of every dollar we spend.
[[Page S2563]]
In August we agreed to modest, though insufficient savings. Although
we talked about big cuts, we only managed to reduce the growth in
spending, not the actual level. The debt deal established basic
spending limits. Not one word in that law prevents us or any Member of
Congress from saving more. The law set the maximum, not the minimum,
that we can spend.
But this bill violates that legislation. It spends above the agreed-
upon limits. Only in Washington does spending below a limit get one
accused of breaking a deal while spending more than the agreement means
people just look the other way.
The majority leader and the chairman of the Budget Committee are
proud of the Budget Control Act. They say it has iron-clad restraints
on spending. They say we do not even need a budget.
But where are they when it comes to making sure this agreement is
actually followed? It is curious that we don't have leadership from the
majority leader or the Budget Committee chairman to tell the committee:
Look, we understand the Postal Service has serious problems. We
understand that. Something probably needs to be done to fix that and
improve that situation. It may even cost some money. But to do so,
shouldn't we comply with the law of the United States and what we
agreed to just last summer?
As this unfolds you will hear part of the reason that spending
increases is because the bill requires the Treasury to repay the Postal
Service $11 billion that the Postal Service has overpaid to the U.S.
Treasury for retirement contributions of current employees.
I am not debating that argument and whether it is an overpayment. I
am not debating it. We have experts who have looked at it and said it
is basically accurate, that the Treasury does owe the postal department
$11 billion. Maybe under some circumstances we are required to pay that
back. I don't argue that at this point.
I say if we pay it back, is it not an expenditure of the United
States? If you are behind on your car payment shouldn't you look to see
where else you can cut spending? That is all we are talking about. You
have to understand it costs money. The money comes from somewhere.
I think most people understand the U.S. Government borrows money
through T-bill sales, and we pay interest on the money we are
borrowing. The fastest growing item in our budget is interest on our
debt, so we ought to be cutting spending to pay for this. Over 10 years
that is $11 billion. That is a lot. But $11 billion is a little over $1
billion a year, and this year alone we will spend, as I recall,
approximately $3,600 billion. So we couldn't pay this money back? We
could not find $1 billion a year to pay the money back? We have to just
borrow it in addition to the money we have agreed to borrow, breaching
the debt limit we have agreed not to breach?
I have to note, unfortunately, the $11 billion is only one-third of
the debt impact of the legislation. It is only one-third of the amount
by which the bill breaks the agreement of last summer.
What else accounts for the total $34 billion? Most of the deficit
increase of the bill, about two-thirds, occurs because the bill would
restructure the amount the Postal Service is supposed to pay to the
Office of Personnel Management to fund the future retiree health
benefits of the current Postal Service employees--coverage for them
when they retire.
In 2006 the Congress enacted the Postal Accountability Act to set the
Postal Service on a self-sustaining course. According to one of the
managers of the bill, that law included ``a requirement that the Postal
Service endorsed at the time,'' that the Postal Service prefund the
future retiree health benefits of the current postal employees on an
accrual basis. That 2006 law set out a schedule of those required
payments to the government.
Now, 6 years later, the Postal Service says they are unable to make
those required payments. We already enacted a bill last year partially
relieving the Postal Service of some of their required 2011 payment, so
this bill would defer those payments and stretch out the amount of time
to pay them.
How much is the Postal Service allowed to defer? The legislation
allows the Postal Service to defer $23 billion in payments for retiree
health benefits. This legislation would transfer, in part, the burden
of these restructured payments from the users of the Postal Service,
the stamp buyers, to taxpayers.
This means the Treasury has to go out and borrow the money over the
next 10 years because the Postal Service is relieved from making the
health care payments. Again, a budget produced under regular order that
I have truly felt we should have done--and remain disappointed, deeply,
that has not occurred--should have planned for this by including policy
changes somewhere else in the budget that would have offset the cost of
this bill.
Because the bill does not do that, because it adds to the debt of the
United States, and violates the Budget Control Act I will raise a point
of order that will require 60 votes to waive it.
If this new spending is necessary, and I suspect some of it may be,
then isn't it worth cutting spending somewhere else to pay for it? Do
we really have to break our spending agreement when we are facing the
fourth straight deficit in excess of $1 trillion.
Washington is in a state of financial chaos. We are in denial. We are
not owning up to the fact that there are limits on what we can do. You
tell me how long we can borrow $1 trillion a year, substantially more
than we take in every year.
The Government Services Administration is throwing lavish parties in
Las Vegas. The Government Accountability Office has identified $400
billion--maybe we could pay the $34 billion out of this $400 billion--
being spent every year, each year, on waste, inefficiency, and
duplication. That is the official Government Accountability Office.
Far worse, the Senate's Democratic majority has failed to produce a
budget plan in calendar year 2010, 2011, and now 2012. This Sunday, in
fact, marks exactly 3 years since the last time the Senate passed a
budget.
A budget means responsible behavior. It requires and forces Congress
to make tough choices.
Now we say the Postal Service needs more money, and we will just
borrow it. This is not responsible behavior.
The White House warns that Republicans want to cut too much spending.
But the American people know the truth, and the truth is we have never
spent more money than we are spending today and spent it more
recklessly and with less accountability.
This is in many ways a decisive moment. I deeply respect my
colleagues who have worked on this legislation. It is very complex; it
is very important; it is a very difficult issue. But this country has
to rationally confront the difficulties in the Postal Service. The
world is changing. E-mail continues to erode the market for traditional
mail. The Postal Service has to adapt to keep up with the times. We
cannot just keep throwing money at it.
I deeply respect the people who worked on this, but I do believe it
is a crucial vote. Even if one supports every dollar of spending in the
bill, do you support violating the Budget Control Act? I ask my
colleagues to vote to sustain the budget point of order. Let's stand up
for fiscal responsibility.
In effect, we would send the bill back to our good committee, and say
to them: Look at it. If they can spend less, please do so. But if they
feel they have to spend more money to sustain the Postal Service,
propose how it should be offset. It would meet the requirements and
promises we made to the American people.
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share these remarks. It is
going to be difficult to fix, but certainly not impossible. If this
bill is sent back--I know my colleagues will figure out a way to pay
for it.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, but I
will be responding.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me start by responding to the ranking
member of the Budget Committee by saying that I could not agree with
him
[[Page S2564]]
more that it is absolutely unacceptable that we have not had a budget
passed in the Senate for more than 1,000 days. That is totally
unacceptable. It is one of the reasons we are in such a financial
crisis in this country. So I completely agree with Senator Sessions
that we should be doing a budget resolution on the Senate floor, and I
wholeheartedly agree with his comments that it is absolutely
irresponsible for us to be proceeding without a budget resolution. And
as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I would say to my
colleagues that it makes it very difficult for us to carry out our
work. Due to the cooperation of the chairman and ranking member of that
committee, we are operating under allocations for each subcommittee,
but it would be far preferable if there were a budget resolution that
passed, and it should have passed last year, the year before, and it
should be passed this year. So we are in complete agreement on that
point, and I know that has been a great source of frustration for the
Senator from Alabama as the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
Having said that, let me explain a few facts. First of all, there are
no tax dollars being authorized by this reform bill. There is no
transfer of taxpayer money to the Postal Service. What we have here is
a very strange and unusual budget situation. And the score CBO has is
incredibly misleading because the Postal Service, oddly enough, is part
of the unified budget of the United States even though most of its
accounts are off-budget, but it participates in Federal employee
retirement systems and the health benefits systems and the workers'
compensation systems, where postal dollars that come from postal
employees and from postal ratepayers are commingled, if you will, with
tax dollars that come from other Federal agencies into the retirement
system, the workers' comp system, and the health benefits system. And
that creates this odd situation, which makes it very difficult for CBO
to score this bill correctly.
The inspector general of the Postal Service puts it far more bluntly.
In a February 22 report from this year called ``Budget Enforcement
Procedures and the Postal Service,'' the inspector general said:
. . . the Postal Service's off-budget status . . . expose[s]
the Postal Service to an inappropriate and illogical
application of the scoring process that threatens its ability
to reform and heal its financial condition. Scoring and
budget enforcement were created for a good purpose, but they
are undermined when the scoring process assumes that unlikely
or inappropriate inflows to the Treasury must occur.
Let me give you a couple of examples because it is incredibly
important that we walk through the score so that our colleagues can
understand the unique on-budget/off-budget status of the Postal
Service, particularly in the area of reducing payments to retiree
health benefits or recovering overpayments to the FERS system and how
the CBO scoring method obscures the true savings achieved by refunding
the FERS payments.
Again, let me repeat that since 1971 the Postal Service has received
no Federal subsidy to operate other than some very minor appropriated
dollars for functions that the Postal Service is legislatively mandated
to do, such as mail for the blind and overseas ballots for our troops.
That is it. Prior to 1971 there was a taxpayer subsidy year after year
to the Postal Service, but that ended with the Postal Reform Act in
that year. So from the sale of stamps, the cost of shipping packages,
and the rates mailers and magazine publishers and newspaper publishers
pay to get the print versions delivered comes the revenue for the
Postal Service. And even the money the Postal Service uses for retiree
benefits comes from a combination of the contributions the postal
workers make and the money the Postal Service invests.
As I mentioned earlier, there is a significant overpayment into the
Federal Employees Retirement System, and we, along with the
administration, the GAO, the independent actuaries, and the Postal
Service inspector general, have all proposed that overpayment be
returned to the Postal Service, and it would be used in part to finance
these buyouts and retirement incentives to reduce the size of the
postal workforce.
Let's look at how CBO scores this particular part of the bill.
First of all, CBO gives this bill no credit whatsoever for the
buyouts, and here is why: CBO argues that the Postal Service already
has buyout authority, but as the Presiding Officer knows better than
anybody in this Chamber, our bill changes the status quo in two
critical ways. First of all, the Postal Service has no cash right now
to do these buyouts. That is one of the reasons we are so eager to get
the money from the overpayment of FERS refunded to the Postal Service.
Second, in our substitute bill, we specifically direct the Postmaster
General to use a portion of this money to entice 18 percent of the
current postal workers to accept this offer. That is a big difference.
So there is a mandatory direction to the Postmaster General to reduce
the workforce by about 18 percent and there is the cash that will allow
him to offer buyouts to do that. Why CBO doesn't score that as a
savings to the Postal Service is beyond me.
There is another way to reduce the workforce and, again, the funds
for this would come from the FERS refund. Our bill provides new
authority to the Postal Service to offer 1 or 2 years of credited
service toward a pension annuity so that for a worker who is just
lacking a year or two to reach the number of years necessary for
retirement could be credited with that extra year or two of service,
depending on which retirement system the worker is in. Unfortunately,
the CBO makes an assumption that only several thousand employees would
take advantage of that offer and credits the bill with savings of only
$643 million over 10 years. Since these kinds of service credits have
never been offered before, it is not clear how the CBO came up with
this assumption. There is no precedent for it. There is no data for the
CBO to use. Again, our original bill did not include the hard
requirement for the 18-percent reduction, but our substitute does. Yet
CBO does not recognize that change.
The Postal Service has told us, as the Presiding Officer would
attest, these requirements and this new authority and the funds for the
buyouts and the service credit would allow them to reduce their
workforce in the neighborhood of 100,000 employees and save some $8
billion a year. That is not reflected in the estimate. I use that
example because it shows how strange the scoring is. This is a quirk of
the budget-scoring rules because when there is a transfer of Postal
Service money--not taxpayer money, Postal Service money--from one
account in the Treasury, such as the retirement account, into an off-
budget postal operations account, the CBO makes this assumption that
savings are not going to occur. So when we transfer the $11 billion
overpayment--the refund--from the pension account, to which the Postal
Service has been overcharged, into a postal operating account, it gets
credited as $5.5 billion instead of $11 billion. That means an on-
budget account loses $11 billion, as CBO looks at it, and the off-
budget account only gains $5.5 billion. This is very complex because it
is so obscure and because, frankly, it is so illogical. The result is
the net score in the unified budget of $5.5 billion as a cost to the
Treasury, and that simply is not the reality. Again, these are not
taxpayer dollars that went into the overpayment in the first place. So
here we have a provision that is being scored as the $5.5 billion cost
to the Treasury when, in fact, they aren't tax dollars, and it is only
because this is a unified budget, where some of the accounts are on-
budget and some of the accounts are off-budget, that we have this
anomalous result. It doesn't make sense.
Let me give my colleagues another example. The CBO acknowledges that
our reforms of the Federal Workers' Compensation Program would save
$1.2 billion, but CBO doesn't count this reduction as a savings because
of the way the Department of Labor charges agencies for participation
in the workers' compensation program. Again, that doesn't make any
sense, when the CBO itself acknowledges that these are real reforms
that are going to save $1.2 billion. Yet we only get credit for $200
million of the reforms.
There is another issue. The CBO does not account for what would
happen if the Postal Service allows service to continue to deteriorate
because the CBO doesn't recognize the reality that all the big mailers
and small mailers tell us, which is that revenue will be driven out of
the system if the service
[[Page S2565]]
cuts associated with plant closures and wholesale closures of post
offices are allowed to proceed. The bottom line is that were it not for
50-percent discounts being applied over and over to the savings we
achieve for 5-day delivery, retiree health care, the pension refund, on
the basis of these strange behavioral assumptions and reflecting the
odd combination of off-budget and on-budget accounts being brought
together in a unified budget, the bill would have scored approximately
$24.6 billion more in off-budget savings, making the bill a net saver
of $14.8 billion.
This is so frustrating because it is so complex, but I think if our
colleagues look at the example of the FERS overpayment, it becomes very
clear because there are no taxpayer dollars involved. Yet it is scored
as a cost to the Treasury of $5.5 billion. How can a refund of an
overpayment that involves no tax dollars end up being scored as a cost
to the Treasury of $5.5 billion? That is how illogical and quirky this
estimate is, and it is because of the unique status of the Postal
Service and how its various accounts are reflected in the budget.
In addition to my absolute conviction that this score is very
misleading, let me make another point. If we do not proceed with this
bill--if this budget point of order brings down this bill--the Postal
Service will not survive as we know it. Again, we are not providing a
taxpayer subsidy in this bill. In fact, I would argue we are preventing
a taxpayer bailout in this bill because later this year, if the Postal
Service cannot meet its payroll and thus is unable to deliver mail, I
think the pressure for the taxpayer bailout will increase
substantially, and I do not want to see us return to the pre-1971 era,
where the taxpayers were on the hook for the Postal Service. Our bill
would avoid that outcome.
Thank you. I 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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer for
liberating me from the chair so I may now speak in my capacity as a
Senator from the State of Connecticut. First, I would like to thank my
friend from Maine, Senator Collins, for what I thought was a very
convincing, insightful description and really a critique of the CBO
estimate of the financial impact of this bill.
This is tough to follow. The two of us, Senator Collins and I, and
others on the committee have been deeply saturated in this for probably
too long. But the fact is, when the CBO estimate of the bill came out
saying it was going to cost more than we were saving, I was shocked. As
I read over it, part of it is because they are not simply considering
the Postal Service budget, which we are out to save; that is, to cut a
lot of money from it so it can be saved, and as Senator Collins said,
the Postal Service is off-budget. It does not spend taxpayers' money
except for those two little matters of paying for ballots for military
personnel and others overseas, and I think the other is for blind
people in this country, but the rest of it is all paid by the
ratepayers. So as you go over, one by one, as Senator Collins did, the
elements of the ``costs''--and I put quotations around them--they are
just not real. This is form over substance. This is a kind of ``Alice
in Wonderland'' accounting that does not relate to the reality of the
Postal Service's budget or the Federal budget.
The so-called FERS repayment that is coming from the Federal
Government, everyone agrees--including Senator Sessions, who stated his
intention of making a budget point of order on our Postal Service
bill--the Postal Service did overpay this amount of money, just as if a
taxpayer overpaid taxes. Well, if I overpay my taxes, that is my money
I am asking back from the government. In this case, the Postal Service
has overpaid to the Federal retiree pension fund, and it is asking for
its money back.
There is something else to be said here about the reality of
accounting in the real world. When the approximately $11 billion--or
maybe more--is paid back to the Postal Service, that only happens once,
when that total is paid back. But what we have demanded in the bill be
done with a part of that money, which is to get involved in this
incentive for early retirement or retirement when members of the Postal
Service are eligible, mandating that 18 percent--about 100,000 postal
employees--retire, that saves $8.1 billion on a recurring basis every
year. So you have the one-time--it may come in two or three payments
but only one-time--$11 billion repayment to the Postal Service for the
overpayment it made, and then every year it saves $8.1 billion,
forever. That is a pretty good deal both for the taxpayers and the
Postal Service.
Secondly--and Senator Collins went on very effectively about this--
the prefunding of health benefits. The fact is in the Postal Reform Act
of 2006--you might call it an excess of caution--the Postal Service was
required to make payments into the retiree health benefits fund that
are greater than most any other business or government in the country.
We have just spread this out to a 4-year payment schedule according to
the normal discount rate other Federal programs pay for their retirees'
benefits.
Senator Collins talked at length about the impact of the way in which
the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, refuses to score--as we say,
count--dollar-for-dollar the amount of money saved by early
retirements, which does not make any sense because that is what will be
saved.
Now, I want to enter into the Record at this point--and speak to it--
the estimate of the U.S. Postal Service about what our substitute
amendment to S. 1789 will save, and it is quite dramatic. I ask
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE--PLAN TO PROFITABILITY--DRAFT--4/17 S. 1789 AMENDED (APR 16)--MANAGERS
SUBSTITUTE, AS OF 4 16 12
[in $Billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S 1789
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Case:
Revenue.................. $65.7 64.0 63.4 62.7 62.0 61.6
Total Operating Expenses. .67.9 69.5 69.9 72.0 74.5 77.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Income/(Loss).. (2.2) (5.4) (6.5) (9.4) (12.5) (15.5)
RHB Pre-Funding.......... 5.5 11.1 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Income (Loss)--Base $(7.7) (16.5) (12.1) (15.1) (18.2) (21.3)
Case....................
========================================================================
Impact of Strategic
Initiatives (savings are
positive numbers, costs are
negative):
Legislative Changes:
Resolve RHB Pre- 5.5 11.1 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.8
Funding.............
FERS Refund.......... ......... 11.4 ......... ......... ............... .........
Reduce FERS ......... ......... ......... ......... ............... ......... 101
contribution rate by
3% (note a)--Not
Included............
Price increases: ......... ......... ......... ......... ............... 0.1 402
Add'l 2% for
products not
covering costs,
after 3.5 yrs.......
5-Day Delivery--2 ......... ......... ......... ......... 2.0 2.6 208
year delay..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Legislative 5.5 22.5 5.6 5.7 7.7 8.5
Changes.............
Operations:
Networks: Retain ......... 0.4 1.0 1.5 2.2 2.9 201/202
Overnight for 3 yrs.
($1.5B savings +
workload)...........
Retail (``Retail Svc ......... .0.6 0.9 1.3 1.7 1.9 203 205
Stds'', Savings of
90% of Postal Plan).
[[Page S2566]]
Delivery (Same as ......... 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.5 3.0
Postal Plan)........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Operations ......... 2.2 3.5 4.9 6.4 7.8
Initiatives (incl
wkload).............
Comp & Benefits and
Non-Personnel
Initiatives.........
Collective Bargaining ......... 0.4 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.2
(Same as Postal
Plan)...............
Postal Health Plan-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ............... ......... 104 105
Employees--no
significant savings
proposed............
Postal Health Plan-- ......... ......... ......... ......... ............... ......... 104 105
Retirees--no
significant savings
proposed............
Retiree Health ......... ......... 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.9 103
Benefits Paid from
RHES Fund...........
Less: Pay Normal Cost ......... ......... (3.7) (3.8) (3.9) (4.0) 103 105
+40 yr Amort of
Unfunded............
Interest Savings..... ......... ......... 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comp & Benefits and ......... 0.4 0.5 1.1 2.2 3.2
Non-Personnel
Initiatives.........
Separation Cost...... ......... (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) ............... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Contribution 5.5 24.7 9.1 11.3 16.3 19.5
from Strategic
Initiatives.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Operating 67.9 55.9 66.4 66.4 63.8 63.4
Expenses............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Net Income/ $(2.2) 8.1 (3.0) (3.8) (1.9) (1.8)
(Loss)..............
========================================================================
2015 Daily Net Income/ ($5.1) M/Day
(Loss)--$ Millions..
Net Cash/(Debt)...... ($11.7) (3.3) (6.3) (9.9) (11.4) (12.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(a) Reducing FERS employer contribution rate by 3%, to reflect Postal specific demographics and salary increase
data, would avoid creating another future overfunding position.
Sections not included due to lesser near-term financial impacts:
211: Non-Postal Products
301 to 305: FECA Reform
403: Co-location of Federal Agencies
404: Cooperation with State & Local Governments
405: Distribution of Beer, Wine & Distilled Spirits
Does not include the following impacts:
No more than 2 consecutive non-delivery days (5 Monday holidays per year).
Mr. LIEBERMAN. All along, our goal has been to get to a point, over 3
or 4 years, where we would save as close to $20 billion a year as we
could. That is the number Postmaster General Donahoe gave to our
committee as to what he needed, the Postal Service needed to get back
in balance.
On the current course, in fiscal year 2016 the U.S. Postal Service--I
am reading now from the statement I have entered into the Record that
the Postal Service has given us--will have a deficit of $21.3 billion.
In 2016, under the passage of S. 1789 with our substitute amendment,
the loss is reduced to $1.8 billion. That is from $21.3 billion to $1.8
billion. Well, of course, we want to get it to total balance, but we
are clearly going to hit balance after that on the course we are on.
That means, according to the Postal Service, passage of S. 1789 with
our substitute amendment will save the Postal Service over $19 billion
a year by 2016. That is exactly what the Postal Service needs to stay
alive.
We do it without compelling layoffs. We do it with incentives for
retirement. We do it without mandating--as some of the amendments would
that we will vote on tomorrow--the mass closure of mail-processing
facilities or our post offices around the country, which, as Senator
Collins said, would be a kind of shock therapy. It would so jolt the
system that people would turn away from the post offices in increasing
numbers. In fact, it would accelerate the loss of revenue. We do it
without an immediate move from 6 days of delivery to 5 days because
that is a tough one for a lot of people. We have given the Postal
Service 2 years to essentially prove it can get back in balance without
that move from 6 days to 5 days of delivery.
We have added new sources of revenue. We have created a process here,
which is not scored by the Postal Service, that we think can add more
money because it will develop a new business model, a new way to use
the assets the Postal Service has to make more money.
The fact is--I want to emphasize this again--this saving of $19
billion, which will result by 2016 if this substitute to S. 1789 is
passed, does not take any taxpayer funds. In fact, it properly returns
certain overpayments to the Postal Service.
The CBO score for S. 1789 is simply misleading--profoundly
misleading--because of the kinds of accounting rules that do not relate
to the reality of the budget for the Postal Service.
I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish. It took a lot of
work. As Senator Collins has said, if this point of order Senator
Sessions intends to make at some point in the debate--hopefully after
the amendments are voted on--is sustained, it will end this bill.
Instead of, therefore, having passed a bill which, if it goes all the
way to enactment, would save $19 billion for the Postal Service every
year by 2016, the Postal Service's deficit and debt spiral would
continue downward. I would predict there would be massive cutbacks in
services and a loss of employment by people in the Postal Service but
particularly among the 8 million people who are in jobs that depend on
the Postal Service in the private sector for their livelihoods. So with
all respect, I will vigorously oppose the point of order my friend from
Alabama, Senator Sessions, will make.
Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of the distinguished
Senator from Virginia. Does he wish to speak?
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the chairman
and Senator Collins for their work on this bill. I know it has caused a
great deal of interest and consternation, but the numbers are
overwhelming that without this kind of legislation, the fate of our
Postal Service would be in great jeopardy. I commend both the chairman
and ranking member for their very good work. I intend to support the
legislation. I know they have had to make some hard choices, but I
think they are putting the Postal Service back on the path to
sustainability, and I commend their leadership.
I also thank them both for an amendment they have been kind enough to
include in, I believe, a revised bill, a managers' package, that takes
on a related issue that affects not only Postal Service employees but
all Federal employees; that is, the absolutely dreadful performance--
which is starting to be corrected, but the absolutely dreadful
performance that OPM and agencies of the government, including the
Postal Service, have done in terms of making sure our Federal employees
receive their retirement benefits in a timely manner.
The Presiding Officer and I, both from the Commonwealth of Virginia,
have 130,000 Federal employees in Virginia. There are 140,000 Federal
employees across the river in Maryland. I am happy Senator Mikulski has
cosponsored the amendment I am going to talk about in a few moments.
I want to explain the problem we are facing and why I am asking the
Senate to adopt this amendment during the consideration of this bill to
reform the postal system.
[[Page S2567]]
Over the past year, I and other Members in both parties have received
hundreds of requests for assistance from Federal retirees who have
experienced significant delays in obtaining their full retirement
benefits--delays that oftentimes exceed 12 months, sometimes as much as
18 months and more. In the meantime, these Federal retirees--and no one
questions that they deserve and should receive these benefits, but
since there is slow processing and antiquated technology, they are not
getting these earned retirement benefits. These retirees face
inordinate hardships trying to pay their bills and survive on partial
payments made while their retirement paperwork moves through the
system.
Remarkably, in 2012, our whole retirement system is still a paper-
based system. OPM also relies upon every other Federal agency, such as
the post office and others where a Federal employee works, to assemble
and submit the retiree's paperwork in a timely and efficient manner.
But as we have seen with the occasional snapshots that have been taken,
some agencies literally have a 30- to 50-percent error rate in
submitting the background material for the retiree so OPM can
appropriately process the paperwork.
Part of the goal of this postal reform, I know, is going to be to
encourage some of the voluntary retirements in the postal system--again
why this amendment is so timely. Meanwhile, the retirees wait and wait
for benefits; benefits they have earned, and, unfortunately, benefits
they cannot get access to. We continue to hear from recent Federal
retirees who literally spend 8 or 10 hours a day trying to get through
on the customer service line to find out where their benefits are.
I would like to share a few examples of what we are hearing. We
recently heard from a retired colonel from Williamsburg, VA, who wrote,
``I retired in March 2011 and at the time of this writing OPM has still
not figured out my full retirement pay . . . my savings are getting
low.''
From here in Northern Virginia, in Dumfries, VA, we heard from a
retiree who said:
I have been subjected to a severe financial hardship
because of not getting my full benefits. I was recently told
that the bank is repossessing my auto because I cannot afford
to make the payments.
He cannot make the payments because this retiree was not getting her
benefits. She was existing on partial benefits until OPM could deal
with the processing.
From Warrenton:
I am seeking assistance with obtaining my husband's health
insurance which was canceled unexpectedly. He worked for DOD.
I notified OPM with the appropriate forms and a copy of his
death certificate, all of which was apparently lost by OPM. I
tried to obtain new forms but was told it would take up to 6
weeks. I am 80 years old and need my health insurance now. My
husband and I were married for 60 years.
This is unacceptable. This is not the way we ought to be running this
important part of our Federal Government. In January of 2012, OPM's
retirement backlog exceeded 62,000 cases--62,000 Federal employees,
retirees--who were waiting to get their benefits. Again, let me point
out, many of these retirees were waiting for more than 1 year.
We saw huge backlogs in disability claims, death benefits, and
quarterly benefits. By OPM's own account, it takes almost 700 days,
nearly 2 years, to process some death benefits. Recently, after my
meetings with OPM and other members of the delegation, OPM has made
some limited progress in reversing the tide of retirement claims. The
retirement backlog is now 52,000 claims. OPM has hired new staff and is
starting to modernize its outdated processing, but it is clear more
needs to be done.
I wish to also compliment Senator Akaka, who was kind enough to let
me join an oversight hearing on this matter back in February of this
year. What I heard there worried me. So I sent my staff to OPM's
retirement processing facility last month to see the problem up close.
Unfortunately, my staff's reports confirmed my worst fears. The current
process is largely manual, cumbersome, and contributes to significant
delays and potential errors. We have been told the newest OPM
technology is 12 years old. That is pretty remarkable. It is simply no
longer feasible to expect that manual data entry for retirement and
benefits claims make sense when we have technology that can
dramatically lower processing time and increase accuracy.
OPM needs to modernize its technology in the long run. But in 2012,
they need to at least start taking some short-term steps. It is
unacceptable that they rely upon paper processing in 2012. OPM, as I
mentioned, has made some progress. But ultimately they still want to
remain committed to a paper processing system. That does not make any
sense. The kicker is this problem is not new. As indicated by this
press story, Federal agencies routinely point the finger of blame at
OPM for causing these delays, while OPM points the finger back at the
individual agencies for not getting the information to OPM in a timely
manner.
One might think this story was written in the last few weeks. There
have actually been stories written in the Post in the last few weeks
about this subject. But the day I am quoting from on this story is
actually May 9, 1988. That is 24 years ago. Ronald Reagan was President
when this was written, and we have had four Presidents since then. Yet
OPM continues to offer the same excuses and the same kind of back-and-
forth finger-pointing between agencies. We have seen this show before.
It needs to be taken off the air.
What are we going to do with this amendment and how does this affect
trying to move the ball forward? My amendment will do three things.
First, it requires OPM to report to Congress, GAO, and the public about
the timeliness and accuracy of Postal Service claims, requiring OPM to
compare the Postal Service with the performance of all other Federal
agencies. So we need to figure out, because we do not know at this
point--we have a 52,000-claim backlog--whether the backlog is because
the agency the employee worked for did not get the information to OPM
in a timely manner or whether OPM has not processed this.
This amendment will require the Postal Service to assess how it is
doing, getting this information to OPM, and compare that with the
performance of other Federal agencies. This will allow us to see which
Federal agencies have the best and worst track records in submitting
paperwork to OPM. The snapshot we saw a little bit earlier this year at
the hearing in February showed that a number of agencies had literally
a 30- to 50-percent error rate in submitting their retirement paperwork
to OPM.
With close to 100,000 potential new retirees--actually a much larger
number, but the effect of this bill may urge the voluntary retirement
of 100,000 postal workers to retirement--OPM is going to get hit by a
tsunami.
Second, the report will also require OPM to provide a claims aging
report. We need to know how long retirement applications have been
pending at OPM. By the way, we do not have any of that information
right now for the 52,000 cases that are currently pending--no basic
aging report.
Third, the amendment will require OPM to at least move forward a
little bit in modernizing one piece of their technology, so OPM can at
least receive some electronic payroll data from the Postal Service
system.
Now, 551,000 people work for the Postal Service right now. If this
legislation passes, which I hope it will, and we see the voluntary
retirement of 100,000 postal workers over the coming months and years,
that is a new tsunami of retirement benefits claims that are going to
need to be processed by OPM.
The bottom line is this: OPM, while they are trying to make some
progress and I commend Director Berry for some of the actions he has
taken, needs to be urged along and we need to get more data about how
they do, not only with the Postal Service but with all Federal
agencies. My amendment will move forward in that direction.
The Warner-Mikulski amendment focuses on these key reporting
requirements and mandates more transparency so we can untangle the
chokepoints. I believe we need to honor the dedication and commitment
of our Federal workforce, including our postal workers, in making sure
that when they do retire, they get their Federal retiree benefits in a
timely and efficient manner. Again, I wish to thank the chair and the
ranking member for their hard work on this postal reform bill. I look
forward to supporting it. I also hope my colleagues will join me in
supporting this Warner-Mikulski
[[Page S2568]]
amendment that while tangential to the overall reform of the Postal
Service, making sure these retirees get their benefits in a timely
manner is something on which we should all agree.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia most
importantly for focusing our attention--I know Senator Collins and
Senator Akaka have also been involved in this--on this unacceptable
situation, where Federal employees are retiring. Because of a lot of
failures here, the failure to implement an effective--it is 2012--
electronic system for this purpose, this paper processing, meaning that
people have to wait these very long times after they retire, while they
are waiting, they are getting a significantly reduced benefit which
causes real hardship.
The Senator from Virginia is absolutely right. We mandate in this
bill, the underlying bill, that the Postal Service accept the goal of
18 percent in reduction of workforce. The total number of career
employees in the U.S. Postal Service is about 545,000, and 18 percent
comes out to around 100,000, which is our goal for reduction. This has
to happen if the Postal Service is going to get back in balance.
Because as Senator Collins said earlier today, 80 percent of the
operating budget of the Postal Service is personnel costs. Obviously,
it is a labor-intensive operation. So we are going to have another
100,000 people. In fact, it keeps going. By 2017, we will have--from
now, this year, we will have a total of 138,000 postal employees
eligible to retire. The Postal Service is going to have to work to
incentivize them to retire so the service overall can stay in balance.
I wish to thank Senator Warner because we have worked very well
together on a modification to his amendment, which I think most
significantly will require the Office of Personnel Management to submit
a report to Congress related to the completion of retirement claims for
postal annuitants, to keep the pressure on them to end this inhumane--
in many cases, unacceptable--situation.
I know when the proper time comes, we intend to support this modified
amendment. It strengthens the bill. It does the right thing. I thank
the Senator from Virginia for expressing his intention to support the
overall bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) The Senator from
Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I too wish to commend the Senator from
Virginia for offering this amendment in conjunction with the Senator
from Maryland. I wrote to OPM in July of last year about this very
issue. I was very concerned about reports in my own State and from the
Washington Post about the tremendous backlog at OPM in processing the
retirement applications of Federal and postal workers, and this is just
wrong.
As the Senator's statement shows, it has caused some real hardship to
individuals. So I was pleased the chairman and I could work with the
Senator to modify his amendment so it would be germane to this bill. I
look forward, at the appropriate time, to working with the chairman to
accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I want to thank the chair and the ranking member for
working with me on this amendment to get it appropriately modified.
This an area that I think there is broad bipartisan consensus, that we
need to make sure--whether postal workers or other workers in the
Federal system--that when they choose to retire, they can expect those
retirement benefits in a timely manner.
I wish to again commend the chair and the ranking member for the fact
that putting in place this very reasonable plan that is going to
encourage the voluntary retirements of that approximate 18 percent of
the workforce--109,000 I believe it amounts to--is going to be a lot
easier to make that sell if those postal workers can then expect to
receive their retirement benefits in a timely manner. I think if they
are hearing the current scuttlebutt that they may have to wait 12 to 18
months to get their retirement benefits, it becomes a much harder
effort for the Postmaster and the management of the Postal System to
make--even if they got the right incentives in place--to kind of get
over that hump if they have to wait a long time.
So I very much thank again the chair and ranking member, Senator
Lieberman and Senator Collins, for their support, and I think trying to
shine a light, not only on the Postal System but vis-a-vis how other
Federal agencies are doing will be important. I look forward to working
with them. I know they both focused on this issue in the past. I hope
to lend my assistance to make sure we get this fixed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, thanks to the Senator from Virginia. He
makes a very important point: Of the $19 billion in savings that the
Postal Service itself believes will result annually as of 2016, $8.1
billion will come from the reduction in salaries paid because of
retirements that are incentivized under this bill.
It is common sense that if a worker is thinking about retiring and
hears there is such a backlog that they are only going to get half of
what they deserve for their pension until the paperwork has cleared,
they are probably not going to rush to retire, and, therefore, we are
going to save less money.
We are approaching the hour of 2. According to the unanimous consent
that governs our activities today in the Senate, we are going to go to
another matter, the NLRB rule. I wish to thank particularly Senator
Sessions and Senator Warner who came to the floor to discuss their
amendments. Senator Collins and I will return at 4. We will be here
until 5, when we go to the discussion of a judicial nomination. Then,
we will be here after the vote tonight as late as anybody is here to
discuss and debate amendments before we go to the vote tomorrow.
I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Maine.
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. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________