[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.

                          ____________________