[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 59 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2634-S2651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    21ST CENTURY POSTAL SERVICE ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the pending business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1789) to improve, sustain, and transform the 
     United States Postal Service.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Lieberman) modified amendment No. 2000, in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the good work of our 
colleagues on this legislation. Unfortunately, the legislation spends 
$34 billion, all of which would be borrowed, all of which adds to the 
debt of the United States and is contrary to the Budget Control Act 
limitations that were passed just last August. It is really a grievous 
problem, not one that can be avoided lightly.
  Just last August we agreed to certain debt limits--the amount of debt 
we would incur and add to the U.S. Treasury. It was a fought-over 
agreement, but we reached it and we stood by it. I believe we have a 
moral obligation to not mislead the people who elected us when we said 
we intend to stand by the limits on increasing debt. This bill 
increases debt above that limit. The Congressional Budget Office scores 
it as adding $34 billion in debt to the United States.
  Chairman Conrad has certified that a budget point of order is 
legitimately placed against it. I would expect we would have a motion 
to waive the budget point of order. I would expect there might be a 
motion to say, well, we do not agree with CBO or that somehow this is 
so important we need to add to the debt anyway. But, colleagues, if we 
mean what we say, if at this time in history we begin to at least stay 
within the limits we agreed and we don't do that, then I think we will 
lose further credibility with the American people.
  I respect the work of my colleagues on the bill, but I think we are 
setting a great precedent. It is a matter of importance for our own 
integrity and the fiscal stability of America. I believe it is 
important that we adhere to that limit.
  The spending measure, amendment No. 2000 to S. 1789, the 21st Century 
Postal Service Act, would violate Senate pay-go rules and increase the 
deficit; therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure 
pursuant to section 201(a) of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of 
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections 
of the act and budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment 
for reasons that we described in the debate we had here on the floor 
yesterday. The U.S. Postal Service says this bill will, in fact, save 
$19 billion a year.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this motion 
to

[[Page S2635]]

waive be placed at the end of the list of amendments that are in order 
to vote on now.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. If I may, if we are going to vote now--and Senator 
Collins and I spoke to this at great length yesterday. The CBO score my 
friend from Alabama cites is a real misreading of the effect of this 
legislation. It is a kind of form of accounting over the reality of 
budgeting. The bottom line is that the U.S. Postal Service itself says 
that if this bill--the substitute to S. 1789--is adopted--and it would 
be phased in over 3 years--the Postal Service will save $19 billion 
annually. To me, that is what this is all about--no deficit, a saving.
  I ask my colleagues to support the motion to waive the point of the 
order.
  I would yield to my ranking member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the score for the substitute is 
incredibly misleading. As the Postal Service has told us, this bill 
would save the Postal Service $19 billion, and that would return it to 
profitability. The problem is the unique status of the Postal Service 
in that it is off-budget for operations but on-budget for workers' 
benefits accounts. This is true despite the fact that these accounts 
the Postal Service pays into are not funded with tax dollars.
  The postal employees are contributing. The Postal Service, from its 
revenue, is contributing.
  For the retirement accounts, we are not talking about tax dollars 
from the Postal Service. These are contributions from the postal 
employees and by the Postal Service from its revenues. But because of 
the unified budget, it is considered to be an on-budget status for 
these benefit accounts--most likely because they are shared with other 
Federal agencies that are using tax dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the motions to waive. If they do not 
and this bill falls, it will spell the end of the Postal Service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, very briefly, I join my colleague in 
saying that if this point of order by our friend from Alabama is 
sustained and this bipartisan bill therefore is not able to be brought 
up, the effect will be that the Postal Service will continue to run 
ever-greater losses to a point where they, in fact, will have to turn 
to the Treasury, which they are not doing now, to bail them out. This 
is a responsible answer to a problem and a bipartisan one.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to support the motion to waive the 
Senator's point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues listened to what 
Senator Collins said with respect to the way this has been scored. It 
is a very important point. As much as anybody in this Chamber, I am 
interested in reducing the budget deficit. I want Senators to keep in 
mind these three points: One, for a number of years, the Postal Service 
has overpaid its obligation into the Federal Employees Retirement 
System--$12 billion to $13 billion in overpayment. They are owed that 
money. They should be given that money. They are going to use it to 
help 100,000 postal employees who are eligible to retire to retire. 
They will use that money to pay down their debt--$13 billion--and 
almost wipe it out. They will use it for that purpose. CBO scores that 
as something that makes the budget deficit bigger. If they overpaid the 
money into the Federal Employees Retirement System, they ought to get 
it back. They should get people who are eligible to retire and want to 
retire to retire. They should use it to pay down a $12 billion line of 
credit to the Federal Government.
  The second point I wish to make is the one offered by Senator 
Lieberman. If we do nothing and we get to May 15, the Postal Service is 
free to close post offices across the country--3,700 of them. They are 
free to close as many as 200 to 300 mail processing centers. There is a 
smarter way to do this, which is in this legislation.
  Lastly, we are going to have the opportunity today and tomorrow for 
all of us to better understand the amendments that have been agreed to 
and offered by both sides, what has been agreed to and put into the 
managers' amendment, which we will, frankly, have a lot more confidence 
in.
  The Postal Service tells us today they are going to lose $23 million. 
They lost that much yesterday. They are going to lose that much again 
tomorrow, the next day, and the next day. They owe $13 billion to the 
Treasury. What I think is more important to keep in mind is when we 
finish our work today and tomorrow, and we look to see what that means 
for the Postal Service, in terms of their operation on a daily basis 
and where will they be in terms of paying their obligation by 2016, we 
need to keep our eye on the ball. I urge Senators not to vote for this. 
Give us a day for the body to work its will and then make your 
decision. If we have not made any more progress, vote against it.
  Lastly, several of our colleagues have well-intentioned amendments 
that will literally drive up the cost and make it harder for the Postal 
Service to move toward a balanced situation, to a sovereign situation. 
I urge Senators--and some of these amendments are offered by people we 
love and it is hard to say no to them. But in this case, maybe the 
greater devotion should be to the taxpayers of our country, to the 
people who work for the Postal Service, and to their customers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senators who have 
expressed their disagreement on the budget point of order. Even if one 
disagrees over the $11 billion, there is $23 billion in additional 
spending that will be borrowed over the decade, according to CBO. With 
regard to the $11 billion, that money will be borrowed and given to the 
Postal Service. It increases the debt of the United States.
  Therefore, CBO scores it as a violation of the debt limit in the pay-
go provision. It clearly is. So we are not saying we should not have a 
postal bill. Let's vote, stand firm with the debt limit agreement we 
had in August. Let's ask our good committee to produce a bill that is 
paid for in some fashion. We spend $3,700 billion in the United States. 
We need to find about $3 billion a year to fund their proposal to solve 
this problem. That is what we should do. We are at a defining moment. 
There is no middle ground. I say vote to sustain the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, for a very long time, in a bipartisan 
way, a number of people have come together to save the U.S. Postal 
Service. Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper and Senator Collins and 
Senator Brown have worked very hard, as have many others, because if 
the Postal Service goes under or is dismembered, we are talking about 8 
million jobs in this country--small businesspeople who are dependent on 
a strong Postal Service.
  The Postmaster General originally was talking about shutting down 
3,700 rural post offices in every State in this country. I hope Members 
understand that a post office in a rural town is more than just a post 
office. If that post office disappears, in many cases that town 
disappears. The Postmaster General was talking about specifically 
slowing mail delivery standards, shutting down half the processing 
plants in this country--over a short period of time, eliminating 
200,000 jobs in this country.
  I hope we can proceed, have a serious debate on these issues, hear 
all the amendments, but at the end of the day, I hope we will go 
forward and save the U.S. Postal Service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I too thank the chairman and ranking 
member of the committee and Senator Carper for bringing something to 
the floor that is bipartisan. I applaud that and the fact that the 
committee process is working.
  But the fact is we did set a top line number when the country almost 
shut down last August 2. On one of the very first pieces of legislation 
we passed, the highway bill, we violated that budget cap. It wasn't by 
much, but we violated it. Now we have a bill that violates it by $11 
billion.
  What I say is that if the Postal Service is that important to this 
Nation, if

[[Page S2636]]

it has bipartisan support, should we not figure out a way to deal with 
the Postal Service in such a way to stay within the budget constraints 
we have laid out? It seems to me things that are very popular in this 
Nation are the very things we ought to make choices about and eliminate 
something else if we want to spend money in this way. I would like to 
see a bill that is far more reformed, and I think if we did that, the 
tab on this would not be $11 billion above the budget.
  What I say to everybody here is, please, our credibility is going out 
the window. Sixty-four of us signed a letter to the leader and to the 
President asking that we deal in a real way with deficit reduction. The 
country almost shut down. The world watched. We established a top line 
number, and here we are, for something we like, violating that. We are 
losing all credibility with our citizens--the citizens we represent. We 
are losing credibility in the world.
  To me, if we are going to produce a bipartisan piece of legislation, 
it ought to be one that lives within the bipartisan agreement we had 
regarding what we are going to spend in this Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I add my strong voice to support the 
position of Senators Lieberman, Collins, Carper, and Brown, who has 
also been a great leader in this bipartisan effort to save the Postal 
Service and put it on a more sound financial footing, not at the 
expense of taxpayers generally but the users of the Postal Service.
  This is about rural towns in America. This is about small businesses 
everywhere that rely on the Postal Service to get basic business done. 
Don't vote wrong today. Give the Postal Service a chance to save 
itself. That is what we are doing. We are giving rural communities a 
chance to fight and to be part of a growing economy. We are giving 
small businesses the opportunity to stay in business. Don't cut them 
off today. Let this debate go forward because we are trying to do the 
right thing and go in the fiscally responsible direction.
  I see my colleague from Massachusetts who has been a very able leader 
in our effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for 
speaking on this important issue. This is something that is ratepayer 
costs, not taxpayer dollars. It is something we have worked on for a 
couple months. All of a sudden we are here at the end now and everybody 
is saying, by the way, we cannot do it.
  Bottom line: If we don't do this and pass it, we will not have a 
Postal Service. This is something we recognize--there is a new business 
environment that the Postal Service operates under but one focused on 
sustainment. If we don't give them the tools to do that, we are going 
to be losing the Postal Service.
  There is a misconception somehow out there that there is a bailout 
going on. These are dollars that are ratepayer dollars, not taxpayer 
dollars. Our bill doesn't prevent the Postal Service from making 
changes or streamlining operations, but it ensures that it rolls out 
changes in a deliberate and responsible manner. It is fair to the 
employees and gives postal customers the ability to continue to use the 
service, provide short-term relief without taxpayer funding--that FERS 
overpayment of between $7 billion and $10 billion, part of which we can 
use to help reduce the workforce without even blinking. It is a no-
brainer.
  It provides long-term relief as well, curbside delivery, 
administrative efficiencies and other reforms, retiree health care 
restructuring. It focuses its primary attention on the primary costs, 
the controversial Postal Service closures, going from 5-day service to 
6-day service. Listen, both sides are highly charged on these issues. 
Had they been involved in the conversations of upward of 400 hours 
between staff and Members working on these things, we could have worked 
through those, instead of waiting until, once again, the end hour to 
get on these issues.
  Once again, I am with Senators Lieberman, Carper, and Collins, 
obviously, in my effort to continue to move this bill forward so we can 
have a good conversation about how to reestablish that trust between 
the American ratepayer, taxpayer, and the Postal Service. We need to do 
this.
  It is very important for us to do it. We need to move on and focus on 
the things that matter. This matters. I want to make sure I can send my 
mom a card. I want to make sure we can continue to keep our people 
employed. I want to make sure we have an institution that will be 
viable into the next century. I hope we will move forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, very briefly, I thank Senator Brown 
from Massachusetts for his statement and his work on the bill.
  This point of order puts the whole bill in jeopardy. Right at the 
beginning of the debate and the vote, it forces Members to decide 
whether they want to deal with this crisis of the Postal Service. I 
think it tests Congress again--in this case the Senate. Are we going to 
face a real problem in one of the iconic areas of American public 
service, the Postal Service, which cannot continue to do business as it 
is now--and this bill will force it to change in ways that are 
significant but will still keep it alive--or are we going to turn away 
from the problem, which would be the effect of sustaining this point of 
order. It would also cut off the debate.
   We have 39 amendments pending. This bill may change as the debate 
goes on. The final vote on passage of the bill will require 60 votes. 
So don't cut it off now.
  Let's have this debate and prove to the American people that we can 
take on a problem and, on a bipartisan basis, fix it. I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the motion to waive the point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think there is merit in the discussion 
about whether we vote now or vote later. The important thing is that we 
vote on this budget point of order. It is not as if the entire process 
of trying to fix the post office is going to collapse if we take this 
vote and it succeeds. All we are asking is that we find a way to pay 
for it. This Senate agreed last August to the Budget Control Act; that 
we were not going to exceed these limits, and that we would find, if 
there was something essential that needed to be done--if that is the 
case to be made here--we would at least find a way to stay within what 
we agreed to do. This is the second time now, I believe--maybe more--
that we have violated that agreement. So what do we go home and tell 
our people? Well, this was so important--to save some post offices--
that we had to violate an agreement which was agreed to by a strong 
majority here to save the country from default.
  There are priorities. It is impossible for me to understand why we 
can't, in this government that spends over $3.7 trillion, find a way to 
scare up $34 billion over a 10-year period of time to cover the cost 
this bill is going to lay on us. So I would urge, whether we vote now 
or vote later on the point of order made by the Senator from Alabama, 
that we consider this. We have a recess week coming up. Staff can get 
together and dig out $34 billion in cost savings we can apply to this 
so we don't have to worry about going home and telling people we didn't 
keep our word, that we lied to them last August.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I sit on this committee. I voted on the 
last postal reform bill. I am not unfamiliar with the issues. I think 
the question before us is why can't we do both? Why can't we fix the 
post office and pay for it at the same time, if in fact the CBO says 
that? Our answer, always, up here is that we want to fix the post 
office but we don't want to make the hard choices on how to do that.
  My colleagues have done great work. There are parts of this bill I 
don't agree with. I am trying to amend parts of it. But I think we 
should try to move forward with it. The ultimate question is, will we 
do what is best for the post office and the American people. And doing 
what is best for the post office and the American people is any cost 
where the CBO says we will violate the budget agreement we should pay 
for.

[[Page S2637]]

  I will offer right now to come up with easy ways to pay for this bill 
just through the duplication reports we have gotten from the Government 
Accountability Office. We all know it is out there. We all know there 
is $100 billion, at least, that we could come up with by consolidating 
programs or mandating they be consolidated. So it is not a matter of 
finding the money, it is a matter of whether we have the will.
  We are on a collision course with history that says we are not going 
to succeed if we don't get our budgets in order. So I agree it is hard 
to stomach sometimes what the CBO tells us. It doesn't fit with common 
sense. When it works for us, we use it. When it works against us, we 
say it doesn't matter. This is a budget point of order, and I think we 
can do both, and I think we ought to do both.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me repeat for my colleagues one more 
time: There are no taxpayer dollars authorized by this bill or 
appropriated by this bill. The score is caused by the unique status the 
postal service accounts have within the unified budget. The operational 
accounts are off budget. The employee health benefits and retiree 
accounts are on budget because those accounts are also used by Federal 
agencies.
  Let me again quote from the inspector general who explains the system 
very well. He says the source of the Federal employee retirement 
funding comes from two streams of revenue. First, the U.S. Postal 
Service contributes 11.9 percent of the employees' salaries to the fund 
and the employees contribute .8 percent. The postal service's 
contribution comes from revenue paid for postage, and this money comes 
from ratepayers. The employee contribution is made in exchange for a 
defined benefit.
  There are no tax dollars authorized or appropriated by this bill. It 
is a quirk of the way the unified budget works. And that is why we 
should vote to waive this point of order. We are not talking about 
taxpayer dollars here.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the point of order raised by the Senator from Alabama.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 62, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 69 Leg.]

                                YEAS--62

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 62, the nays are 37. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleagues.
  We had kind of an existential vote at the beginning which we didn't 
expect. It is always good to survive terminal action, and now we can 
proceed. We have 39 amendments pending. I hope we can proceed 
expeditiously. I hope some of our colleagues will agree to voice votes. 
On several of these, Senators Collins, Carper, Scott Brown, and I 
agreed on and we are prepared to accept them. So I hope our colleagues 
will allow us to do that by consent. But now we can proceed with the 
first amendment.


                    Amendment No. 2056, as Modified

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2056 and ask 
unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Tester] for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 2056, as modified.

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To modify the process for closing or consolidating post 
                     offices and postal facilities)

       On page 27, strike lines 24 and 25 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Closing or Consolidating Certain Postal Facilities.--
     Section 404 of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding after subsection (e) the following:
       On page 35, between lines 16 and 17 insert the following:
       (b) Complaints Relating to Closing or Consolidation of 
     Postal Facilities.--Section 3662 of title 39, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Suspension of effectiveness of determination to close 
     or consolidate postal facilities.--The Postal Regulatory 
     Commission shall suspend the effectiveness of a determination 
     by the Postal Service to close or consolidate a postal 
     facility until the disposition of any complaint challenging 
     the closing or consolidation on the basis that the closing or 
     consolidation is--
       ``(A) not in conformance with service standards issued 
     under section 3691, including the service standards required 
     to be maintained under section 201 of the 21st Century Postal 
     Service Act of 2012; or
       ``(B) unsupported by evidence on the record that 
     substantial economic savings are likely to be achieved as a 
     result of the closing or consolidation.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``ordering the Postal 
     Service to keep a postal facility open,'' after ``loss-making 
     products,''.
       On page 39, strike line 21 and all that follows through 
     page 45, line 2 and insert the following:
       (a) Closing Post Offices.--Section 404(d) of title 39, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d)(1) The Postal Service, prior to making a 
     determination under subsection (a)(3) of this section as to 
     the necessity for the closing or consolidation of any post 
     office, shall--
       ``(A) consider whether--
       ``(i) to close the post office or consolidate the post 
     office and another post office located within a reasonable 
     distance;
       ``(ii) instead of closing or consolidating the post 
     office--
       ``(I) to reduce the number of hours a day that the post 
     office operates; or
       ``(II) to continue operating the post office for the same 
     number of hours a day;
       ``(iii) to procure a contract providing full, or less than 
     full, retail services in the community served by the post 
     office; or
       ``(iv) to provide postal services to the community served 
     by the post office through a rural carrier;
       ``(B) provide postal customers served by the post office an 
     opportunity to participate in a nonbinding survey conducted 
     by mail on a preference for an option described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) if the Postal Service determines to close or 
     consolidate the post office, provide adequate notice of its 
     intention to close or consolidate such post office at least 
     60 days prior to the proposed date of such closing or 
     consolidation to persons served by such post office to ensure 
     that such persons will have an opportunity to present their 
     views.
       ``(2) The Postal Service, in making a determination whether 
     or not to close or consolidate a post office--
       ``(A) shall consider--
       ``(i) the effect of such closing or consolidation on the 
     community served by such post office;

[[Page S2638]]

       ``(ii) the effect of such closing or consolidation on 
     employees of the Postal Service employed at such office;
       ``(iii) whether such closing or consolidation is consistent 
     with--
       ``(I) the policy of the Government, as stated in section 
     101(b) of this title, that the Postal Service shall provide a 
     maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to 
     rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices 
     are not self-sustaining; and
       ``(II) the retail service standards established under 
     section 203 of the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2012;
       ``(iv) the extent to which the community served by the post 
     office lacks access to Internet, broadband and cellular phone 
     service;
       ``(v) whether substantial economic savings to the Postal 
     Service would result from such closing or consolidation; and
       ``(vi) such other factors as the Postal Service determines 
     are necessary; and
       ``(B) may not consider compliance with any provision of the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 651 et 
     seq.).
       ``(3) Any determination of the Postal Service to close or 
     consolidate a post office shall be in writing and shall 
     include the findings of the Postal Service with respect to 
     the considerations required to be made under paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection. Such determination and findings shall be 
     made available to persons served by such post office.
       ``(4) The Postal Service shall take no action to close or 
     consolidate a post office until 60 days after its written 
     determination is made available to persons served by such 
     post office.
       ``(5) A determination of the Postal Service to close or 
     consolidate any post office, station, or branch may be 
     appealed by any person served by such office, station, or 
     branch to the Postal Regulatory Commission within 30 days 
     after such determination is made available to such person. 
     The Commission shall review such determination on the basis 
     of the record before the Postal Service in the making of such 
     determination. The Commission shall make a determination 
     based upon such review no later than 120 days after receiving 
     any appeal under this paragraph. The Commission shall set 
     aside any determination, findings, and conclusions found to 
     be--
       ``(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not in accordance with the law;
       ``(B) without observance of procedure required by law;
       ``(C) inconsistent with the delivery service standards 
     required to be maintained under section 201 of the 21st 
     Century Postal Service Act of 2012 or not in conformance with 
     the retail service standards established under section 203 of 
     the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2012; or
       ``(D) unsupported by substantial evidence on the record, 
     including that substantial economic savings are likely to be 
     achieved as a result of the closing or consolidation.
     The Commission may affirm or reverse the determination of the 
     Postal Service or order that the entire matter be returned 
     for further consideration, but the Commission may not modify 
     the determination of the Postal Service. The determination of 
     the Postal Service shall be suspended until the final 
     disposition of the appeal. The provisions of section 556, 
     section 557, and chapter 7 of title 5 shall not apply to any 
     review carried out by the Commission under this paragraph.
       ``(6) For purposes of paragraph (5), any appeal received by 
     the Commission shall--
       ``(A) if sent to the Commission through the mails, be 
     considered to have been received on the date of the Postal 
     Service postmark on the envelope or other cover in which such 
     appeal is mailed; or
       ``(B) if otherwise lawfully delivered to the Commission, be 
     considered to have been received on the date determined based 
     on any appropriate documentation or other indicia (as 
     determined under regulations of the Commission).
       ``(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     limit the right under section 3662--
       ``(A) of an interested person to lodge a complaint with the 
     Postal Regulatory Commission under section 3662 concerning 
     nonconformance with service standards, including the retail 
     service standards established under section 203 of the 21st 
     Century Postal Service Act of 2012; or
       ``(B) of the Postal Regulatory Commission, if the 
     Commission finds a complaint lodged by an interested person 
     to be justified, to order the Postal Service to take 
     appropriate action to achieve compliance with applicable 
     requirements, including the retail service standards 
     established under section 203 of the 21st Century Postal 
     Service Act of 2012, or to remedy the effects of any 
     noncompliance.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to a vote on amendment No. 2056, offered by the Senator 
from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, amendment No. 2056 requires the Postal 
Service to take into consideration some pretty commonsense things, such 
as economic savings, before they urge the shutdown of a post office or 
mail processing center.
  It also requires the Postal Service to take into account retail 
service standards. That means the Postal Service would not be able to 
leave a community without access to basic postal services when it 
closes down a post office.
  If the Postal Service does not meet these criteria, the Postal 
Regulatory Commission can review and reject the Postal Service's 
proposal. This amendment adds much needed teeth to the amendment that 
Senator Moran and I offered when this bill was before the committee.
  I am joined by a number of cosponsors, but in particular Senator 
Franken and Senator Levin. This is a commonsense amendment that allows 
a lot of the post offices that are going to be closed to have another 
set of eyes and have the Postal Regulatory Commission take another 
look.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I wish to echo the statement of my 
friend, Senator Tester, and urge all my colleagues to support our 
amendment.
  The Tester-Franken-Levin amendment gives individuals and communities 
impacted by closures a voice. It will give Minnesotans real recourse to 
challenge closure decisions and a fighting chance to keep their local 
post offices and processing facilities open.
  Right now, individuals affected by post office closures can appeal 
the decision to the Postal Regulatory Commission, but the commission 
cannot stop closures. Our amendment will give the PRC the authority to 
reverse post office and processing facility closure decisions.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on amendment No. 2056.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I support Senator Tester's amendment.
  It simply creates safeguards to ensure that the Postal Service, when 
it closes a post office, does so as the result of a process that is 
transparent and takes into account the unique needs of communities, 
particularly small towns and rural areas.
  This does not stop the decisionmaking process at the Postal Service 
to change the Postal Service. It makes it transparent and fair.
  If I may, at this time I ask unanimous consent that if a voice vote 
is requested and acceptable for any of the amendments relative to the 
postal reform bill, including this one, that the 60-vote affirmative 
vote requirement be waived for that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to note for the benefit of our 
colleagues that on the list of 39 amendments, the first amendment was 
Senator McCain's amendment No. 2001. He did not call it up, which is an 
expression of his intention not to go forward with it. I thank him for 
that, and I hope it sets a precedent that other of the sponsors of 
amendments will feel moved to follow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I too support the amendment offered by 
Senator Tester and Senator Levin.
  It simply makes clear that the Postal Regulatory Commission may 
review an appeal of a post office closure if it violates either the 
overnight delivery service standard or the retail service standards 
that are created by our bill. So I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the bill before us would make some 
important changes to existing law. There is little doubt that change is 
necessary; the Postal Service faces an extraordinary financial 
challenge, and it must make changes to take into account a new reality 
in which physical mail has in many cases been replaced by electronic 
communication.
  But in making these necessary reforms, we must ensure that all the 
American people can continue to rely on the United States Postal 
Service to provide universal service, as it has since our Nation's 
founding. And we must ensure that in making changes, any reduction in 
facilities and personnel yields real cost savings to the Postal Service 
that outweigh the loss in service. One of the things we can do to 
assure that is to require that there be a real, objective way to test 
and challenge Postal Service proposals to close facilities. In an 
effort to meet those goals, I have joined with Senators Tester and 
Franken and others to propose an amendment that would

[[Page S2639]]

make some important changes to the substitute amendment before us.
  Here are some of the provisions of our amendment. Under current law, 
any interested party can appeal a proposed closure of a community's 
main post office to the PRC, the Postal Regulatory Commission. The 
substitute before us extends that opportunity for appeal to branches of 
a post office. The substitute does not, however, extend that same 
appeal right to postal processing facilities. While the substitute 
acknowledges the need for some oversight over the closure of processing 
facilities, it is important to provide a meaningful chance to appeal a 
proposed closure of a mail processing facility. Our amendment does 
that.
  The importance of providing a meaningful appeal process was 
reinforced by a recent experience of mine. In February, I wrote to 
Postmaster General Donahoe about the decision to close six processing 
facilities in Michigan. In my letter, I asked four questions: How many 
jobs would be affected at each facility? Of those, how many would be 
transferred to other facilities? How far would each transferred worker 
have to transfer? And what were the projected cost savings or 
additional costs at each affected facility? It seems to me that 
information is crucial to making informed decisions about whether to 
close a facility. But when the Postal Service responded to my letter 
nearly 8 weeks later, the response did not answer any of these 
questions satisfactorily. An inability to provide that kind of basic 
information indicates to me that a fair opportunity to appeal is 
crucial.
  Our amendment also clarifies that during the appeal process for post 
offices, branches, and processing facilities, the proposed closure 
shall be suspended--not just that it ``may be'' suspended, as is the 
case under current law. If the Postal Service can close a post office, 
branch or processing facility while the closure is under appeal, the 
appeal would be a sham.
  Also, under current law and the substitute before us, the PRC has the 
authority to affirm a proposed closing or order that the matter be 
returned to the Postal Service for further consideration. Our amendment 
would grant the PRC the additional authority to reverse a closure 
decision.
  Our amendment would also require that the Postal Service consider 
whether a proposed closing or consolidation is consistent with new 
retail service standards that the bill requires, and whether the 
proposed action achieves real and substantial cost savings. And our 
amendment provides that the PRC set aside Postal Service decisions to 
close post offices and branches that do not achieve substantial 
economic savings. If our goal is to help save the postal service money, 
surely it is important that we do not allow actions that degrade 
service to our communities without actually saving money.
  Postal reform is among the most significant issues we will consider 
this year. It touches every town and village, every person and every 
business across our Nation. The Postal Service's universal service 
obligation--the obligation to ensure that all Americans have access to 
an affordable, efficient postal system in order to communicate with one 
another--is among the most important obligations any agency or 
department has. It sets the Postal Service apart from private-sector 
firms that are under no obligation to serve all markets. The Postal 
Service's first obligation is not profit. It is service.
  Historically, the United States Postal Service has played a vital 
role in uniting Americans across the vast expanse of this continent, in 
connecting Americans far from home with their loved ones, in helping 
businesses reach customers across the Nation and the globe. 
Establishing a postal service was among the first acts of the 
Continental Congress, an act that predates even the Declaration of 
Independence. The need to establish an efficient postal system for the 
colonies was deemed so important that Benjamin Franklin, one of the 
most respected leaders not just in America, but the world, was named 
our first postmaster general.
  I have heard from many of my constituents on this issue, as I am sure 
all of us have. They recognize the need to reform the Postal Service 
and find efficiencies so that it can continue to serve all Americans. 
But they also want us to do this the right way--to ensure that any 
changes we make, in fact, put the Postal Service on a sound financial 
footing, and that we carefully balance the need for savings with the 
need to maintain service for all people and in every community across 
the Nation. I believe our amendment will help us meet those goals, and 
I urge the bill's managers and all our colleagues to support its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2056, as modified.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment and 
ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Amendment (No. 2056), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2060

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2060.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] for himself, Mr. 
     Johnson of Wisconsin, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2060.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide transparency, accountability, and limitations of 
                   Government sponsored conferences)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. GOVERNMENT SPONSORED CONFERENCES.

       (a) Travel Expenses of Federal Agencies Relating to 
     Conferences.--
       (1) Limitations and reports on travel expenses to 
     conferences.--Chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after section 5711 the following:

     ``Sec.  5712. Limitations and reports on travel expenses to 
       conferences

       ``(a) In this section, the term--
       ``(1) `conference' means a meeting that--
       ``(A) is held for consultation, education, or discussion;
       ``(B) is not held entirely at an agency facility;
       ``(C) involves costs associated with travel and lodging for 
     some participants; and
       ``(D) is sponsored by 1 or more agencies, 1 or more 
     organizations that are not agencies, or a combination of such 
     agencies or organizations; and
       ``(2) `international conference' means a conference 
     attended by representatives of --
       ``(A) the United States Government; and
       ``(B) any foreign government, international organization, 
     or foreign nongovernmental organization.
       ``(b) No agency may pay the travel expenses for more than 
     50 employees of that agency who are stationed in the United 
     States, for any international conference occurring outside 
     the United States, unless the Secretary of State determines 
     that attendance for such employees is in the national 
     interest.
       ``(c) At the beginning of each quarter of each fiscal year, 
     each agency shall post on the public Internet website of that 
     agency a report on each conference for which the agency paid 
     travel expenses during the preceding 3 months that includes--
       ``(1) the itemized expenses paid by the agency, including 
     travel expenses, the cost of scouting for and selecting the 
     location of the conference, and any agency expenditures to 
     otherwise support the conference;
       ``(2) the primary sponsor of the conference;
       ``(3) the location of the conference;
       ``(4) in the case of a conference for which that agency was 
     the primary sponsor, a statement that--
       ``(A) justifies the location selected;
       ``(B) demonstrates the cost efficiency of the location; and
       ``(C) provides a cost benefit analysis of holding a 
     conference rather than conducting a teleconference;
       ``(5) the date of the conference;
       ``(6) a brief explanation how the conference advanced the 
     mission of the agency;
       ``(7) the title of any Federal employee or any individual 
     who is not a Federal employee whose travel expenses or other 
     conference expenses were paid by the agency; and
       ``(8) the total number of individuals whose travel expenses 
     or other conference expenses were paid by the agency.
       ``(d) Each report posted on the public Internet website 
     under subsection (c) shall--
       ``(1) be in a searchable electronic format; and
       ``(2) remain on that website for at least 5 years after the 
     date of posting.''.

[[Page S2640]]

       (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5711 
     the following:

``5712. Limitations and reports on travel expenses to conferences.''.

       (b) Limitations on Annual Travel Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of each of fiscal years 2012 
     through 2016, an agency (as defined under section 5701(1) of 
     title 5, United States Code) may not make, or obligate to 
     make, expenditures for travel expenses, in an aggregate 
     amount greater than 80 percent of the aggregate amount of 
     such expenses for fiscal year 2010.
       (2) Identification of travel expenses.--Not later than 
     September 1, 2012 and after consultation with the 
     Administrator of General Services and the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     establish guidelines for the determination of what expenses 
     constitute travel expenses for purposes of this subsection. 
     The guidelines shall identify specific expenses, and classes 
     of expenses, that are to be treated as travel expenses.
       (c) Conference Transparency and Limitations.--
       (1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       (A) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given under section 
     5701(1) of title 5, United States Code; and
       (B) the term ``conference'' has the meaning given under 
     section 5712(a)(1) of that title (as added by subsection 
     (a)).
       (2) Public availability of conference materials.--Each 
     agency shall post on the public Internet website of that 
     agency a detailed information on any presentation made by any 
     employee of that agency at a conference, including--
       (A) any minutes relating to the presentation;
       (B) any speech delivered;
       (C) any visual exhibit, including photographs or slides;
       (D) any video, digital, or audio recordings of the 
     conference; and
       (E) information regarding any financial support or other 
     assistance from a foundation or other non-Federal source used 
     to pay or defray the costs of the conference, which shall 
     include a certification by the head of the agency that there 
     is no conflict of interest resulting from the support 
     received from each such source.
       (3) Limitation on amount expended on a conference.--
       (A) In general.--No agency may expend more than $500,000 to 
     support a single conference.
       (B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall 
     be construed to preclude an agency from receiving financial 
     support or other assistance from a foundation or other non-
     Federal source to pay or defray the costs of a conference the 
     total cost of which exceeds $500,000.
       (4) Limitation on the annual number of conferences an 
     agency may support.--No agency may expend funds on more than 
     a single conference sponsored or organized by an organization 
     during any fiscal year, unless the agency is the primary 
     sponsor and organizer of the conference.

  Mr. COBURN. This is a straightforward amendment on conferences. We 
all have seen what happened with the GSA conference. This is all about 
transparency and creating a system where we are actually getting to see 
what is spent on conferences. There is not one branch of the Federal 
Government that does not have teleconferencing available and 
videoconferencing available.
  What we do know is from 2000 to 2006, the Federal Government--that is 
the last time we have records--spent over $2.2 billion on conferences. 
We know the travel budget is $15 billion a year and a minimum $500 
million a year is spent on conferences at a time when we need to spend 
less, and they have grown remarkably during the Bush administration as 
well as this administration.
  This is just simple good government transparency, where we have put 
on a Web site what they are doing and why they are doing it. We limit 
foreign conference travel to 50. We limit the maximum amount to 
$500,000, unless they can make an exception for that based on cause and 
reason.
  So it is simply a good government program to get some visibility on 
what we are spending on conferences, and I would ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment. I wish 
to commend the Senator from Oklahoma for offering an amendment that 
would prohibit the kind of lavish spending on Federal conferences we 
have seen recently at GSA. So this is an excellent amendment. It will 
save money, provide more transparency, and put a cap on how much can be 
spent. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I also support the amendment, and I 
thank Senator Coburn for introducing it. This is disclosure and 
limitation of spending on conferences. Unfortunately, the excessive and 
outrageous spending by GSA on the conference in Las Vegas brought the 
whole area of Federal spending on conferences into the public Klieg 
lights, and I reached a conclusion that we are spending too much.
  This amendment would require the posting online of all agency 
conference spending. It limits the amount that can be spent on 
conferences and limits the number of conferences agency employees can 
attend and it imposes a 20-percent across-the-board cut on agency 
budgets for this purpose. I hope the amendment passes. I hope the bill 
passes as amended.
  There are a couple parts of that that we have begun to work with 
Senator Coburn and his staff on which I think will make this a better 
amendment. But bottom line, this responds to a need, and I support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator in Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, just briefly, I support this amendment. I 
am happy Senator Coburn has offered this amendment and it was debated. 
I hope it is accepted on a voice vote.
  Let me say, we brought a bill to the floor that has been brought 
together by two Republicans and two Democrats. We just had a vote on 
whether to waive a budget point of order. Give us a chance to air the 
bill, offer amendments, and look to see what we can agree on in a 
bipartisan vote. We have an early opportunity to go back and forth on 
amendments not just for the Democratic amendments but Republican 
amendments as well.
  My hope is at the end of the day we will approve both. Hopefully, we 
will be able to say we passed a bill with bipartisan support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the Coburn amendment, amendment No. 2060.
  The amendment was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2033

    (Purpose: To establish the Commission on Postal Reorganization)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I call up amendment No. 2033.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself and Mr. 
     Coburn, proposes an amendment numbered 2033.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of Wednesday, 
April 18, 2012 under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would establish a 
commission on postal reorganization, basically a BRAC. It is the same 
thing we have done in the case of military bases. For many years we 
were unable to close a single one. This would establish a commission on 
postal reorganization. They would come out with their findings and 
recommendations and Congress would vote up or down.
  Recently, the Government Accountability Office released a report just 
this month entitled ``Challenges Related to Restructuring the Postal 
Service's Retail Network,'' which supports this BRAC-like policy 
process, and it goes on to say that this Commission could broaden the 
current focus on individual facility closures, which are often 
contentious, time consuming, and inefficient to a broader network with 
wide restructuring similar to the BRAC approach.
  This is obviously an admission that we are unable to make these tough 
decisions ourselves, but it has proven successful in the BRAC process, 
and I think it will in this case.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

[[Page S2641]]

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. This 
amendment would create a commission similar to the base closure 
commission to oversee Postal Service decisions regarding which post 
offices, processing plants, and district offices are to close or 
consolidate.
  In this bill we have constructed what I think is a clear and fair 
system for making exactly those decisions. The language in the bill is 
not status quo language. If this bill is enacted, there are post 
offices that will close or be consolidated as well as mail processing 
facilities that will close. That simply has to happen, but it will 
happen according to a system of due process that gives most heed to the 
fiscal crisis of the Postal Service.
  In other words, I think we have a congressional answer to this 
problem. We don't have to yield it to another BRAC commission.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the McCain amendment No. 2033.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 70 Leg.]

                                YEAS--30

     Alexander
     Blunt
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Graham
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--69

     Akaka
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Oregon.


                    Amendment No. 2020, as Modified

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Cantwell, other colleagues, and myself, I call up amendment No. 2020 
and ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself and Mrs. 
     Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 2020.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To require the Postal Service to consider the effect of 
   closing or consolidating a postal facility on the ability of the 
 affected community to vote by mail and to provide for a moratorium on 
 the closing or consolidation of post offices and postal facilities to 
                  protect the ability to vote by mail)

       On page 28, strike lines 20 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(i) conduct an area mail processing study relating to 
     that postal facility that includes--

       ``(I) a plan to reduce the capacity of the postal facility, 
     but not close the postal facility; and
       ``(II) consideration of the effect of the closure or 
     consolidation of the postal facility on the ability of 
     individuals served by the postal facility to vote by mail and 
     the ability of the Postal Service to timely deliver ballots 
     by mail in accordance with the deadline to return ballots 
     established under applicable State law;

       On page 29, line 13, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through ``publish'' on line 14 and insert the following:

       ``(II) consider the effect of the closure or consolidation 
     of the postal facility on the ability of individuals served 
     by the postal facility to vote by mail and the ability of the 
     Postal Service to timely deliver ballots by mail in 
     accordance with the deadline to return ballots established 
     under applicable State law; and
       ``(III) publish

       On page 30, line 1, after ``the facility'' insert the 
     following: ``or consideration of the effect of the closure or 
     consolidation of the postal facility on the ability of 
     individuals served by the postal facility to vote by mail and 
     the ability of the Postal Service to timely deliver ballots 
     by mail in accordance with the deadline to return ballots 
     established under applicable State law''.
       On page 42, line 16, insert ``(A)'' before ``The Postal''.
       On page 42, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       ``(B) The Postal Service shall take no action to close or 
     consolidate a post office until 60 days after the Postal 
     Service provides written notice of the determination under 
     paragraph (3) to--
       ``(i) the State board of elections for the State in which 
     the post office is located; and
       ``(ii) each local board of elections (or equivalent local 
     entity) having jurisdiction of an area served by the post 
     office.
       On page 45, strike line 11 and insert the following:
       (c) Moratorium to Protect the Ability of Voters to Vote 
     Absentee or by Mail.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this 
     subsection or subsection (d) or (f) of section 404 of title 
     39, United States Code, as amended by this Act, during the 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     ending on November 13, 2012, the Postal Service may not close 
     or consolidate a post office or postal facility located in a 
     State that conducts all elections by mail or permits no-
     excuse absentee voting, except as required for the immediate 
     protection of health and safety.
       (d) Historic Post Offices.--Section 404(d) of

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided on amendment No. 2020, as modified.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, this amendment is for the 
more than 25 million Americans--more than 800,000 of them serving in 
the military--who vote by mail in our system of government, the most 
open and free system of government in the world. Those millions of 
Americans may vote absentee, they may vote in what is called no-excuse 
absentee, or they may vote in an all-mail election, but they deserve 
this fall to have the assurance from the U.S. Senate that as we reform 
the Postal Service, the election will not be disrupted.
  I hope my colleagues will support this. I think it has been discussed 
at length on both sides of the aisle. It has always been bipartisan to 
try to expand the franchise. I hope we can pass this on a voice vote.
  I wish to thank both Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins, who had 
a real challenge handling all of these amendments and who have been 
very gracious, both of them, as always.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment. I 
thank Senator Wyden and those who worked with him on this amendment 
for, frankly, calling our attention to this important matter and 
working to ensure that our efforts to salvage the U.S. Postal Service--
to change it, to keep it alive--do not come at the expense of our 
critical efforts to ensure access to the voting booth by mail as well 
as no-excuse absentee programs that rely heavily on dependable mail 
service. I support the amendment.
  If there is no further debate, I urge that we adopt the amendment by 
voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2020, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2020), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                    Amendment No. 2058, as Modified

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 2058 
and that it be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page S2642]]


       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2058, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To improve access to postal services in communities 
       potentially affected by a postal closing or consolidation)

       On page 40, strike lines 16 through 18 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(iv) to provide postal services to the community served 
     by the post office--
       ``(I) through a rural carrier; or
       ``(II) by co-locating an employee of the Postal Service at 
     a commercial or government entity;

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 
2058, as modified, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. This is a straightforward amendment. It modifies the new 
service requirement to encourage colocation in other businesses.
  One of the things that is going to happen to the Postal Service where 
they can't--85 percent of our post offices are losing money. So what we 
can do is keep service but have it at a different location for a much 
lower cost. All this amendment does is encourage the Postmaster General 
to consider that as part of the service standard in meeting that 
requirement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from 
Oklahoma is right in line with the bill. We do encourage the Postal 
Service to look at colocations--for example, in a local pharmacy or a 
grocery store. In many small communities, that may well be a viable 
option, and it may well improve customer access. So I think this is a 
very good amendment that is in line with other language already in the 
bill. I urge its adoption by a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that this is 
another good amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. What the 
Postmaster General has in mind for our communities across America, 
where there are 33,000 post offices, is to give a number of them an 
option--a menu, if you will--to see whether it makes sense in those 
communities to shorten somewhat the length of time the post office is 
open in a day--maybe to 6 or 4 hours a day--whether to use a colocator 
in a supermarket maybe or in a convenience store or to in some cases, 
say, to State and local government operations in those communities: Why 
don't we put them under the same roof? Why doesn't that make sense?
  Frankly, all those ideas may make sense. The idea is not to tell a 
community which of those options they have to choose but to say: This 
is the menu. And this is one of the great options that should be on the 
menu.
  I commend the Senator for offering the amendment. I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2058), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
amendment on the list, the so-called McCaskill-Merkley amendment, be 
dropped a few places down because we are working on some compromise 
language that we hope will lead to a voice vote of acceptance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2061, as Modified

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. That would mean Senator Coburn's next amendment, which 
is amendment No. 2061, is now the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify 
amendment No. 2061 with the changes at the desk and ask that it be 
brought up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2061, as modified.

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To achieve long-term cost-savings by allowing the Postmaster 
 General to reduce the postal workforce through mandatory retirements 
                        for eligible employees)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE RETIREMENT-ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES 
                   OF THE POSTAL SERVICE TO RETIRE.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``retirement-
     eligible employee''--
       (1) means an employee of the Postal Service who meets the 
     age and service requirements to retire on an immediate 
     annuity under section 8336 or 8412 of title 5, United States 
     Code; and
       (2) does not include an individual described in section 
     8336(d) or 8412(g) of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Authority.--Subject to subsection (c), not earlier than 
     the date that is 2 years after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Postmaster General may issue rules and regulations 
     prohibiting a retirement-eligible employee from performing 
     service as an employee of the Postal Service.
       (c) Limitation.--The Postmaster General may only issue 
     rules and regulations under subsection (b) if the Postmaster 
     General determines that issuing the rules and regulations 
     would achieve financial savings for the Postal Service.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 
2061, as modified, offered by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is an amendment we have changed 
somewhat from the original version to address some of the concerns.
  What this amendment does is 2 years from now it will give the 
authority to the Postmaster General to create a retirement requirement 
for postal employees. There are 175,000 postal employees eligible for 
retirement right now. Nothing happens for the next 2 years. It gives 
plenty of time for planning. It gives him the authority to create that 
principle, which says that when you become retirement age--because they 
are going to have a continuing need to have fewer and fewer employees--
there is the ability to make retirement mandatory. That is all it does. 
It is for those who are best capable of retiring with full pensions. 
They have to have complete and full pension capability. It will allow 
him to do that 2 years from now--not now but 2 years from now--and it 
only gives him the authority should he want to. So it does not mandate 
it, it does not require it, and it actually does not take effect for 2 
years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, while I think the changes the Senator 
has made in his amendment do improve it considerably, I am still very 
concerned about the idea of imposing a mandatory retirement system, and 
let me tell you why.
  First, to me, it smacks of age discrimination in some cases. Second, 
we could be losing some of our most experienced and best personnel we 
need to implement the major changes that are authorized by this bill. 
Third and finally, I find it a little odd that we would want to tell 
people who are still in their working years and have had a good career 
and are contributing and are good employees that we do not want them to 
work anymore. I think the approach in our bill of offering incentives 
is a better way to go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, the difference is you are going to pay 
$25,000 to people to retire. The Postmaster General has already said he 
needs to have 120,000 fewer employees. That will grow over a period of 
time. We are setting a precedent with the buyout, one. We are setting a 
precedent that has never before been done in the Federal Government. 
No. 2, and probably more important, is the fact that----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.

[[Page S2643]]

  Mr. COBURN. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 65, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Enzi
     Graham
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--65

     Akaka
     Ayotte
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     DeMint
     Kirk
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                    Amendment No. 2031, as Modified

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, a while back we skipped over the 
McCaskill-Merkley amendment. We were working on a modification. The 
modification is ready now. I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to 
the McCaskill-Merkley amendment No. 2031.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2031. I 
ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mrs. McCaskill] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2031, as modified.

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the closing of a rural post office unless certain 
  conditions are met and to establish a moratorium on the closing of 
                          rural post offices)

       On page 40, line 1, after ``post office'' insert ``and, 
     with respect to a determination to close a post office in a 
     rural area, as defined by the Census Bureau, prior to making 
     the determinations required by paragraph (4)''.
       On page 42, line 13, after ``subsection'' insert ``and, 
     with respect to a determination to close a post office 
     located in a rural area, as defined by the Census Bureau, a 
     summary of the determinations required under paragraph (4)''.
       On page 42, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       ``(4) The Postal Service may not make a determination under 
     subsection (a)(3) to close a post office located in a rural 
     area, as defined by the Census Bureau, unless the Postal 
     Service--
       ``(A)(i) determines that postal customers served by the 
     post office would continue after the closing to receive 
     substantially similar access to essential items, such as 
     prescription medications and time-sensitive communications, 
     that are sent through the mail; or
       ``(ii) takes action to substantially ameliorate any 
     projected reduction in access to essential items described in 
     clause (i); and
       ``(B) determines that--
       ``(i) businesses located in the community served by the 
     post office would not suffer substantial financial loss as a 
     result of the closing;
       ``(ii) any economic loss to the community served by the 
     post office as a result of the closing does not exceed the 
     cost to the Postal Service of not closing the post office;
       ``(iii) the area served by the post office has adequate 
     access to wired broadband Internet service, as identified on 
     the National Broadband Map of the National Telecommunications 
     and Information Administration; and
       ``(iv) there is a road connecting the community to another 
     post office that is not more than 10 miles from the post 
     office proposed to be closed (as measured on roads with year-
     round access).
       On page 42, line 16, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 42, line 20, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       On page 44, line 1, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 44, line 1, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       On page 44, line 12, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       On page 45, strike lines 3 through 10 and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Prohibition on Closing Post Offices.--
       (1) Moratorium pending establishment of service 
     standards.--Notwithstanding section 404(d) of title 39, 
     United States Code, as amended by this section, during the 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     ending on the date on which the Postal Service establishes 
     the service standards under section 203 of this Act, the 
     Postal Service may not close a post office, except as 
     required for the immediate protection of health and safety.
       (2) Moratorium on closing rural post offices.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection or section 404(d) of title 39, United States Code, 
     during the 12-month period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Postal Service may not close a post office 
     located in a rural area, as defined by the Census Bureau, 
     except as required for the immediate protection of health and 
     safety, or unless there is no significant community 
     opposition to such closure.
       (B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph shall 
     be construed to limit the authority of the Postal Service to 
     implement, consistent with the procedures under section 
     404(d)(1)(B) of title 39, United States Code, as amended by 
     this Act, cost-saving measures with respect to the post 
     offices described in subparagraph (A), including, as 
     appropriate, the measures required to be considered under 
     clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of section 404(d)(1)(A) of 
     title 39, United States Code, as amended by this Act.
       On page 45, line 14, strike ``(8)(A)'' and insert 
     ``(9)(A)''.

  Mrs. McCASKILL. This amendment reflects the efforts of a lot of 
people to deal with rural post office closings in a way that will be 
straightforward and fair to rural communities across this country. It 
is going to prevent any closings for 1 year while the reforms which are 
embedded in this bill have a chance to begin to work. It then sets some 
clear standards for potential closures.
  I want to thank Senator Moran who did some great work on this subject 
in committee. He deserves credit for beginning the process of taking a 
hard look at rural post offices and how we were dealing with them. I 
obviously want to thank Senator Merkley who has worked on this, Senator 
Tester who has worked on it, and Senator Sanders. But I really want to 
thank Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for continuing to model to 
this body what true bipartisanship looks like, and who continually 
strive for that very elusive and rare but valuable commodity in a 
democracy, that thing known as compromise. This amendment now 
represents one of those compromises. I am proud to be a part of it. I 
think it strikes the right note of protecting rural post offices but 
also with a realistic eye toward the future and how we are fair to 
rural communities in a way that is predictable and one that, frankly, 
shows some accountability for the Postal Service.
  I ask that this be taken up by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the work that has been 
done on this amendment. I know there is a lot of interest on both sides 
of the aisle because of the concern about rural post offices. This 
establishes, again, some standards. It effectively asks the Postal 
Service before it considers closing a rural post office for 1 year 
after enactment of this legislation

[[Page S2644]]

that it explore every other opportunity to continue to provide service 
other than closing the post office.
  The one clear authority given in the modified amendment is to close a 
rural post office when there is no significant community opposition, 
which is to say, when the Postal Service has convinced the people of 
the community that they have a good alternative to the current post 
office. So I think we have reasoned together.
  I hope this enables our colleagues who may have been thinking of more 
absolute prohibitions to closing post offices to step back from that. 
This is a rational, fair approach. I support the modification and the 
amendment.
  I urge that the amendment be adopted by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2031), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote and ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be laid upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                    Amendment No. 2080, as Modified

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I call up Snowe amendment No. 2080 with a 
modification at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2080, as modified.

  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, was modified, as follows:

 (Purpose: To require the Postal Rate Commission to evaluate area mail 
                          processing studies)

       On page 34, strike lines 16 and 17 and insert the 
     following:
     ``Act of 2012;
       ``(B) if a complaint described in subparagraph (A) is 
     lodged relating to the closure or consolidation of a postal 
     facility, upon request by the person lodging the complaint, 
     the Postal Regulatory Commission shall determine whether--
       ``(i) the area mail processing study relating to the postal 
     facility used an appropriate methodology; and
       ``(ii) the cost savings identified in the area mail 
     processing study relating to the postal facility are 
     accurate;
       ``(C) the Postal Regulatory Commission may direct the 
     Postal Service to conduct another area mail processing study 
     or direct the Postal Service to take action as described 
     under subparagraph (D) if the Postal Regulatory Commission 
     determines that--
       ``(i) the area mail processing study relating to the postal 
     facility used an inappropriate methodology; or
       ``(ii) the cost savings identified in the area mail 
     processing study relating to the postal facility are 
     inaccurate; and
       ``(D) if the Postal Regulatory Commission

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 2080 
offered by the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, very briefly, first I want to thank the 
chair of the committee and my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, 
for working and assisting me in modifying this amendment.
  I thought this amendment was important from the standpoint and based 
on our experience in Maine with the recent proposal by the Postal 
Service to close a distributional and processing facility. As my 
colleague Senator Collins will attest as well, we discovered that much 
of their methodology was indeed faulty in the savings that they had 
suggested would be achieved by closing this facility.
  There were many questions raised with those numbers and reports. As 
we know, before the U.S. Postal Service can make any determination for 
closing a facility, they have to prepare and publish an area processing 
study.
  Based on that study, I have recommended that we now have independent 
verification of the numbers and proposals by the U.S. Postal Service so 
that we can make sure those numbers are accurate and that we verify the 
methodology in addition to the savings.
  One of the examples I can give from this proposal is one they made 
for a facility in the State of Maine to eliminate two management 
positions, for a savings of $799,000. When we questioned the veracity 
of that number, they backtracked and said it was only $120,000. 
Incredulously, they have now submitted their final area processing 
study this year and returned to the higher figure of $800,000 for the 
two management positions. We know that cannot be accurate. Therefore, 
given the evidence of these proposals, we need to have independent 
verification by the Postal Regulatory Commission before any closure can 
go forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first, I congratulate my colleague from 
Maine for an excellent amendment. As she indicated, the Postal Service 
made a major miscalculation, a mathematical error, in the study it did 
on the Hampden processing center in our State. So that Senators know, 
the amendment would say if a proposed consolidation of a mail 
processing center is appealed to the Postal Regulatory Commission, the 
Commission can be asked to review the underlying study's methodology 
and the estimated savings to make sure it is correct because right now 
there is no way to challenge a mistake that is made by the Postal 
Service in conducting these very important studies that are going to 
decide whether processing centers stay open.
  I commend my colleague from Maine for a very well thought out 
amendment, and I urge its adoption by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2080) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                    Amendment No. 2043, as Modified

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 
2043 and ask that it be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Udall] proposed an 
     amendment numbered 2043, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To strike the limitations on changes to mail delivery 
                       schedule, with an offset)

       Strike section 208 and insert the following:

     SEC. 208. TRANSFER OF AMOUNTS FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE 
                   RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND.

       Section 8348(h)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(B)(i) The Office shall--
       ``(I) redetermine the Postal surplus or supplemental 
     liability as of the close of each of fiscal years 2007 
     through 2043; and
       ``(II) report the results of the redetermination for each 
     such fiscal year, including appropriate supporting analyses 
     and documentation, to the United States Postal Service on or 
     before June 30 of the subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(ii) If the result of a redetermination under clause (i) 
     is a supplemental liability, the Office shall establish an 
     amortization schedule, including a series of annual 
     installments commencing on September 30 of the subsequent 
     fiscal year, that provides for the liquidation of such 
     liability by September 30, 2043.
       ``(C)(i) Subject to clause (ii), if the result of a 
     redetermination under subparagraph (B) for any of fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2023 is a surplus, the amount of the 
     surplus shall be transferred to the General Fund of the 
     Treasury.
       ``(ii) Not more than a total of $8,900,000,000 shall be 
     transferred under clause (i).''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 
2043, offered by the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, this amendment strikes a 
provision allowing the USPS to move to 5-day service in 2 years. Two 
years is simply not enough time to see the changes we are making in 
this bill take effect before we cut this essential service.
  My amendment doesn't say we can never move to 5-day service, but it 
says that 2 years is not enough time for the Postal Service to 
implement the many cost-saving measures in the bill.

[[Page S2645]]

  Why eliminate one of the key competitive advantages and hurt rural 
America before we know the effects of these reforms? It makes no sense.
  Why would we make a change that would reduce mail volume by almost 7 
percent? Isn't that why we are in this crisis in the first place?
  I hope my colleagues will join me in protecting rural jobs and go on 
record to say clearly that moving to 5-day service should be a last 
resort.
  I reserve my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendment of my 
friend from New Mexico. I know there are a lot of people who don't want 
to lose 6-day delivery. But the greater imperative is not to lose the 
Postal Service as we know it.
  The Postmaster asked for the immediate authority to go from 6 days of 
delivery to 5. In this bill we have given the Postmaster authority in 
many different areas to save money. We said, as a result, that we will 
not give him the authority to go from 6 days of delivery to 5 for 2 
years, hoping that within the 2 years he can save enough money not to 
have to make this change. Frankly, I am skeptical that he can. We 
wanted to give him 6 days of delivery--that last opportunity.
  To pull this procedure out of the bill, with a lot of due process 
before the move can be made from 6 to 5 days, removes the credibility 
from the bill and will jeopardize its ultimate adoption.
  With a lot of respect and affection for my friend from New Mexico, I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, this amendment would also take $8.9 
billion that is supposed to go to pay for retiree health benefits of 
postal workers and instead redirect those funds to maintain 6-days-a-
week delivery of the mail. I hope we always have 6-days-a-week 
delivery. I think that is an asset. I think we should strive to 
preserve it. That is why our bill prohibits going to 5-day delivery for 
2 years, to wring all the waste out of the system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, Saturday service is 
absolutely essential in rural areas.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bingaman
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The amendment (No. 2043), as modified, was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                    Amendment No. 2082, as Modified

  Mr. DURBIN. I call up my amendment No. 2082, and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2082, as modified.

  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the Postal Service from closing or consolidating, 
        or reducing the workforce of certain postal facilities)

       On page 33, strike line 24 and all that follows through 
     page 34, line 6 and insert the following:
       ``(C) Limitations.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), 
     during the 3-year period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2012, the Postal 
     Service may not close or consolidate a postal facility if--

       ``(I) the closing or consolidation prevents the Postal 
     Service from maintaining service standards as required under 
     section 201 of the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2012; 
     or
       ``(II) the Postal Service--

       ``(aa) did not close or consolidate the postal facility 
     before May 15, 2012; and
       ``(bb) conducted an area mail processing study with respect 
     to the postal facility after January 1, 2006 that--
         ``(AA) was terminated; or
         ``(BB) concluded that no significant cost savings or 
     efficiencies would result from closing or consolidating the 
     postal facility.
       ``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) shall not apply with respect 
     to a postal facility described in clause (i)(II) for which--

       ``(I) an audit under clause (iii) concludes that the mail 
     volume and operations of the facility have changed since the 
     date of termination or completion of an area mail processing 
     study described in clause (i)(II)(bb) to such an extent that 
     the study is no longer valid; and
       ``(II) an area mail processing study completed under this 
     subsection concludes that the closing or consolidation or the 
     postal facility is justified, taking into consideration the 
     savings to the Postal Service and the impact of the closing 
     or consolidation on postal customers.

       ``(iii) Audit by inspector general.--

       ``(I) In general.--Upon the written request of the 
     Postmaster General, the Inspector General shall conduct an 
     audit of the mail volume and operations of a postal facility.
       ``(II) Completion.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     on which the Inspector General receives a request under 
     subclause (I), the Inspector General shall submit to the 
     Postmaster General and the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
     report containing the conclusions of the audit under 
     subclause (I).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 
2082, as modified, offered by the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this was an amendment I originally 
offered relative to processing facilities that have been subject to 
efficiency reviews. At the suggestion of the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Lieberman, as well as ranking members, we have modified the 
amendment. The sum total of its change would be for those limited 
facilities which have been found since the year 2006 to be efficient. 
Before they could be closed, the postal service would have to call on 
the U.S. Postal Service's inspector general to conduct an audit to find 
that the previous findings have been terminated and are no longer 
valid.
  That is the only change that was recommended by the committee and the 
staff, and I have added that modification to the amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to salute Senator Durbin on his 
thoughtful amendment and thank him for his collegiality in 
negotiations. We think it helps us. But we have been misled, 
manipulated, and disregarded in our attempts to get information from 
the Postal Service. I don't know if the Easton AMP study has been 
concluded or suspended. I can't get an answer from the Postal Service. 
And if I can't get an answer, then the little guy on the Eastern Shore 
can't get an answer. I believe there are other Senators in the same 
boat who have been disregarded by the Postal Service.

[[Page S2646]]

  Does my colleague believe his amendment provides protections for mail 
processing centers where the Postal Service has postponed or suspended 
their study for a significant period of time--like at the facility in 
Easton, MD?
  Mr. DURBIN. It is a pleasure working with Senator Mikulski and I 
think the Senate can appreciate how hard she works for her 
constituents. I am sympathetic to hear that the Senator's inquiries to 
the Postal Service on behalf of seniors, small businesses, and other 
constituents have gone unanswered.
  It is my intent for, and the Postal Service has assured me that, the 
mail processing facility in Easton, MD, where the Postal Service has 
issued a formal notification that they are postponing their study for a 
significant period of time, is covered by my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois. He 
has explained the amendment totally. It is a good amendment. I support 
its passage, and urge we adopt it by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2082), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2034

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2034.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka], for himself, Mr. 
     Inouye, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Franken, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2034.

  Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide appropriate workers compensation for Federal 
                               employees)

       Strike title III and insert the following:

             TITLE III--FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Federal Workers' 
     Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 302. PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AND ADVANCED PRACTICE NURSES.

       (a) Definition of Medical Services.--Section 8101(3) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``law. Reimbursable'' and inserting ``law 
     (reimbursable''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon, the following: ``, 
     and medical services may include treatment by a physician 
     assistant or advanced practice nurse, such as a nurse 
     practitioner, within the scope of their practice as defined 
     by State law, consistent with regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary of Labor)''.
       (b) Medical Services and Other Benefits.--Section 8103 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a), the following:
       ``(b) Medical services furnished or prescribed pursuant to 
     subsection (a) may include treatment by a physician assistant 
     or advanced practice nurse, such as a nurse practitioner, 
     within the scope of their practice as defined by State law, 
     consistent with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of 
     Labor.''.
       (c) Certification of Traumatic Injury.--Section 8121(6) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting before 
     the period, the following: ``(except that in a case of a 
     traumatic injury, a physician assistant or advanced practice 
     nurse, such as a nurse practitioner, within the scope of 
     their practice as defined by State law, may also provide 
     certification of such traumatic injury and related disability 
     during the continuation of pay period covered by section 
     8118, in a manner consistent with regulations prescribed by 
     the Secretary of Labor)''.

     SEC. 303. COVERING TERRORISM INJURIES.

       Section 8102(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (1) by inserting ``or from an attack by a terrorist or 
     terrorist organization, either known or unknown,'' after 
     ``force or individual,''; and
       (2) by striking ``outside'' and all that follows through 
     ``1979)'' and inserting ``outside of the United States''.

     SEC. 304. DISFIGUREMENT.

       Section 8107(c)(21) of title 5, United States Code--
       (1) by striking ``For'' and inserting the following: ``(A) 
     Except as provided under subparagraph (B), for''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for an injury 
     occurring during the 3-year period prior to the date of 
     enactment of the Federal Workers' Compensation Modernization 
     and Improvement Act for which the Secretary of Labor has not 
     made a compensation determination on disfigurement under 
     subparagraph (A), or for an injury occurring on or after the 
     date of enactment of such Act resulting in a serious 
     disfigurement of the face, head, or neck, proper and 
     equitable compensation in proportion to the severity of the 
     disfigurement, not to exceed $50,000, as determined by the 
     Secretary, shall be awarded in addition to any other 
     compensation payable under this schedule. The applicable 
     maximum compensation for disfigurement provided under this 
     subparagraph shall be adjusted annually on March 1 in 
     accordance with the percentage amount determined by the cost 
     of living adjustment in section 8146a.''.

     SEC. 305. SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS INFORMATION.

       Section 8116 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Labor may require, as a condition of receiving 
     any benefits under this subchapter, that a claimant for such 
     benefits consent to the release by the Social Security 
     Administration of the Social Security earnings information of 
     such claimant.''.

     SEC. 306. CONTINUATION OF PAY IN A ZONE OF ARMED CONFLICT.

       Section 8118 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``Continuation'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided under subsection (e)(2), 
     continuation'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``subsections (a) and 
     (b)'' and inserting ``subsections (a) and (b) or subsection 
     (e),'';
       (3) in subsection (d), by striking ``subsection (a)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (a) or (e)'';
       (4) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
       (5) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Continuation of Pay in a Zone of Armed Conflict.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the 
     United States shall authorize the continuation of pay of an 
     employee as defined in section 8101(1) of this title (other 
     than those referred to in subparagraph (B) or (E)), who has 
     filed a claim for a period of wage loss due to traumatic 
     injury in performance of duty in a zone of armed conflict (as 
     so determined by the Secretary of Labor under paragraph (3)), 
     as long as the employee files a claim for such wage loss 
     benefit with his immediate superior not later than 45 days 
     following termination of assignment to the zone of armed 
     conflict or return to the United States, whichever occurs 
     later.
       ``(2) Continuation of pay.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), 
     continuation of pay under this subsection shall be furnished 
     for a period not to exceed 135 days without any break in time 
     or waiting period, unless controverted under regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary of Labor.
       ``(3) Determination of zones of armed conflict.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, the Secretary of Labor, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     Defense, shall determine whether a foreign country or other 
     foreign geographic area outside of the United States (as that 
     term is defined in section 202(7) of the State Department 
     Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 4302(7))) is a zone 
     of armed conflict based on whether--
       ``(A) the Armed Forces of the United States are involved in 
     hostilities in the country or area;
       ``(B) the incidence of civil insurrection, civil war, 
     terrorism, or wartime conditions threatens physical harm or 
     imminent danger to the health or well-being of United States 
     civilian employees in the country or area;
       ``(C) the country or area has been designated a combat zone 
     by the President under section 112(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 112(c));
       ``(D) a contingency operation involving combat operations 
     directly affects civilian employees in the country or area; 
     or
       ``(E) there exist other relevant conditions and factors.''.

     SEC. 307. SUBROGATION OF CONTINUATION OF PAY.

       (a) Subrogation of the United States.--Section 8131 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``continuation of pay 
     or'' before ``compensation''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``continuation of pay 
     or'' before ``compensation already paid''.
       (b) Adjustment After Recovery From A Third Person.--Section 
     8132 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``continuation of pay or'' before 
     ``compensation'' the first, second, fourth, and fifth place 
     it appears;
       (2) by striking ``in his behalf'' and inserting ``on his 
     behalf''; and

[[Page S2647]]

       (3) by inserting ``continuation of pay and'' before 
     ``compensation'' the third place it appears.

     SEC. 308. FUNERAL EXPENSES.

       Section 8134 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``If'' and inserting 
     ``Except as provided in subsection (b), if'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), for deaths occurring 
     on or after the date of enactment of the Federal Workers' 
     Compensation Modernization and Improvement Act, if death 
     results from an injury sustained in the performance of duty, 
     the United States shall pay, to the personal representative 
     of the deceased or otherwise, funeral and burial expenses not 
     to exceed $6,000, in the discretion of the Secretary of 
     Labor. The applicable maximum compensation for burial 
     expenses provided under this subsection shall be adjusted 
     annually on March 1 in accordance with the percentage amount 
     determined by the cost of living adjustment in section 
     8146a.''.

     SEC. 309. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION FUND.

       Section 8147 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``except administrative expenses'' and 
     inserting ``including administrative expenses''; and
       (B) by striking the last 2 sentences; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by inserting before the period 
     ``and an estimate of a pro-rata share of the amount of funds 
     necessary to administer this subchapter for the fiscal year 
     beginning in the next calendar year''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``costs'' and 
     inserting ``amount set out in the statement of costs and 
     administrative expenses furnished pursuant to this 
     subsection''.

     SEC. 310. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 8101(1)(D) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon ``who suffered an 
     injury on or prior to March 3, 1979''.

     SEC. 311. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided, this title and the amendments 
     made by this title, shall take effect 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 312. PAYGO COMPLIANCE.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 2034 
offered by the Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I have serious concerns with the FECA 
provisions in this bill, especially since they would reduce benefits 
for many employees who were already injured while working in service to 
this country, such as Federal firefighters, FBI agents, prison guards, 
and civilians serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, unlike most 
State workers' comp programs, this bill would reduce benefits for 
elderly disabled employees when they reach retirement age.
  My amendment offers a reasonable alternative by replacing the FECA 
provisions in this bill with the Republican-led bipartisan FECA reform 
bill that passed the House by voice vote last year. The House chose not 
to make benefit changes without the additional information it sought 
from GAO, and we should follow their lead.
  This amendment, supported by more than 20 organizations, would make 
commonsense reforms that will improve program efficiency and integrity 
without reducing benefits for disabled seniors, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, this amendment would strike the Federal 
workers' compensation title in the bill and replace it with very minor 
provisions that provide no significant cost savings.
  The amendment would strike the reforms that bring parity between 
workers' comp benefits and retirement benefits for Federal workers. It 
makes it much more comparable to the States' workers' comp plans. The 
Federal plan is more generous than any State plan. The amendment does 
nothing to combat the rampant fraud nor constrain costs which have 
increased by $1 billion.
  In the current workers' comp program, we have 2,000 postal employees 
who are over age 70; we have 6 Federal workers who are age 100 or 
older. These individuals are not coming back to work. We are trying to 
focus this program, as it should be, on returning injured workers to 
work. It is very similar to the proposals that the Obama administration 
has made. It grandfathers in everyone for 3 years as well as those age 
65 and older.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to join my friend from Maine in 
respectfully opposing Senator Akaka's amendment.
  This workers' compensation program has gotten out of control. Senator 
Collins has worked hard on this with others. Her reform proposal for 
the Postal Service struck the Obama administration as so sensible that 
they asked our committee to extend it to all the Federal Government 
employees.
  I urge opposition, respectfully, to the Akaka amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Cutting workers' compensation benefits governmentwide is 
not fair and it is not necessary to save the Postal Service. We should 
follow the House's example and enact bipartisan reforms contained in my 
amendment and wait until GAO finishes its analysis before making 
decisions on benefit levels.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2034.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Heller
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 2047, as Modified

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2047 and ask 
unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes that are at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Bennet], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2047, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S2648]]

   (Purpose: To establish citizen's service protection advocates, to 
 require the Strategic Advisory Commission on Postal Service Solvency 
and Innovation to study the advisability of the Postal Service entering 
   into inter-agency agreements with respect to post offices, and to 
  require the Postal Service to develop a strategic plan for entering 
                   into such inter-agency agreements)

       On page 30, line 15, strike ``and''.
       On page 30, lines 16 and 17, insert ``and'' after 
     ``Commission;''.
       On page 30, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       ``(iii) the chief executive of each State whose residents 
     are served by the postal facility, to allow the chief 
     executive to appoint a citizen's service protection advocate 
     under section 417;''.
       On page 34, line 16, insert ``, or with the requirements of 
     section 417 of this title'' after ``2012''.
       On page 34, line 24, insert ``or with the requirements of 
     section 417 of this title,'' after ``2012,''.
       On page 41, strike lines 2 through 4 and insert the 
     following:
     ``such closing or consolidation to--
       ``(i) persons served by such post office to ensure that 
     such persons will have an opportunity to present their views; 
     and
       ``(ii) the chief executive of each State whose residents 
     are served by such post office to allow the chief executive 
     to appoint a citizen's service protection advocate under 
     section 417.''.
       On page 84, strike line 8 and all that follows through line 
     11 and insert the following:
       (g) Study and Strategic Plan on Inter-agency Agreements for 
     Post Offices.--
       (1) Duties of advisory commission.--
       (A) Study.--
       (i) In general.--The Advisory Commission shall conduct a 
     study concerning the advisability of the Postal Service 
     entering into inter-agency agreements with Federal, State, 
     and local agencies, with respect to post offices, that--

       (I) streamline and consolidate services provided by 
     Federal, State, and local agencies;
       (II) decrease the costs incurred by Federal agencies in 
     providing services to the general public; and
       (III) improve the efficiency and maintain the customer 
     service standards of the Federal, State, and local agencies.

       (ii) Clarification of inter-agency agreements.--The study 
     under clause (i) shall include consideration of the 
     advisability of the Postal Service entering into an inter-
     agency agreement with--

       (I) the Bureau of the Census for the provision of personnel 
     and resources for the 2020 decennial census;
       (II) the department of motor vehicles, or an equivalent 
     agency, of each State for the provision of driver licenses, 
     vehicle registration, and voter registration;
       (III) the division of wildlife, the department of natural 
     resources, or an equivalent agency, of each State for the 
     provision of hunting and fishing licenses; and
       (IV) other Federal agencies responsible for providing 
     services to the general public.

       (B) Findings.--The Advisory Commission shall--
       (i) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit to the Postal Service the findings of the 
     study conducted under subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) incorporate the findings described in clause (i) into 
     the strategic blueprint required under subsection (f).
       (2) Postal service strategic plan.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date on 
     which the Advisory Commission submits to the Postal Service 
     the findings under paragraph (1)(B), the Postal Service shall 
     submit a strategic plan for entering into inter-agency 
     agreements concerning post offices to--
       (i) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate; and
       (ii) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (B) Limitations.--The strategic plan submitted under 
     subparagraph (A)--
       (i) shall be consistent with--

       (I) the retail service standards established under section 
     203 of this Act;
       (II) section 411 of title 39, United States Code, as 
     amended by this Act; and
       (III) public interest and demand; and

       (ii) may not prevent the implementation of Postal Service 
     initiatives with respect to retail access to postal services 
     under sections 203 and 204 of this Act.
       (C) Cost savings projections.--The strategic plan submitted 
     under subparagraph (A) shall include, for each proposed 
     inter-agency agreement, a projection of cost savings to be 
     realized by the Postal Service and by any other Federal 
     agency that is a party to the agreement.
       (h) Termination of the Commission.--The Advisory Commission 
     shall terminate 90 days after the later of--
       (1) the date on which the Advisory Commission submits the 
     report on the strategic blueprint for long-term solvency 
     under subsection (f); and
       (2) the date on which the Advisory Commission submits the 
     findings on inter-agency agreements for post offices under 
     subsection (g).
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There
       On page 84, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 214. CITIZEN'S SERVICE PROTECTION ADVOCATES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 4 of title 39, United States Code, 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec.  417. Citizen's service protection advocates

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `citizen's service protection advocate' 
     means an individual appointed or designated under applicable 
     State law, in the manner described in subsection (b), by the 
     chief executive of a State affected by the closing or 
     consolidation of a post office or postal facility to 
     represent the interests of postal customers affected by the 
     closing or consolidation; and
       ``(2) the term `postal facility' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 404(f).
       ``(b) Appointment of Advocate.--
       ``(1) In general.--The chief executive of a State affected 
     by the proposed closing or consolidation of a post office or 
     postal facility may appoint or designate a citizen's service 
     protection advocate to represent the interests of postal 
     customers affected by the proposed closing or consolidation.
       ``(2) Consultation.--To be considered a citizen's service 
     protection advocate for purposes of this section, an 
     individual must have been appointed or designated by the 
     chief executive of a State in consultation with--
       ``(A) the mayor (or equivalent official) of any city 
     affected by the closing or consolidation; and
       ``(B) the commissioner (or equivalent official) of any 
     county or parish affected by the closing or consolidation.
       ``(c) Access to Information and Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), upon the 
     request of any citizen's service protection advocate 
     appointed under this section, the Postal Service shall 
     provide to the citizen's service protection advocate--
       ``(A) not later than 15 days after the request, access to 
     any records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers, 
     recommendations, or other materials of the Postal Service 
     relating to the closing or consolidation of the relevant post 
     office or postal facility; and
       ``(B) technical assistance in carrying out the duties of 
     the citizen's service protection advocate.
       ``(2) Limitations.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to require the Postal Service to provide to a 
     citizen's service protection advocate any information that is 
     exempt from disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5.
       ``(d) Communication and Consultation.--The Postal Service 
     shall--
       ``(1) provide for regular and efficient communication 
     between a citizen's service protection advocate and the 
     officer or employee of the Postal Service responsible for the 
     closing or consolidation of the relevant post office or 
     postal facility; and
       ``(2) consult with the citizen's service protection 
     advocate in developing and implementing service changes that 
     affect postal customers affected by the closing or 
     consolidation of the relevant post office or postal facility.
       ``(e) Termination of Service.--An individual may not serve 
     as a citizen's service protection advocate with respect to 
     the closing or consolidation of a post office or postal 
     facility after the later of--
       ``(1) the date on which the Postal Service determines not 
     to close or consolidate the post office or postal facility; 
     and
       ``(2) the date on which the Postal Service determines to 
     close or consolidate the post office or postal facility.''.
       (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for chapter 4 
     of title 39, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

``417. Citizen's service protection advocates.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date on which the Postal Service 
     establishes retail service standards under section 203.

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of amendment No. 2047, 
which I have cosponsored with Senator Blunt. I deeply appreciate his 
leadership.
  This bipartisan amendment would allow for a nonpaid advocate to 
represent communities facing a closure or a consolidation. Advocates 
would represent their communities' interests throughout closure 
proceedings and would work with the Postal Service to identify 
alternative methods to maintain service standards. Advocates would have 
access to documents, data, and reports related to the proposed closure. 
Advocates would also have authority to appeal a final decision on 
closure to the Postal Regulatory Commission if there was a concern it 
would hurt service standards.
  Finally, the amendment would allow the strategic commission already 
contained within this bill to develop interagency agreements so that 
post offices could provide additional government services, such as the 
issuance of Social Security cards and hunting and fishing licenses, 
similar to what it already does for passports.
  In 2011, to take 1 year, the Postal Service accepted 5.6 million 
passport applications that generated $182 million in revenue. This 
amendment has

[[Page S2649]]

the potential to cut government costs, improve access, and help keep 
post offices open by supplementing revenue streams in a way that is 
particularly helpful to our rural communities. I hope the Senate could 
adopt this amendment.
  I yield to my colleague Senator Blunt and thank him for his work.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I worked with Senator Bennet on this 
amendment. I think it does ensure that communities are not notified a 
facility is closed without having any opportunity to have input. It 
provides for advocacy and also gives the post office system some 
flexibility that they do not have now to provide postal services in new 
and innovative ways.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. I also want to, as a cosponsor of this 
important piece of legislation, commend Senators Bennet and Blunt for 
working together in a truly bipartisan way to make sure we get another 
good addition to this bill. I agree the communities affected by postal 
closings should have that strong advocacy to protect them against 
arbitrary and capricious closings. This bill also asks the Strategic 
Advisory Commission, established in our bill, to look into how other 
Federal and State agencies and the Postal Service might enter into 
interagency agreements in order to better utilize the services and 
improve efficiencies as referenced by the Senator from Colorado.
  They are both fine improvements, and I and the prime sponsors of the 
amendment support this amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2047), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2083

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2083.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Corker], proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2083.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 39, strike line 20 and all that follows through 
     page 45, line 17, and insert the following:

     SEC. 205. OTHER PROVISIONS.

       (a) Frequency of Mail Delivery.--Section 101 of title 39, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(h) Subject to the requirements of section 3661, nothing 
     in this title or any other provision of law shall be 
     construed to prevent the Postal Service from taking any 
     action necessary to provide for a 5-day-per-week delivery 
     schedule for mail and a commensurate adjustment in the 
     schedule for rural delivery of mail.''.
       (b) Overall Value of Fringe Benefits.--Section 1005(f) of 
     title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking the last 
     sentence.
       (c) Modern Rate Regulation.--Section 3622(d) of title 39, 
     United States Code, is repealed.
       (d) Delivery Service Standards, Mail Processing, and 
     Community Post Offices.--Sections 201 and 202 of this Act, 
     and the amendments made by those sections, shall have no 
     force or effect.
       (e) Applicability of Reduction-in-force Procedures.--
     Section 1206 of title 39, United States Code is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Collective-bargaining agreements between the Postal 
     Service and bargaining representatives recognized under 
     section 1203, ratified after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, shall contain no provision restricting the 
     applicability of reduction-in-force procedures under title 5 
     with respect to members of the applicable bargaining unit.''.
       (f) Historic Post Offices.--Section 404(d) of title 39, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(7)(A) In this paragraph, the term ``historic post office 
     building'' means a post office building that is a certified 
     historic structure, as that term is defined in section 
     47(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, this amendment is a balanced approach that 
strives to give the U.S. Postal Service maximum flexibility in multiple 
areas as they work toward financial stability. Here is the best part. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this amendment results in 
savings of $21 billion over the next 10 years. I do not think we have 
seen amendments that do this, that save $21 billion.
  In conclusion, it is clear the Postal Service needs to make drastic 
changes. I applaud those portions of S. 1789 that allow the Postal 
Service greater flexibility. But too many provisions in S. 1789 would 
put more restrictions on the Postal Service, not fewer, and limit the 
organization's ability to adapt to changing times.
  I urge support of my amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment. It 
deals with some issues that the committee and the bipartisan bill have 
dealt with in a fair and balanced way. It kind of breaks through that 
proposal we have made. It would permit the Postal Service to move to 5-
day delivery service immediately. It would increase rates without a 
cap. It also removes some protections that are in the bill at this 
time.
  I think this amendment, if adopted, would lead to the kind of 
curtailments in postal operations that would actually not help the 
Postal Service but diminish revenues and put it more dramatically into 
deficits.
  With respect to my friend, the Senator from Tennessee, who sponsored 
it, I oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered, 
and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 70, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

                                YEAS--29

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Graham
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter

                                NAYS--70

     Akaka
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the last vote, and 
I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2049

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the next amendment on the list is 
Senator Mikulski's amendment. Senator Mikulski has decided not to 
introduce her amendment. I thank her for that, and we will go next to 
Senator Akaka's amendment numbered 2049.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2049.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2049.

  Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.

[[Page S2650]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To allow supervisory and other managerial organizations to 
     participate in the planning and development of changes in, or 
termination of, pay policies and schedules and fringe benefit programs)

       At the end of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 106. SUPERVISORY AND OTHER MANAGERIAL ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 1004 of title 39, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), in the second sentence, by inserting 
     ``as provided under subsection (d) and any changes in, or 
     termination of, pay policies and schedules and fringe benefit 
     programs for members of the supervisors' organization as 
     provided under subsection (e)'' before the period; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(1), by inserting ``, or termination 
     of,'' after ``any changes in''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on amendment No. 
2049 offered by the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, current law provides postmasters and post 
office supervisors with the opportunity to consult over pay and 
benefits. This is not collective bargaining and does not result in a 
contract.
  Unfortunately, the Postal Service tries to modify, reduce or 
eliminate supervisors' benefits outside the normal consultation 
process, arguing that Congress intended this consultation for the 
creation but not elimination of benefit programs. This amendment simply 
clarifies existing law that the consultation requirement applies to any 
changes to pay or benefits.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I rise to support the amendment offered by my friend 
from Hawaii. The Postal Service is going to need the support of all its 
employees and managers to turn around its current decline.
  Postmasters and postal supervisors are a real and important human 
asset for the Postal Service and we should do what we can to foster 
productive and constructive collaboration between the Postal Service 
and the senior employees. The Akaka amendment just clarifies and 
strengthens existing requirements for consultation, not collective 
bargaining, for the scheduling of changes and terminations of pay and 
benefit programs. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me just reinforce that this is not 
giving collective bargaining rights to postmasters or to postal 
supervisors. I support Senator Akaka's amendment. All it is trying to 
do is strengthen a provision that is in current law that asks for the 
Postmaster General to consult with the postmasters and the other 
supervisory organizations when there are changes made in work schedules 
or benefits. They should have the right to have their views heard. It 
does not give them a veto. It does not authorize collective bargaining 
or contract negotiations in any way. I wish to emphasize that because 
there has been misinformation about what this amendment, in fact, 
entails.
  I support this amendment and I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. I ask for a voice vote.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I object. I would like a rollcall vote. I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 2025

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment in order 
is amendment No. 2025 by the Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2025.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2025.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

               (Purpose: To end the mailbox use monopoly)

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. __. ENDING THE MAILBOX USE MONOPOLY.

       Section 1725 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``established, approved, or accepted'' and all that 
     follows through ``mail route'' and inserting ``or post office 
     box owned by the Postal Service or located on Postal Service 
     property''.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, it is a Federal crime for anyone but the 
U.S. Postal Service to use a mailbox. The United States is the only 
country in the world that grants a mailbox monopoly. You can purchase 
your mailbox, you can install it, you can fix it, but you do not truly 
own it because you do not control what goes in your mailbox. If someone 
vandalizes your mailbox, you are responsible for it. You repair it. But 
you cannot decide what goes in it. If you put something in a mailbox 
without the permission of the U.S. Postal Service, if your child puts a 
birthday invitation in a mailbox, it can be a $5,000 fine. If an 
organization puts something in a mailbox other than through the Postal 
Service, it is a $10,000 fine.
  My amendment would grant individual owners of mailboxes the right to 
make decisions about their mailboxes. Adopting this amendment would 
restore individual mailbox choice. So I am for mailbox choice, and I 
hope the body is. It seems to me a fundamentally American concept to 
control access to your own mailbox. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to inform the Senate that this 
will be the last vote tonight. I have spoken to Senator McConnell. I 
know there are a lot of important things that committees have to do 
tomorrow, so we are going to start voting on finishing the postal bill 
tomorrow at 2 o'clock. We appreciate everyone's cooperation today. We 
will need some more tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there are at least three problems with 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky.
  The first is a practical problem. How is the Postal Service going to 
deal with a situation where at one house there is a monopoly on the use 
of the post office box and at the next house there is not a monopoly? 
How is that going to work?

[[Page S2651]]

  Second, mail often contains highly sensitive pieces, such as medical 
records, bills, personal correspondence. Continuation of the mailbox 
monopoly is necessary to preserve the safety, the security, and the 
privacy of mail.
  The third argument is that if you repeal the mailbox monopoly, you 
will leave rural America behind. There will be plenty of competition in 
large cities, but who will be left to serve rural America? Only the 
Postal Service. And that will further drive up its costs because it 
will be losing customers.
  I strongly urge opposition to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 35, nays 64, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--35

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--64

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________