Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 60 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 60 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2683-S2697]
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 Senate will
resume consideration of S. 1789, which the clerk will report.
The bill 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 Connecticut.

Amendment No. 2071, as Modified

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, I ask
unanimous consent to call up the Warner amendment No. 2071, with a
modification that is at the desk, and I ask that it to be considered in
the original order of the previous agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment, as modified.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for Senator
Warner, proposes an amendment numbered 2071, as modified.

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

(Purpose: To require reporting regarding retirement processing and
modernization)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. RETIREMENT REPORTING.

(a) Timeliness and Pending Applications.--Not later than 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every month
thereafter, the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management shall submit to Congress, the Comptroller General
of the United States, and issue publicly (including on the
website of the Office of Personnel Management) a report
that--
(1) evaluates the timeliness, completeness, and accuracy of
information submitted by the Postal Service relating to
employees of the Postal Service who are retiring, as compared
with such information submitted by agencies (as defined under
section 551 of title 5, United States Code); and
(2) includes--
(A) the total number of applications for retirement
benefits for employees of the Postal Service that are pending
action by the Office of Personnel Management; and
(B) the number of months each such application has been
pending.
(b) Electronic Data Timetable.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Office of Personnel Management
shall submit to Congress and the Comptroller General of the
United States a timetable for completion of each component of
a retirement systems modernization project of the Office of
Personnel Management, including all data elements required
for accurate completion of adjudication and the date by which
electronic transmission of all personnel data to the Office
of Personnel Management by the Postal Service shall commence.
(2) Timetable considerations.--In providing a timetable for
the commencing of the electronic transmission of all
personnel data by the Postal Service under paragraph (1), the
Office of Personnel Management shall consider the milestones
established by other payroll processors participating in the
retirement systems modernization project of the Office of
Personnel Management.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank all our colleagues. We have
made good bipartisan progress on a bipartisan bill that I think will go
a long way toward solving the current crisis situation in our U.S.
Postal Service.
We have several amendments remaining, approximately nine rollcall
votes--hopefully fewer as this goes on--and a number of other
amendments that we hope will be considered by a voice vote and perhaps
even, in the wisdom of the sponsor, withdrawn. At least I look at the
occupant of the chair, and I know he is a man who is very wise, and I
thank him.
Mr. President, in the normal order, Senator Manchin of West Virginia
is next up.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

Amendment No. 2079

Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, on behalf of my cosponsors, Senator
Rockefeller, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Merkley, I call up amendment
No. 2079.

[[Page S2684]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Manchin], for himself,
Mr. Rockefeller, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Merkley, proposes an
amendment numbered 2079.

Mr. MANCHIN. 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 extend the moratorium on the closing and consolidation of
postal facilities or post offices, station, or branches)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. MORATORIUM ON CLOSING AND CONSOLIDATING POSTAL
FACILITIES OR POST OFFICES, STATIONS, OR
BRANCHES.

(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``postal
facility'' has the same meaning as in section 404(f) of title
39, United States Code, as added by this Act.
(b) Moratorium.--Notwithstanding section 404 of title 39,
United States Code, as amended by this Act, or any other
provision of law, the Postal Service may not close or
consolidate a postal facility or post office, station, or
branch, except as required for the immediate protection of
health and safety, before the later of--
(1) the date on which the Postal Service establishes the
retail service standards under section 203 of this Act; and
(2) the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(c) Conforming Provision.--Section 205(b) of this Act shall
have no force or effect.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President and all of my colleagues here, this
amendment is the only one that will give us a chance to save, truly,
the American Postal Service. It is the only one. It is a 2-year
prohibition against closing any of our post offices and postal
services.
A lot of good things have been done and a lot of amendments have been
made already that nibble around the edges. This is the only amendment
that basically says: For a 2-year period, you have to sit down and
restructure this. Now, $200 million is what they are talking about. I
can go in many different directions with this, but that is 1 day in
Afghanistan.
This is what the little State of West Virginia will lose: 150 post
offices.
They are saying: Well, we have a 1-year moratorium. We can
restructure this and show where the savings should be.
I have a lot of different ideas on where the savings can be, but I
can tell you right now that we can start with former Postmaster General
Potter, who earned $501,000. That is more than the President of the
United States. There are a lot of savings at the top end of this. But
we could save these.
If you take these lifelines away--and this is all that people have.
They get their medicine and they get everything they do and depend on
their lifelines with these post offices. They have nothing else. Their
towns have just about gone away except for that connection. And I am
asking basically for my colleagues to consider keeping these lifelines.
Let us work and give us the 2-year period we need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, respectfully to my dear friend from
West Virginia, I am going to oppose this amendment, and let me put it
in this context. The U.S. Postal Service is in trouble. It is losing
about $23 million or $24 million on the average every day, more than
$13 billion in the last 2 years. It is not going to survive if the
status quo prevails. It needs to change. This bill provides for change
but in a way that we think is balanced and reasonable. My friend from
West Virginia has introduced an amendment that would prohibit all
change for the next 2 years and therefore I think open the way for a
kind of death spiral for the U.S. Postal Service.
There are many protections in our bill before a post office could be
closed, even more or just as many before a mail-processing facility
could be closed. We added more protections yesterday with the
McCaskill-Merkley and the Tester-Levin amendments, but they allow
change because without change this Postal Service of ours will die.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. MANCHIN. 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 question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and
the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms.
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

YEAS--43

Akaka
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Casey
Durbin
Enzi
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--53

Alexander
Ayotte
Bennet
Bingaman
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Franken
Graham
Grassley
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Klobuchar
Kyl
Lee
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Webb

NOT VOTING--4

Chambliss
Feinstein
Hatch
Kirk
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
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.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, next on the list is Senator Paul's
amendment No. 2026.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, at a time when America's infrastructure is
crumbling, at a time when the Postal Service is losing $4 billion a
year, does it make sense to send $2 billion to Egypt? Does it make
sense to borrow money from China to send it to Egypt? At a time when
American citizens are being prosecuted in Egypt, at a time when
American citizens are having international warrants sworn out on their
arrests by Egypt, does it make sense to send $2 billion to Egypt?
Last week I met with a young prodemocracy worker from Egypt. She is
afraid to return home. She is afraid she will never see her children
again. She is afraid of the cage they will put her in to prosecute her
for political crimes. She fears that the Egyptian freedom movement will
die in its infancy.
So I ask--for as long as prodemocracy workers are being prosecuted,
American and Egyptian--I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No.
2023 and that it be voted on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I object on the same grounds we discussed earlier in
this debate. It is irrelevant to the subject matter of the Postal
Service.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to not offer my
amendment No. 2026, and I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 2076

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2076.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S2685]]

The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an
amendment numbered 2076.

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 require that State liaisons for States without a district
office are located within their respective States)

On page 48, line 2, after ``State.'' insert the following:
``An employee designated under this subsection to represent
the needs of Postal Service customers in a State shall be
located in that State.''.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by my
colleague, Senator Udall, and would require State liaisons for States
that do not have district offices in them to be located within the
States they represent. This is a commonsense amendment. There are 10
States that will not have district offices in them. As currently
contemplated, they are operated out of district offices in adjacent
States.
The substitute amendment would require the Postal Service to
designate at least one employee to be a State liaison, and this
amendment I am offering says that person must be located within the
State they represent.
I ask all my colleagues to support this. I don't see any basis for
objection to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is an excellent and thoughtful
amendment introduced by the Senator from New Mexico, and I am glad to
support it. I urge that it be accepted by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2076) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2027

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, next is the amendment offered by
Senator Paul, amendment No. 2027.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous to call up amendment No.
2027.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 2027.

Mr. PAUL. 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 require the closing of post offices in the Capitol
Complex)

At the end of title II, insert the following:

SEC. __. CAPITOL COMPLEX POST OFFICES.

(a) House of Representatives.--
(1) In general.--The Postal Service shall not maintain or
operate more than 1 post office in the United States Capitol
Complex, as defined in section 310(a)(3)(B) of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1990 (2 U.S.C.
130e(a)(3)(B)), which shall be located in a House Office
Building.
(2) Closing of capitol post offices.--The Postal Service
shall close any post office in the United States Capitol
Complex, as defined in section 310(a)(3)(B) of the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1990 (2 U.S.C.
130e(a)(3)(B)), not permitted under this subsection, without
regard to the requirements under section 404(d) of title 39,
United States Code.
(b) Senate.--
(1) In general.--The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the
Senate may not enter into, modify, or renew a contract with
the Postal Service to maintain or operate more than 1 post
office in a Senate Office Building.
(2) Existing contracts.--Nothing in paragraph (1) may be
construed to affect a contract entered into by the Sergeant
at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate and the Postal Service
before the date of enactment of this Act.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, at a time when we are asking post offices
and people around our country to suffer the loss of their local post
office, I think the very least we can do is show we are willing to give
up some of the post offices around here. We have seven post offices in
the Capitol. We have a post office in almost every building. I am
asking that we have one on the House side and one on the Senate side.
If we are asking people to suffer the loss of their post offices in
their States, I think the very least we can do is do without a few post
offices here, and I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this is a commonsense amendment. It would
limit the number of post offices in the Capitol Complex to one on each
side--one in the House and one in the Senate. It does not affect the
processing of mail out of the Capitol, and I believe we should accept
the amendment.
I urge that we accept the amendment by a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2027) 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.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, next on the list is Senator Cardin's
amendment No. 2040, which I understand he will withdraw.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am going to withdraw the amendment. Let
me point out that this amendment was offered in an effort to make sure
we can continue overnight delivery in most of our country by keeping
open processing centers that are necessary. The underlying substitute
that Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Senator Carper, and Senator
Brown brought forward accomplishes that goal. I don't believe this
amendment is necessary. For that reason, I will not offer the
amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Maryland for
moving expeditiously. I hope it will continue.
Next is Senator Paul's amendment No. 2028.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 2028

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment
No. 2028.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 2028.

Mr. PAUL. 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 establish a pilot program to test alternative methods for
the delivery of postal services)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PILOT PROGRAM TO TEST ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR THE
DELIVERY OF POSTAL SERVICES.

(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``review board''
means a postal performance review board established under
subsection (c)(2).
(b) Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--The United States Postal Service may
conduct a pilot program to test the feasibility and
desirability of alternative methods for the delivery of
postal services. Subject to the provisions of this section,
the pilot program shall not be limited by any lack of
specific authority under title 39, United States Code, to
take any action contemplated under the pilot program.
(2) Waivers.--
(A) In general.--The Postal Service may waive any provision
of law, rule, or regulation inconsistent with any action
contemplated under the pilot program.
(B) Content.--A waiver granted by the Postal Service under
subparagraph (A) may include a waiver of requirements
relating to--
(i) days of mail delivery;
(ii) the use of cluster-boxes;
(iii) alternative uses of mailboxes; and
(iv) potential customer charges for daily at-home delivery.
(C) Regulations and consultation.--The Postal Service shall
issue any waiver under subparagraph (A)--
(i) in accordance with regulations under subsection (h);
and
(ii) with respect to a waiver involving a provision of
title 18, United States Code, in consultation with the
Attorney General.
(c) Requirements.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Application.--Under the pilot program, alternative
methods for the delivery of postal services may be tested
only in a community that submits an appropriate application
(together with a written plan)--

[[Page S2686]]

(i) in such time, form, and manner as the Postal Service by
regulation requires; and
(ii) that is approved by the Postal Service.
(B) Contents.--Any application under this paragraph shall
include--
(i) a description of the postal services that would be
affected;
(ii) the alternative providers selected and the postal
services each would furnish (or the manner in which those
decisions would be made);
(iii) the anticipated costs and benefits to the Postal
Service and users of the mail;
(iv) the anticipated duration of the participation of the
community in the pilot program;
(v) a specific description of any actions contemplated for
which there is a lack of specific authority or for which a
waiver under subsection (b)(2) would be necessary; and
(vi) any other information as the Postal Service may
require.
(2) Review boards.--
(A) In general.--Under the pilot program, a postmaster
within a community may, in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Postal Service, establish a postal
performance review board.
(B) Functions.--A review board shall--
(i) submit any application under paragraph (1) on behalf of
the community that the review board represents; and
(ii) carry out the plan on the basis of which any
application with respect to that community is approved.
(C) Membership.--A review board shall consist of--
(i) the postmaster for the community (or, if there is more
than 1, the postmaster designated in accordance with
regulations under subsection (h));
(ii) at least 1 individual who shall represent the
interests of business concerns; and
(iii) at least 1 individual who shall represent the
interests of users of the class of mail for which the most
expeditious handling and transportation is afforded by the
Postal Service.
(iv) Chairperson.--The postmaster for the community (or
postmaster so designated) shall serve as chairperson of the
review board.
(3) Alternative providers.--To be eligible to be selected
as an alternative provider of postal services, a provider
shall be a commercial enterprise, nonprofit organization,
labor organization, or other person that--
(A) possesses the personnel, equipment, and other
capabilities necessary to furnish the postal services
concerned;
(B) satisfies any security and other requirements as may be
necessary to safeguard the mail, users of the mail, and the
general public;
(C) submits a bid to the appropriate review board in such
time, form, and manner (together with such accompanying
information) as the review board may require; and
(D) meets such other requirements as the review board may
require, consistent with any applicable regulations under
subsection (h).
(4) Use of postal facilities and equipment.--A postmaster
may, at the discretion of the postmaster, allow alternative
providers to use facilities and equipment of the Postal
Service. Any such use proposed by a person in a bid submitted
under paragraph (3)(C) shall, for purposes of the competitive
bidding process, be taken into account using the fair market
value of such use.
(5) Applications from communities with potential
closures.--When reviewing and granting applications, the
Postal Service shall give priority to applications from
communities identified for potential post office closures.
(d) Limitation on Applications.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), no
more than 250 applications may be approved for participation
in the pilot program under this section at any 1 time.
(2) Increased limitation.--If more than 250 applications
for participation in the pilot program are filed during the
90-day period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act,
no more than 500 applications may be approved for
participation in the pilot program under this section at any
1 time.
(e) Termination of Community Participation.--Subject to
such conditions as the Postal Service may by regulation
prescribe and the terms of any written agreement or contract
entered into in conformance with such regulations, the
participation of a community in the pilot program may be
terminated by the Postal Service or by the review board for
that community if the Postal Service or the review board
determines that the continued participation of the community
is not in the best interests of the public or the Government
of the United States.
(f) Evaluations.--
(1) In general.--The Postal Service shall evaluate the
operation of the pilot program within each community that
participates in the pilot program.
(2) Contents.--An evaluation under this subsection shall
include an examination, as applicable, of--
(A) the reliability of mail delivery (including the rate of
misdeliveries) in the community;
(B) the timeliness of mail delivery (including the time of
day that mail is delivered and the time elapsing from the
postmarking to delivery of mail) in the community;
(C) the volume of mail delivered in the community; and
(D) any cost savings or additional costs to the Postal
Service attributable to the use of alternative providers.
(3) Analysis of data.--Data included in any evaluation
under this subsection shall be analyzed--
(A) by community characteristics, time of year, and type of
postal service;
(B) by residential, business, and any other type of mail
user; and
(C) on any other basis as the Postal Service may determine.
(4) Submission of evaluations.--Not later than 90 days
after the date on which the pilot program terminates, the
Postal Service shall submit each evaluation under this
subsection and an overall evaluation of the pilot program to
the President and Congress.
(g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect the obligation of the Postal Service to
continue providing universal service, in accordance with
otherwise applicable provisions of law, in all aspects not
otherwise provided for under this section.
(h) Regulations.--The Postal Service may prescribe any
regulations necessary to carry out this section.
(i) Termination.--
(1) Termination by the postal service.--The Postmaster
General may terminate the pilot program under this section
before the date described in paragraph (2)(A), if--
(A) the Postmaster General determines that continuation of
the pilot program is not in the best interests of the public
or the Government of the United States; and
(B) the Postal Regulatory Commission approves the
termination.
(2) Termination after 5 years.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph (B),
the authority to conduct the pilot program under this section
shall terminate 5 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(B) Extensions.--
(i) In general.--The Postmaster General may extend the
authority to conduct the pilot program under this section, if
before the date that the authority to conduct the pilot
program would otherwise terminate, the Postmaster General
submits a notice of extension to Congress that includes--

(I) the term of the extension; and
(II) the reasons that the extension is in the best
interests of the public or the Government of the United
States.

(ii) Multiple extensions.--The Postmaster General may
provide for more than 1 extension under this subparagraph.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this amendment would allow a pilot program
for local postal autonomy. One of the complaints I heard from
postmasters when they came to talk to me about this bill is that they
think there is a lot of middle management in the Postal Service making
unwise decisions, and if they were given more autonomy at the local
level to make decisions about their post offices, they would have the
ability to have cost-saving measures to try to save the post office for
their local community. I think this makes sense. I think we would have
more innovation and get some useful ideas from our local postmasters.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I respectfully oppose this amendment.
This would actually fracture the U.S. Postal Service as we have known
it, as a national institution that maintains national standards,
including the promise of universal service wherever one lives or does
business, by authorizing localities to break away. I think that in
doing so, it would jeopardize the foundation promise our Postal Service
made since the beginning of universal service. So I would oppose the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this amendment establishes what is
essentially a privatization pilot program for the alternative delivery
of mail outside of the universal service mandate of the Postal Service.
I believe it would create chaos by allowing for inconsistent delivery
standards across the country. It would cause cream skimming of
profitable delivery areas, and that would harm rural America.
I urge rejection of the amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this amendment doesn't change any of the
postal mandates and, to tell my colleagues the truth, the system we
have now is not working very well. I think we do need some innovation,
so I think it would be a good idea to vote for this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.

[[Page S2687]]

The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2028.
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 35, nays 64, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

YEAS--35

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

NAYS--64

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Hoeven
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
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.
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, the next amendment is Senator Carper's
amendment No. 2065.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
amendment No. 2065.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment has
not been proposed.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Delaware.

Amendment No. 2029, as Modified

Mr. President, we go now to Senator Paul's amendment No. 2029.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
2029 with the modifications at the desk be reported.
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 Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 2029, as modified.

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 require the Postal Service to take into consideration the
impact of regulations when developing a profitability plan)

On page 136, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
(5) the impact of--
(A) regulations the Postmaster General was required by
Congress to promulgate; and
(B) congressional action required to facilitate the
profitability of the Postal Service;
On page 136, line 15, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
On page 136, line 18, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, this amendment would add a technical change
to the profitability plan that is already required under the bill, and
it would simply ask that when they do the profitability plan, they
report on whether Congress is helping or hurting. A lot of times we do
things that are well intentioned that may not work out. I think they
need to let us know more about whether Congress is helping or hurting
the process.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I support the amendment. The underlying
bill requires the Postal Service to send us a detailed plan for
attaining long-term financial solvency. This amendment would add
several factors to the list of items that should be considered in the
report. I think it strengthens the bill, and I urge its adoption by
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I too support the amendment and urge its
adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on the adoption of the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2029), 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.

Amendment No. 2066

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, next is Senator Carper's amendment No.
2066.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2066.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper] proposes an
amendment numbered 2066.

Mr. CARPER. 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 appropriately limit the compensation of executives of the
Postal Service)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.

(a) Limit on Maximum Compensation.--
(1) Number of executives.--Section 3686(c) of title 39,
United States Code, is amended in the first sentence by
striking ``12 officers'' and inserting ``6 officers''.
(2) Interim limitation.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
and notwithstanding section 3686(c) of title 39, United
States Code, as amended by this Act, for 2012, 2013, 2014,
and 2015, the total compensation of an officer or employee of
the Postal Service may not exceed the annual amount of basic
pay payable for level I of the Executive Schedule under
section 5312 of title 5.
(B) Performance based compensation relating to solvency
plan.--
(i) In general.--Any compensation relating to achieving the
goals established under the plan under section 401 shall not
apply toward the limit on compensation under subparagraph
(A).
(ii) Other limitations apply.--Nothing in this subparagraph
shall be construed to modify the limitation on compensation
under subsections (b) and (c) of section 3686 of title 39,
United States Code, as amended by this Act.
(b) Carry Over Compensation.--The Postal Service may not
pay compensation for service performed during a year (in this
subsection referred to as the ``base year'') in any
subsequent year if the total amount of compensation provided
relating to service during the base year would exceed the
amount specified under section 3686(c) of title 39, United
States Code, as amended by this Act, or subsection (a)(2), as
applicable.
(c) Benefits.--Section 1003 of title 39, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Limitations on Benefits.--For any fiscal year, an
officer or employee of the Postal Service who is in a
critical senior executive or equivalent position, as
designated under section 3686(c), may not receive fringe
benefits (within the meaning given that term under section
1005(f)) that are greater than the fringe benefits received
by supervisory and other managerial personnel who are not
subject to collective-bargaining agreements under chapter
12.''.
(d) Effective Date; Applicability.--This section and the
amendments made by this section shall--
(1) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) apply to any contract entered or modified by the Postal
Service on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, some of our colleagues have raised
justifiable concerns about the level of compensation that has gone to
some of the most senior officials at the U.S. Postal Service. The
compensation package for one previous leader of the Postal Service was
in excess of $1 million. In a day and age when rank-and-file postal
employees are going to be asked to make some sacrifices as labor
negotiations go forward, I think it is important for us to remember the
concept of leadership by example.
This amendment makes sure that, frankly, deferred compensation
packages of the kind I just described do not

[[Page S2688]]

occur. We cut in half--from 12 to 6--the number of postal executives
who are able to receive compensation in excess of a Cabinet-level
salary, but to give the Board of Governors the ability to pay a fee for
good progress toward reducing the budget deficit at the Postal Service
through pay above that up to about $270,000.
The last thing we say is, the idea that senior executives at the
Postal Service do not have to pay anything for health care or do not
have to pay anything for their life insurance is wrong and that should
end. We do that with this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I support the amendment on executive
compensation. I believe it addresses this matter in a manner that
President Bush 41 might have called prudent. I urge it be adopted by a
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2066) 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.

Amendment No. 2039

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the next amendment is Senator Paul's
amendment No. 2039.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2039.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 2039.

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 prohibit employees of the United States Postal Service
from engaging in collective bargaining)

At the end of title I, add the following:

SEC. 107. PROHIBITION ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

(a) In General.--Section 1206 of title 39 is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 1206. Prohibition on collective-bargaining agreements

``The Postal Service may not enter into a collective-
bargaining agreement with any labor organization.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 12 of
title 39, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 1202--
(A) in the section heading, by striking ``Bargaining
units'' and inserting ``Employee organizations'';
(B) by striking the first sentence; and
(C) by striking ``The National Labor Relations Board shall
not include in any bargaining unit--'' and inserting ``An
organization of employees of the United States Postal Service
shall not include--'';
(2) in section 1203, by striking subsections (c), (d), and
(e);
(3) in section 1204(a), by striking ``shall be conducted
under the supervision of the National Labor Relations Board,
or persons designated by it, and'';
(4) in section 1205(a), by striking ``not subject to
collective-bargaining agreements'';
(5) by striking sections 1207, 1208, and 1209; and
(6) in the table of sections--
(A) by striking the item relating to section 1202 and
inserting the following:

``1203. Employee organizations.''; and

(B) by striking the items relating to sections 1206, 1207,
1208, and 1209 and inserting the following:

``1206. Prohibition on collective-bargaining agreements.''.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, let's be frank. The Postal Service is
bankrupt and only dramatic action will fix the Postal Service. The
problem is labor costs. Eighty percent of the Postal Service's costs
are labor. If we look at UPS, it is about 50 percent. If we look at
FedEx, it is about 38 percent. Before we close one post office, before
we end Saturday mail, before we ask citizens to get poorer services for
higher prices, maybe we ought to look at the root of the problem.
Even FDR--the biggest of the big government advocates--said this
about collective bargaining:

All Government employees should realize that the process of
collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be
transplanted into the public service.

So agreeing with FDR, I hope my colleagues from across the aisle will
agree with their patron saint FDR and will support this amendment that
would end collective bargaining.
In the interest of time, I will be happy to have a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this amendment would strip from the
postal workers the right to collectively bargain. This is an enormous
change in labor law. Postal workers have had the right to engage in
collective bargaining for more than 30 years. We did make changes in
this bill in the arbitration process. We made sure if a contract
dispute goes to arbitration, the arbitrator has to consider the
financial condition of the Postal Service. That will help bring balance
into the system. But there is no justification for completely removing
the right of workers to collectively bargain.
I urge we reject the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2039.
Mr. PAUL. 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 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 23, nays 76, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

YEAS--23

Barrasso
Burr
Chambliss
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Kyl
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Risch
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter

NAYS--76

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

NOT VOTING--1

Kirk

Amendment No. 2042

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 2042. This
is really an amendment that maintains standards that we have had a
right to expect and have expected for many generations; that is, the
standard of service that the Postal Service has come to be known for.
I call up amendment No. 2042.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Casey] proposes an
amendment numbered 2042.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To maintain current delivery time for market-dominant
products)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. MAINTENANCE OF DELIVERY SERVICE STANDARDS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``2011
market-dominant product service standards'' means the
expected delivery time for market-dominant products entered
into

[[Page S2689]]

the network of sectional center facilities that existed on
September 15, 2011, under part 121 of title 39, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on March 14, 2010).
(2) Maintenance of delivery time.--Notwithstanding
subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 3691 of title 39,
United States Code, the Postal Service may not increase the
expected delivery time for market-dominant products, relative
to the 2011 market-dominant product service standards,
earlier than the date that is 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Postal facilities.--Section 404(f) of title 39, United
States Code, as added by this Act, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (6)(C)--
(i) by striking ``3-year period'' and inserting ``4-year
period''; and
(ii) by striking ``section 201 of''; and
(B) in paragraph (7)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``, including the
service standards established under section 201 of the 21st
Century Postal Service Act of 2012''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, including the
service standards established under section 201 of the 21st
Century Postal Service Act of 2012,''.
(2) Definition.--For purposes of section 206(a)(2), the
term ``continental United States'' means the 48 contiguous
States and the District of Columbia.
(3) Section 201.--Section 201 of this Act shall have no
force or effect.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, this is about the standard of service that
we have come to expect from the Postal Service for many generations. I
realize a lot of work has gone into this consensus that has developed.
We know we need to make changes to the Postal Service. But one thing we
should not change or downgrade or compromise or degrade in any way is
the standard of service.
I think what we should do is have a 4-year moratorium on the
implementation that would lead to changes because there will be a lot
of changes made in the next couple of years upon enactment. What we
should not do, though, is move too quickly to change the standard of
service that people have had a right to rely upon.
I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I should note for
the record the cosponsors: Senators Brown of Ohio, Senator Sanders,
Senator Baucus, Senator Leahy, Senator McCaskill, Senator Shaheen,
Senator Merkley, and Senator Menendez.
I would ask for a ``yes'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment by my
friend from Pennsylvania. Everybody acknowledges that the Postal
Service is in crisis, losing $23 million a day. Mail volume has dropped
21 percent in the last 5 years. That means everybody--we simply cannot
afford every mail processing facility that exists because there is not
that much mail anymore.
The Postal Service will only survive if we change it. Our bill allows
for orderly change. This amendment would basically maintain the status
quo for 4 years. I think doing so is a kind of invitation to the Postal
Service to go into bankruptcy. Our country cannot afford that. So,
respectfully, I would oppose the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to Casey amendment No. 2042.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
Conrad) is necessarily absent.
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 44, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

YEAS--44

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

NAYS--54

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

NOT VOTING--2

Conrad
Kirk
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of the amendment, the amendment is rejected.
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. The next amendment is Senator Paul's amendment No.
2038. He has asked that I withdraw from the list that amendment on his
behalf.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2072

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Next is Senator Landrieu's amendment No. 2072.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2072.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an
amendment numbered 2072.

Ms. LANDRIEU. 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 determine the impact of certain postal facility closures
or consolidations on small businesses)

On page 32, line 15, insert ``(F) the effect of the closing
or consolidation on small businesses in the area, including
shipping and communications with customers and suppliers and
the corresponding impact on revenues, operations, and growth;
and'', and strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(G)'' before the
clause that follows.
On page 41, line 11, insert ``(ii) the effect of the
closing or consolidation on small businesses in the area,
including shipping and communications with customers and
suppliers and the corresponding impact on revenues,
operations, and growth; and'', and strike ``(ii)'' and insert
``(iii)'' before the clause that follows.
On page 53, line 1, strike ``customers and communities''
and insert ``customers, communities, and small businesses''.
On page 57, line 3, strike ``customers and communities''
and insert ``customers, communities, and small businesses''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
I rise in support of this amendment, offered on behalf of myself and
my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Stabenow, and Shaheen.
We are very concerned that the Postal Service has not looked
carefully enough at the impact some of its decisions might have on
small businesses that rely on their operations. So all this amendment
says--and I understand there is no opposition, so we might be able to
take it by voice vote--is that included in the studies the Postal
Service is going to do to analyze their way forward, they must consider
the impact on small businesses they serve. As you know, in some areas,
particularly rural areas, this is an arm of the small business, and we
can't have that arm chopped off.
So that is the amendment. I don't believe there is any opposition,
and if the managers would accept this by voice vote, we could save some
time.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu for proposing
this amendment. I support it enthusiastically. It will strengthen the
protections regarding the closing of processing facilities, and it
requires the Postal Service to take into account the impact of any
potential closing or consolidation on small businesses.
This amendment reminds us how many people and how many businesses,
including particularly small businesses, across America depend on the

[[Page S2690]]

U.S. Postal Service and why it is so important for us to change it to
save it. So I thank my friend from Louisiana for proposing this
amendment.
I urge adoption of this amendment by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2072) was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion
on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Next is Senator DeMint's amendment No. 2046.

Amendment No. 2046

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2046.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 2046.

Mr. DeMINT. 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 protections for postal workers with respect to
their right not to subsidize union nonrepresentational activities)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PAYCHECK PROTECTION.

(a) Short Title.--The section may be cites as the
``Paycheck Protection Act''.
(b) Right Not To Subsidize Union Nonrepresentational
Activities.--Chapter 12 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1210. RIGHT NOT TO SUBSIDIZE UNION NONREPRESENTATIONAL
ACTIVITIES.

``No Postal Service employee's labor organization dues,
fees, or assessments or other contributions shall be used or
contributed to any person, organization, or entity for any
purpose not directly germane to the labor organization's
collective bargaining or contract administration functions
unless the member, or nonmember required to make such
payments as a condition of employment, authorizes such
expenditure in writing, after a notice period of not less
than 35 days. An initial authorization provided by an
employee under the preceding sentence shall expire not later
than 1 year after the date on which such authorization is
signed by the employee. There shall be no automatic renewal
of an authorization under this section.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this amendment is the Paycheck Protection
Act, and it protects the first amendment rights of postal workers by
requiring postal labor unions to obtain prior approval from their
workers before they spend their dues money on behalf of political
parties, political candidates or other political advocacy.
Unions are the only organizations in many States that cannot only
force people to join but forcibly use their dues for political purposes
without the permission of the members. Sixty percent of union members
object to their dues being spent for political purposes without their
permission.
This amendment protects their right to have their dues used in the
way they intend them to be used. So I encourage my colleagues to
support this freedom, this protection of constitutional rights. It is
consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in Communications Workers v.
Beck.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. It is taking a
bill that has the urgent purpose of saving the U.S. Postal Service--
changing it to save it--and bringing in a matter of internal labor
union business.
The fact is no postal employee is forced to join a union, but once
one does, the union leadership can guide the policy positions the union
supports through the democratic processes within the union. No postal
employee himself or herself is forced to involuntarily support the
advocacy or political activities of a union. That is their choice--
whether to join it. But once they do, their leadership has the right to
participate in a political process.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to
Senator Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins be given 30
seconds to explain her position.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I urge support of Senator DeMint's amendment. It
protects the first amendment rights of postal workers by requiring that
unions obtain prior approval from workers before spending their dues on
political purposes.
I think this is probably the one and only amendment where I will
diverge with my chairman, but I do urge support of Senator DeMint's
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

YEAS--46

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

NAYS--53

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
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. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, next we have Senator McCaskill's
amendment No. 2030.

Amendment No. 2030

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2030.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mrs. McCaskill] proposes an
amendment numbered 2030.

Mrs. McCASKILL. I ask unanimous consent that further reading be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, April 17, 2012,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to a vote on amendment No. 2030, offered by the Senator
from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, S. 89 makes significant changes to
the Federal Employees Compensation Act, FECA, which I support. The
changes seek to reduce overspending in the program. But this is an
amendment that will allow a couple of considerations that I think are
important to include.

[[Page S2691]]

The amendment, along with other things, would improve upon the
current program by providing those injured while deployed in armed
conflict additional time to file a claim for FECA benefits and to
ensure that deployed employees injured in a terrorist attack overseas
while off-duty would receive the FECA benefits. It also creates an
exemption for hardship if someone would be eligible for food stamps if
their benefits are decreased even further.
These provisions are similar to the FECA reform legislation, H. Res.
2465, that has already passed the House of Representatives, and I ask
for the consideration of the body of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first let me commend the Senator from
Missouri for this amendment.
It does make a great deal of sense to have the hardship exemption and
to give more time for individuals who are injured in war zones and
longer deadlines for the paperwork for those individuals who might have
trouble submitting the paperwork from a war zone. We are talking about
civilian employees who are deployed there. This amendment makes a great
deal of sense, and I urge that it be accepted by a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2039) was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2036

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, we will go to Senator Pryor's
amendment No. 2036.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask that we go to amendment No. 2036.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], for himself and Mr.
Begich, proposes an amendment numbered 2036.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to the
closing and consolidation of postal facilities and post offices)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

It is the sense of the Senate that the Postal Service
should not close or consolidate any postal facility (as
defined in section 404(f) of title 39, United States Code, as
added by this Act) or post office before the date of
enactment of this Act.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, this, hopefully, will be a
noncontroversial amendment.
Basically, it is a sense of the Senate that the Postal Service should
not close any postal facilities or post offices until enactment of this
postal reform bill.
So this is a sense of the Senate. The idea is we don't know exactly
when the House is going to pass their bill, if they ever do. But we
will have a sense of the Senate on the record.
The Postal Service's self-imposed moratorium expires May 15.
Hopefully, this will give them time to extend this until a bill is
passed. If this bill does pass--and I hope it does--this is a major
reset for the Postal Service, and I hope much of the rationale for
closing these offices goes away with the passage of this bill.
Madam President, I would love to have a voice vote on this, if that
is possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Arkansas. This
is a good amendment, and I support it wholeheartedly and move its
adoption by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2036) was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 2073, as Modified

Mr. LIEBERMAN. We will now go to Senator Rockefeller's amendment No.
2073.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I call up my amendment No. 2073, 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 legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] proposes
an amendment numbered 2073, as modified.

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

Beginning on page 16, strike line 8 and all that follows
through page 23, line 6, and insert the following:

SEC. 105. MEDICARE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR POSTAL SERVICE
EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES.

(a) Educational Program.--The Postmaster General, in
consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare
& Medicaid Services, shall develop an educational program for
Postal Service employees and annuitants who may be eligible
to enroll in the Medicare program for hospital insurance
benefits under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.) (commonly known as ``Medicare
Part A'') and the Medicare program for supplementary medical
insurance benefits under part B of title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.) (commonly known as
``Medicare Part B''), the objective of which shall be to
educate employees and annuitants on how Medicare benefits
interact with and can supplement the benefits of the employee
or annuitant under the Federal Employees Health Benefit
Program.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to authorize the Postal Service to require a Postal
Service employee or annuitant (as defined in subsection (c))
to enroll in Medicare.
(c) Definition of Postal Service Employee or Annuitant.--In
this section, the term ``Postal Service employee or
annuitant'' means an individual who is--
(1) an employee of the Postal Service; or
(2) an annuitant covered under chapter 89 of title 5,
United States Code, whose Government contribution is paid by
the Postal Service under section 8906(g)(2) of such title.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, as modified, this amendment would
simply eliminate a very problematic provision in the underlying bill,
provision section 105, but it has a very bad effect, and this would
clear that up. It would shift onto Medicare and raise premiums for
current postal workers and retirees in some cases by as much as 35
percent. There is more to it, but that is the bulk of it. So I would
hope that it would be passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from West
Virginia.
Some questions were raised about parts of the bill relating to
accessibility to Medicare by postal employees. I think there has been a
good meeting of the minds with this modification. I support the
amendment as modified and urge its adoption by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2073, as modified.
Amendment (No. 2073), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Before we get to Senator Rockefeller's second
amendment, Senator Coburn has asked me to withdraw amendment No. 2059
on his behalf. I thank him for that.

Amendment No. 2074

We will now go to Senator Rockefeller's amendment No. 2074.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

Amendment No. 2074, as Modified

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2074 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.

[[Page S2692]]

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] proposes
amendment numbered 2074, as modified.

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

(Purpose: To improve the Postal Service Health Benefits Program).

On page 12, strike line 18 and all that follows through
page 16, line 7, and insert the following:

SEC. 104. POSTAL SERVICE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``covered employee'' means an officer or
employee of the Postal Service who is--
(A) represented by a bargaining representative recognized
under section 1203 of title 39, United States Code; or
(B) a member of the Postal Career Executive Service;
(2) the term ``Federal Employee Health Benefits Program''
means the health benefits program under chapter 89 of title
5, United States Code;
(3) the term ``participants'' means--
(A) covered employees; and
(B) officers and employees of the Postal Service who are
not covered employees and who elect to participate in the
Postal Service Health Benefits Program; and
(4) the term ``Postal Service Health Benefits Program''
means the health benefits program that may be agreed to under
subsection (b)(1).
(b) Collective Bargaining.--
(1) In general.--Consistent with section 1005(f) of title
39, United States Code, the Postal Service may negotiate
jointly with all bargaining representatives recognized under
section 1203 of title 39, United States Code, and enter into
a joint collective bargaining agreement with those bargaining
representatives to establish the Postal Service Health
Benefits Program that satisfies the conditions under
subsection (c). The Postal Service and the bargaining
representatives shall negotiate in consultation with the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
(2) Consultation with supervisory and managerial
personnel.--In the course of negotiations under paragraph
(1), the Postal Service shall consult with each of the
organizations of supervisory and other managerial personnel
that are recognized under section 1004 of title 39, United
States Code, concerning the views of the personnel
represented by each of those organizations.
(3) Arbitration limitation.--Notwithstanding chapter 12 of
title 39, United States Code, there shall not be arbitration
of any dispute in the negotiations under this subsection.
(4) Time limitation.--The authority under this subsection
shall extend until September 30, 2012.
(c) Postal Service Health Benefits Program.--The Postal
Service Health Benefits Program--
(1) shall--
(A) be available for participation by all covered
employees;
(B) be available for participation by any officer or
employee of the Postal Service who is not a covered employee,
at the option solely of that officer or employee;
(C) provide coverage that is actuarially equivalent to the
types of plans available under the Federal Employee Health
Benefits Program, as determined by the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management;
(D) be administered in a manner determined in a joint
agreement reached under subsection (b); and
(E) provide for transition of coverage under the Federal
Employee Health Benefits Program of all participants to
coverage under the Postal Service Health Benefits Program on
January 1, 2013;
(2) may provide dental benefits; and
(3) may provide vision benefits.
(d) Agreement and Implementation.--If a joint agreement is
reached under subsection (b)--
(1) the Postal Service shall implement the Postal Service
Health Benefits Program;
(2) the Postal Service Health Benefits Program shall
constitute an agreement between the collective bargaining
representatives and the Postal Service for purposes of
section 1005(f) of title 39, United States Code; and
(3) participants may not participate as employees in the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
(e) Government Plan.--The Postal Service Health Benefits
Program shall be a government plan as that term is defined
under section 3(32) of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(32)).
(f) Report.--Not later than June 30, 2013, the Postal
Service shall submit a report to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of
Representatives that--
(1) reports on the implementation of this section; and
(2) requests any additional statutory authority that the
Postal Service determines is necessary to carry out the
purposes of this section.
(g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as an endorsement by Congress for withdrawing
officers and employees of the Postal Service from the Federal
Employee Health Benefits Program.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I support the amendment, as modified,
and urge its adoption by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
Amendment (No. 2074), as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2050

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, next on the list is Senator Schumer's
amendment No. 2050.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. I call up my amendment No. 2050.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 2050.

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

(Purpose: To maintain all current door delivery point services)

On page 48, strike line 3 and all that follows through the
end of the matter between lines 5 and 6 on page 52.

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, there are more than 35 million
households and businesses that receive door delivery in every State
across the country. As originally written, the postal reform bill would
have pushed the Postal Service to stop delivering mail to individual
doors and mailboxes. Instead, the Postal Service would install
apartment complex style group boxes, where all the mail for a given
street or neighborhood would be delivered to the boxes that were
grouped together in one place. Rather than have mail delivered to their
mailbox or door, homeowners could have been forced to travel further
from their home simply to pick up the mail. My amendment simply
preserves the same door delivery only for customers who already receive
it. In other words, not for new complexes. But for existing houses,
they should keep the delivery the way it is.
What some people may not know is the Postal Service already has the
authority to eliminate door delivery, but the Postal Service has not
mandated such a change because they know how unpopular it would be. By
removing the door delivery provisions from this bill we can ensure the
Postal Service will continue to provide the door delivery service our
constituents expect and rely upon.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I urge the adoption of the amendment
by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2050) was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move reconsideration and ask the
motion be laid on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2071, as Modified

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Next will be Senator Tester, amendment No. 2032.
Senator Tester is not on the floor right now. I know we were building
up to Senator Warner's amendment as the last amendment, but this may
now be the second-to-last amendment. Next we will have Senator Warner
No. 2071.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask to call up amendment No. 2071.
There is an agreed-upon substitute text at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. WARNER. I thank Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins for their
help on this amendment. It is a simple amendment. One of the goals of
this process is to encourage retirement expected for 100,000 members of
the Postal Service. Unfortunately, now OPM has an over 50,000-person
backlog of retirement claims. This is unacceptable. We still have a
paper processing process. This amendment would require the

[[Page S2693]]

Postal Service to report on a regular basis, as well as OPM, on the
status of these retirement processing claims and hopefully speed up
this process and also compare it to the forms of other agencies. This
is completely unacceptable to folks who are retiring, waiting sometimes
up to a full year to get their retirement benefits. I thank the
chairman and the ranking member and ask for acceptance of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I support this amendment. There is an
inexcusable backlog at OPM in processing the application for retirement
benefits. It has caused real hardships for some retired Federal
employees and postal employees. This bill will obviously increase the
number of postal employees who will be seeking retirement benefits so I
think it is important we have the kind of reporting the Senator from
Virginia has proposed.
I urge acceptance of the amendment. I urge it be accepted by the
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
The amendment (No. 2071), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move for reconsideration and ask
the motion be placed on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2032

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The excitement builds now as we move to the last
amendment. Senator Tester has amendment No. 2032.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2032.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Tester], for himself and Mr.
Pryor, proposes an amendment numbered 2032.

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

(Purpose: To appropriately limit the pay of Postal Service executives)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.

(a) Limitations on Compensation.--Section 1003 of title 39,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the last sentence; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Limitations on Compensation.--
``(1) Rates of basic pay.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), an officer
or employee of the Postal Service may not be paid at a rate
of basic pay that exceeds the rate of basic pay for level II
of the Executive Schedule under section 5313 of title 5.
``(B) Very senior executives.--Not more than 6 officers or
employees of the Postal Service that are in very senior
executive positions, as determined by the Board of Governors,
may be paid at a rate of basic pay that does not exceed the
rate of basic pay for level I of the Executive Schedule under
section 5312 of title 5.
``(2) Benefits.--For any fiscal year, an officer or
employee of the Postal Service who is in a critical senior
executive or equivalent position, as designated under section
3686(c), may not receive fringe benefits (within the meaning
given that term under section 1005(f)) that are greater than
the fringe benefits received by supervisory and other
managerial personnel who are not subject to collective-
bargaining agreements under chapter 12.''.
(b) Limitation on Bonus Authority.--Section 3686 of title
39, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The Postal Service''
and inserting ``Subject to subsection (f), the Postal
Service''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Limitation on Bonus Authority.--
``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `covered
year' means the fiscal year following a fiscal year relating
to which the Office of Management and Budget determines the
Postal Service has not implemented the measures needed to
achieve long-term solvency, as defined in section 208(e) of
the 21st Century Postal Service Act of 2012.
``(2) Limitation.--The Postal Service may not provide a
bonus or other reward under this section to an officer or
employee of the Postal service in a critical senior executive
or equivalent position, as designated under subsection (c),
during a covered year.''.
(c) Effective Date; Applicability.--The amendments made by
subsections (a) and (b) shall--
(1) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) apply to any contract entered or modified by the Postal
Service on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Sunset.--Effective 2 years after the date of enactment
of this Act--
(1) section 1003 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``No officer or employee shall be paid compensation at a rate
in excess of the rate for level I of the Executive Schedule
under section 5312 of title 5.''; and
(B) by striking subsection (e); and
(2) section 3686 of title 39, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``Subject to subsection
(f), the Postal Service'' and inserting ``The Postal
Service''; and
(B) by striking subsection (f).

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, this amendment is pretty simple. I thank
Senator Pryor for joining me on it. It basically is an amendment that
reduces compensation for the senior executives at the Postal Service.
It limits the six most senior Postal Service employees to a base salary
no more than we pay our Cabinet Secretary, which is just a skosh under
$200,000. There are going to be some changes in the Postal Service.
Some of these cuts are going to take place at the lower end, some in
the middle management, some at the upper end.
To be fair, everybody needs to feel the pain and besides that, to be
right fair, the Postmaster is an important job but so is the Secretary
of Defense, Secretary of State, and others. I don't think we should be
paying him more than what we do our Cabinet Secretaries. After all, the
Postal Service is public service. I ask Senators' concurrence on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Montana for
his amendment. He explained it well and I urge its adoption by voice
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2032) was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I move for reconsideration and ask
that motion be laid on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, colleagues, we have completed all the
amendments on the bill and we are ready to vote on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Madam President, the power of Congress to establish post
offices is enshrined in our Constitution, and the U.S. Postal Service
has been a valued institution since the earliest days of our Republic.
Today, the Postal Service accounts for millions of jobs nationwide. It
is essential that we have a viable and effective Postal Service in the
long term. Unfortunately, the Postal Service is currently facing
critical financial challenges that have been brought on by a number of
factors, including the movement to electronic forms of communication.
This situation requires immediate attention of Congress.
The bill we are voting on today, the 21st Century Postal Service Act,
is not perfect. I am particularly disappointed that the Senate did not
agree to an amendment that I supported that would have preserved 6-day
delivery, and I am concerned that a permanent switch to 5-day delivery
could lead to the further erosion of jobs and the undermining of the
Postal Service. However, it is clear that we cannot afford to do
nothing. Congressional inaction, coupled with the extreme measures
being pushed by the Postal Service's leadership, will result in drastic
changes that would seriously undermine our Nation's mail system,
beginning with the closure of a number of post offices and mail
processing facilities across the country. I am concerned that the
changes sought by the Postal Service's leadership will severely
undermine the Postal Service's long-term viability and threaten
thousands of good jobs. We cannot allow that to happen.
The 21st Century Postal Service Act includes a number of important
provisions designed to put the Postal Service back on solid footing. It
will allow for the refunding of overpayments by the Postal Service to
the Federal Employees Retirement System and ease

[[Page S2694]]

the prefunding requirement for the Postal Service's retiree health
benefits. It also strengthens the review process for closing post
offices and facilities and encourages innovation by the Postal Service
to improve its business model with the goal of returning to
profitability.
I am also concerned that the version of postal reform legislation
that is eventually passed by the House of Representatives could prove
to be very damaging. When the Senate considers the final version of
postal reform legislation that is negotiated by the two Chambers, I
will carefully consider the changes that have been made before lending
my support to its passage.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise support of my amendment, which has
been modified in consultation with the managers of the Postal Reform
bill, S. 1789. I am very pleased that both Chairman Lieberman and
Ranking Minority Member Collins have agreed to accept my amendment to
further strengthen the segment of the bill governing proposed
consolidations for the Postal Service's processing and distribution
facilities.
With my amendment as part of the underlying bill, the Postal
Regulatory Commission, PRC, will now independently verify the Postal
Service's methodology and estimated costs savings from proposed plant
consolidations. In other words, starting with those facilities
currently under review, the Postal Service will no longer have
unchecked authority to close or consolidate these important facilities.
The Postal Service has unfortunately proven itself unable to make
these decisions, many of which have far-reaching implications for the
quality of service of postal customers, without proper oversight, fact-
checking and third-party verification.
As part of a major restructuring of the Postal Service's mail
delivery infrastructure, Postmaster General Donahue proposed closing
and consolidating 232 mail processing and distribution facilities
across the United States. Unfortunately for the people of Maine, his
proposal included the consolidation of the Eastern Maine Processing and
Distribution Facility in Hampden into the Southern Maine Processing and
Distribution Facility located in Scarborough.
This was a fundamentally flawed proposal from its inception. The
Eastern Maine Processing and Distribution Facility, located
approximately 144 miles away from Maine's other mail processing
facility in Scarborough, ME, currently processes mail destined for
eastern, western, and northern Maine. Without this facility, mail
service to communities, families, the elderly, and businesses
throughout most of Maine would be severely delayed.
I strongly opposed this proposed consolidation from the beginning. In
December, I visited the facility and met with the plant's manager and
employees. During the visit, I conveyed my strenuous opposition to the
plan and questioned the ability of the Postal Service to save money by
shifting jobs from Hampden to Scarborough.
As part of its consolidation process, the Postal Service holds public
meetings in communities facing the loss of a Processing and
Distribution facility. For Hampden, the Postal Service held a public
meeting on January 11 2012, which I attended, along with approximately
300 other Mainers, all of whom opposed the Postal Service's
recommendation.
In advance of the public meeting, my staff carefully reviewed the
Postal Service's Area Mail Processing--AMP--report, which contained the
estimated cost savings for consolidating the Hampden facility. In
reviewing the AMP report, we discovered a very large mathematical
error.
The Postal Service originally claimed that eliminating two white
collar management positions at the plant would save almost $800,000.
When my office started asking questions about this, the Postal Service
backtracked to claiming that eliminating these jobs would save only
$120,000 in advance of its public meeting.
Shockingly enough, the Postal Service's final AMP report which was
released in February retained the obviously mistaken claim that
eliminating these two positions saved almost $800,000. In all, the
Postal Service has resumed mistakenly claiming almost 400 percent more
in savings than would be accurate.
Under my amendment, if a local community is opposing a proposed
consolidation, it can appear that recommendation to the Postal
Regulatory Commission--PRC--which will be able to independently review
the Postal Service's methodology and estimated cost savings to guard
against facilities being closed due to faulty calculations by the
Postal Service. If the PRC concludes that the AMP report was mistaken
or inaccurate, the PRC has the authority to prevent closure or
consolidation from moving forward until the facts are corrected.
With my amendment being added to the underlying bill, local
communities will now be assured of an even playing field and a thorough
and accurate assessment of the impact of any closure or consolidation.
In closing, I wish to thank the managers of the bill for accepting my
amendment and I urge the Senate to adopt it by voice vote.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, while the amended bill before us is far
from perfect, I will vote in support. Failure to pass a bill could
result in the Postal Service pursuing a misguided course of post office
and facility closures. Such a dramatic course would irreparably harm
the ability of the Postal Service to provide postal services and would
in fact, threaten the viability of the US Postal System. While, as a
whole, the USPS needs to be a rate-payer supported organization, not
every post office needs to post a profit. In fact, while some post
offices are too small to turn a profit, they are still an important
part of the Postal System and a vital part of their community. And,
based on the estimates I have seen, the projected cost-savings from the
proposed closing of the 3,700 post office locations would offset but a
tiny part of the USPS's current financial problems. These closures
would deliver a painful blow to the communities they serve, but would
reduce the Postal Service's deficit by less than 1 percent.
The bill includes an amendment that I offered with Senators Tester
and Franken that requires that substantial economic savings be shown
before a post office or processing facility is closed and clarifies
that a proposed closure shall be suspended during appeal to the Postal
Regulatory Commission, PRC. This amendment will help ensure that any
post office and facility closures do not unduly impact a community's
access to postal services and that any such closure is economically
justified.
There is no doubt that the Postal Service has faced a decline in
first class mail volume over the past few years and will need to make
significant adjustments in the future. I am hopeful that the Postal
Service will work with Congress as the mail system continues to
transform so that postal services can be continued and to ensure that
the Postal Service is able to offer new and innovative services so it
can remain viable in the 21st Century.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I will vote for S. 1789, the 21st
Century Postal Service Act, because it is undeniable that the Postal
Service is facing a crisis and something must be done very soon. There
are those who say that this bill goes too far in reforming the Postal
Service and implementing uncomfortable changes, and then there are
those who say that this bill does not go far enough in transforming the
Postal Service to be viable in the long term. I agree that this bill is
not perfect. It is a compromise so just about everyone can find
something in it to dislike. However, unless we do something to help the
Postal Service cut costs, the borrowing authority of the Postal Service
will run out in the fall and it will be unable to make payroll. I will
support this bill, imperfect though it is, because we need to make
progress in addressing this looming crisis now. Otherwise, if we wait
much longer, we will be faced with a choice between a shut-down of mail
service across our country or a massive taxpayer bailout, both of which
would hurt the economy and take money out of the pockets of hardworking
Americans.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on S. 1789 and give the Postal Service both the financial footing and
the business tools it needs to compete in this new communications age.
Let's start by facing facts. USPS is losing business and losing
money. If we

[[Page S2695]]

do nothing, on May 15th the Postmaster will be allowed to implement his
own downsizing plan, which is far more severe than this bill allows and
will lead to a loss of jobs and services that could be painful in this
fragile economy, especially to our small towns and rural communities.
We have another choice.
To all my colleagues who say they are worried about the burdens the
Postmaster's proposal to close 3,700 post offices will impose on
families and businesses of their states, I say: ``Vote for this bill.''
It requires the Postal Service issue service standards that ensure
communities throughout the country have access to retail postal
services, and requires offering alternatives to closures, such as
reduced hours at existing facilities, or permitting private contractors
or rural carriers to provide services.
To all my colleagues who worry about the loss of postal processing
facilities in their states, and the jobs and services that will go with
them, I say: ``Vote for this bill.''
While it permits the Postal Service to eliminate excess capacity, it
also requires it to maintain an overnight delivery standard--although
for somewhat smaller geographic areas. And the maximum standard
delivery time--3 days for a letter mailed anywhere in the continental
United States--would remain unchanged.
That means fewer plant closings.
To all my colleagues who worry about the loss of Saturday delivery, I
say: ``Vote for this bill,'' which takes a responsible, balanced
approach to this difficult issue.
The bill prohibits implementation of 5-day delivery for 2 years and
requires the Postal Service to determine if the other cost-saving
measures in this bill have made cancelling Saturday service
unnecessary--and to tell us how it plans to cushion the impacts on the
businesses and communities it serves if it decides to go to five days.
Only if the Comptroller General and the Postal Regulatory Commission
review the evidence and conclude that the change is necessary, will the
switch to 5-day service be allowed.
To all my colleagues who worry about the Postal Service's bleak
financial outlook, I say: ``Vote for this bill,'' which provides
crucial financial breathing room to help ward off some of the drastic
cuts I just spoke of.
First, not one dollar of taxpayer money is being used. This is not a
postal ``bailout.''
Roughly $11 billion in USPS overpayments to the Federal Employee
Retirement System will be refunded and used to encourage its 100,000
workers at or near retirement age to take voluntary buyouts that could
save $8 billion a year.
Money left over can also be used to retire debt.
The bill also reduces the amount the Postal Service has to pay each
year to prefund its Retiree Health Benefits, by amortizing its
liability over the next 40 years.
This will significantly cut the $5.5 billion annual payment USPS has
been making, while still assuring there will be sufficient funds to
meet the commitments for future retirees' health benefits.
To all my colleagues who worry that the Postal Service just isn't
relevant in the 21st Century, I say: ``Vote for this bill,'' which
gives the Postal Service tools to bring in fresh revenues by offering
new products and services, such as contracting with state and local
governments to issue state licenses, shipping beer, wine and distilled
spirits, and creating specialized Internet services.
It also sets up a blue ribbon panel to develop a new strategic
blueprint for the Postal Service for this new age.
Finally, in many ways the debate over postal reform is a mirror of
the overall budget debate--but writ small.
We confront a financial crisis that could wreak havoc on our economy
were the Postal Service to run out of money and be forced to severely
slash services. Yet no one wants to cut any services or raise any rates
on anybody.
This bill will not solve all the problems that confront the Postal
Service, but it is a beginning. This bill represents a clear-eyed and
pragmatic way forward for the Postal Service--one that avoids panic or
complacency.
It is the kind of balanced and bipartisan approach we will need to
deal with the even bigger problems with fast-approaching deadlines
racing towards us--like the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the
sequestration of military funding.
So to my colleagues who worry about our ability to get big things
done and who want to prove to the American people--and ourselves--that
Congress can rise above partisan and parochial interests and work for
the good of all Americans, I urge you to pass this bill.
I do want to thank the three colleagues on our committee--Senator
Collins, Senator Carper, Senator Brown--for the work everyone did to
bring about a bipartisan bill that will bring necessary change to the
Postal Service in order to save it. Make no mistake about it, this bill
will bring the change that the post office needs to stay alive, serving
the people and businesses of our country.
Here is the bottom line. The Postal Service itself says that within 3
years, as sections of this bill are phased in, they will reduce their
cost of operating by $19 billion and probably in the year after that
they will go into balance. That is what this bill will accomplish.
I again thank my colleagues on the committee and the staffs of both
sides and the floor staffs on both sides for the extraordinary work
over a long period that was done to get us to this point.
We still need 60 votes to pass this bill. I appeal to my colleagues
to do so, with a feeling of confidence that we have met a problem here
together and have offered a solution that will fix the problem for our
country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I believe the odds of our getting the
60 votes for final passage are increased if I make my statement later,
rather than delivering it right now. I will deliver my statement after
the vote, but I do wish to thank Senator Lieberman, Senator Scott
Brown, Senator Carper, all the staffs who have worked so hard.
Today, assuming we get those 60 votes, we have proven the Senate can
tackle an enormous problem in a bipartisan way and make real progress
on an issue that matters to our economy and to the American people.
Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. I thank the leaders for their excellent work and the
people who joined them. I think the policy has been debated well. I do
wish to say, at the beginning there was discussion that there be a 60-
vote threshold at the end and that some of the amendments might improve
the funding aspect. I still want to say one more time that a vote for
this bill is a vote to increase our deficit this year by $11 billion
and a vote to violate the Budget Control Act that we just passed last
year.
I appreciate the work. I do wish we had worked to pay for this. We
have not done that. I would like to remind everyone voting for this
that we are, in fact, adding $11 billion to our deficit, more so than
was laid out by the Budget Control Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to
congratulate both the chairman, Senator Lieberman, and the ranking
member, Senator Collins, for handling a very difficult bill. It is, in
my view, the way we ought to legislate. We had a number of amendments
that were important to our Members. We are glad they had an opportunity
to offer them. I wanted to just take a moment to congratulate Senator
Collins and Senator Lieberman for a very skillful job handling this
very difficult piece of legislation.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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 yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the substitute
amendment, as modified and amended, is agreed to.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs

[[Page S2696]]

on S. 1789, as amended. 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 62, nays 37, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

YEAS--62

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

NAYS--37

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

NOT VOTING--1

Kirk

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for passage of the bill, the bill, as amended, is passed.
The bill (S. 1789), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, with the passage today of S. 1789, we
have given the United States Postal Service--created more than two
centuries ago in the age of inkwells and quill pens--the tools to
thrive in the age of e-mail and the Internet.
Overall, about 8 million jobs hung in the balance, as well as the
needs of every household and business in America that depends on the
Postal Service to deliver everything from medicines to spare parts.
Passage of this bill is a bipartisan victory that reflects well on
the Senate and I want to take this moment to thank the many dedicated
staff, from the majority and minority who helped make it possible.
From my staff on the Homeland Security and Governmental I would like
to thank Beth Grossman, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Larry
Novey, Chief Counsel for Governmental Affairs; Kenya Wiley, Staff
Counsel; Mike Alexander, Staff Director; Holly Idelson, Senior Counsel;
Jason Yanussi, Senior Professional Staff Member; Leslie Phillips,
Communications Director; Sara Lonardo, Press Secretary; Scott Campbell,
Communications Advisor; Rob Bradley, Legislative Aide, and Staff
Assistant Nick Trager.
From Senator Collins' staff, I would like to thank Katy French,
Deputy Staff Director; John Kane, Professional Staff Member; Katie
Adams, Professional Staff Member; Cassie D'Souza, detailee from the
Postal Regulatory Commission; Nick Rossi, Staff Director and E.R.
Anderson, Press Secretary.
From our Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, which is chaired
by Senator Carper and Ranking Member Scott Brown, I also want to thank
John Kilvington, Staff Director for the majority and Justin Stevens,
Professional Staff Member, from the minority.
And I would also like to thank all of the staff for the majority and
minority leaders, especially Gary Myrick and Tim Mitchell and Dave
Schiappa who of course make everything happen on the floor of the
Senate.
Thomas Jefferson once asked the question: ``What duty does a citizen
owe to the government that secures the society in which he lives?''
Answering his own question, Jefferson said: ``A nation that rests on
the will of the people must also depend on individuals to support its
institutions if it is to flourish. Persons qualified for public service
should feel an obligation to make that contribution.''
These dedicated staff members answered Jefferson's call to duty and I
am proud to be able to work with such people.
Negotiations on the contours of the bill that would become S. 1789
began last October with members of Ranking Member Collins' and Senator
Carper's staffs.
The goal was to create a bipartisan bill that would gain support
first in the Committee and then on the floor of the Senate.
Today's vote to pass S. 1789 shows the long nights and weekends that
went into this bill were worth it.
So again, my thanks to our staffs and for all the work you do for the
American people.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, this is an important victory for the
U.S. Postal Service and the American economy.
The Postal Service is the linchpin of a $1.1 trillion mailing and
mail-related industry that employs nearly 8.7 million Americans in
fields as diverse as mail, printing, catalog companies and paper
manufacturing. Those industries and the jobs they sustain are in
jeopardy.
The Postal Service lost $13.6 billion over the past two years and has
seen a 26 percent drop in first class mail since 2006.
But today we have begun to right the ship.
There is still much work to be done, including working with our
colleagues in the House to present the President with a bill he can
sign.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the solid bipartisan support that this
bill received. It's gratifying that so many of my colleagues understand
that the Postal Service should not choose the destructive path of
cutting service and raising prices.
This vote sends the message that we can't allow the Postal Service to
drive customers away to other communication options. Once they leave
the mail system, they won't be coming back, and the Postal Service will
be sucked further into a death spiral.
As we move toward a conference with the House, we must continue to
resist ill-conceived policy changes. We must avoid short term ``fixes''
that undermine service and thus jeopardize the long-term sustainability
of this American institution.
Today's vote is also a win for bipartisanship.
Americans are rightly frustrated about what many feel is a
dysfunctional Congress. With enormous problems facing our country and
Congress having little to show by way of accomplishments, the process
we've just completed on this bill demonstrates that it is sometimes
possible for Congress to do more and bicker less.
Today we see what can happen when Republicans and Democrats work
together; when Senators from big states and small find common ground.
We can achieve important policy for those who sent us here.
I want to thank Senator McConnell for working with us so well to
preserve an amendment process that fostered healthy debate and allowed
our colleagues to get votes on their priorities. Of course, I must also
thank Majority Leader Reid for pushing hard to resolve differences in
order to create a successful process once the bill was brought to the
floor. I know that we would not have had the support that we had for
final passage of this bill without the Leaders working together to
ensure an amendment process that was fair and reasonable.
As always, Chairman Lieberman's commitment to bipartisanship is
unmatched, and it's making him extremely busy and productive in his
last year in the Senate. This marks the third bill we have shepherded
through to Senate passage in this Congress. I hope to work with him
successfully on at least one more bill--cybersecurity.

Senator Scott Brown has already built an impressive record as a key
voice for both postal reform and the STOCK Act. I appreciate his
partnership on both of these important measures. He has become an
independent leader for common sense and I thank him.
I appreciate Senator Carper's leadership on this bill. We have been
working together on postal issues for many years, and I am grateful for
his expertise and dedication.

[[Page S2697]]

My bipartisan cosponsors and I consulted extensively with postal
customers, both business and residential, postal workers, and local
communities deeply committed to preserving their postal facilities. We
could not have gotten this bill passed through the Senate without their
important contributions, cooperation, creativity and support.
This bill would not have been possible without the hard work and
dedication of our staff, and I'd like to recognize some of them
personally.
Katy French, John Kane, Katie Adams, and Cassie D'Souza on my staff,
have been working for four months as if this bill were coming to the
floor the next day. My Committee staff director, Nick Rossi, press
secretary, E.R. Anderson, and other members of our team have ably
supported them. Justin Stevens on Senator Scott Brown's staff has been
an incredible partner as well.
Their colleagues across the aisle were models of hard work and
collegiality, and I want to thank them, especially the Chairman's
staff, Mike Alexander, Beth Grossman, Kenya Wiley, and Larry Novey, and
John Kilvington of Senator Carper's staff. I know it's been hard work,
but the staff have the highest level of professionalism, collegiality,
patience with each other and the process and it's made the challenge of
bringing this bill to the floor a rewarding one.
Finally, I can't thank enough the long-suffering floor staff, who
have been incredibly patient, helpful and have gone out of their way to
serve many competing agendas with grace. Thank you especially to David
Schiappa with Senator McConnell's staff and his team in the Republican
cloakroom, and Gary Myrick and his team, with the Majority Leader.
Our work isn't done. Today is just the first step on a long road
ahead. We must move a bill to the President's desk. The House has a
bill that awaits floor consideration. We will come together for a
conference process. More compromises will have to be made along the
way. But we can't forget the urgency of our task--saving the Postal
Service for the next generation of Americans.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I thank my colleagues
for their support on final passage of this critical piece of
legislation.
This is an important first step forward towards putting the Postal
Service on a path for solvency and success in the future.
The long-term survival of the Postal Service is an issue that touches
every single home, community, and business in this country, including
in my home State of Massachusetts. Its poor financial health is a real
problem.
There is an envelope company in Worcester that has had to recently
lay off almost a third of its workforce because incoming orders have
dropped by a quarter from last year. The owner says his customers have
told him that they have stopped mailing because of the unknown future
of the Postal Service. This is but one example of the impact that a
failing Postal Service has on businesses large and small across the
country.
So, that is why I am so pleased that we can show the American people
that, yes, once again the U.S. Senate can come together in a bipartisan
manner and solve real problems.
In a Congress infamous for gridlock and division, the passage of this
bill is proof positive of the results when we work together in good
faith.
Reforming the Postal Service is no easy task and there are no easy
answers. Millions of jobs, a trillion-dollar mailing industry, and an
institution as old as this Nation are all at stake.
But this shows that a majority of Members here knew that resolving
the crisis at the Postal Service would require a balanced approach,
some difficult decisions, and a lot of compromise to see a bill passed.
We all recognize the new business environment that the Postal Service
operates in, but we also know that the focus had to be on helping the
Postal Service sustain their customer base in that environment, not
surrender to it.
I am proud of this bill and the example this sets for the power of
bipartisanship for the rest of this session.
The other cosponsors--Senators Lieberman, Collins, and Carper have
been setting this example for some time. I have been proud to be in
their company on this bill and thank them for their leadership on this
important issue.
With the recent passage of the STOCK Act and the crowdfunding bill, I
feel like we have all been on kind of a streak lately. I hope that it
continues and that our colleagues in the House can now take our lead
and pass a balanced postal reform bill as well. The Postal Service is
running out of time and they cannot afford any further delay.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I voted against S. 1789 because short-term
financial relief for the Postal Service that will ultimately lead to a
taxpayer bailout is no longer acceptable. According to the Postal
Service, S. 1789 ``does not provide the Postal Service with the speed
and flexibility it needs to achieve the $20 billion in cost
reductions'' and they will need additional legislative action in 2 to 3
years.
The bill is designed to keep the current failing Postal Service
business model in place by halting the structural changes the Postal
Service says it needs to ensure its long-term viability. Instead of the
Senate dealing with the real problems, such as 80 percent labor costs
and consolidating the excess retail network of the Postal Service, the
bill continues to allow no-layoff clauses in union contracts, will lock
in unsustainable mail service standards, and place new litigious
processes, restrictions, regulations, and appeals that will make it
impossible for the Postal Service to close and consolidate
underutilized post offices and mail-processing facilities. These
roadblocks fly in the face of the hard reality that the Postal Service
lost $13 billion in the past 2 years due to its failing business model
and the changes in the way the American public communicates.
S. 1789 also prevents the Postal Service from moving to 5-day
delivery, at a savings of anywhere from $1.7 to $3 billion annually and
is one of the largest single steps available to restore their financial
solvency. The Postmaster General has been coming to Congress since 2009
asking for this flexibility, and the American people overwhelmingly
support this move. The Senate, however, chose to protect the 6-day
delivery of junk mail even with first-class mail, which makes up more
than half of postal revenues, on a downward spiral with no sign of
recovery.
Finally, this bill continues the harmful practice of passing bills
that are not paid for. S. 1789 has at least five budget points of order
against it, and instead of being fiscally responsible and pay for this
bill as promised, the Senate agreed to move forward and stick the
American taxpayer with the tab. If we are not willing to keep our
promise and abide by the spending limits we put in place, we are not
really serious about fixing our countries financial problems.
Congress can no longer enact temporary fixes that avert financial
crisis for only a brief period. If we continue to act in this
irresponsible way, the American taxpayer will be the one that
ultimately suffers in the form of higher postage prices and taxpayer
bailouts. We must make hard choices now so future generations of
Americans will have a viable Postal Service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

____________________