[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4821-4824]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     21ST CENTURY POSTAL SERVICE ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Maryland, Mr. 
Cardin, is on his way to the floor to make a statement. Pending that, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Racial Profiling

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to inform my colleagues 
of a hearing that took place this morning before the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, chaired by Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin has been a leader 
in this body on making sure we have a committee that focuses on the 
issues of human rights. Today's hearing on racial profiling, ending 
racial profiling in America, was the first hearing we have had in 
Congress on racial profiling since the attack on our country on 
September 11. I congratulate Senator Durbin for holding this hearing. I 
thought the hearing was very informative as to a problem we have in 
America on the use of racial profiling.
  I know the Nation has been focused on the tragedy that took place in 
Sanford, FL, in which 17-year-old Travon Martin was killed, a clearly 
avoidable death, by Mr. Zimmerman. We first and foremost want to make 
sure justice prevails in this case. I know there is a case pending in 
Florida. We are all going to be watching that very carefully. There is 
a Federal investigation underway by the Department of Justice to look 
into circumstances concerning Travon Martin's death, to see what role 
race played in regard to that tragedy, not only as it related to Travon 
Martin's death but also as to the investigation that ensued.
  A few weeks ago, I spoke about this issue at the Center for Urban 
Families in Baltimore. That is a group that is interested in urban 
family life. We came together shortly after Travon Martin's tragic 
death to talk about what had happened.
  I was very much moved by so many people who came forward at that 
meeting and explained how they had been victims of racial profiling. A 
young woman talked about the time she went to a basketball game with 
her father and her father was pulled over and stopped by police for no 
apparent reason other than the color of his skin and how that impacted 
this girl, seeing her father held, unable to go to the basketball game. 
These types of victimization occur too frequently in our community, 
where people are picked out solely because of their race, their 
religion, their ethnic background.
  We have a problem in this country, and we need to do something about 
that. The question that needs to be answered in regard to Travon Martin 
is was he initially pursued because of the color of his skin. Would Mr. 
Zimmerman have done the same if it was a

[[Page 4822]]

White child rather than an African American?
  In October of 2011, I introduced S. 1670, the End Racial Profiling 
Act. I am proud to have many colleagues as cosponsors, including 
Senator Blumenthal, Senator Boxer, Senator Durbin, Senator Gillibrand, 
Senator John Kerry, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Levin, Senator 
Menendez, Senator Mikulski, Senator Harry Reid, Senator Stabenow, and 
Senator Mark Udall. I thank my cosponsors for joining me in this 
legislation.
  This legislation would make it clear that racial profiling will not 
be allowed in this country. Racial profiling is un-American. It is 
against the values of our Nation. It is contrary to the 14th amendment 
of the Constitution, which provides for equal protection under the law. 
It is counterproductive, and it doesn't keep us safe. We are using 
valuable police resources in a way that is wasting those resources. It 
is sloppy police work if you try to identify a problem by race rather 
than looking for good police work to identify the real perpetrator of a 
crime. It also creates a mistrust in the community they are trying to 
protect, a community that they need to help and to cooperate with as 
far as keeping the community safe. For all of those reasons, racial 
profiling should have no place in modern law enforcement. We need a 
national law.
  I was impressed that in the hearing today there was general consensus 
that we have a problem in this country, that there is a problem of law 
enforcement using racial profiling, which should not be done. The bill, 
S. 1670, would prohibit the use of racial profiling. By making a 
decision based upon race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion, 
basically what you are doing is subjecting an individual to a 
spontaneous investigation. That should have no place. What we are 
talking about is someone being stopped for a routine traffic stop, 
subjected to a search, interrogated, or investigated based on that 
person's race or the scope and substance of law enforcement activities 
following an initial investigative proceeding are determined because of 
race. That should have no place in America.
  My legislation would apply to all levels of government, not just 
Federal but State and local law enforcement. It requires mandatory 
training. And here is an issue on which I think we should all agree. 
Perhaps the tragedy that happened with Trayvon Martin would not have 
happened if Mr. Zimmerman had been trained on the issues of what is 
good police work and what is not good police work and how racial 
profiling needs to be eliminated. We feel very strongly about the need 
for mandatory training.
  The legislation requires data collection by local and State law 
enforcement. State and local law enforcement must maintain adequate 
policies and procedures designated to eliminate profiling, and they 
must eliminate any existing practices that present or encourage racial 
profiling.
  The Department of Justice has granted authority to make grants to 
promote best practices, so one jurisdiction can learn from another as 
to what the best practices are in order to make sure that this practice 
is not being used and that we are doing everything possible to keep 
communities safe by good police work, not by sloppy police work.
  I wish to point out that the overwhelming majority of people who are 
in law enforcement do it the right way. We have dedicated men and women 
who work every day to keep us safe--our first responders. We owe them a 
debt of gratitude, we owe them our support, and we cannot say enough 
complimentary things about what they do every day by putting their 
lives on the line to keep us safe. So for the sake of what is right for 
America and for the sake of the overwhelming majority of the people who 
are professionals in law enforcement, we need to make it clear that 
racial profiling has no role in American law enforcement.
  I am proud of the many groups that are supporting this legislation, 
including the NAACP, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference of Civil and 
Human Rights, and numerous other organizations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks the list of organizations that are 
supporting the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Let me conclude by quoting our former colleague Senator 
Kennedy, who said that civil rights is the great unfinished business of 
America. Let's continue to fight to make sure we have equal justice 
under the law for all Americans. That is what the legislation I have 
introduced will do. The End Racial Profiling Act will continue us on 
that journey to provide equal justice in the law to all Americans.

                               Exhibit 1

             Group Endorsements of End Racial Profiling Act


                         National Organizations

       A. Philip Randolph Institute; African American Ministers in 
     Action; American Civil Liberties Union; American Humanist 
     Association; American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee; 
     American Probation and Parole Association; Asian & Pacific 
     Islander American Health Forum; Asian American Justice 
     Center; Asian Law Caucus; Asian Pacific American Labor 
     Alliance; Bill of Rights Defense Committee; Blacks in Law 
     Enforcement in America; Break the Cycle; Brennan Center for 
     Justice at New York University School of Law; Campaign for 
     Community Change; Campaign for Youth Justice; Center for 
     National Security Studies; Charles Hamilton Houston Institute 
     for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School; Council on 
     American-Islamic Relations; Council on Illicit Drugs of the 
     National Association for Public Health Policy.
       Disciples Justice Action Network; Drug Policy Alliance; 
     Equal Justice Society; Fair Immigration Reform Movement; 
     Fellowship of Reconciliation; Human Rights Watch; Indo-
     American Center; Institute Justice Team, Sisters of Mercy of 
     the Americas; Japanese American Citizens League; Jewish Labor 
     Committee; Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Lawyers' 
     Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; The Leadership 
     Conference on Civil and Human Rights; League of United Latin 
     American Citizens; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service; 
     Muslim Advocates; Muslim Legal Fund of America; Muslim Public 
     Affairs Council; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and Educational 
     Fund, Inc.; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the 
     Good Shepherd.
       National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.; 
     National Alliance for Medication Assisted Recovery; National 
     Alliance of Faith and Justice; National Asian American 
     Pacific Islander Mental Health Association; National Asian 
     Pacific American Bar Association; National Asian Pacific 
     American Women's Forum; National Association of Criminal 
     Defense Lawyers; National Association of Social Workers; 
     National Black Justice Coalition; National Black Law Students 
     Association; National Black Police Association; National 
     Congress of American Indians; National Council of La Raza; 
     National Education Association; National Gay and Lesbian Task 
     Force Action Fund; National Korean American Service and 
     Education Consortium; National Latina Institute for 
     Reproductive Health; National Lawyers Guild Drug Policy 
     Committee; National Legal Aid and Defender Association; 
     National Organization of Black Women in Law Enforcement; 
     National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual 
     Assault; National Urban League Policy Institute.
       NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; 9to5, 
     National Association of Working Women; North American South 
     Asian Bar Association; Open Society Policy Center; 
     Organization of Chinese Americans; Pax Christi USA: National 
     Catholic Peace Movement; Prison Policy Initiative; Rights 
     Working Group; Sentencing Project; Sikh American Legal 
     Defense and Education Fund; Sikh Coalition; SOJOURNERS; South 
     Asian Americans Leading Together; South Asian Network; South 
     Asian Resource Action Center; StoptheDrugWar.org; The Real 
     Cost of Prisons Project; Treatment Communities of America; 
     U.S. Human Rights Network; Union for Reform Judaism; United 
     Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; UNITED 
     SIKHS; Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual.


                     State and Local Organizations

       A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing) 
     (California); Adhikaar (New York); Advocare, Inc. (Ohio); 
     Arab-American Action Network (Illinois); Arab-American Family 
     Support Center (New York); CASA de Maryland (Maryland); Casa 
     Esperanza (New Jersey); CAUSA--Oregon's Immigrant Rights 
     Organization (Oregon); Center for NuLeadership on Urban 
     Solutions (New York); Counselors Helping (South) Asians/
     Indians, Inc. (Maryland); Desis Rising Up and Moving (New 
     York); Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii (Hawaii); Drug Policy 
     Forum of Texas (Texas); Florida Immigrant Coalition

[[Page 4823]]

     (Florida); Healing Communities Prison Ministry and Reentry 
     Project (Pennsylvania); Korean American Resource and Cultural 
     Center (Illinois); Korean Resource Center (California); Legal 
     Services for Prisoners with Children (California); Legal 
     Voice (Washington).
       Maryland CURE--Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of 
     Errants (Maryland); National Alliance for Medication Assisted 
     Recovery, Delaware Chapter (Delaware); 9to5 Atlanta Working 
     Women (Georgia); 9to5 Bay Area (California); 9to5 Colorado 
     (Colorado); 9to5 Los Angeles (California); 9to5 Milwaukee 
     (Wisconsin); Perspectives, Inc. (Minnesota); Pineros y 
     Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste; Northwest Treeplanters and 
     Farmworkers United (Oregon); Public Justice Center 
     (Maryland); Rights for All People (Colorado); Safe Streets 
     Arts Foundation (Washington, DC); Sahara of South Florida, 
     Inc. (Florida); Satrang (California); Sneha, Inc. 
     (Connecticut); South Asian Bar Association of Northern 
     California (California); St. Leonard's Ministries (Illinois).

  Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the issue we are debating right now is an 
issue of enormous consequence for the American people, for our economy, 
for rural America, and for the hundreds of thousands of workers in the 
U.S. Postal Service. I thank Senators Lieberman, Carper, Collins, and 
Brown for the important work they have done in moving this legislation 
forward.
  Let me begin by saying the debate we are having is not whether the 
Postal Service in the digital age should change. Everybody agrees the 
Postal Service should change. The question is what kind of change do we 
want, what kind of change is good for the American economy, and what 
kind of change is good for our country.
  Last year--I think about 9 or 10 months ago--the Postmaster General 
gave us his view of change. There was concern about some of the 
financial problems facing the Post Office. He came up with a proposal 
that would do the following: What he said is we should close more than 
3,600 mostly rural post offices. In my State, I think the number of 
rural post offices is about 15. All over this country post offices, in 
so many ways, serve a function beyond delivering mail or selling 
stamps. In many ways, post offices become the center of a small town. 
The Postmaster General's proposal was to shut down more than 3,600 
mostly rural post offices.
  Furthermore, he wanted to shut down about half of the mail processing 
facilities in America--somewhere around 250 of them--and when we do 
that, by definition we slow overnight delivery standards for first 
class mail. So at a moment when the Postal Service is being challenged 
by e-mail in the digital age--instantaneous communication--he was 
proposing to slow down mail delivery.
  He also proposed to end Saturday mail service and reduce the postal 
workforce in the midst of a horrendous recession by some 220,000 
workers, going from 550,000 down to about 330,000.
  I find it a bit ironic that a couple of months ago we had a great 
debate here--and I think bipartisan support--to make sure veterans get 
the jobs they need. Many of the people who work in the Postal Service 
are, in fact, veterans. They are doing a good job. When we downsize the 
Postal Service, as the Postmaster General proposed, by 220,000 workers, 
we are downsizing many of our veterans.
  Many of my colleagues in the Senate and the House and I are strongly 
opposed to what the Postmaster General brought forth and we have been 
working with him and his staff to improve this plan. Frankly, I think 
we are making some progress. Obviously, the key danger of what the 
Postmaster General has proposed is that if we slow down mail delivery 
standards, what ends up happening is that individuals and businesses 
will be rethinking whether they want to use the Postal Service and 
whether they want to go elsewhere. So what we could very well begin is 
what we call a death spiral: slow down mail delivery service, 
businesses stop using the Postal Service, less revenue comes in, more 
cuts are made, more delays, more slowdowns. We think that is a bad 
idea.
  Again, I believe, and I think everybody in this Senate believes, we 
need a new business model for the Postal Service in the digital age. 
Some of us believe we can bring forth a new business model which does 
not necessitate hundreds of thousands of job losses and cuts, cuts, and 
cuts.
  Among other things, I wish to point out that a recently disclosed 
study by Opinion Research Corporation, commissioned by the Postal 
Service itself, found the Postal Service would lose nearly $2 billion 
by eliminating overnight delivery standards. Let me repeat: A study 
commissioned by the Postal Service found that ending overnight delivery 
standards and shutting down half of the mail processing plants in 
America would cost the Postal Service nearly $2 billion. The answer is 
a lot to do with what I said: If we slow down service, fewer and fewer 
people are going to be using the Postal Service.
  For the last several months I have been working with several dozen of 
my colleagues in the Senate to oppose those cuts. I thank Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Carper for their support, as well as Senator 
Collins and Senator Brown. We have been working with them, and what we 
basically did is come up with a good bill that is much better than the 
Postmaster General had originally proposed, and we think we can do 
better. In fact, we have been working, and I think it is fair to say we 
have made some significant improvements which have been incorporated in 
the substitute amendment that is before us. Let me begin by touching on 
some of the improvements that I think we have brought about.
  The managers' amendment brings more protection for rural post 
offices. I come from a rural State. I know how important rural post 
offices are, and the managers' amendment provides more protection for 
these rural post offices.
  No. 1: The substitute amendment would prevent the Postal Service from 
closing any post offices until it has established a set of service 
standards that would guarantee all postal customers regular and 
effective access to retail postal services nationwide on a reasonable 
basis. The Postal Service is required to establish the standards within 
6 months. The service standards would be required to take into account 
certain factors. In other words, what we are talking about here is that 
before a rural post office can be shut down, certain standards are 
going to have to be addressed. They are:
  A, a consideration of the reasonable maximum time a postal customer 
should expect to travel to access a postal retail location. In other 
words, if we shut down a post office and somebody has to go 20 miles 
and spend money on gasoline, and an enormous amount of time, it doesn't 
make sense to shut down that rural post office;
  B, furthermore, we want to look at the age and disability status of 
individuals in the area. If there are elderly people, if there are a 
large number of disabled people and we shut down that postal service, 
those folks are going to be, for all intents and purposes, isolated. 
Don't shut down that postal service;
  C, there would be a requirement that the Postal Service serve remote 
areas and communities which have transportation challenges. If I live 
in a community and I don't have a car, how do I get to a post office 
that is 5 miles away?
  D, the effects of inclement weather or other natural conditions that 
might impede access to postal services. In other words, if people live 
in a climate where they have a whole lot of snow, how are they going to 
get to another post office?
  I see the majority leader standing. Does the leader wish to address 
the Senate?
  Mr. REID. I have some procedural matters to do, if the Senator from

[[Page 4824]]

Vermont wishes to finish his statement.
  Mr. SANDERS. I will be another 5 or 10 minutes. I will yield to the 
majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when I finish 
my procedural matters, the Senator from Vermont be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be 
yielded back and the motion to proceed to S. 1789 be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I now ask unanimous consent that the only amendments in 
order to S. 1789 or the Lieberman-Collins substitute amendment No. 2000 
be those that are relevant to the bill or the substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, Egypt 
currently gets $2 billion from our country from the U.S. taxpayer. My 
question is, should we be sending $2 billion a year to Egypt when they 
seek to continue to prosecute American citizens.
  Recently, President Obama's administration freed up that money and 
said Egypt is pursuing democratic aims, so we freed up the $2 billion. 
How did Egypt respond to this? Egypt basically thumbed their nose at 
us. Egypt said we are now issuing international warrants to get 
American citizens, extradite them, take them back to Egypt for a 
political show trial. So we give money to a country that insults us.
  I think this should end. I think this deserves 15 minutes of Senate 
time to discuss whether America has money to be sending to Egypt when 
we have 12 million people unemployed in this country, and whether we 
have needs here at home that need to be met before we send $2 billion 
to Egypt which turns around and insults us by prosecuting American 
citizens.
  I respectfully object and seek a vote on this amendment that would 
end their aid if they do not end the prosecution of American citizens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as we speak, there are 8 million Americans 
who are dependent on the Post Office. These are people who have jobs as 
a result of the Postal Service. We need to do a postal reform bill. 
Doing nothing is not an option.
  I ask unanimous consent that we set up a procedure to allow the 
Senate to consider amendments relevant to the postal reform bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, the Post Office is losing $4 
billion a year, and I sympathize. But at the same time we are losing $4 
billion, we are sending $2 billion to Egypt. We have problems in our 
country and we don't have the money to send to Egypt, so I would say it 
is relevant. It is relevant whether, when we have limited resources, we 
send $2 billion to Egypt, or whether we try to fix the problems we have 
at home. I would say bring some of that money home and that might help 
us fix the Post Office.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. PAUL. I continue my objection.

                          ____________________