[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5318-5324]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1925.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Tragedy at L'Ambiance Plaza

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on this day, almost exactly at this 
hour, 25 years ago in Bridgeport, CT, the L'Ambiance Plaza became a 
scene of devastation and destruction and death. Almost every year in 
these 25 years we have commemorated that destruction and tragedy with a 
ceremony. We did the same this morning in

[[Page 5319]]

Bridgeport. We went first to the site and then to city hall and then to 
lay a wreath at the memorial for the 28 workers who were killed on this 
day 25 years ago. L'Ambiance is ground zero for worker safety.
  I rise today to talk about all who have been injured or lost their 
lives because of unsafe work conditions.
  L'Ambiance Plaza was a tragedy, but it was not the result of human 
error, it was the result of an employer cutting corners to put profits 
above safety. It was an avoidable and preventable catastrophe.
  One of the tasks we have as public officials is to ensure basic 
safety for our citizens, particularly for workers who leave their homes 
in the morning hoping for nothing more than to come home at night to 
their families, put food on the table and a roof over the heads of 
their children. Those 28 workers who perished on this day 25 years ago 
wanted nothing more than those simple opportunities that should be 
guaranteed in the United States of America, the greatest Nation in the 
history of the world.
  In protecting workplace safety, we have an agency called the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, known as OSHA. It is 
charged by this Congress and every Congress since its creation with 
setting standards and providing for enforcement of those standards so 
as to ensure basic safety for workers when they leave home every day 
and go to their jobs.
  In Bridgeport, at L'Ambiance, a technique of construction known as 
lift slab was in use. It was under review by OSHA. It had been under 
review for 5 years before the L'Ambiance collapse. In 1994, years after 
L'Ambiance, it was prohibited unless certain conditions were met. If 
that standard had been in effect on this day 25 years ago, 28 lives 
would have been saved.
  This morning I was in Bridgeport for that ceremony with many of the 
families who must live with the tragedies of their loved ones having 
perished needlessly and tragically on this date. There were speeches. 
There was a bell-ringing ceremony. There were tributes not only to the 
workers and their families but also to their brothers and sisters who 
searched with a ferocity and determination in the hours and days for 
their remains after it became clear they could not be rescued. But none 
of today's ceremonies or any of the other ceremonies in the past 25 
years can bring back those workers who perished because lift-slab 
construction was used on that site. And when the upper story fell 
first, all of the bottom stories collapsed as well, meaning that those 
who worked under that top story could not be saved.
  Eventually, when OSHA adopted the standard to be applied to lift-slab 
construction, it said no one could work under that top story when it 
was put in place. OSHA, in short, recognized the hazards of lift-slab 
construction well before L'Ambiance collapsed, and its inaction over 
the process of adopting those regulations--the 8.7 years it took to 
adopt the standard--contributed significantly to the collapse that 
occurred 25 years ago to this day.
  I wish I could say OSHA has learned from this horrific incident at 
L'Ambiance. I wish I could say the standard setting that is so 
necessary to be achieved promptly and effectively now is done 
routinely. Unfortunately, the contrary seems to be true.
  I wish to thank Senator Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, for a hearing last week that 
illuminated so dramatically how much work there is still to be done.
  The GAO has done a study showing that average length of time to 
complete these standards is more than 7 years. That figure takes into 
account the standards set since 1981 to the year 2000. The final number 
of regulations published by OSHA has declined every decade since the 
1980s. While 24 final standards were published in the 1980s, only 10 
final standards were published between 2000 and 2010.
  Workers are still at risk because regulations are delayed for years. 
One example is that the dangerous health effects resulting from the 
inhalation of silica dust, found in common sand, have been widely known 
for many years. Silica dust has been classified as a carcinogen to 
humans by the U.S. National Toxicology Program. It is a known cause of 
lung cancer and silicosis, an often fatal disease. Yet, despite the 
scientific evidence and the hazards associated with silica dust, its 
use on worksites across the country is ineffectively regulated by 
inadequate OSHA standards, and those standards have been on the books 
since 1972.
  Preventing the dangers of silica is simple and easy. Employers simply 
must ensure that when cutting materials, the blade must be wet to 
ensure the silica dust is not airborne--simple and easy solutions that 
can be achieved by standards OSHA has a responsibility to set.
  According to OSHA agency officials, they began work on updating the 
effective silica standards back in 1997, more than 14 years ago. The 
most recent proposal for a new silica standard was submitted to OMB in 
February 2011. OMB has been processing that draft for over a year. In 
the meantime, workers are put in danger, workers contract disease, and 
workers are put at risk of fatal disease. These lengthy delays are 
simply unacceptable. As the L'Ambiance tragedy demonstrates, standards 
delayed is safety denied. Workers and their families suffer real-life 
consequences when the Federal Government fails to implement effective 
standards to protect people in their workplaces. OSHA itself estimates 
that up to 60 worker deaths per year could be prevented by 
strengthening the silica regulation and other regulations from 1972. 
Yet the new rule continues to be delayed by procedural and political 
roadblocks.
  There is still work to be done, and I hope we will make progress, 
under Senator Harkin's leadership, on an OSHA rule making standards 
more effective and more easily adopted.
  There are a number of simple and easy steps that can be adopted. 
Expediting approval of safety standards is one of them. Despite a 
general consensus within industries on permissible exposure limits--
that is, PELs--to dangerous chemicals, OSHA rules for hundreds of those 
chemicals haven't been updated for nearly four decades. OSHA should 
direct and Congress should direct OSHA to update obsolete PELs to 
reflect consensus among industries, experts, and reputable national and 
international organizations.
  Easier court approval also must be enabled. The current standards for 
judicial review are a major factor in effecting the timeline of OSHA's 
standard-setting process. The existing ``substantial evidence'' 
standard requiring that OSHA research all industrial processes 
associated with the issue being regulated is disproportionately 
burdensome when compared to the requirements placed upon other Federal 
agencies, and the standards should be reevaluated.
  Finally, deadlines for timelines for standard setting should be 
adopted, directed by the Congress, to minimize the time it takes OSHA 
to issue occupational safety and health standards. Experts and agency 
officials agree that statutory timelines for issuing standards should 
be imposed by Congress and enforced by the courts.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on these measures and 
others, and I hope the memory of those 28 workers who were killed 25 
years ago on this day will inspire and move us to take action as 
quickly and effectively as possible. But each year others are added to 
that list in other sites in Connecticut--49 last year alone--and around 
the country, hundreds in the States of my colleagues in this body. Let 
their memories also inspire us to redouble our efforts to protect 
people in the workplaces around Connecticut and the country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Mexico. 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. UDALL of New Mexico. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.

[[Page 5320]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Postal Reform

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I rise today in support of my 
amendment to strike section 208 from the postal reform bill. Section 
208 would authorize the U.S. Postal Service to move to 5-day delivery 
service within 2 years.
  The U.S. Postal Service faces significant financial problems. Changes 
must be made for the Postal Service to adjust to a digital world. The 
budgetary concerns are very real--we all know this--but an imminent 
reduction in service to 5 days a week is not the answer. No. 1, a shift 
to 5-day service could result in the loss of up to 80,000 jobs 
nationally. Is this the time to be proposing 80,000 layoffs? No. 2, 5-
day service would undercut a market advantage the U.S. Postal Service 
currently has over its competitors. No. 3, especially in rural America, 
many of our businesses and most vulnerable citizens depend on 6-day 
postal delivery. Newspapers, advertisers, pharmacy delivery services, 
and senior citizens all could be hurt by the loss of Saturday service.
  Last week I met with the community of Mule Creek in New Mexico. Mule 
Creek is small and rural. Folks there told me that they have no cell 
phone service, no high-speed Internet. They depend on their post 
office. It is the lifeline, the center of their community--and not just 
5 days a week. For many working people, Saturday is the only day they 
can sign for packages, including for delivery of prescription drugs.
  I know some of my colleagues believe moving to 5-day service is 
necessary because of the Postal Service's financial problems, but we 
need to give the changes we are making in the bill a chance to take 
effect. Two years simply isn't enough time before we make such a 
drastic and far-reaching change. We should not rush prematurely to 5-
day service.
  I urge support for my amendment to protect jobs, to strengthen the 
competitiveness of the Postal Service, and to protect the millions of 
Americans who depend on that service.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORKER. 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. CORKER. Mr. President, how much time do I have? I understand it 
might be 10, 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is not controlled.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about amendment No. 
2083, which I am offering to the bill that is before us.
  I think all of us know the U.S. Postal Service is absolutely not 
sustainable in its current form. Mail volume has greatly declined over 
the past decade and will continue to do so over the next decade. The 
U.S. Postal Service has known this for a long time. They knew that mail 
volume was declining and that the market for their products was 
changing. But the economic crisis made things far worse than they could 
imagine.
  Now the Postal Service is on the edge of financial ruin. But we 
didn't get here only because of the economic crisis; it is because the 
U.S. Postal Service's business model is fundamentally broken. The USPS 
lost $5.1 billion in this last fiscal year and $3.3 billion in the 
first quarter of the current year. I know some have tried to blame the 
requirement that the USPS prefund their retirement health benefits for 
the USPS's financial losses. But the fact is that these recent losses 
are not due to the prefunding requirement because Congress has allowed 
the USPS to delay this last year's payment. The U.S. Postal Service has 
also nearly reached its statutory borrowing limit.
  Faced with this situation, it is abundantly clear that the USPS must 
make radical changes in its existing infrastructure and business model. 
Again, USPS should have, could have, and indeed has wanted to begin 
making these changes to its outdated, excessive infrastructure, but 
Congress--all of us here or at least some of us here have blocked these 
attempts. We should give the USPS the flexibility to meet these 
challenges and make business decisions on how to deal with the paradigm 
shift in their primary market rather than further limiting their 
ability to adapt.
  My amendment to S. 1789 gives the U.S. Postal Service greater 
flexibility in three primary areas: facilities and service, pricing, 
and labor.
  On facilities and service, it allows the U.S. Postal Service to 
continue closing post offices using the existing procedures for post 
office closures--they already exist--instead of creating further 
barriers to closure, which this bill does. These procedures are well 
thought out and give ample opportunities for public comment and appeal.
  It also allows the Postal Service to proceed with its proposed change 
in delivery service standards--something it has proposed--which is a 
key component of its 5-year plan of profitability.
  This amendment also allows the Postal Service to immediately 
implement 5-day delivery, if it chooses--a move the U.S. Postal Service 
believes may save nearly $2 billion a year. The underlying bill, on the 
other hand, requires a 2-year delay and further study of this issue, 
which the Postal Service already knows needs to happen. Mr. President, 
we don't need a study to tell us what we already know. The Postal 
Service needs flexibility in its delivery schedule.
  A number of interested parties, including the Postal Service and the 
President of the United States--the President--support moving to a 5-
day delivery. Furthermore, my amendment allows the Postal Service to 
close processing and distribution centers, something the Postal Service 
has identified as needed action for nearly a decade.
  On pricing, my amendment removes the arbitrary CPI-based cap put in 
place by the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. Put 
simply, this gives the Postal Service more flexibility to adjust their 
prices as markets change.
  Current law and S. 1789 actually mandate the Postal Service provide 
some services at a loss. It is unbelievable the calls we have been 
receiving in our office that basically point to the tremendous 
corporate welfare that is in existence--people calling me not wanting 
these changes because it affects their business. A congressional 
mandate that the U.S. Postal Service provide certain services without 
covering their costs makes very little sense.
  Please note, this would not allow the Postal Service to arbitrarily 
raise rates at will. They would still be subject to Postal Regulatory 
Commission--the PRC--regulation.
  Finally, on labor, my amendment gives the Postal Service greater 
flexibility to reduce its workforce as needed and negotiate contracts 
that make sense for its financial situation. Since labor costs make up 
approximately 80 percent of the Postal Service's cost structure, it is 
clear that any good-faith postal reform proposal must include labor 
reform.
  First, it prohibits the inclusion of a no-layoff clause--and let me 
underline this--in future collective bargaining agreements. It does not 
alter CBAs currently in place that contain these clauses. This is only 
for future clauses. As mail volume continues to decline, the Postal 
Service must have the flexibility to change the size and makeup of its 
workforce as needed.
  Second, this amendment eliminates a provision in existing law that 
requires fringe benefits for Postal Service employees be at least as 
good as those that existed in 1971. These benefits represent a huge 
portion of fixed labor costs which currently place a major burden on 
Postal Service operations. Eliminating this provision will give the 
Postal Service more options in contract negotiation rather than 
hamstringing them.
  My amendment is a balanced approach that strives to give the U.S. 
Postal Service maximum flexibility in multiple areas as they work 
toward financial stability. Here is the best part.

[[Page 5321]]

According to CBO--which just contacted us today--this bill saves $21 
billion for the Postal Service over the next decade. Let me say that 
one more time. CBO has just contacted us. The Postal Service is now in 
tremendous financial straits, and we have a bill before us that 
hamstrings them and keeps them from doing the things we all know if 
this were a real business we would allow to happen. My amendment gives 
them the flexibility to do the things the Postal Service needs to do 
and that most every American understands they need to do and the 
amendment saves $21 billion over the next 10 years.
  It is my understanding, by the way, there is no attempt to offset the 
cost of this bill over the next 10 years.
  In conclusion, it is clear the Postal Service must make drastic 
changes, and I applaud those portions of S. 1789 that allow the USPS 
greater flexibility. But there are far too many provisions in the 
underlying bill that would put more restrictions on the U.S. Postal 
Service, not fewer, and limit the organization's ability to adapt to 
changing times and so I urge support of my amendment.
  I thank the Chair for his time, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it pains me greatly to disagree with my 
friend and colleague from Tennessee, with whom I have a great 
friendship and great respect, but what he is essentially offering comes 
pretty close to a complete substitute for the provisions in our bill, 
and I wish to go through the provisions to make sure our colleagues 
understand fully what the choices are that are presented by Senator 
Corker's amendment.
  First, let me say I do strongly oppose his amendment because of the 
impact I believe it would have on postal customers, whether they are in 
rural America, whether they are a big mailer, a small mailer, a 
residence or a business, and what the impact ultimately will be on 
postal revenue. Let us first discuss the issue of 6-day delivery.
  There are a lot of different views on this issue. Senator Corker has 
presented one, as has Senator McCain, of moving immediately to 5-day 
delivery. On the other hand, there are Members who have filed 
amendments who want to prevent the Postal Service from ever moving to 
5-day delivery. Here is what is in our bill.
  Our bill recognizes the Postal Service should, if possible, avoid 
deep cuts in its service. Certainly, eliminating 1 day a week of 
delivery is a deep cut in the service it is providing. It recognizes, 
however, that if the Postal Service cannot wring out the excessive cost 
that is in its current system, it may have no choice but to eliminate 
Saturday delivery in order to become solvent.
  What we do is allow a 2-year period during which time the Postal 
Service would implement the many cost-saving provisions in our bill, 
including a workforce reduction of 18 percent--which is about 100,000 
employees--through compassionate means, such as buyouts and retirement 
incentives, and then have the GAO and the PRC--the Postal Regulatory 
Commission--certify that despite undertaking all these cost-saving 
moves, it is not possible for the Postal Service to return to solvency 
without this deep service cut. But to move immediately to eliminating 
Saturday delivery would come at a real cost and it may not be 
necessary. It may not be necessary at all.
  I would also point out the experts in this area are the members of 
the Postal Regulatory Commission. The experts are not at CBO. The 
experts are the regulators of the Postal Service--the PRC. When the PRC 
examined the issue of eliminating Saturday delivery, here is what it 
found. First of all, it found the potential savings were far less than 
the Postal Service estimated. In fact, they were half as much as the 
Postal Service estimated.
  Second, they found that eliminating Saturday delivery put rural 
America, in particular, at a disadvantage because rural America often 
does not have access to broadband, to Internet services, and to 
alternative delivery systems. So the PRC, which looked at this issue 
very carefully and issued a report, found the savings were less by half 
and the consequences were far more severe for rural America.
  Saturday delivery also gives the Postal Service itself a competitive 
advantage over nonpostal alternatives. If we are here trying to save 
the Postal Service, why would we jeopardize an asset the Postal Service 
has that its competitors do not? That is why we came up with this 
carefully crafted compromise on this issue.
  I believe cutting Saturday delivery should be the last resort, not 
the first option, because it will inevitably drive away customers. That 
is one reason the American Newspaper Association is so opposed to doing 
away with Saturday delivery. It is one reason many of the mail order 
pharmaceutical companies are so opposed, because many seniors depend on 
receiving their vital medications through the mail.
  Again, we have said if there are no other alternatives, this measure 
could proceed. But I can't imagine any large business operating this 
way--cutting service first. My colleagues often talk about how 
important it is to let the Postal Service act like a ``real business.'' 
But this is the last thing a real business would do. Real businesses 
know their most valuable asset is their customer base. Businesses do 
literally everything else before slashing service and raising prices or 
anything else that might alienate or drive away their remaining 
customers, and they do not do this out of the goodness of their hearts 
but because they understand what drives their bottom line.
  The fact is, if more customers leave the Postal Service, the revenue 
will plummet. Again, reducing service--eliminating Saturday delivery--
should be the last resort, not the first option. That is exactly what 
our bill does.
  The Senator's amendment would also repeal the CPI link to postal 
rates. I am at a loss as to why the Senator would propose that. 
Eliminating that protection, that orderly system, would be devastating 
for many mailers. Again, mailers need predictable, steady, stable 
rates.
  Think of a catalog company that prints its catalogs so many months in 
advance. It now can count on what the postal rates are going to be. 
Under the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee that stability, that 
predictability would be gone.
  The reason in 2006 that we rewrote the rate-setting system was that 
it had been an extremely litigious, time-consuming system. Both the 
mailers and the Postal Service hated the system that we had prior to 
2006. Both agreed at the time that it was important to have stability 
and predictability in rates and to have a system that didn't involve 
this very expensive, litigious rate-setting system. So we went to the 
CPI link system so we could have stable, predictable, and transparent 
pricing increases.
  This amendment repeals the section of the current law on rate setting 
that mailers have repeatedly testified is the heart of the 2006 reforms 
and something they need if they are to continue to use the Postal 
Service. That is why the mailers, the largest customers of the Postal 
Service, are such strong supporters of the predictable system that we 
put in place in 2006.
  Let me turn to another issue. There is so much I could say on all of 
these, but I can see a lot of Members have come to the floor.
  The Senator's amendment would also eliminate the standards we put 
into the bill to protect overnight delivery within certain delivery 
areas. We have recently learned that the Postal Service's own 
preliminary analysis, submitted confidentially in secret to its 
regulators at the PRC, reveals that its service reduction plan to slow 
mail delivery and shut down postal plants will lead to more than a 9-
percent decrease in first-class mail and a 7.7-percent reduction in all 
classes of mail.

[[Page 5322]]

  In this preliminary estimate the Postal Service said the first-year 
losses alone would be $5.2 billion; that the Postal Service would lose 
if we proceed with this plan. Now that those numbers have become 
public, the Postal Service is backpeddling and criticizing its own 
estimates. But those are the estimates that are in its own survey that 
was filed with the PRC.
  They don't surprise me because they are consistent with what I am 
hearing from major postal customers, and once those customers turn to 
other communications options and leave the mail system they will not be 
coming back, revenue will plummet, and the Postal Service will be 
sucked further into a death spiral.
  There are many other comments I could make about the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Tennessee. I think his amendment 
essentially constitutes a substitute to the bill that is before us in 
that it makes so many fundamental changes. I believe it would be 
devastating for the Postal Service; that it would cause large and small 
mailers to leave the Postal Service, setting off the death spiral from 
which the Postal Service might never recover.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, just 20 seconds, not to rebut anything 
that has been said.
  I think the Senator from Maine and I have a very different view about 
the ways to solve the post office issues. But I just want to thank her 
for her tone. I want to thank the Senator from Connecticut, too, for 
the way they continue to work together to try to produce legislation in 
this body. So I thank them both for being the way they are. They are 
two of the Senators I admire most here. I thank them.
  I have a very different point of view on this issue, but I thank them 
for the way they continually work together to try to solve problems. I 
look forward to continuing to work with them on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I just want to say briefly, thanks to 
my friend from Tennessee not just for his kind words, which mean a lot 
to me, but for coming to the floor to discuss his amendment.
  There are different points of view about this issue. I think, as I 
said very simplistically at the beginning of the debate, some think our 
bipartisan committee bill does too little. Some think it does too much. 
I think we have hit the right common-ground spot. And I repeat what I 
said earlier in the day: There is some due process in this. We don't 
allow for what might be called shock therapy for the Postal Service 
because we don't think it will work, and we think it would have the net 
effect of diminishing the revenues of the Postal Service by cutting 
business.
  But here is the report we received today from the U.S. Postal Service 
itself, just to indicate to my friend from Tennessee and others who may 
be following the debate.
  This substitute bill of ours, S. 1789, is not just fluff. The Postal 
Service itself estimates that over the coming 3 years; that is, by 2016 
fiscal year, our bill, if enacted, will enable the Postal Service to 
save $19 billion annually. They were hoping for $20 billion, but $19 
billion is pretty close. I think we have done it without the 
dislocation to the millions of people in our society who depend on the 
mail and depend on mailing industries for their jobs, as well as the 
hundreds of thousands of people who work for the Postal Service, 18 
percent of whom we hope will receive incentives that will be adequate 
for them to think about retirement.
  But this is a bill that creates a transition that will keep the 
Postal Service alive--and we think even healthier--without the kind of 
sudden jolts the amendment offered by my friend from Tennessee would 
impose.
  So I would respectfully oppose the Corker amendment, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                       Honoring Our Armed Forces

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, before I discuss my pending amendment to 
the Postal Service reform bill, I would like to take a moment to honor 
four brave soldiers based out of Schofield Barracks from Hawaii who 
died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan on Thursday. They made the 
ultimate sacrifice in service to our country, and we will never forget 
them.
  My thoughts and prayers, and I know the thoughts and prayers of many 
others in Hawaii and others across the United States, are with their 
families tonight. We honor and thank them and are so sorry for their 
loss.
  Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment No. 2034 regarding 
Federal workers' compensation, which is cosponsored by nine Senators, 
including Senators Inouye, Harkin, Murray, Franken, Leahy, Shaheen, 
Kerry, Lautenberg, and Brown of Ohio.
  I have serious concerns with the provisions of the postal reform bill 
that would make changes to the Federal workers' compensation program, 
known as FECA, not just within the Postal Service but across the entire 
government.
  These provisions would cut benefits to elderly disabled employees and 
eliminate a supplement for dependents. Many who are already injured 
would have their benefits cut retroactively. This is particularly 
unfair because most employees affected by these far-reaching cuts are 
not even Postal Service employees. Many are Defense and State 
Department employees injured supporting missions overseas, Federal law 
enforcement officers, and firefighters injured saving lives or prison 
guards attacked by inmates.
  Sponsors of this bill argue that changes to workers compensation must 
be included in this legislation to place the Postal Service on a sound 
financial footing. However, the fact is that the changes would have 
very little effect on the Postal Service's deficit. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, these changes would actually cost the 
Postal Service an additional $21 million in the first 3 years.
  Any changes to benefits for those injured in service to their country 
should be done in a careful, comprehensive manner. There are complex 
issues that deserve more analysis before we simply cut benefits people 
have planned for and depend on.
  At a hearing I held last July witnesses raised serious concerns with 
reducing FECA benefits, especially at the retirement age. They 
testified that disabled employees may not be able to save enough in 
time for a reduction in income because they missed out on wage growth, 
Social Security, and the Thrift Savings Plan. Because of this 
disadvantage, the Federal Government, like most States, provides 
benefits that last as long as the injury, even if that is past the 
normal retirement age.
  At the request of a bipartisan group of members from the House 
Committee on Education and Workforce, the Government Accountability 
Office is currently reviewing both pre- and postretirement-age FECA 
benefits to determine fair benefit amounts. Acting on this proposal now 
without waiting for GAO's analysis is irresponsible. As a result, we 
may set benefit levels too low, seriously harming disabled employees, 
or too high, taking funding away from other priorities.
  We must be extremely cautious not to make arbitrary cuts to benefits 
that could have serious detrimental effects on elderly disabled 
employees.
  Last November, the House passed a Republican-led bipartisan FECA 
reform bill, H.R. 2465, by voice vote. The bipartisan sponsors of this 
bill chose not to make any changes to benefits without more information 
on appropriate benefit levels. I believe their actions were correct, 
and the Senate should enact similar legislation by passing my 
amendment.
  My amendment would strike the government-wide FECA provisions in this 
bill and replace them with the House-passed FECA reform bill, which 
makes a number of commonsense reforms that will improve program 
efficiency and integrity without reducing benefits.
  Among other things, my amendment contains program integrity measures 
recommended by the inspector general

[[Page 5323]]

at the Department of Labor, the Accountability Office, and the 
administration that will save taxpayers money.
  My amendment would also update benefit levels for funeral costs and 
disfigurement that have not been increased since 1949, and it would 
protect civilian employees serving in dangerous areas, such as Iraq and 
Afghanistan, by giving them more time to file a claim and making sure 
injuries from terrorism are covered even if the employee is off duty.
  Everyone understands the Postal Service is in the midst of a serious 
financial crisis that must be addressed. Chairman Lieberman and Ranking 
Member Collins have done a great job in bringing this on. However, 
breaking our promises to injured Federal employees to save the Postal 
Service just a tiny fraction of its deficit I believe is wrong. I urge 
my colleagues to support my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the 
Senator from Hawaii. I know he cares deeply about this issue. But it is 
simply time for us to reform the Federal workers' compensation program 
for postal workers and for other Federal workers. For this reason, I 
oppose his amendment because it does not begin to solve the problems 
that have been repeatedly documented in the program by the inspectors 
general at the Postal Service, at the Department of Labor, by GAO, and 
by the Obama administration, which has called for many of the reforms 
we have incorporated into this bill. Senator Akaka's amendment takes on 
only very minor reforms which are already included in the bill. It does 
not even attempt to constrain the rapidly growing costs of the program, 
and it truly does nothing to effectively combat the fraud in the 
program.
  Let me start with some background to show the growing, the escalating 
cost of the Federal workers' compensation system. From 1997 to 2009, 
the program's costs grew by an astonishing $1 billion, as this chart 
shows. That was a 52-percent increase in program expenditures. It is 
one of the reasons why President Obama's administration has submitted 
changes to this program over and over. Our bill, according to the CBO, 
would reduce the program's outlays for workers' comp by $1.2 billion 
over the next 10 years.
  I note the Obama administration supports across-the-board reforms, 
just as we have put in our bill. It makes no sense to have one system 
for postal workers and one system for Federal employees when they all 
participate in the same program now. The Postal Service, however, makes 
up more than 40 percent of all workers' comp cases for the Government, 
and the number of postal employees on the long-term rolls has increased 
by 62 percent since 2009. Paying more than $1 billion a year in 
workers' comp payments, the Postal Service is the largest program 
participant, providing over one-third of the program's budget. These 
changes are supported by the leaders at the Postal Service. The 
amendment would block desperately needed reforms to a program that has 
not been updated in over 35 years.
  Let me talk a little bit about the structure of benefits in the 
program and why there is a problem. Under the current program, a worker 
who has dependents and is out on workers' comp receives a payment at 
the rate of 75 percent of his preinjury salary, and these benefits are 
tax free. Currently, more than 70 percent of beneficiaries are 
receiving compensation at that level.
  In addition to that, it is important to understand that 75-percent 
tax-free benefit rate is higher than that paid by any comparable State 
workers' compensation system and, given our current Tax Code, 75 
percent of salary tax free is equivalent, for most people, to a full 
salary after taxes.
  We do want to make sure we have a workers' comp program that takes 
care of our injured workers that is compassionate, that helps them 
recover and return to work. But the current program of the Federal 
Government does not accomplish those roles.
  First of all, it does not encourage injured workers to get the help 
they need to recover and to return to work, as these statistics will 
demonstrate. Right now, the program, across the board, Federal and 
postal workers, has 10,000 beneficiaries age 70 or older, 2,000 of whom 
are postal employees. They are receiving higher payments on workers' 
comp than they would under the standard retirement program. That is 
almost one-quarter of all beneficiaries in the program who are over age 
70. Of the beneficiaries, 430 of them are over age 90, and 6 of the 
workers' comp beneficiaries are age 100 or older. These employees are 
not going back to work. If they were still working, it would be a 
miracle. They would be retired. It is not fair to postal and Federal 
employees who work their entire lives, retire at age 60 or 65, and 
receive a retirement benefit that is 26 percent lower than the median 
benefit received by workers' compensation recipients. That is unfair. 
That means people who remain on workers' comp make more money than if 
they had continued working and much more than they would make in the 
retirement systems for Federal and postal workers.
  I wish to make sure that as we reform the system, we are fair. One of 
the major reforms is to move people at age 65 from workers' comp to the 
normal retirement system, but we have exempted from these reforms those 
who are least able to prepare for it, those who are totally disabled 
and unable to return to work, and those who are age 65 and over. I 
think that is a very fair approach.
  Another protection we have included for those current claimants who 
would be affected by the reforms in the bill is a 3-year waiting 
period. If a claimant is not already grandfathered and therefore is not 
disabled and unable to return to work, then that individual would 
experience no reduction in benefits for 3 years, regardless of that 
individual's age. Again, the reforms we have included in our bill 
closely track the reforms proposed by President Obama's administration.
  Finally, let me just say this program has proven to be highly 
vulnerable to fraud. GAO reported as recently as November that the 
vulnerabilities in the program increase the risk of claimants receiving 
benefits they are not entitled to. There are many reasons for that. I 
will go into that further at another time. But the Department of Labor 
inspector general reported that the removal of a single fraudulent 
claim saves, on average, between $300,000 and $500,000. What is more, 
these vulnerabilities are not new and they are not rare. When the IG 
looked at 10,000 claimant files one decade ago, there were 
irregularities in almost 75 percent of them, and it resulted in 
benefits being reduced or ended for more than 50 claimants.
  This is a troubled program. It needs to be reformed. It needs to be 
made more fair. It needs to be more fair to individual workers. There 
needs to be more of a focus on return to work, and it needs to be more 
fair to workers who spend their entire careers working for the Postal 
Service or the Federal Government and then retire and receive a far 
lower benefit than an elderly individual who remains on workers' comp.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I would like to address a number of 
statements my good friend Senator Collins has made about the FECA 
provisions in this bill.
  First, it has been argued these changes are necessary to save the 
Postal Service money. However, since most employees affected by these 
cuts are not postal employees, the savings expected from these changes 
would have very little effect on the Postal Service's deficit. In fact, 
according to CBO, these changes would actually cost the Postal Service 
an additional $21 million in the first 3 years.
  In addition, it has been said on the floor that the FECA recipients 
over retirement age get 26 percent more income than similar employees 
who work their entire career and retire under the normal retirement 
systems. This statistic comes from a recent GAO report

[[Page 5324]]

that looked at only a small sample of nonpostal workers, eligible for 
CSCS retirement.
  In fact, according to GAO, their recent report only examines 8 
percent of the active Federal workforce and does not even look at the 
Postal Service workers. Cuts should not be made to FECA benefits until 
GAO completes a more comprehensive study, now underway, which examines 
the impact of benefit reductions on FERS participants. The Senate has 
not considered FECA legislation since 2006, and the only hearing was 
the one I held last year.
  The Federal workers' comp program, similar to most State programs, 
allows injured workers to continue receiving compensation as long as 
the injury lasts, even if that is past normal retirement age. This is 
necessary because disabled workers on FECA do not earn Social Security 
credit and cannot participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, and they miss 
out on normal wage growth. We must make them whole for their injuries 
by making up for lost wages and their inability to save for retirement. 
It is simply not the case that workers of retirement age who still 
receive FECA benefits are somehow scamming the system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is notified the Senate is under a 
previous order to move to executive session at 5 p.m.
  Does the Senator seek more time to conclude his remarks?
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I will wrap up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. In fact, in 1974, Congress repealed an earlier statute to 
allow a reduction at age 70. Congress cited concerns about the hardship 
the reductions caused on senior citizens as well as concerns about age 
discrimination when repealing the past less severe version of this 
legislation. No matter a person's age, they have every right to that 
benefit.
  I agree that we should be taking a closer look at ways to prevent 
fraud and abuse in this program, but reducing benefits for people at 
retirement age has nothing to do with reducing fraud. My amendment 
allows the Department of Labor to obtain wage data from the Social 
Security Administration--this will help prevent fraud.
  It has been argued that these cuts bring the FECA program more in 
line with the state programs. However, most state programs have no 
benefit reductions for recipients at retirement age. In fact, 33 state 
programs do not reduce benefits at any age. At our subcommittee hearing 
last July, the minority requested witness stated that these states seem 
to have no interest in cutting benefits for senior citizens.
  Finally, proponents of these cuts have emphasized repeatedly that 
these provisions are very similar to an Obama administration proposal. 
This was actually a Bush administration proposal that the Obama 
administration simply kept in place. More importantly, this bill cuts 
benefits more deeply than that proposal, and most concerning--unlike 
the administration proposal--this bill would apply reductions 
retroactively to many employees who already have been injured.
  Moreover, the Department of Labor has admitted that the changes to 
benefit amounts in the their proposal were round numbers based on rough 
calculations--I believe that is hardly the basis to determine what 
elderly disabled people will have to live on for the rest of their 
lives.
  We simply do not have the information we need to decide on fair 
benefit levels and should wait for the more extensive GAO study now 
underway. Breaking our promises to injured federal employees to save 
the Postal Service a tiny fraction of its deficit is not the solution. 
My amendment 2034 offers a reasonable alternative by replacing the FECA 
provisions in this bill with the bipartisan FECA reform bill that 
passed the House by voice vote last year. The House chose not to make 
benefit cuts without the additional information they sought from GAO, 
and we should follow their lead.
  This amendment would make commonsense reforms that will improve 
program efficiency and integrity without reducing benefits and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  I wish to say the chairman of our committee, Joe Lieberman, and the 
ranking member have worked hard at this, and my whole effort is to deal 
with many of the workers of the Federal Government who are not in the 
Postal Service as well. I ask that my amendment be considered.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for just three 
moments to speak on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Akaka for 
coming to the floor and speaking on behalf of his amendment. He is one 
of the most hard-working, constructive members of our committee, the 
committee from which the underlying bill has come. He is one of the 
finest people I have ever met. I have the greatest admiration and 
affection for him.
  So unlike Senator Collins, it is with some reluctance that I must say 
I oppose this amendment. I will speak very briefly since Senator 
Collins has spoken well on it.
  I think the current system goes beyond taking care of those who need 
workers' compensation, and it has come to a point where it is unfair 
not just to those who are paying for the system but to others who are 
working in the Postal Service today.
  I thank Senator Collins. She has worked very hard and very 
thoughtfully. The proposal she made turned out to be so balanced and 
constructive that folks in the Obama administration who had been 
working on a similar proposal for all Federal employees asked that we 
extend the workers' compensation reforms in the Postal Service bill to 
all Federal employees. Dare I call this a Collins-Obama proposal? I 
don't know. I just raised that prospect.
  In any case, I support the underlying bill in this regard and very 
respectfully and affectionately oppose the Akaka amendment.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________