[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5486-5501]
[From the U.S. 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 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.
  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

[[Page 5487]]

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 (Mrs. 
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.
  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

[[Page 5488]]

     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)--
       (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

[[Page 5489]]

     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.
  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.

[[Page 5490]]




                    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 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:

[[Page 5491]]



  (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
       
  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 lay 
that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay upon the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, next on our list--we are moving well; I 
thank my colleagues--is Senator Casey's amendment No. 2042.


                           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 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.

[[Page 5492]]

  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: Senator 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 
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:

[[Page 5493]]



  (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.
  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

[[Page 5494]]

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.
  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--

[[Page 5495]]

       (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 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.

[[Page 5496]]

  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 the prefunding 
requirement for the

[[Page 5497]]

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 in 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.

[[Page 5498]]


  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 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.

[[Page 5499]]


  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 
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

[[Page 5500]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 5501]]

We must make hard choices now so future generations of Americans will 
have a viable Postal Service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________